PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Maher's disdain


Baby Lee
09-19-2009, 01:19 PM
As usual, Maher couches at least one thing on his show in terms that burn me up.

This time it was how it's such a travesty that we, alone!!!, 'make money off sick people.'

No, fuckstick, we EARN money HELPING sick people.

morphius
09-19-2009, 01:27 PM
He is the same kind of pompous ass that would want us to have universal health care, but would pay for something more on the side because he considers himself better than everyone else. Sort of like members of congress...

VAChief
09-19-2009, 01:59 PM
He goes too far on a lot of issues...that said health care costs in this country are increasing at 4X that of wages. We spend a much greater percentage of our GNDP on health care than other nations yet coverage is more limited. We have a great health care delivery system however 1 in 5 procedures ordered by our highly qualified physicians is denied by insurance companies. In that regard his view has some validity.

Saggysack
09-19-2009, 04:58 PM
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/riFdNffmSJQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/riFdNffmSJQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Cannibal
09-19-2009, 05:00 PM
He made a good point an last night's show. A large percentage of those tea baggers crying about health care reform are morbidly obese, smoke, eat like shit and many probably have Type II Diabetes. So many refuse to do something about their own health which is large reason why costs are so high, but at the same time, cry their fuckin eyes about health care reform.

stevieray
09-19-2009, 05:16 PM
He made a good point an last night's show. A large percentage of those tea baggers crying about health care reform are morbidly obese, smoke, eat like shit and many probably have Type II Diabetes. So many refuse to do something about their own health which is large reason why costs are so high, but at the same time, cry their ****in eyes about health care reform.

excellent point, because most of the people who are for the reform are not obese, eat healthy and all are exempt from aquiring diabetes, they all engage in preventive measures and are free from any blame of high costs, yet at the same time they cry about health care reform. they sure are empathetic...

;)

penchief
09-19-2009, 05:59 PM
As usual, Maher couches at least one thing on his show in terms that burn me up.

This time it was how it's such a travesty that we, alone!!!, 'make money off sick people.'

No, ****stick, we EARN money HELPING sick people.

The health care industry has evolved into a profit first, health care second industry just like everything else that has been affected by the corporate establishment or the hand of Wall Street.

The health care industry is not interested in "earning" it's keep. It's goal is to maximize profit. Just like every other Wall Street or corporate endeavor, maximizing profit generally means cutting cost and increasing price in order to yield the most profit.

I don't believe that the profit motive is the mother of invention. I don't believe ingenuity is defined by maximizing profit. The profit motive is amoral and the goal of maximizing profit above all else is defined by greed. IMO, the definition of ingenuity would be the implementation of a superior idea in a way that is most useful to the greatest number of people.

Ingenuity would not approve of limiting access to an essential service for the sake of maximizing profit. Nor would it approve of gouging people or exploiting sickness as a means of advancing wealth.

Benjamin Franklin, who is probably the most ingenious American in history, gave all of his inventions away freely for the benefit of society and humankind. He (more than anyone, IMO) defines American values, including the American work ethic.

JMO.

penchief
09-19-2009, 05:59 PM
excellent point, because most of the people who are for the reform are not obese, eat healthy and all are exempt from aquiring diabetes, they all engage in preventive measures and are free from any blame of high costs, yet at the same time they cry about health care reform. they sure are empathetic...

;)

You described me to a tee. How'd you know?

RJ
09-19-2009, 06:04 PM
excellent point, because most of the people who are for the reform are not obese, eat healthy and all are exempt from aquiring diabetes, they all engage in preventive measures and are free from any blame of high costs, yet at the same time they cry about health care reform. they sure are empathetic...

;)


Well, I'm not obese, that part is right.

morphius
09-19-2009, 06:34 PM
He goes too far on a lot of issues...that said health care costs in this country are increasing at 4X that of wages. We spend a much greater percentage of our GNDP on health care than other nations yet coverage is more limited. We have a great health care delivery system however 1 in 5 procedures ordered by our highly qualified physicians is denied by insurance companies. In that regard his view has some validity.
What is funny is most people agree that health care reform is needed, just most think the gov't option is a bad idea, because we know how the gov't runs things.

munkey
09-19-2009, 06:36 PM
Mahr is an ass....Just a comedian that has a political following...kinda like beck

Bwana
09-19-2009, 07:37 PM
excellent point, because most of the people who are for the reform are not obese, eat healthy and all are exempt from aquiring diabetes, they all engage in preventive measures and are free from any blame of high costs, yet at the same time they cry about health care reform. they sure are empathetic...

;)

ROFL

Norman Einstein
09-19-2009, 08:09 PM
What is funny is most people agree that health care reform is needed, just most think the gov't option is a bad idea, because we know how the gov't runs things.

Based on commentary on other threads you may be considered a racist by disagreeing with the current status of the reform bill.

Based on news reports the current bill was written behind closed doors by an all democrat committee. The lockout of the conservatives should throw up a red flag for anyone that reads the bill (1017 pages).

For the record I don't think you are any more racist than any of the other members here, but the term seems to have been thrown around quite a lot of late.

Mr. Kotter
09-19-2009, 08:24 PM
As usual, Maher couches at least one thing on his show in terms that burn me up.

This time it was how it's such a travesty that we, alone!!!, 'make money off sick people.'

No, ****stick, we EARN money HELPING sick people.

BL... :spock:

...an ambulance-chaser? :eek:

NFW....seriously, I'd never have guessed..... :shake:

mikey23545
09-19-2009, 08:32 PM
excellent point, because most of the people who are for the reform are not obese, eat healthy and all are exempt from aquiring diabetes, they all engage in preventive measures and are free from any blame of high costs, yet at the same time they cry about health care reform. they sure are empathetic...

;)

Actually, a lot of them are fat f@ck-sticks like Michael Moore, Algore and Kotter....

Brock
09-19-2009, 08:37 PM
He made a good point an last night's show. A large percentage of those tea baggers crying about health care reform are morbidly obese, smoke, eat like shit and many probably have Type II Diabetes. So many refuse to do something about their own health which is large reason why costs are so high, but at the same time, cry their ****in eyes about health care reform.

Link plz

WilliamTheIrish
09-19-2009, 08:49 PM
He goes too far on a lot of issues...that said health care costs in this country are increasing at 4X that of wages. We spend a much greater percentage of our GNDP on health care than other nations yet coverage is more limited. We have a great health care delivery system however 1 in 5 procedures ordered by our highly qualified physicians is denied by insurance companies. In that regard his view has some validity.

1 in 5?

Mr. Kotter
09-19-2009, 08:50 PM
Actually, a lot of them are fat f@ck-sticks like Michael Moore, Algore and Kotter....

:spock:

Damn. That's harsh...

