Aid Money - to get things into perspective

[Memnoch]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ziroc:
I don't want to have to close this thread, so lets get back to the subject and NO MORE subtle jabs (At all).

PS: I agree with Memnoch--this forum has been a real time eater for us, and will probably be removed and archived sooner than later if this keeps up.

---

Z, you've gone well and above the call of duty in keeping this going at this difficult time. I'd like to thank you for persevering, mate! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Barry the Sprout]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


I'm not really sure what you meant by being bothered by my attacking what you don't believe in?!?!

Communism as an idea is fine, but it has never been successfully used! The Soviets proved that. The Chinese are still proving it. You don't think there are haves and have nots in China? There wasn't an elite ruling class in Russia? I bet the average citizen in either of those regimes would give you an earful about communism, if they didn't fear for their life. An idea that hasn't been successfully proven is a theory. Capitalism and Democracy work!

You might not think it's in American's best interest, but as an American I do think the bombing in Afghanistan is in my best interest! I personally believe that! The Bay of Pigs? Well, if you want to go back 40 years we can, but I personally believe the overthrow of Castro was a good idea. It was less than three years after the Bay of Pigs we found Nuclear weapons in Cuba which brought the world the closest it's ever been to nuclear war. Plenty of reason there as proved by history not big business.

---

I really don't want an argument about Communism with you Ronn. I merely put it in to illustrate my point - I am not anti American. For one thing that argument is not one I like conducting through a type face and it probably doesn't belong in this forum either. If you do want to continue it then PM or e-mail would probably be better, just say the word. I agree that it is an unproven theory, but lots of stuff points to how it might work eventually (not for a long time, definately not in my lifetime, and I am only 19 and non suicidal to boot). Just a few points though - when you say Capitalism works what you really mean is that Capitalism works for the few. A child dies in poverty every two seconds. Does it work for them? The system is stable at present but I don't think it can last for ever personally.

As we have already discussed I think that even from the point of view of Americans this war is a bad idea. I know you don't agree but once again I was really using it to explain what I meant. I think that we will only know for certain whether or not this was for the best in a long time. Lets just wait and see on that score.

Also some might say that the Cuban missile crisis was only caused by the Bay of Pigs and US hostility as Castro wanted to show he couldn't be pushed around. Once again that is my take on things and illustrates what I think.

The point of the post was to iron out some of the misconceptions that some people have about where I am coming from. That is what I meant by "being attacked for something I don't beleive in". I have been labelled an anti American time and again and I find it a little unfair. So I wanted to set the recored straight.

[Barry the Sprout]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magness:
So you do favor screwing the rich!!! How typically liberal!!! Regardless of what side of the big pond people are on, it seems that all liberals have a Robin Hood complex ... i.e. steal from the rich to give to the poor. But then again, descrimination is just fine and dandy if it's a rich person getting screwed!!! (No, I'm not rich. This is simply honest ideolgical anger.) Typical political correctness. It's ok to be bigoted so long as it's against one of descrimination-approved groups, as determined by the high and mighty, best and brightest, liberal intelligensia!!!

IMHO there's one and only one fair method of taxation. A flat income tax with no deductions!!! If I make 10x more than another person, then I should be paying 10x more in total dollars (or pounds). But the rate should remain the same!!! If I made 10x more than you then I would pay 10x more in taxes.
QB]

---

Why are they rich Magness? Did they work hard for it? Some did but most didn't. Most of the super rich (not middle class homeowners or white coller workers or anything like that) are as rich as they are off the backs of other people.

That is not a manifesto point, not a persuasion. Just a fact. Companies work by skimming little bits off the product of labour of all who work for them. They drive down labour costs for everyone, whether you are in a sweatshop or at a desk in Wall Street. They attempt to produce as much as they can for as little as possible and then take the profits.

The reason why I "bash the rich" is that they bash the rest of us! The super rich of our society have taken from the vast majority of people in order to become so. Taxing them more makes them give a little bit back. They still have a lot of money which they earned through the labour of others, so I don't think society has cheated them too much to be honest.

[Barry the Sprout]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ziroc:
I don't want to have to close this thread, so lets get back to the subject and NO MORE subtle jabs (At all).

PS: I agree with Memnoch--this forum has been a real time eater for us, and will probably be removed and archived sooner than later if this keeps up.

---

Please don't close the forum Z! We will be nice, I promise.

[Neb]

Just one last OT thing that I'd like to post on this thread is that I'm sorry that I got a angry at Cheetah, I overreacted, I shouldn't have, I'm 100% sure she didn't meant to chase Hiram away from the forums, she's far too nice to ever do something like that [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Cloudbringer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neb:
Just one last OT thing that I'd like to post on this thread is that I'm sorry that I got a angry at Cheetah, I overreacted, I shouldn't have, I'm 100% sure she didn't meant to chase Hiram away from the forums, she's far too nice to ever do something like that [img]smile.gif[/img]

---

Neb,I'm sure you are right. [img]smile.gif[/img] Don't worry, it will all work out ok, I think!

