Reply With Quote
that judges are impartial is one the HUGE LIES Americans love to tell themselves.
There really is no solution. Making all judges appointees is useless.
Proof? Clarence Thomas
Judges Are for Sale -- and Special Interests Are Buying
I guess if companies don't have to spend money on legislators, they will have a bit more to spend on judges.
that judges are impartial is one the HUGE LIES Americans love to tell themselves.
There really is no solution. Making all judges appointees is useless.
Proof? Clarence Thomas
'We have no doubt his liberality is well represented by his surviving partner,' said the gentleman, presenting his credentials.
'It certainly was, for they had been two kindred spirits. At the ominous word liberality, Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.
'They are. Still,' returned the gentleman,' I wish I could say they were not.'
'The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?' said Scrooge.
'At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, 'it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and des ute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.'
'Are there no prisons?"
'Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
'And the Union workhouses.' demanded Scrooge. 'Are they still in operation?'
'Both very busy, sir.'
'Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,' said Scrooge. 'I'm very glad to hear it.'
'Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the mul ude,' returned the gentleman, 'a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?'
'Nothing!' Scrooge replied.
'You wish to be anonymous?'
'I wish to be left alone,' said Scrooge. 'Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.'
'Many can't go there; and many would rather die.'
'If they would rather die,' said Scrooge, 'they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
No RG, he is saying that he absolutely believes in and supports strong governmental regulations on environmental, financial, and consumer protection concerns (among other things). It says so in his post above. Are you a stupid or what?
except you'd have busts that would last less than two years not 15 like in the great depression because of govt intervention. Btw, corporations didn't get legal power till later in the 19th century. You're too stupid and uneducated in this matter to discuss this with.
Capitalism led to improving the conditions of the everyday american, not govt intervention, it was in the 19th century that you had the greatest mobility from the poor to middle class in all of history.
Govt sponsored crony capitalism gets old.
except, that it's easier to buy off legislators and it's legal, and it's riskier for judges to do so.
You srsly need to attend your daily cucking rather than defend your invalid points.
Solid logic, so you'd rather have ex corporate ceos sit on legislative boards in trade commitees, while they appoint good ole boys to run the beuracracies that pass regulations to help them out and squash compe ion.
Atleast in court you get to have a hearing, you don't get one in congress.
throwing the baby out with the bathwater happened a longtime ago in order to support the "public good" and sacrifice individual rights.
We're more ed now.
You think regulations are sticking it to the corporations?? you're a bigger sheep than Yoni then since regulations benefit larger corporations at the expense of smaller buisinesses because large corporations have the resources to combat legislation and gain influence.
but, but, what about da roads you guys????
Nope, and never said so. I merely asked what is your suggestion. Under your program, what do people that want to live by their own means but are either temporarily or permanently unable to do so do?
I do give a about poor people.
Never said that. And I pay my taxes fully aware some of it are redistributed to care for the poor and needy.
So what's your solution for that problem? Charity? more cyanide?
Good, i'm happy for you. But don't lie to yourself and think that holding someone at gun point and using force in order for them to give up their productive efforts is a virtous thing.
You're s .
You love the poor, dedicate your life to them. No one is holding you back. Don't buy that flat screen, don't get your kids piano lessons, etc. Why don't you sacrifice yourself and live by your code rather than forcing others to do your bidding.
I didn't write nor I enforce the laws in this country.
You seem to be barking to the wrong tree.
you can take your money to another country where you don't have to pay any taxes. when are you moving?
But you're advocating for those laws are you not?
You blew your chance first when the Soviets collapsed. I guess you're stuck here with me.
Under your program, what do people that want to live by their own means but are either temporarily or permanently unable to do so do?
so stop ing and pay your taxes.. problem solved
No. I don't tell anybody else what to do with their money.
I'm personally OK with paying my share for what the system gives me. Sure, I'd like less waste and a few other things, but I understand what I'm getting out of it too.
I made a very simple question: Under your proposed system, what do people with, say, temporary or permanent disabilities, do? Do they live off any charity that might be available? Do they use cyanide?
I'm not criticizing your proposal, I'm simply asking you how does your system cope up with that. I can see strictly Charity being an option. I might have my doubts it can really cope, but it's certainly an option.
Awesome, you should do the same when we get into the next war where we slaughter innocents, pay your taxes and shut the up.
let it be a state issue, that way we have real laboratories of democracy.
Brah they tried deregulation in the 80's and what resulted was the banking crisis. Govt plays a role in a healthy economy to prevent bank runs and such.
they didn't deregulate in totality, the govt did the same thing with what it did in the late 90s leading up to 2008 with Glass Steagal, they eased up on a regulation and caused a crisis, but the reason why the crisis was caused is because govt still had it's hand in the market with guaranteeing bank loans on mortgatges, which basically allowed for risky investment.
Regulations always make the case for more regulations to fix the problems tthat the original regulations caused.
It's ridiculous. If you had no govt guaranteed mortgages you wouldn't have risky investments in the first place.
They did dergulate totally in the late 19th century and what resulted was the banking crisis. You act as if laissez fair was not federal poicy for the better part of a century.
we didn't have a massive depression until the 30's with govt controls and the federal reserve.
There will always be booms and busts.
But there should never be 15 year bust cycles like in Hoover and FDR's tenure, i'm sure you're going to blame the free market there.
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all." – Frederic Bastiat
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
