Social contract

[KeithE]

‎"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there -- good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea -- God Bless! Keep a Big Hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along." Elizabeth Warren

And now so many owners/CEOs are maximizing profits and their take by eliminating workers and overworking those they keep. I call that "sanctioned greed", sanctioned by the RW. If so-called "job creators" want any praise, then prove it by hiring.

[Mrs Haruo]

[Gene Scarborough]

[KeithE]

And Elizabeth Warren was not acceptable to head the Consumer Protection Agency by this country's right wing. They are amicable to recognizing interdependence favoring instead to give unquestioned allegiance to independent (and unfettered) business leaders. And we know businesspeople would never, ever take advantage of anyone and always have the best interests of the country in mind (TIC).

[Ed Pettibone]

[Gene Scarborough]

Ed---

If you have a BS degree, you earned it on such geshickte!!!

[KeithE]

[Gene Scarborough]

Keith--

Harry Emerson Fosdick said it more simply: "Intellectual excursion without moral pursuasion."

Those who enjoy the benefits of success in our capitalist economy need to have enough moral pursuasion to not build their empires on the backs of those who make it happen. Sharing in the wealth beats glorying in it.

I often wonder if the "greats" you mention shared their wealth from their hearts or from the Estate Taxation awaiting them.

I visited years ago to the great Cathedrals of England and Europe. In each you have grand tombs and statuary along with stain glass windows. Each has a name attached in a failed attempt to achieve immortality in the eyes of mankind. Even the Pharoes tried to achieve immortality with their pyramid tombs, but they have only become the object of grave robbers.

If we honor and follow Jesus, The Christ, then why would any of us value money over loving other humans created by God and eventually going into eternity? I wonder how many got a surprise as the Golden Gates as God asked, "How did you treat your fellow man?" Even Abu ben Adam, though not a Christian, is depicted as getting his reward for his kindness and love of his fellow man.

[ET]

Hmmmm....so apparently the evil, greedy business dude didn't pay any taxes either individually or via his business to build roads, educate people or pay for police protection "the rest of us paid for"? (Side bar: I will note here that the most favored justifications for government largess at the federal level are almost quoted to be functions that are almost exclusively the domain and responsibility of local and state governments: roads, education and police, not to mention that such functions are not argued by conservatives as legitimate functions of government, as opposed to bailing out auto companies and banks, assuming the power to pick winners and losers in the economy, and printing trillions of dollars of money we don't have, thus taxing us through lowering the value of our money. But let's not let such facts get in the way of rhetoric.)

Just from where did Comrade Warren and the "rest of us" gang get the money to build those roads, schools and pay for police protection in the first place? Government DID NOTHING on its own without taking from those who actually produced something to begin with. Even for someone at one of our "best" - supposedly - "educational" institutions, it appears to escape that person that you've actually got to have someone who produces something of value before she and her comrades can come along, take some of that value, spend it and then claim that the wealth produced by "greedy businessman" is due to Comrade Warren's collectivist spending.

Without "greedy businessman" actually producing something of value, comrades, you have no roads, no schools, no police. You should be happy for businesses to be "maximizing profits", which, I thought, was what EVERY business sought to do. More profits mean more tax revenue that you can "take a hunk of" and spend on things like giving loans to Solyndra, spending money on "shovel-ready jobs" that weren't ready at all and bailing out failed, but politically preferred and voter sympathetic, auto companies and then justifying your spending by hiding behind education, roads and police. Only those willfully blinded by their own ideology or just plain gullible would think that the primary issue for the Tea Party and/or conservatives in general is over roads, police and education, but apparently there are plenty of such types around, chief among them being Comrade Warren.

Geez, and what about those marauding bands of government bureaucrats. We just had a marauding band of dudes come to Memphis and shut down a Gibson guitar factory a few weeks ago over something as silly as - relative to the other troubles in the world - imported wood, so no, we've got nothing to fear from "marauding bands" at all. Saw a blurb on the news yesterday morning that 5 coal powered -- as in American produced, non-imported energy - are being shut down in the near future due to "marauding bands" of EPA regulations. We also have Obama and his "marauding band" of bureaucrats attempting to tell Boeing in what state they can build their airplanes. We don't nearly as much to fear from marauding bands of external enemies as we do from internal enemies like Warren and her Marxist buddies.