Good thing for me that (these days) next to those two, I feel positively anorexic....:shrug:

Okay, not anorexic....but pretty healthy. Relativity is way cool. ;)

penchief
09-19-2009, 08:51 PM
What is funny is most people agree that health care reform is needed, just most think the gov't option is a bad idea, because we know how the gov't runs things.

The government does some things better than the private sector. The logistics of some services and social necessities dictate that to be the case. Our own history has proven that to be true. And if undue influence is ever removed from the equation that would be true about a lot of things. Health care being one of them.

dirk digler
09-19-2009, 08:52 PM
Not only Johnny can't read he can't see his own dick LMAO

Aint that the truth. I think it is pretty despicable that we have companies making baby food with that much sugar in them so they become addicted before they even know better.

Mr. Kotter
09-19-2009, 08:57 PM
The government does some things better than the private sector. The logistics of some services and social necessities dictate that to be the case. Our own history has proven that to be true. And if undue influence is ever removed from the equation that would be true about a lot of things. Health care being one of them.

It is the exception, rather than the rule though. 9 outta 10 times, it just ain't true.

Unfortunately, greed by so many in the healthcare industry (from doctors, to, pharmaceutical companies, to hospitals, to insurance companies, to ambulance-chasing lawyers....) have made healthcare an industry, worthy of consideration....

BucEyedPea
09-19-2009, 09:14 PM
Not only Johnny can't read he can't see his own dick LMAO

Aint that the truth. I think it is pretty despicable that we have companies making baby food with that much sugar in them so they become addicted before they even know better.

There's a solution for that. Buy the organic baby food at the health food store or make your own. It's not that hard to do when we still have some free markets left.

Mine had no sugar, except for fruit, until she started going to those birthday parties at other kid's houses. ( where I did make an exception but it wasn't until age 4 or 5).

Actually, it's the high fructuse corn syrup in everything that's even worse.

BucEyedPea
09-19-2009, 09:19 PM
It is the exception, rather than the rule though. 9 outta 10 times, it just ain't true.

Unfortunately, greed by so many in the healthcare industry (from doctors, to, pharmaceutical companies, to hospitals, to insurance companies, to ambulance-chasing lawyers....) have made healthcare an industry, worthy of consideration....

Nope, it's govt policy/interference that has distorted pricing mechanisms in those markets. Such as over 2000 mandates on what insurance must cover which gets passed on to the buyers in higher premiums, forcing HMOs on businesses, and various other subsidization schemes. Before this stuff it health insurance was affordable, being more catastrophic orientated which put some pressure on buyers and sellers ( doctors and patients) to contain costs. Not only that our healthcare was the envy of the world.

Nowadays, no one wants to pay for any doctor visits including for sniffles....or anything at all. It's no wonder the costs have skyrocketed....those govt mandates made demand soar.

Socialism, indirect, direct...partial or full never works. The market will have the last say....even in a socialist system.

dirk digler
09-19-2009, 09:23 PM
There's a solution for that. Buy the organic baby food at the health food store or make your own. It's not that hard to do when we still have some free markets left.

Mine had no sugar, except for fruit, until she started going to those birthday parties at other kid's houses. ( where I did make an exception but it wasn't until age 4 or 5).

Actually, it's the high fructuse corn syrup in everything that's even worse.

I haven't shopped for baby foods in a while so I don't know what choices are available to parents. But 99% of small towns have no health food store they probably have a local grocery store and or Walmart.

stevieray
09-19-2009, 09:27 PM
You described me to a tee. How'd you know?

when I typed without blame...

;)

Mr. Kotter
09-20-2009, 12:00 AM
1 in 5?

Probably a CONSERVATIVE estimate... :hmmm:

WilliamTheIrish
09-20-2009, 12:58 AM
The government does some things better than the private sector. The logistics of some services and social necessities dictate that to be the case. Our own history has proven that to be true. And if undue influence is ever removed from the equation that would be true about a lot of things. Health care being one of them.

I have the most difficult time fathoming why anybody thinks this way. Do you work in this industry? Do you know what it takes to comply with the myriad of regulations that must be followed?

I understand there is a clear difference between gov't run/controlled health insurance and gov't health care. One will lead to the other and that's my biggest fear in this entire debacle. It's incremental and like a glacier, it slowly covers everything.

WilliamTheIrish
09-20-2009, 12:59 AM
Probably a CONSERVATIVE estimate... :hmmm:

Uh-huh. Based on what?

WilliamTheIrish
09-20-2009, 01:02 AM
It is the exception, rather than the rule though. 9 outta 10 times, it just ain't true.

Unfortunately, greed by so many in the healthcare industry (from doctors, to, pharmaceutical companies, to hospitals, to insurance companies, to ambulance-chasing lawyers....) have made healthcare an industry, worthy of consideration....

I scoff at this. Merely because it comes from an employee of the most inefficient, money pit that ever saw the light of day. The public education system.

Mr. Kotter
09-20-2009, 01:13 AM
I scoff at this. Merely because it comes from an employee of the most inefficient, money pit that ever saw the light of day. The public education system.

If you want to lump all public schools together....perhaps I should lump all "public" hospitals together too???

:shrug:

FWIW, our school system has consistently (over the past 20 years or so--most recently by US News) been recognized in the top 2-5% of the nation's 'public' schools....but, hey, whatever it is that floats your silly boat, Billy boy....




:hmmm:

Saggysack
09-20-2009, 05:56 AM
I have the most difficult time fathoming why anybody thinks this way. Do you work in this industry? Do you know what it takes to comply with the myriad of regulations that must be followed?

I understand there is a clear difference between gov't run/controlled health insurance and gov't health care. One will lead to the other and that's my biggest fear in this entire debacle. It's incremental and like a glacier, it slowly covers everything.

Sure state and federal regulations are a pain in the ass. OTOH, pfftt, like the healthcare industry is the only industry that has to comply with a myriad of regulations.

I understand the sentiment of not wanting to have Govt health care being the slippery slope towards Govt controlled healthcare. It's a very valid point. One we all should work towards to see not happening. In the meantime we'll continue to argue senselessly about Sarah Palin and her death panels. Having said that, I don't see why the Govt can't have a seat at the table.


I do take issue with this.

"I have the most difficult time fathoming why anybody thinks this way."

As if having to deal with insurance companies is all peaches and creature comforts. You should know that more times than not they are some of the biggest headaches in the healthcare industry.

Baby Lee
09-20-2009, 09:26 AM
BL... :spock:

...an ambulance-chaser? :eek:

NFW....seriously, I'd never have guessed..... :shake:

Reading comprehension prof, I was using the 'royal' we as Maher did.

RINGLEADER
09-20-2009, 11:05 AM
He made a good point an last night's show. A large percentage of those tea baggers crying about health care reform are morbidly obese, smoke, eat like shit and many probably have Type II Diabetes. So many refuse to do something about their own health which is large reason why costs are so high, but at the same time, cry their ****in eyes about health care reform.

