Bill Moyers this weekend

Will we get our money back? :-D And, as I recall, they did not meet the normal requirements for a grant. I am not trying to get mired down in this, let's just say that MANY companies get money from the gubment, that they don't really need. I used Soylendra as an example, instead of digging through a whole lot of stuff.

If you don't believe our gubment wastes a lot of money giving to corporations, let me know, and I can get some examples.

 

I am confused by this statement, can you elaborate?

 

I understand now.

You don't realize that the goal of major corporations is to profit, take control, to profit more. This is fine in itself but...

If they control the government, it is because it is their goal to profit...themselves and themselves only.


There is no advantage to that for the people, who the government is supposed to look out for. We were not founded to be like that, the laws aren't written like that, and yet corporations are gaining control. That is corruption.

"We the people..."

Not so much anymore.

cor·rup·tion
kəˈrəpSHən/Submit
noun
1.
dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.
"the journalist who wants to expose corruption in high places"
synonyms: dishonesty, unscrupulousness, double-dealing, fraud, fraudulence, misconduct, crime, criminality, wrongdoing; More

What are major campaign fundings from corporations if not bribery?

Also, before you start singing the praises of Pol Pot (wow), you might want to check your history:

http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1948150,00.html

 

the former is what he SOUGHT to create. the latter is what he DID create. you know - to rid the country of ELITE RULE?!

oh yeah. somalia. middle east. north korea. lotta places where they ousted the elites.

here in the US, where we're all "suffering" under the thumb of those nasty corporations, the poor have the highest standard of living in the world. or maybe it's japan now. another misguided country ruled by them dastardly rich people! rolleyes

 

An "elite" is just what Pol Pot created. An elite group to rule, and enforce it's dogma upon Cambodia. His was not government by, of, or for the people.

He eliminated anyone who was not worthy of his approval. Starving your people, taxing them to death, and taking all their crops for export is not attempting to create utopia, or eliminating the "elite". It is exploitation coupled with mass murder in the pursuit of power and profit.

 

Are these the faces of the elite?

http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1948150_2013753,00.html

The road to hell is paved with good intentions (if they even existed).

Power corrupts.

 

In my humble opinion, this is a problem because you are corrupting the supply and demand of corporations, and mixing in the power of a gubment to print money and give it away, and it also effects the laws/rules that corporation have to obey.

Just my personal tin foil hat theory is mixing a basic supply and demand with an entity that has a debt goal (I refuse to call it a debt ceiling any more) every year, can yield some bad stuff.

 

Fred, it's a shame Solyndra fell to unforeseen market forces, like the flooding of the market with a cheap, less efficient alternative. They did it right, "built a better mousetrap", and still are looking at Chapter 11. Maybe it's the price to be paid for being ahead of your time in this day and age.

Believe me, I know the chicanery which goes on.

"Funny thing is, that selfishness, and hoarding to any degree is a primitive animal instinct which survives with us to this day."

Acts like hoarding are a desperate and selfish way to seek power, or influence by accumulating things. It has in modern times become a known disorder of collecting worthless things, but when you hoard things of value you are sought out by those in need of them. Ask Goldman Sachs how hoarding aluminum is going, right?

 

My curiosity is how you define hoarding and selfishness. If I anticipate a future increase in demand for something, and buy as much as I can afford, on speculation it will be profitable for me, is that what you mean? Whether at a personal or corporate level, as long as I pay market price when I get it?

Worthless things, perhaps to some, perhaps not. Is that not one of the risks of capitalism? To see what will become more valuable in the future, get as much as you can at the present rate, then sell at a profit? Or lose if you 'saw' wrong?

I don't see how trying to anticipate the future and planning for it is 'hoarding' or 'selfish'. Now, of course we do have people with mental disorders that hoard, but that really does not fit into this conversation, thus why I asked you for clarification on your statement.

Is being prepared selfish? Even the gubment tells you to have food and water stored. If it is August in Louisiana, and I stock up on a few extra cases of water, am I prepared, selfish, or hoarding?

No offense meant, just trying to clarify what you posted above.

 

No offense taken.

When one hoards things in an effort, clandestine or otherwise, or by means of obfuscation to manipulate markets, that has been deemed illegal since at least the 19th century and in America by a precedent involving a group of brothers attempting to corner the silver market.

