| Users Online Now: 2,960 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 896,145 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,640,521 | Threads Today: 730 | Posts Today: 12,307 |
| 02:17 PM | ||
| Users Online Now: 2,960 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 896,145 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,640,521 | Threads Today: 730 | Posts Today: 12,307 |
| 02:17 PM | ||
Imminent Economic Collapse in Michigan??? | |
jcab2002 User ID: 11489804  United States08/21/2012 01:21 PM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This is simply a sign of the times, a symptom of a major illness. Quoting: Damrod I am not going to throw right-left argument in here. What we have there in Michigan and in a growing number of cities around the USA is ...a crossroads. We as a society are going to have to decide if we want to try for a equality based society where greed is not welcome...or, we completely embrace a dog eat dog society where the weak and the poor are trampled under feet. It sounds ugly but it is what it is. There is not going to be a "middle" of the road. These are diametrically opposed philosophies about wealth and "the right to life" (not abortion right to life, I mean the right to food and shelter). I am on the fence over this. I cannot fully embrace socialistic views nor can I jump completely on the "greed is good" bandwagon. I wish I had a magic answer for what needs to happen, but I am just as clueless as everyone else. You have nailed the heart of the problem. Am I wrong or did this all seem to start with that statement by Gordon Gecco that "Greed is good"? Any chance of laying some blame on Hollywood here? So in a Kumbaya version of Michigan, I guess you tax the rich heavily to provide for everyone else. Until they move out of Michigan. Note that Michigan doesn't have the economy to support much of this, and I doubt that those sitting on very valuable assets (except real estate, which cannot move) want to give them generously to the people of Michigan. What's the attraction for these people to stay behind? Now how does this work again? I read these statements as fear-mongering relics of the past. Stop thinking that someone wants to take something from you. Instead, start thinking about what you can give to others. This is the drain we are currently circling. Popular culture constantly bombards you with the images of you getting some. That is how we assign merit to our brethren. How much can they get. Let's try it the other way for a while. What do we have to lose? We've been systematicall enslaved by "gimme gimme." Kumbaya? Compared to the way it is now, for sure. And, if we want better. if we want different? Give to others voluntarily? Or with threat of violence? See you cannot have both. It's either charity or robbery. Forcing people to be charitable is moral hypocrisy. It's a shame that government has taken over charity because it has ruined it. People used to be charitable. Now everyone expects the government to take care of it all. “We must keep the people busy with political antagonisms." “We’ll therefore speed up the question of reform (of tarrifs within) the Democratic Party; and we’ll put the spotlight on the question of protection …(for) the Republican Party." “By dividing the electorate this way, we’ll be able to have them spend their energies at struggling amongst themselves, on questions that, for us, have no importance whatsoever." - United State Bankers magazine, 1892. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 13330584  Kazakhstan08/21/2012 01:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| jcab2002 User ID: 11489804 United States08/21/2012 01:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You must organize the workers into collectives. Your people have no pride in ownership because they do not own the means of production... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 13330584 Our currency is based on future production of the nations' slave labor. “We must keep the people busy with political antagonisms." “We’ll therefore speed up the question of reform (of tarrifs within) the Democratic Party; and we’ll put the spotlight on the question of protection …(for) the Republican Party." “By dividing the electorate this way, we’ll be able to have them spend their energies at struggling amongst themselves, on questions that, for us, have no importance whatsoever." - United State Bankers magazine, 1892. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 19852008 United States08/21/2012 02:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You must organize the workers into collectives. Your people have no pride in ownership because they do not own the means of production... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 13330584 Our currency is based on future production of the nations' slave labor. Yes the debt-based money system would go in for an overhaul or replacement, but so what? Well all over the world, people with stacks of USD would complain and some of those are very powerful. Now we start to see why we are not in control of our own country: it's all too important to a bunch of other fuckers. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 19852008 United States08/21/2012 02:44 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Black Knight You have nailed the heart of the problem. Am I wrong or did this all seem to start with that statement by Gordon Gecco that "Greed is good"? Any chance of laying some blame on Hollywood here? So in a Kumbaya version of Michigan, I guess you tax the rich heavily to provide for everyone else. Until they move out of Michigan. Note that Michigan doesn't have the economy to support much of this, and I doubt that those sitting on very valuable assets (except real estate, which cannot move) want to give them generously to the people of Michigan. What's the attraction for these people to stay behind? Now how does this work again? I read these statements as fear-mongering relics of the past. Stop thinking that someone wants to take something from you. Instead, start thinking about what you can give to others. This is the drain we are currently circling. Popular culture constantly bombards you with the images of you getting some. That is how we assign merit to our brethren. How much can they get. Let's try it the other way for a while. What do we have to lose? We've been systematicall enslaved by "gimme gimme." Kumbaya? Compared to the way it is now, for sure. And, if we want better. if we want different? Give to others voluntarily? Or with threat of violence? See you cannot have both. It's either charity or robbery. Forcing people to be charitable is moral hypocrisy. It's a shame that government has taken over charity because it has ruined it. People used to be charitable. Now everyone expects the government to take care of it all. And indeed, people will move rather than being expected to give away what is theirs. Maybe they feel certain others are unworthy of charity, perhaps because they've had too much government help already. Whatever the reason, voluntary means voluntary, and they ain't volunteering. So back to the question. There is no money. What do we do? Personally I don't know if anything is to be done; when I have no money, the government doesn't step in to help. |