As is their right. Or are you saying fat people shouldn't have the right to assemble? Furthermore, do you really want the government to start taxing behavior?

Many liberals don't mind this concept because they know the GOP won't tax the things that are near and dear to them.

I watch Maher for the first time in forever and was really surprised at how militant he is in his far-left beliefs. He didn't seem to understand what the bills were proposing (he went to great lengths to underscore the Public "Option" while ignoring the fact that the House Bill he was championing gives the government the ability to force all insurance -- government or private -- to cover what the government wants it to cover).

He also was quick to change the subject whenever challenged with facts. It was funny watching him bemoan the stupid Bush policies of trying to install missile interceptors in Poland (again, underscoring his lack of knowledge on the subject) as unnecessary because it wasn't like the Russians would invade. The lone conservative pointed out that they invaded Georgia a year ago.

Maher's response? A shrug and changing the subject.

donkhater
09-20-2009, 11:08 AM
The health care industry has evolved into a profit first, health care second industry just like everything else that has been affected by the corporate establishment or the hand of Wall Street.

The health care industry is not interested in "earning" it's keep. It's goal is to maximize profit. Just like every other Wall Street or corporate endeavor, maximizing profit generally means cutting cost and increasing price in order to yield the most profit.

I don't believe that the profit motive is the mother of invention. I don't believe ingenuity is defined by maximizing profit. The profit motive is amoral and the goal of maximizing profit above all else is defined by greed. IMO, the definition of ingenuity would be the implementation of a superior idea in a way that is most useful to the greatest number of people.

Ingenuity would not approve of limiting access to an essential service for the sake of maximizing profit. Nor would it approve of gouging people or exploiting sickness as a means of advancing wealth.

Benjamin Franklin, who is probably the most ingenious American in history, gave all of his inventions away freely for the benefit of society and humankind. He (more than anyone, IMO) defines American values, including the American work ethic.

JMO.

I guess I shouldn't be dumbfounded by this post, but living in this day and age I guess more and more people are starting to think the same way. What a collossal idiot.

What, pray tell, should drive those to care for us if not the profit motive? The goodness of their hearts? What do you think drive those to succeed? A hearty slap on the back and a handshake? The United States of America SHAMES the rest of the world in technological breakthroughs and advances for humankind since it's creation. Why do you think that is? Because we're nicer?

I'm not sure why I'm even responding to this. The depths of the evil written in this post just about surpasses any other post I've ever read on this forum. God save us if this is the prevailing thought in this country.

Mr. Kotter
09-20-2009, 11:18 AM
Reading comprehension prof, I was using the 'royal' we as Maher did.

Ah-ha....I didn't bother to listen to what Maher said (I gave that up, long ago.)

My apologies; my faith is restored. Carry-on.

BucEyedPea
09-20-2009, 11:20 AM
I watch Maher for the first time in forever and was really surprised at how militant he is in his far-left beliefs.

But, but, but he says he's a libertarian. ROFL

penchief
09-20-2009, 04:49 PM
I guess I shouldn't be dumbfounded by this post, but living in this day and age I guess more and more people are starting to think the same way. What a collossal idiot.

What, pray tell, should drive those to care for us if not the profit motive? The goodness of their hearts? What do you think drive those to succeed? A hearty slap on the back and a handshake? The United States of America SHAMES the rest of the world in technological breakthroughs and advances for humankind since it's creation. Why do you think that is? Because we're nicer?

I'm not sure why I'm even responding to this. The depths of the evil written in this post just about surpasses any other post I've ever read on this forum. God save us if this is the prevailing thought in this country.

The profit motive has its place but it is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. Do you really believe that we have been placed on this earth to serve the profit motive? Do you really believe that it trumps all other things in our lives?

Doctors and nurses deserve to be paid well. So do teachers. But I doubt that their primary motivation for serving others is maximum profit. I tend to believe that most people who serve the public are driven by a desire to serve their fellow man. I believe that applies to scientists, law enforcement, fire fighters, EMTs, psychologists, and social workers as well. There are also plenty of people who volunteer to serve the public without any goal of financial reward.

Also, a great portion of the research that has yielded scientific innovation has traditionally been funded by the taxpayer. The profit motive is more apt to funnel its proceeds into around-the-clock advertising of boner drugs. Human bondage has historically been a product of the profit motive. There is a place for the profit motive in the business world but it should never be allowed to undermine the efficacy of a society or the advancement of humankind.

If you believe that the profit motive is the sole vehicle for progress why has it inspired industry to block progress in areas such as alternative energy and CAFE standards? The profit motive is currently obstructing progress in the battle over much needed health care reform. All I'm asking for is balance. If that comes by way of regulating abusive and exploitative business practices or through legislation, that's okay by me.

If you think that my posts are full of evil I can't imagine what you think of Christ's teachings. God save us from the prevailing mentality that has evolved in this country which places the virtue of greed above the great American virtues of universal liberty, justice for all, and human dignity.

donkhater
09-20-2009, 06:33 PM
The profit motive has its place but it is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. Do you really believe that we have been placed on this earth to serve the profit motive? Do you really believe that it trumps all other things in our lives?

Doctors and nurses deserve to be paid well. So do teachers. But I doubt that their primary motivation for serving others is maximum profit. I tend to believe that most people who serve the public are driven by a desire to serve their fellow man. I believe that applies to scientists, law enforcement, fire fighters, EMTs, psychologists, and social workers as well. There are plenty of people who volunteer to serve the public without any goal of financial reward.

Also, a great portion of the research that has yielded scientific innovation has traditionally been funded by the taxpayer. The profit motive is more apt to funnel its proceeds into around-the-clock advertising of boner drugs. Human bondage has historically been a product of the profit motive. There is a place for the profit motive in the business world but it should never be allowed to undermine the efficacy of a society or the advancement of humankind.

If you believe that the profit motive is the sole vehicle for progress why has it inspired industry to block progress in areas such as alternative energy and CAFE standards? The profit motive is currently obstructing progress in the battle over much needed health care reform. All I'm asking for is balance. If that comes by way of regulating abusive and exploitative business practices or through legislation, that's okay by me.

If you think that my posts are full of evil I can't imagine what you think of Christ's teachings. God save us from the prevailing mentality that has evolved in this country which places the virtue of greed above the great American virtues of universal liberty, justice for all, and human dignity.

Go back and reread your first post again. Carefully. The most heinous and evil despots in the history of the world started with language like that.

It's laughable that you cite Franklin's contributions to society in that post. There is a definate difference between philanthropy and dictating that others do the same.

Just ask yourself, who does the government serve should it control more of the economy? You the taxpayer? No way. The bureaucrats serve those that are in the position to get them re-elected to maintain power. Their motives are anything but for the good of the people.

