Tolerance is not extended to those who preach hate and bigotry under the guise of "religion"...they get extra fuckyous for being both bigots and hypocrites.

Fish on...

Todd

Substitute self absorption for religion. Is spewing hate ok under that guise tolerable?

Jtd , love that Nietzsche quote from beyond good and evil That philosophy is what brought most real northwesterners here 100+ years ago. It only hides in cracks and crevices now as the area has been swallowed by homogenous shallowness.

Just a momentary flash of genius and just a sample of things I remember that occasionally come in useful. It happens for someone (not me) here everyday.



Don't be too impressed.

Rev.:

Now that I understand what your meaningless reply to my meaningless post intended, I'm better prepared to discuss our positions, which seem to start out fairly similar but end up in very different places, indeed.

I agree that "corporate welfare" is a buzz phrase, but it's one that I believe serves as a sound metaphor for spending billions of tax dollars, largely withheld from the incomes of the middle class and with the intended purpose of paying for vital government services, on keeping corporations that don't pay taxes and are "too big to fail" in business when their unsustainable, immoral business practices come back around to bite them in the butt. We'll have to agree to disagree on corporate welfare being "meaningless."

With that out of the way, let's talk about your assertions that these corporations are operating within the laws of the land and benefiting our society. I must agree that they are operating according to what the law allows. Where I suspect you and I differ on that point is in our respective assessments of how the laws that allow them to operate the way they do came into being. I'm not sure how you see it, but what I see is that our all-too-easily corrupted Parliament of Whores (that's Congress and the President) has been lobbied (paid off) much more heavily by these corporations than by any other interest group, and therefore, they feel strongly compelled to make laws that keep their wealthy benefactors happy and "contributing to their campaigns." Effectively, this means corporations are making the laws that govern their practices. Were you and I in the same position, I strongly doubt we would structure those laws in ways that would inhibit our ability to increase our profits. Why, then, should we believe they would?

As for the corporate role as benefactors to our society, beyond employing a lot of people and creating stock dividends for those willing (and able) to invest in Wall Street (both of which are, without question, meaningful contributions from the viewpoint of the beneficiaries), I don't see that they are doing much to benefit the majority of U.S. citizens. In fact, I see a lot more harm being done than good. Here are a few negative impacts of allowing companies to become "too big to fail:"

- Lack of competition
- Loss of opportunity for new, small businesses (fewer places to work)
- Lack of incentive to improve products and innovate
- Reduced quality of service
- Loss of incentive for competitive pricing
- Wage stagnation
- Laws that enable large corporations handicap small businesses
- Laws that reduce the corporate tax burden increase the tax burden for others, thereby reducing consumer spending power
- When increasing taxes on the middle class still can't fill the revenue gap, government services get cut.

The list goes on and on.

Just for a moment, let's get back to "too big to fail." Talk about a negative! When several of these corporations absolutely SHOULD have failed, our government was "forced" to dig into our pockets to bail them out. (I personally believe the consequences of allowing those corps to fail would have been significantly less dire than we were led to believe, but I guess that's beside the point.) The men and women who artificially inflated the housing market with their "questionable" lending practices should be in prison, but instead, they got paid bonuses out of our tax dollars. Doesn't that piss you off just a little? Whatever you want to argue about how important these companies might be to our economy, don't you have to agree that it puts us in a bad position? When the inevitable consequences of increasing our debt limit to keep their stocks healthy come around, won't we be forced to bail them out again?

Anyway, I'm tired, so it must be time to stop. I'm sure there are some other benefits associated with being ruled by corporate overlords, but there are also many more negatives. When something does more harm than good, shouldn't we seek to change it?

Is this really how you see yourself or is this an analogy? Either way it says a lot about you because that sentence has absolutely nothing to do with the topic and reflects more on you than anything else.

It shows you think:

1. You are the good guy and the persecuted victim
2. This is a battle royal of which you are merely a pawn
3. You are surrounded by beasts
4. You are few

Reality:

1. This isn't about good guys and bad guys this is about government taxation. Good guys vs bad guys is a massive oversimplification.
2. Nobody is banning you or feeding you to the lions. You have the same right as everyone else to be here.
3. Everyone here is 99% the same yet we argue over the 1% of difference.
4. You are not in the minority (such as Christians in Rome), many people hold similar beliefs to yours in this country.

Clearly, I over analyzed your post but I got to say that there is a lot of meat there. A very curious post to say the least in the context of the dark side. I hope you don't feel like you are partaking in some crusade by coming to the dark side....

Might I suggest growing a pair, accepting the world is the way it is, and tolerating those who bring you no harm with their differing views?

Flikr,

I am a believer in capitalism, I think that free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity for all. I am not a supporter of a "too big to fail" policy. In fact occasional failure is necessary for capitalism to function efficiently. I thought it was wrong for our government to bail out the auto companies and banks, and I don't like the idea of government picking the winners and the losers in business. Evidently our current leadership feels differently.

You said "The men and women who artificially inflated the housing market with their "questionable" lending practices should be in prison, but instead, they got paid bonuses out of our tax dollars." and I ask you what men and women? And just how did they inflate the housing market with their lending practices? And did they really get paid bonuses of our tax dollars? Sure it's easy to get all riled up but I don't really think that things are quite that simple. At the time of the housing bubble many people wanted to participate and felt left out if they could not get a loan. Pressure was put on lenders to make loans that frankly never should have been made.

You also said "When the inevitable consequences of increasing our debt limit to keep their stocks healthy come around, won't we be forced to bail them out again?" To which I ask do you really believe that the debt limit is being raised to keep stock values up?
Well I don't. Stock values are up because of the Feds easy money policy. It was a conscious decision to force people into risk assets with the hope that this would help stimulate the economy. And yes it may very well end poorly, although I sincerely hope it does not.

And lastly you said, "As for the corporate role as benefactors to our society, beyond employing a lot of people and creating stock dividends for those willing (and able) to invest in Wall Street (both of which are, without question, meaningful contributions from the viewpoint of the beneficiaries), I don't see that they are doing much to benefit the majority of U.S. citizens. In fact, I see a lot more harm being done than good." I take issue with your saying that the majority of U.S. do not benefit from corporations, and that they do more harm than good. Every single person who has a job is a benefit to society and contributes to economy. Also while there are many people who do not directly invest in equity's themselves most people are indirectly invested in them either through their own pension plans or are affected because public employees pension funds are invested in equity's.

Jason,

My comment on being a bully was a response to Flickrs Quip, "ya big bully" My post was intended to be a metaphor. I was the conservative/christian and members of the board which is predominantly liberal were the lions. The Dark Side was the stadium, I thought it was funny.

As far as your statement, "Might I suggest growing a pair, accepting the world is the way it is, and tolerating those who bring you no harm with their differing views?"
I'll see what I can do