The issue here is that we can be avoiding such things in the future by thinking ahead and perhaps editing our posts so as not to purposely use sarcasm instead of reasoning and opinions in a discussion/debate.

There is a difference between my saying "I disagree completely with your stand on disarming the warlord of the scarecrows. It will only make the fighting worse." and "What a pansy-*ss idea that is! Your spineless mama's boy attitude will make the fighting worse!"

See the difference? It only takes a second to click on 'send' but a few minutes of re-reading and editing can save hours of regret later when a member of the forum leaves or ceases to be comfortable posting here because of perceived insult.

This is a general comment, meant for the whole community. We all have to coexist and if we want this particular forum to stay open, we have to work at making our points on their own merit, not at someone else's expense.


Cloudy

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:


I really don't want an argument about Communism with you Ronn. I merely put it in to illustrate my point - I am not anti American. For one thing that argument is not one I like conducting through a type face and it probably doesn't belong in this forum either. If you do want to continue it then PM or e-mail would probably be better, just say the word. I agree that it is an unproven theory, but lots of stuff points to how it might work eventually (not for a long time, definately not in my lifetime, and I am only 19 and non suicidal to boot). Just a few points though - when you say Capitalism works what you really mean is that Capitalism works for the few. A child dies in poverty every two seconds. Does it work for them? The system is stable at present but I don't think it can last for ever personally.

As we have already discussed I think that even from the point of view of Americans this war is a bad idea. I know you don't agree but once again I was really using it to explain what I meant. I think that we will only know for certain whether or not this was for the best in a long time. Lets just wait and see on that score.

The point of the post was to iron out some of the misconceptions that some people have about where I am coming from. That is what I meant by "being attacked for something I don't beleive in". I have been labelled an anti American time and again and I find it a little unfair. So I wanted to set the recored straight.

---

I won't argue communism with you because I think, in it's purest sense, it is utopian. As to capitalism, it only works in the countries that use it. The "two second rule" of children who die from poverty doesn't exist in the nations that do use it but, instead, is an overall average of the entire world and all systems of government.

From the point of view of Americans, this war is not a bad idea. 90% of Americans support our current military actions. While I realize polls aren't completely accurate, I must say that, personally, my experience is that 100% of Americans support our actions. That is not accurate either, but it is my personal experience.

No problem with your views, and no reasons to resolve this through PM's or email because it's not personal. My point was that if every question answered in this forum is answered by "it's America's fault because..." then Americans, in favor of the current war, have as much right as the anti-war folks to be offended by attacks on our stance. Nothing more, nothing less. Sorry you took it personally.

[Silver Cheetah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magness:
I swore to myself that I wouldn't do any replies until after I had read thru all of the new posts.... But Silver Cheetah managed to hit one of my political hot buttons.... so here goes...



(The BOLD was done by me....)


So you do favor screwing the rich!!! How typically liberal!!! Regardless of what side of the big pond people are on, it seems that all liberals have a Robin Hood complex ... i.e. steal from the rich to give to the poor. But then again, descrimination is just fine and dandy if it's a rich person getting screwed!!! (No, I'm not rich. This is simply honest ideolgical anger.) Typical political correctness. It's ok to be bigoted so long as it's against one of descrimination-approved groups, as determined by the high and mighty, best and brightest, liberal intelligensia!!!

IMHO there's one and only one fair method of taxation. A flat income tax with no deductions!!! If I make 10x more than another person, then I should be paying 10x more in total dollars (or pounds). But the rate should remain the same!!! If I made 10x more than you then I would pay 10x more in taxes.

Stop the shaking hands now, Magness... Those flames may have been just a little too toasty...

---

Magness, I'm not quite sure what you mean by the liberal intelligensia. I'm a working class girl, from a very poor working class background. My dad was a factory worker, my mom a part time shop worker and full time mother. I left school at 16 and went straight into work - which at one time or another has included bar work, waitress, factory work, shop work, taxi telephone/radio operator, and a few other things even less savoury. I first saw the inside of a university at age 30, when I decided to work part time whilst studying to get my degree. I was a writer before I went to university, and I'm still a writer now. These days, I work as a freelance writer for all different kinds of businesses, - so I get to see a lot of different ways of doing things, plus a few of the 'inside stories'.

Now, having got that out of the way... to your point....

Screwing the rich. What a charming phrase. Look, Magness. When someone earns say 100,000 dollars a year, he/she can afford to pay tax without feeling the pinch in terms of living conditions. A wealthier person is not going to have to go without food, warm clothing, heating and other basic necessities just because the tax rate goes up. We are talking about the possibility of a decent life for all here.

From the point of self interest, you might want to consider that the gap between rich and poor is widening, not just in the third world, but in the northern hemisphere also.

Sooner or later all those have nots who have been screwed by completely immoral labour practices by the big corporations are going to get pretty fed up, and take steps.

Why do you think there are so many activists all of a sudden? A lot of these people have lost their good jobs because the corporates have taken production overseas, where labour is dirt cheap and they can cut costs to the bone (thus funding their multimillion dollar ad campaigns and huge executive salary costs, plus divvies to the shareholders.)