What if the private companies existed with little to no government regulation? Who would they answer to? YOU. The customer. In competition for the highest profit they advance technology and offer the best service at the appropriate price. How is that bad? You benefit from what they have to offer, which is FAR more likely to be the best possible product for the best possible price when compared to any product a bunch of bureaucrats have to offer.

You can leave the bible thumping and Christ's teachings out of this. It is a totally separate issue. It's sad you don't see this.

donkhater
09-20-2009, 06:55 PM
The profit motive has its place but it is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. Do you really believe that we have been placed on this earth to serve the profit motive? Do you really believe that it trumps all other things in our lives?

Of course not. But it certainly is the best way to run an economy, which in the end serves the general welfare of the public the best.

Doctors and nurses deserve to be paid well. So do teachers. But I doubt that their primary motivation for serving others is maximum profit. I tend to believe that most people who serve the public are driven by a desire to serve their fellow man. I believe that applies to scientists, law enforcement, fire fighters, EMTs, psychologists, and social workers as well. There are plenty of people who volunteer to serve the public without any goal of financial reward.

What does volunteering have to do with doing a job you love? I love my job to death, but I wouldn't show up to work tomorrow if I wasn't getting paid for it. I doubt anyone of sane mind does either. What is that if not profit motive? That doesn't make it wrong. They are offereing their services for a fee. Just because you love your job doesn't mean you have an obligation to do it for as little as possible.

Also, a great portion of the research that has yielded scientific innovation has traditionally been funded by the taxpayer. The profit motive is more apt to funnel its proceeds into around-the-clock advertising of boner drugs. Human bondage has historically been a product of the profit motive. There is a place for the profit motive in the business world but it should never be allowed to undermine the efficacy of a society or the advancement of humankind.

Human bondage the result of profit motive? Of what kind? I suppose China, ALL of Africa, the Middle east and parts of South and Central America are bastions of freedom because of their economic policies?

If you believe that the profit motive is the sole vehicle for progress why has it inspired industry to block progress in areas such as alternative energy and CAFE standards? The profit motive is currently obstructing progress in the battle over much needed health care reform. All I'm asking for is balance. If that comes by way of regulating abusive and exploitative business practices or through legislation, that's okay by me.

Because they aren't profitable. They are net negative investments.

If you think that my posts are full of evil I can't imagine what you think of Christ's teachings. God save us from the prevailing mentality that has evolved in this country which places the virtue of greed above the great American virtues of universal liberty, justice for all, and human dignity.

You seem to be reacting to acts of greed (such as bank er bonuses, etc) by encouraging more government involvement. It's the government's involvement that ALLOWS it to happen. If the banks didn't have the Fed backing them up, they'd be less likely to make such risky ventures with your money. Universal liberty is NOT advanced by more government regulation.


:shake:

Taco John
09-20-2009, 06:57 PM
He made a good point an last night's show. A large percentage of those tea baggers crying about health care reform are morbidly obese, smoke, eat like shit and many probably have Type II Diabetes. So many refuse to do something about their own health which is large reason why costs are so high, but at the same time, cry their ****in eyes about health care reform.


I don't want to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize a single one of their fat asses. So why do you?

Bleeding heart Dumbass.

penchief
09-20-2009, 07:09 PM
Go back and reread your first post again. Carefully. The most heinous and evil despots in the history of the world started with language like that.

It's laughable that you cite Franklin's contributions to society in that post. There is a definate difference between philanthropy and dictating that others do the same.

Just ask yourself, who does the government serve should it control more of the economy? You the taxpayer? No way. The bureaucrats serve those that are in the position to get them re-elected to maintain power. Their motives are anything but for the good of the people.

What if the private companies existed with little to no government regulation? Who would they answer to? YOU. The customer. In competition for the highest profit they advance technology and offer the best service at the appropriate price. How is that bad? You benefit from what they have to offer, which is FAR more likely to be the best possible product for the best possible price when compared to any product a bunch of bureaucrats have to offer.

You can leave the bible thumping and Christ's teachings out of this. It is a totally separate issue. It's sad you don't see this.

I brought Franklin into the debate because I admire him more than any other person in our history. And his ingenuity has contributed to the traditions of this country more than any other person in American history. Yet, he never would have placed the profit motive above his duty to his country or his fellow man. He was not driven by the profit motive as much as by a great work ethic and a sense of decency. Don't get me wrong, he valued profit but not at the expense of everything else dear in life.

My purpose for citing Franklin had nothing to do with mandating philanthropy. My purpose was to contrast the modern conservative phallacy that the profit motive is the vehicle of ingenuity. It is not. Necessity is the mother of invention, not profit. In fact, over the past three decades this country has turned into a battlefield between the profit motive and necessity. And the profit motive has been winning the war (see previously cited alternative energy, CAFE standards, etc).

Without regulations or government oversight, industry would do exactly what it did in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Labor abuses, child labor, deadly working conditions, environmental destruction, etc. This is being proven in real time by the corporate establishment's enabling of labor and environmental abuses in other countries. Which is simultaneously undermining our own quality of life. The only thing better for greed than corrupt government is no government at all. History is not on your side in this argument.

The consumer has no say when they are held captive by monopolies or unregulated collusive industries. There is no incentive to offer superior products or services at the most affordable price when they can cut costs and inflate prices without consequence. Just like now, the incentive is to gouge, exploit, and stonewall. Thirty years of deregulation has proven your theory to be out of touch.

I only brought Christ's teachings into this because you saw fit to call my post "evil" and then proceeded to bring God into the equation. I honestly believe that neither Christ nor God would choose the abuses and inequities that the profit motive has yielded instead of sensible regulation designed to prevent those abuses and inequities.

Uncorrupted representative government of the people, by the people, for the people > corrupted representative government > no government, unregulated industry free to rape, pillage, and exploit. At least that's what the historical evidence suggests.

donkhater
09-20-2009, 07:26 PM
I brought Franklin into the debate because I admire him more than any other person in our history. And his ingenuity has contributed to the traditions of this country more than any other person in American history. Yet, he never would have placed the profit motive above his duty to his country or his fellow man. He was not driven by the profit motive as much as by a great work ethic and a sense of decency. Don't get me wrong, he valued profit but not at the expense of everything else dear in life.

My purpose for citing Franklin had nothing to do with mandating philanthropy. My purpose was to contrast the modern conservative phallacy that the profit motive is the vehicle of ingenuity. It is not. Necessity is the mother of invention, not profit. In fact, over the past three decades this country has turned into a battlefield between the profit motive and necessity. And the profit motive has been winning the war (see previously cited alternative energy, CAFE standards, etc).

Without regulations or government oversight, industry would do exactly what it did in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Labor abuses, child labor, deadly working conditions, environmental destruction, etc. This is being proven in real time by the corporate establishment's enabling of labor and environmental abuses in other countries. Which is simultaneously undermining our own quality of life. The only thing better for greed than corrupt government is no government at all. History is not on your side in this argument.

