| Subject: Re: Outside looking in |
Author:
michael
| [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 00:55:10 02/25/05 Fri
In reply to:
Mom Z
's message, "Re: Outside looking in" on 12:44:04 02/22/05 Tue
But I do think that corporations have no heart - therefore, only making money matters to the corporations and those who run them. The middle income population and the lower income classes are being squeezed - companies wanting more hours for less pay and fewer benefits for more cost to the workers.
Corporations and governments and charitable organizations are all made up of individuals, Blaming a corporation for anything means giving a pass to the individual(s) responsible.
A job involves a contract between employer and employee. That isn't a good guy, bad guy scenario. If the employee wants benefits like a particular pay rate, health insurance, etc., its his responsibility to make sure the contract includes that. The employer wants people who can do the job. If a person is qualified the company will negotiate to get them.
I'd have to say you are being naive if you think President Bush cares about anybody but his big business buddies and oil. Maybe some corporations have done some good things. Good for them! They got where they are through the workers, not because they are caring entities.
What has GW done to make you think he isn't the caring, Christian man he presents himself as? We're talkin' motives here so isn't it possible that his motives are good even if you disagree with the action? For example, tax cuts: For his rich friends or because they're a spur to the economy that increases growth and opportunity for everybody?
Not to be too religious, but we are (or should be) our brother's keeper. Injustice does need to be dealt with - wasn't that the supposed reason for going to war in Iraq? I agree that the government is a terrible business operator. And I agree that there are too many laws on the books. But there also has to be some sense of taking care of people who can't take care of themselves, for whatever reason.
Am I being my brother's keeper if someone takes my money against my will and gives it to my brother? Theft is theft whether its done by a mugger or the government and it makes not a whit of difference whether the money goes to a good cause or not. Being my brother's keeper means charity and gettin' mugged aint charity
On the contrary, most of the liberals I know do take responsibility for their ideas and beliefs. They work with the elderly, the handicapped, the mentally disabled, the poor and, yes, the down-trodden. Back when Reagan was president, I was all for the government cutting aid programs and believing that private enterprise (i.e., corporations) would take up the slack. Didn't happen. Big business and big corporations did not take up the slack and we have mentally challenged people turned out on the street, trying to survive in a world they don't understand. We have the poor getting poorer, and I'm here to tell you that if it wasn't for my kids, I'd be on the welfare rolls right now. Not everyone has kids to provide for them as mine have for me.
On the other hand, if the money the government took from you and dad for social security had been invested in a low-risk mutual fund, t-bills or even just a savings account, you would be comfortably well off. And when did anyone expect anything of a corporation except for its basic function of seeking profit? Individuals in corporations however, give billions of dollars in charity each year (Bill Gates has given millions and Sandra Bullock wrote a check for a million to the red cross recently), and that would be substantially more if the government wasn't robbing us blind
Unless you have worked in the fields of social work, you cannot know the problems those who are poor face. To say that they are poor because they are lazy is a gross over-generalization. It is true that the poverty in this country is not as dire as it is in other countries, but does that mean that it isn't of any consequence? You sound to me as if you have been raised in an upper-middle class environment and have never gotten "down and dirty" with the homeless, etc. Lucky you.
Again, I'm all for charity, but stealing money from the productive to give to the unproductive isn't charity, its socialism
I agree that where freedom is good abounds. But to say that where liberals reign, people perish. Again, a gross over-generalization. I am confused, however. You seem to be saying that government should not be in the business of taking care of people but George W.'s government is so good because we went to war to help people in Iraq? And what else has G. W. done to help the people of this country. Don't tell me the tax breaks or refunds because we are spending a billion dollars a day on this war in Iraq and somewhere, someday, that cost is coming out of our - your's and my - pockets. Also don't get on the Social Security kick, because it's a big mountain out of a molehill. And I think G.W. is making such a fuss over SS to deflect attention from the war and the criticism during the election that he wasn't taking an interest in the economy. History will someday prove that G.W. is as big a con man as Nixon was; at least Nixon didn't leave us with half the world hating us as they do now.
The government shouldn't be in the business of helping people. we went into Iraq because Saddam and his regime were a threat that needed to be dealt with. The sanctions weren't doing anything but lining the pockets of corrupt U.N. members and maintaining the suffering of the people under Saddam's tyranny. Once the threat was neutralized it was still necessary to replace the power vacuum caused by removing Saddam. In order that Iraq not become a threat again it needs to be a stable and friendly nation. Marshall planning them is the best chance of that coming to pass. As an added bonus 25 million people are freed from an oppressive regime.
Tax cuts raise revenue. Thats how it worked for JFK when he did it, thats how it worked for Reagan and that's how it is working for Bush. The real problem with the budget is trying to get Congress to stop spending all the money and more on crap they don't have the authority to do
Social Security reform is a lot bigger than you think. If private accounts get passed your grandchildren will retire wealthy instead of at the mercy of the bureaucracy
Sorry if I seem to be getting on your case. As Mike said, we of the "left-leaning" persuasion don't change our minds easily. But then neither does he, so he can't complain too much. Glad you decided to post; keep it up. Other opinions are always welcome - and maybe we can change your mind. (just kidding)
I tried to restrain myself but when no answer was forthcoming from any other quarter I got impatient. I hope I didn't offend.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] |
|
Feedback: 
Re: Outside looking in
Re: Outside looking in
Re: Outside looking in
Re: Outside looking in