So here you are in America with a LOT of people who had good permanent jobs - who all of a sudden don't have jobs, or have been taken on as temporary workers, who can be picked up and dropped according to the needs of the corporations. This is also happening in Britain and Europe.

Not forgetting the fact that companies who can't afford to move production to the third world often can't compete with those that can, and have to cut jobs or close altogether. Exit more jobs. Enter more resentment. Wall Street likes companies with low low labour costs. Move production to the third world and start exploiting, and your stock will soar. A question of being rewarded for treating people like animals are treated who are raised for food. Corporation fodder.

Whatever happened to the idea that businesses are for people? To provide some degree of job security, quality of life? Nowadays, big business seems to be largely about profit, which is no bad thing, we need profit!, however, profit at the expense of people and the environment, no. Exxon Mobile doesn't HAVE to make 17.7 billion dollars profit! Why not go for less, and treat the environment (which belongs to ALL OF US NOT JUST EXXON SHAREHOLDERS, INCIDENTALLY) with respect and concern for our long term future? Who gave these big companies the right to ■■■■ the planet and a large proportion of its citizens? Well, I take it PERSONALLY!!!

So.... anyway, going back a ways.... this is the new face of corporate employment, and it is creating thousands of new activists every day. Useless to target ads for expensive brand products at those very people who you've managed to disenfranchise out of the earning potential to pay for those products. Madness.

So, I'm not into screwing the rich, Magness. I'm into the rich stop screwing the rest of us to get rich and stay rich. Capito?

By the way, don't even think about starting with the argument that we all need to get into being shareholders to reap the benefits of businesses saving those costs by employing overseas. How anyone can buy shares when they don't earn a living wage is beyond me.

(Not to mention that that is a disgusting and flawed economic idea anyway. The notion that we should all just sit on our arses (manufacturing and production having moved to the third world, where costs are dead cheap) and rake in our dividends, earned on the back of their sweat, hunger, tiredness, sickness and pure soul despair, makes me want to throw up.)

If you'd like to know more about transnational labour statistics, working conditions in third world factories producing goods for the big brands, etc, just say the word. This 'bleeding heart' liberal (have I got that right??) will be happy to oblige.

[Silver Cheetah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neb:
Just one last OT thing that I'd like to post on this thread is that I'm sorry that I got a angry at Cheetah, I overreacted, I shouldn't have, I'm 100% sure she didn't meant to chase Hiram away from the forums, she's far too nice to ever do something like that [img]smile.gif[/img]

---

Thanks, Nebbling. *Hugs*. Love you.

[Silver Cheetah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magness:
Hi Silver Cheetah,
I think that's a great positive step and I applaud you for it. The only issue/problem with such a project/scheme (sorry, couldn't think of the appropriate nuetral word) is that, at least in the USA, it would need to be at least price competetive with the standard electric companies to have a chance.

Furthermore, windpower, specifically, doesn't come without it's own downsides. Uses up a fair amount of real estate. Some environmentalists would probably bitch and moan ... I mean complain about building windmills from time to time. Requires wind, which while free, isn't always available. No everybody likes the low level of noise that the windmills generate. There are probably some others.
Obviously, a definite upside is that the "fuel" is essentially free and is readily available. I'm not actually arguing for or against windpower. I think that the research and innovation is wonderful. And futhermore, I'd suggest that it should probably be government funded. Why, you ask, since I am fairly conservative and fairly anti-government? As you mentioned Exxon (among others) is out to make a buck. The responsible thing for Exxon to do is continue to produce oil and make profits for their shareholders. However, their self-interest doesn't necessary agree with the longer term self interest of developing energy alternatives. They have very little interest in doing the reaserch and I don't want them buying up any patents. Were the government to do or contract out the reseach (with the understanding that the fruits of that research is PUBLIC PROPERTY), I think that we could keep the power companies from burying a perfectly good new technology.

---

Like your positive stance on this issue. I totally agree with your last point. (We agree! Hurrah! Cheetah dances round maypole happily, and then calms down, after reading her other posts to Magness, and considering the number of points we are going to disagree heartily on.... Luckily, neither of us is thin skinned!! [img]smile.gif[/img] )

In Britain, it is perfectly possible to buy sustainably generated energy that costs the same. I don't know what the situation is in the US. If we can do it, why can't American companies??

Re your windpower point, I have one word to say 'offshore'. Hehe, more than a word, of course, me being me... Windmills are being raised in British seas, where it is possible and appropriate to do so. On the 'unsightly on land' argument. Well, currently the land is covered with electricity pylons. It's not like they are particularly lovely to the eye, and they also make a interesting sort of humming noise (I used to sit under them, and write poems. No-one said that was potentially dangerous and a bad idea until much later. Oh well. I survived [img]smile.gif[/img] ..)... But off shore is a better idea.

What with the fishing industry giving up the ghost due to massive overfishing, we may as well utilise the sea for something a tad more positive than massively polluting, filthy, pesticide and other chemical ridden fish farms....