The consumer has no say when they are held captive by monopolies or unregulated collusive industries. There is no incentive to offer superior products or services at the most affordable price when they can cut costs and inflate prices without consequence. Just like now, the incentive is to gouge, exploit, and stonewall. Thirty years of deregulation has proven your theory to be out of touch.

I only brought Christ's teachings into this because you saw fit to call my post "evil" and then proceeded to bring God into the equation. I honestly believe that neither Christ nor God would choose the abuses and inequities that the profit motive has yielded instead of sensible regulation designed to prevent those abuses and inequities.

Uncorrupted representative government of the people, by the people, for the people > corrupted representative government > no government, unregulated industry free to rape, pillage, and exploit. At least that's what the historical evidence suggests.

Wow. It's pointless to continue if you actually believe this.

penchief
09-20-2009, 07:41 PM
Wow. It's pointless to continue if you actually believe this.

I guess so. Because you have no answer to the historical evidence. What about those things that have been proven by our own history? Also, the governments you cite were corrutped governments and not democratic governments of the people, by the people, and for the people. Our uniqueness to this world has been our commitment to ensure equal access, equal opportunity, and equal justice for all. That is why we represent liberty around the world. Not because we place profit above human dignity.

It's a fact that the regulations and labor laws that followed the abuses of the late 19th/early 20th centuries contributed to a much higher quality of life for a greater number of people. Now that deregulation is eroding those laws, the trend has been heading in the other direction. Too bad that doesn't bother you.

It's pointless to continue with you if you are actually willing to ignore the evidence of the past and the present.

BucEyedPea
09-20-2009, 08:25 PM
Wow. It's pointless to continue if you actually believe this.

ROFL I stopped bothering with him over 2 years ago. Why waste your time?

penchief
09-21-2009, 07:48 AM
ROFL I stopped bothering with him over 2 years ago. Why waste your time?

Of course. It's pointless to argue with someone who actually challenges you to address the gigantic holes in your thinking when your only goal is to trumpet the superiority of a failed ideology.

I'd like you to challenge the specifics of what I said instead of ignoring those ideas in favor of making implications about my unworthiness. Which, of course, is your passive-aggressive way of attacking the messenger instead of the message. What's that word that you like to use when you accuse people of doing that to you? Help me out here...

patteeu
09-21-2009, 08:23 AM
He goes too far on a lot of issues...that said health care costs in this country are increasing at 4X that of wages. We spend a much greater percentage of our GNDP on health care than other nations yet coverage is more limited. We have a great health care delivery system however 1 in 5 procedures ordered by our highly qualified physicians is denied by insurance companies. In that regard his view has some validity.

Health care cost inflation is a serious concern, but what is always left out of these discussions is the fact that we're constantly improving the quality of the product. I wonder how many people would trade away their current health care for the chance to get 1989 levels of care quality for 1989 prices. I'm guessing that healthy people might think this sounds like a good deal, but that would be largely because they don't realize how many advances in medicine, equipment, and procedures have been made in the last 20 years.

Velvet_Jones
09-21-2009, 08:56 AM
He goes too far on a lot of issues...that said health care costs in this country are increasing at 4X that of wages. We spend a much greater percentage of our GNDP on health care than other nations yet coverage is more limited. We have a great health care delivery system however 1 in 5 procedures ordered by our highly qualified physicians is denied by insurance companies. In that regard his view has some validity.

Sorry - you are pulling numbers out of you ass. You have been brainwashed. 1 in 5 - Please - the state's DOI would be so far up any insurance companies ass if that number was 1 in 50. FYI - insurance companies also employ "highly qualified physicians". Wonder what the denial rate for MediCare is?

Velvet_Jones
09-21-2009, 09:09 AM
Of course. It's pointless to argue with someone who actually challenges you to address the gigantic holes in your thinking when your only goal is to trumpet the superiority of a failed ideology.

I'd like you to challenge the specifics of what I said instead of ignoring those ideas in favor of making implications about my unworthiness. Which, of course, is your passive-aggressive way of attacking the messenger instead of the message. What's that word that you like to use when you accuse people of doing that to you? Help me out here...

No - it's pointless to argue with someone who refuses to take your answer because it doesn't fit their near communistic social and fiscal view.

wild1
09-21-2009, 09:33 AM
Health care cost inflation is a serious concern, but what is always left out of these discussions is the fact that we're constantly improving the quality of the product. I wonder how many people would trade away their current health care for the chance to get 1989 levels of care quality for 1989 prices. I'm guessing that healthy people might think this sounds like a good deal, but that would be largely because they don't realize how many advances in medicine, equipment, and procedures have been made in the last 20 years.

Ask this of parents who've had a premature infant in the last couple of years, if they would like to move back 20 years in standards of care.

penchief
09-21-2009, 09:55 AM
No - it's pointless to argue with someone who refuses to take your answer because it doesn't fit their near communistic social and fiscal view.

It's just that they don't want to argue against valid points for which they have no answer. BEP would rather preach to those who will not question the unworkable logic behind her narrow ideology. It's not that I won't accept an answer. It's that I won't accept an insufficient answer or a personal attack in lieu of a sufficient answer.

It's ironic that I am the one being painted as extreme when I am only advocating exactly what our founding fathers advocated. A representative government of the people, by the people, and for the people which ensures liberty and justice for all. Representative government is intended to serve as a buffer from the tyranny that evolves when wealth and power is consolidated. It is the vehicle by which the people are empowered.

Yet there are some who suggest that we should eliminate the very institution that empowers we the people, serves as our voice, and guarantees our rights and freedoms. It's a crying shame that those powerful and influential entities who wish to usurp the people's power can so easily convince so many of us that our power which buffers us from tyranny and oppression is the evil we must eliminate.

I'm just as upset as everyone else about the corruption that has permeated our representative government. And I believe that we need to get the lobbyists and the corporate money out of public policy making. However, corruption will be rampant with or without government. The key is not to hand over the people's power to the corruptors. The key is to kick the corruptors out of government.

We can't throw the baby (the ideal of representative government) out with the bathwater (the corruption). Otherwise, we will only be playing into the hands of those whose private goals have traditionally been at odds with good public policy and the general welfare.

donkhater
09-21-2009, 11:12 AM
It's just that they don't want to argue against valid points for which they have no answer. BEP would rather preach to those who will not question the unworkable logic behind her narrow ideology. It's not that I won't accept an answer. It's that I won't accept an insufficient answer or a personal attack in lieu of a sufficient answer.

It's ironic that I am the one being painted as extreme when I am only advocating exactly what our founding fathers advocated. A representative government of the people, by the people, and for the people which ensures liberty and justice for all. Representative government is intended to serve as a buffer from the tyranny that evolves when wealth and power is consolidated. It is the vehicle by which the people are empowered.