Obtaining power and influence through legitimate, and fair means is one thing. Abusing your ability by cornering, and interrupting the free flow of goods in what should be free markets via obfuscation and chicanery is another story.

"Trading ahead" is prohibited by FINRA, and market regulations. Of course, it's perfectly legal as of the last decade or so, to do so if you have a "subscription" with the right people, who have the "right" information. Bastiat was rather prophetic, eh?


“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it”

~ Frederic Bastiat, "The Law" (1850)

 

Glad I asked. See, now you have been 'trolling' a bit here. And no offense taken. Now you mention illegal activities... Of course, I am against illegal activity, corporate or gubment.

Interesting quote. Could it also be applicable to a segment of society that does not pay federal income taxes?

 

Williams is absolutely right. However I must posit this:

If you are a contributing member of society, pay your dues, and pay into the system, should there not be a "safety net" provided to you in case :crap happens?

As a consumer, I very much appreciate getting that which I pay for. I'd also query just how many of that 50% statistic are Social Security recipients who have already paid their dues, and will only receive a fraction of what they paid into the system. Social Security is not an [expletive deleted] entitlement, except if you're a drunk who claims one has a "disease" to get SSI.

Trust me, no "trolling" intended.

What say you?

 

Hope this works.

 

OK, I have butchered my post above. I have my responses in the mekaniks reply. Sorry, am not trying to misquote anyone.

My apologizes in advance. :cool

 

Then on some levels we agree.

In this country, we don't get what we pay for.

Earning is one thing. Taking is another. And, corruption involves stealing.

 

me again. if you'll recall, i do not have a TV, a car, cable or broadband.

when the people in that "net" of yours come down to my level, then we can talk.

ticks me off that what little i contribute in taxes subsidizes people who generally have ALL of those. and more.

 

Your taxes aren't subsidizing those people (if welfare was abolished, your taxes would not vary much at all). If your living conditions are real and true, then you get most of your taxes back at the end of the year anyway.

Let me tell you what your taxes DO pay for:

Legislation designed to protect the elite corporations and wealthy that you applaud.

Who do you think paid for (at least ) one of Mitt Romney's very expensive campaign dinners?

You did.

Who do you think paid for Air Force One to taxi Obama around during his reelection campaign?

You did.

So many of these politicians campaign using the taxpayer dime, and on top of that get major campaign funds from corporations. So if they are using taxpayer money to help fund their campaign expenses, where do those campaign funds go from corporations, hmm?

Neither major party is innocent.

I am done with this conversation.


I would like this to stay civil and not be locked. Be good, folks.

 

I'm quite sure one of the Libertarian elite would just say you haven't worked hard enough. You require more self reliance, and independence to overcome your squalid beginnings.

I'm sure you'd be a fan of them telling you that...

 

they would certainly be correct.

i don't mind buying romney or obama an occasional perc. they have, after all, contributed far more to society than i have. i dunno why the rest of u want to blame everyone else for your circumstances. my life sucks, sure, but it's my own doing. why scapegoat others?

thanks to romney, otoh, i have a staples near my house. 3 more months of potato soup and i'll have saved up enuf for a new printer.

who cares if he's eating filet mignon in those same months? he's earned it.

 

I am sorry, but you are not being truthful.

You live off of ramen and potato soup, and yet you pay for Internet access, and have a laptop?

Not buying it.

You see, I've been there, and I didn't have a computer much less internet access because it wasn't a necessity to survive. I would have had to go to a school library to access the net.

 

i do not pay for internet access; i stated before i'm on dial up.

and yes, the laptop is the one small luxury i have bought. in this day and age it pretty much IS a necessity to survive. i learned that after a few months of doing the "library computers" thing u mention.

point being, i tightened my belt to buy a laptop, just as i tighten my belt every time i need to buy new shoes. aside from food and rent, i try to keep expenses down to $10/month or less, average. heck, i'm still trying to pay off that one ER visit 14 years ago....

i do qualify for welfare, etc., but i'd rather starve than accept either. so it galls me to see people not only accepting them, but living WILDLY HIGHER than i do.

anyway, go back thru my posts. nothing untruthful in any.