Yet there are some who suggest that we should eliminate the very institution that empowers we the people, serves as our voice, and guarantees our rights and freedoms. It's a crying shame that those powerful and influential entities who wish to usurp the people's power can so easily convince so many of us that our power which buffers us from tyranny and oppression is the evil we must eliminate.

I'm just as upset as everyone else about the corruption that has permeated our representative government. And I believe that we need to get the lobbyists and the corporate money out of public policy making. However, corruption will be rampant with or without government. The key is not to hand over the people's power to the corruptors. The key is to kick the corruptors out of government.

We can't throw the baby (the ideal of representative government) out with the bathwater (the corruption). Otherwise, we will only be playing into the hands of those whose private goals have traditionally been at odds with good public policy and the general welfare.


All right, I know I said I wouldn't, but it seems clear to me now why you have the stance you do.

Appartently you think corruption comes from greed. Therefore those greedy industrialist and capitalists are the ones who are corrupt. Government officials need to assume more control to regulate them from from harming society. Sound about right?

So what happened the last couple years? If you honestly think that companies aren't regulated enough to begin with, you are one step away from nationalization of the entire economy.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government run companies. No corruption there I take it. AIG and the like practice ridiculously risking banking schemes only to get bailed out by the Treasury and FED, who BTW, are run by former bankers from Wall Street. Then they have turned around and continued to leverage, leverage, leverage. Why not? They've been given a blank check by Uncle Sam.

Those evil pharma companies are regulated to the hilt to the point where each drug they develop costs over $600 million just to get to market, yet somehow they are greedy in trying to recoup that cost before their patent on their idea runs out and a generic company makes the drug? It is ridiculous that some of their highest selling products are ED pills, but that's what's selling. If you think the FDA is an unbiased decider acting in the public's best interests, you're being incredibly niave.

You say you want to get corporations and the 'corruptors' out of the government. How on earth is that possible by the government assuming more of a role? Just who do you think will have your representative's ear on regulatory matters? You or the company donating a million dollars to his re-election bid? Wouldn't the logical path be to decrease the role of the government? When these companies fail they can actually fail instead of being propped up and hindering true innovation? The government's role then is merely to prosecute instances of fraud or criminal activity which they really don't seem to be doing at the moment, do they?

donkhater
09-21-2009, 11:24 AM
Take a look at the curent state of Medicare, Meciadid and Social Security. Three entiities that were created by your representative government for the genreal welfare of the people. It was intended that these programs would be essentially self fund through the income taxes of the public as they went through their earning years. But somewhere, Congress decided that they could use that money just lying around for other budgetary expenditures. As of today, we are on the hook for more than 30+ trillion dollars in future entitlements. How is this sustainable? It isn't. It's the biggest drain on the economy and the largest ponzi scheme EVER created, curiously without any corporation's involvement.

penchief
09-21-2009, 11:57 AM
All right, I know I said I wouldn't, but it seems clear to me now why you have the stance you do.

Appartently you think corruption comes from greed. Therefore those greedy industrialist and capitalists are the ones who are corrupt. Government officials need to assume more control to regulate them from from harming society. Sound about right?

So what happened the last couple years? If you honestly think that companies aren't regulated enough to begin with, you are one step away from nationalization of the entire economy.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government run companies. No corruption there I take it. AIG and the like practice ridiculously risking banking schemes only to get bailed out by the Treasury and FED, who BTW, are run by former bankers from Wall Street. Then they have turned around and continued to leverage, leverage, leverage. Why not? They've been given a blank check by Uncle Sam.

Those evil pharma companies are regulated to the hilt to the point where each drug they develop costs over $600 million just to get to market, yet somehow they are greedy in trying to recoup that cost before their patent on their idea runs out and a generic company makes the drug? It is ridiculous that some of their highest selling products are ED pills, but that's what's selling. If you think the FDA is an unbiased decider acting in the public's best interests, you're being incredibly niave.

You say you want to get corporations and the 'corruptors' out of the government. How on earth is that possible by the government assuming more of a role? Just who do you think will have your representative's ear on regulatory matters? You or the company donating a million dollars to his re-election bid? Wouldn't the logical path be to decrease the role of the government? When these companies fail they can actually fail instead of being propped up and hindering true innovation? The government's role then is merely to prosecute instances of fraud or criminal activity which they really don't seem to be doing at the moment, do they?

I'm not happy with the bail outs. And I don't think the government is the solution to everything. I'm simply stating that there are things that the government is intended to do and things which it does better. I'm defending the role of government. I'm not advocating an authoritarian government. I'm only asking for balance. It's others who seem to want to make it sound like I'm clamoring for totalitarian government.

Yes, greed is a primary reason for corruption. Money is almost always a motive. And it is human nature to exploit, abuse, and commit fraud when there are no regulations in place to protect the public from those crimes.

While both of us may have our own issues with the bailouts that took place and the particular methods of oversight being proposed, it is no secret that the fruad and abuses that contributed to our problems were the result of actions that were once prohibited by regulations. Once they were reversed, the race to exploit the absence of those regulations resulted in the exact scenario those regulations were intended to prevent.

The fact that regulations and oversight are necessary should not even be in question anymore. I merely support common sense regulations designed to protect the public. I would welcome a restoration of the regulations that were in place before. That doesn't mean that I want government to run everything. I just want to make sure it is protecting the public interests.

Those noble pharmaceutical companies get lots of taxpayer money for research and development, and I have no problem with that. Same with the oil companies. But that doesn't mean that they should gouge the public (and they do gouge the public) or the taxpayer. The public is basically a captive consumer when it comes to the oil and drug companies.

Plus, the pharmaceutical companies spend more money and energy peddling boner pills and developing all kinds of non-vital drugs than they do looking for cures. Go to a doctor and see how quick he is to push drugs on you. They'd rather treat a disease than cure it so that they have long term customers. And that is the problem. When profit is the motive rather than solutions, we suffer as a society.

And when lobbyists for the corporate establishment permeate every corner of our representative government, we the people are at a great disadvantage because the long term solutions we want and need as a society (affordable health care for all, fuel efficiency, alternative energy, etc.) are subjugated by the short term commercial interests of a few powerful entities.

IMO, the track record of industry and the history of this country support my claims. All I'm asking for is balance. Restore the balance we once had that prevented the corporate establishment from dictating the conditions of our existence to the American people.

penchief
09-21-2009, 12:01 PM
Take a look at the curent state of Medicare, Meciadid and Social Security. Three entiities that were created by your representative government for the genreal welfare of the people. It was intended that these programs would be essentially self fund through the income taxes of the public as they went through their earning years. But somewhere, Congress decided that they could use that money just lying around for other budgetary expenditures. As of today, we are on the hook for more than 30+ trillion dollars in future entitlements. How is this sustainable? It isn't. It's the biggest drain on the economy and the largest ponzi scheme EVER created, curiously without any corporation's involvement.

Medicare WAS actually more efficient than your Wall Street health care system has ever proven to be. That is until Bush allowed the corporatization of the program. Now it's a clusterfuck that costs the taxpayer twice as much as it did before. But don't blame that on Medicare. You can blame that on the idea to let corporations get rich off the taxpayer.

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2009, 12:17 PM
:shake:

RaiderH8r
09-21-2009, 01:31 PM
Go back and reread your first post again. Carefully. The most heinous and evil despots in the history of the world started with language like that.

It's laughable that you cite Franklin's contributions to society in that post. There is a definate difference between philanthropy and dictating that others do the same.

Just ask yourself, who does the government serve should it control more of the economy? You the taxpayer? No way. The bureaucrats serve those that are in the position to get them re-elected to maintain power. Their motives are anything but for the good of the people.

What if the private companies existed with little to no government regulation? Who would they answer to? YOU. The customer. In competition for the highest profit they advance technology and offer the best service at the appropriate price. How is that bad? You benefit from what they have to offer, which is FAR more likely to be the best possible product for the best possible price when compared to any product a bunch of bureaucrats have to offer.

You can leave the bible thumping and Christ's teachings out of this. It is a totally separate issue. It's sad you don't see this.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience
-Albert Camus

vailpass
09-21-2009, 01:36 PM
The profit motive has its place but it is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. Do you really believe that we have been placed on this earth to serve the profit motive? Do you really believe that it trumps all other things in our lives?


The sooner you join the real world the sooner you can make the changes you want.

Baby Lee
09-21-2009, 01:50 PM
Medicare WAS actually more efficient than your Wall Street health care system has ever proven to be. That is until Bush allowed the corporatization of the program. Now it's a clusterfuck that costs the taxpayer twice as much as it did before. But don't blame that on Medicare. You can blame that on the idea to let corporations get rich off the taxpayer.

Link?

Calcountry
09-21-2009, 01:59 PM
Mahr is an ass....Just a comedian that has a political following...kinda like beckMahr, a comedian? Now that's funny.

Baby Lee
09-21-2009, 02:06 PM
The profit motive has its place but it is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. Do you really believe that we have been placed on this earth to serve the profit motive? Do you really believe that it trumps all other things in our lives?
As a behaviorist, whether I think it's a good thing or a bad thing, I firmly believe it empirically IS.

Behaviors that increase satisfaction will be repeated. Behaviors that decrease satisfaction will cease.

Sawyer hits the paddle and gets a fish cracker. Fish cracker tastes good so he hits it again.

In the free market things that increase satisfaction will be repeated. If over time it decreases the satisfaction of others, they will behave in a manner designed to decrease the satisfaction of the actor, thereby extinguishing said behavior.

With government entanglement, the actors move inside government still seeking to increase satisfaction, only now there's no mechanism to decrease their satisfaction because their acts [of corruption, of legitimate advantage taking, of currying favor with state power, etc] carry the imprimatur of the state innoculating their behavior from punishment.

donkhater
09-21-2009, 02:20 PM
Yes, greed is a primary reason for corruption. Money is almost always a motive. And it is human nature to exploit, abuse, and commit fraud when there are no regulations in place to protect the public from those crimes.



Wrong. Power and control over your fellow man are much more of a reason. Some of the poorer countries in the world are also the most corrupt and evil. Take a look at the entire African nation for example.



While both of us may have our own issues with the bailouts that took place and the particular methods of oversight being proposed, it is no secret that the fruad and abuses that contributed to our problems were the result of actions that were once prohibited by regulations. Once they were reversed, the race to exploit the absence of those regulations resulted in the exact scenario those regulations were intended to prevent.



You mean like the government regulating access to mortgages for low income families and requiring banks to gives out high risk, unsecured loans to advance their housing initiative? Don't you think actions like this from our government promote that type of reckless speculation? Why do you think the banks set certain standards for mortgage approval? On some whim?



The fact that regulations and oversight are necessary should not even be in question anymore. I merely support common sense regulations designed to protect the public. I would welcome a restoration of the regulations that were in place before. That doesn't mean that I want government to run everything. I just want to make sure it is protecting the public interests.



That can be accomplished by simply prosecuting those instances of fraud and violation of contracts. Heavy-handed dictums form those who don't know a lick about free markets doesn't accomplish anything.



Those noble pharmaceutical companies get lots of taxpayer money for research and development, and I have no problem with that. Same with the oil companies. But that doesn't mean that they should gouge the public (and they do gouge the public) or the taxpayer. The public is basically a captive consumer when it comes to the oil and drug companies.

Plus, the pharmaceutical companies spend more money and energy peddling boner pills and developing all kinds of non-vital drugs than they do looking for cures. Go to a doctor and see how quick he is to push drugs on you. They'd rather treat a disease than cure it so that they have long term customers. And that is the problem. When profit is the motive rather than solutions, we suffer as a society.



So what do you advocate? Elimination of the pharma companies? They exist only because there is a market not because of some altruistic cause. They exist to make a profit for their investors. You don't have to buy their drugs.



And when lobbyists for the corporate establishment permeate every corner of our representative government, we the people are at a great disadvantage because the long term solutions we want and need as a society (affordable health care for all, fuel efficiency, alternative energy, etc.) are subjugated by the short term commercial interests of a few powerful entities.



All that you list there is more easiliy obtained and at lower cost without the involvement of the bureaucrats.

The protections for the American public are in place by virtue of the laws of the land. Subsidizing, price manipulation and inflation of the currency have been WAY more damaging to the economy in the past century than free market deregulation:rolleyes:. You say private companies are the cause of corruption, I say they are acting in response to the rules a corrupt government is telling them to play by.

penchief
09-21-2009, 05:39 PM
Wrong. Power and control over your fellow man are much more of a reason. Some of the poorer countries in the world are also the most corrupt and evil. Take a look at the entire African nation for example..

Power and wealth go hand in hand. One will ultimately yield the other. Those who chose slavery over paying wages were doing so because it was more cost effective. Those who suppress wages are doing the same thing. It doesn't make it right. There wouldn't be a motive for enslaving or oppressing if there wasn't some sort of gain from it. Slave labor is most definitely motivated by greed. Commerce has been a primary factor in the enslaving of humans throughout history.

You mean like the government regulating access to mortgages for low income families and requiring banks to gives out high risk, unsecured loans to advance their housing initiative? Don't you think actions like this from our government promote that type of reckless speculation? Why do you think the banks set certain standards for mortgage approval? On some whim?

That's only part of the story. A much bigger part of it was bundling those loans and reselling them over and over again. Knowing that they weren't worth what they were being valued at. Nobody required them to do that. Besides, the mortagage crisis was only a part of the bigger picture. Financial institutions were playing fast and lose with other peoples money via speculation and the inflating of values. It was a great big accross-the-board scam enabled by the deregulation of financial institutions.

That can be accomplished by simply prosecuting those instances of fraud and violation of contracts. Heavy-handed dictums form those who don't know a lick about free markets doesn't accomplish anything.

The laws and regulations have to be in place in order to prosecute someone for violating them. Heavy-handed dictums are not the same thing as common sense regulations.

So what do you advocate? Elimination of the pharma companies? They exist only because there is a market not because of some altruistic cause. They exist to make a profit for their investors. You don't have to buy their drugs.

Should all research and development be profit related? Should every life saving drug or procedure be treated as a commodity designed to hold people's lives over a barrel? If drug companies are getting tax payer money for research and development the tax payer should be getting something in return other than bent over and screwed. And if the drug companies want to focus on making boner drugs instead of curing serious disease then that research money should go to university and government run research programs. Believe it or not, some things actually do transcend the profit motive. A person's health is not a commodity to be traded on the open market.

All that you list there is more easiliy obtained and at lower cost without the involvement of the bureaucrats.

But when there is collusion that effectively results in a monopoly there is no competition. The health care industry has the country by the balls. Can't import drugs and can't negotiate prices. The oil industry and Wall Street speculators drive the price of oil up whenever they want for no reason other than because they can.

The protections for the American public are in place by virtue of the laws of the land. Subsidizing, price manipulation and inflation of the currency have been WAY more damaging to the economy in the past century than free market deregulation:rolleyes:. You say private companies are the cause of corruption, I say they are acting in response to the rules a corrupt government is telling them to play by.

I'm not sure I agree with the government subsidizing certain things or manipulating prices. But it's not always a bad thing. Subsidized housing is quite a good thing for seniors and disabled who are on fixed monthly incomes that amount to less than one month's rent. Otherwise many people would be on the streets. That said, Wall street does more to artificially manipulate prices than the government does. That is the name of the game on Wall Street. That is why we have to stop basing our economy on Wall Street speculation instead of tangible economic factors.

Velvet_Jones
09-21-2009, 11:15 PM
Medicare WAS actually more efficient than your Wall Street health care system has ever proven to be. That is until Bush allowed the corporatization of the program. Now it's a cluster**** that costs the taxpayer twice as much as it did before. But don't blame that on Medicare. You can blame that on the idea to let corporations get rich off the taxpayer.

Citation please - and I would appreciate that you not send me a picture of your ass for which you pulled this statement from.

Velvet_Jones
09-21-2009, 11:20 PM
I brought Franklin into the debate because I admire him more than any other person in our history. And his ingenuity has contributed to the traditions of this country more than any other person in American history. Yet, he never would have placed the profit motive above his duty to his country or his fellow man. He was not driven by the profit motive as much as by a great work ethic and a sense of decency. Don't get me wrong, he valued profit but not at the expense of everything else dear in life.

My purpose for citing Franklin had nothing to do with mandating philanthropy. My purpose was to contrast the modern conservative phallacy that the profit motive is the vehicle of ingenuity. It is not. Necessity is the mother of invention, not profit. In fact, over the past three decades this country has turned into a battlefield between the profit motive and necessity. And the profit motive has been winning the war (see previously cited alternative energy, CAFE standards, etc).

Without regulations or government oversight, industry would do exactly what it did in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Labor abuses, child labor, deadly working conditions, environmental destruction, etc. This is being proven in real time by the corporate establishment's enabling of labor and environmental abuses in other countries. Which is simultaneously undermining our own quality of life. The only thing better for greed than corrupt government is no government at all. History is not on your side in this argument.

The consumer has no say when they are held captive by monopolies or unregulated collusive industries. There is no incentive to offer superior products or services at the most affordable price when they can cut costs and inflate prices without consequence. Just like now, the incentive is to gouge, exploit, and stonewall. Thirty years of deregulation has proven your theory to be out of touch.

I only brought Christ's teachings into this because you saw fit to call my post "evil" and then proceeded to bring God into the equation. I honestly believe that neither Christ nor God would choose the abuses and inequities that the profit motive has yielded instead of sensible regulation designed to prevent those abuses and inequities.

Uncorrupted representative government of the people, by the people, for the people > corrupted representative government > no government, unregulated industry free to rape, pillage, and exploit. At least that's what the historical evidence suggests.

412 words and I still think you are stupid. Maybe you should draft out your response first so your train of thought has a caboose.

penchief
09-22-2009, 10:22 AM
412 words and I still think you are stupid. Maybe you should draft out your response first so your train of thought has a caboose.

You actually took the time to count the number of words in my post and you're calling me stupid? You're trying too hard to be clever, IMO.

Velvet_Jones
09-22-2009, 01:39 PM
You actually took the time to count the number of words in my post and you're calling me stupid? You're trying too hard to be clever, IMO.

Dude - Your computer skills are lacking. :shake:

penchief
09-22-2009, 02:50 PM
Dude - Your computer skills are lacking. :shake:

Thanks for the insight, bro.

Baby Lee
09-22-2009, 03:20 PM
OMMerFingG, leaving aside their scant to nonexistent grasp of the issues, did not ONE of them wonder if a bunch of folks who make millions for their valiant efforts in delivering fart jokes on the retard box were the best group to employ mocking the undeserving wealthy?


<object width="512" height="328" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" id="ordie_player_041b5acaf5"><param name="movie" value="http://player.ordienetworks.com/flash/fodplayer.swf" /><param name="flashvars" value="key=041b5acaf5" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed width="512" height="328" flashvars="key=041b5acaf5" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" quality="high" src="http://player.ordienetworks.com/flash/fodplayer.swf" name="ordie_player_041b5acaf5" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object><div style="text-align:left;font-size:x-small;margin-top:0;width:512px;"><a href="http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/041b5acaf5/protect-insurance-companies-psa" title="from FOD Team, Will Ferrell, Jon Hamm, Olivia Wilde, Thomas Lennon, Donald Faison, Linda Cardellini, Masi Oka, Ben Garant, Jordana Spiro, lauren, Drew, and chad_carter">Protect Insurance Companies PSA</a> from <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com/will_ferrell">Will Ferrell</a></div>

Baby Lee
10-10-2009, 11:09 AM
Another week, another episode of Maher's disdain.

What's interesting to observe about Maher, is that he disdain's belief unless you believe what he believes. This week it was innoculations. Week after week he crinkles his nose at those who dispute global warning because the scientists have told us it's real. But when the scientists tell us innoculations are safe, he disagrees, seemingly for nothing more than it just doesn't feel right to him.

So face it Maher, by your own metrics you're a dumbfuck yokel because you don't believe the scientist's assessment of innoculations.