And we know bureaucrats would never, ever take advantage of anyone and always have the best interests of the country in mind. They would never use government power to keep a company from employing AMERICANS in another state in order to pay back their union cronies. No, never. Right?

Good day, comrades.

[ET]

[Gene Scarborough]

Over the top, ED----OVER THE TOP!!!!

Did your stock values drop and you have a stroke or what.
Republicans never lie.
Corporations always tell the truth.
Santa Clause is real!!!!

[KeithE]

[Gene Scarborough]

If Labor Unions produce cars, then why do few cars come off the assembly line without problems covered (hopefully) under the warranty?????

Labor Unions have done much to raise the price of autos. My son lived outside Detroit for several years. Their high wages only made for high rent / food prices / etc.

Like it or not, those who make high wages pay them with inflated prices----and a glorious retirement for politicians and auto workers are creating issues we can't solve without busting the federal budget nor our own!!!!

[Sandy]

Hmm. Interesting stuff.

Yeah, we got this recession and all, and the economy is having a bad time, and so businesses lay people off. But how is it that corporate profits reached record levels the same years that our unemployment has been the highest? The stock market's growth from its recessed level in the 6000's, right back up into the 11,000's was largely responsible for the jump in corporate profits, but employment hasn't corresponded, at least, not in the US. So how are they getting the work done and making so much money? The jobs are in India, Indonesia, Mexico...

Typically, those who are supportive of corporate robbery, such as ET's little diatribe up there, always try to link any opposition to their view to communism. But I'll bet they scream like stuck pigs when you compare them to Nazis.

[Gene Scarborough]

The road to corporate profits is on the back of smart / dedicated / recipients of the "golden parachute" conceived from number crunchers. They calculated that by gently "firing" the old farts the young farts could take up the slack at far cheaper prices.

What they didn't consider is that the young farts were raised on compliance with authority over creative thinking. They had talking toys which came with scripts from the obsession with turning cartoons into profits instead of the old cheap toys that came in Cracker Jacks and Cereal boxes. The fancy animated toys got them added profits because they were "Made in China / Korea / Japan / etc. with the help of cheap labor no longer availale in the US!!!

Where the "old farts" spent weekends and grass cutting time thinking of new and better ways to increase efficiency and profits, the "young farts" just wanted to get drunk / do drugs / go to football games and be entertained by NASCAR! They expected their "executive bonus" whether new ideas became reality or not.

Anyone care to add to this story of "American lack of success the last 30 years?"

[ET]

[ET]

[Sandy]

[Gene Scarborough]

200 years ago the words of Jefferson / Payne / etc. rung true as they spoke in opposition to the tyrany of the British over their colonies. The main cry was "No taxation without representation." There was never any concept of "no taxation." Any government exists from its citizens willing to delegate some choices to elected representatives. The first ones took no pay for their services and the smallness of the country allowed for personal knowledge of who you sent to speak for you.

Now, 200+ years later, we have millions of citizens spreading far and wide across this whole continent. The size, itself, prevents the kind of small town flavor which ruled in the 1700's. Travel is by air / electronic communication gives us instant access to news / now the Internet gives us "little guys" the opportunity to comment on most published articles and add our point of view. Anyone reading comments on religious or general articles quickly recognizes we are a diverse people with diverse opinions on most everything. The key question is: Are we all in it for ourselves?

To put this in spiritual terms, most everything American has to do with GREED and a desire for SUCCESS--whatever that is. Ask the Native Americans, if you don't believe me. We simply booted the British out of control so we could continue our aggression and land surveys as we moved West. From the beginning there has been corruption and lying associated with the "success." Every person must decide on their own level of ethics. The human mind is totally capable of rationlizing a "greedy SOB" into a "wealthy philanthropist." I am amazed at how many names on buildings and highways repesent nothing more than sleeze and corruption bringing in the money to buy the space.

There is another side to this picture though. I have met, and now know, any number of people who have been successful without forgetting their humanity and where they came from in the beginnings of their career. Most of them will admit that their successs was just as much from being in the right place at the right time as it was from inspiring employees to help them succeed together. More often than not, if you met them on the streets or at church, you would not know of their wealth because they don't brag!

This subject is degenerating into name calling we don't need. ET started it and I encourage a discussion of or social ethics over trying to prove one way is better than another. We go through social and economic cycles and nothing stays the same. I think all would agree what we have now is not the best we have had in the past at times. The "good times" have been when people had jobs and opportunity to make enough to be comfortable. In recent times our desire for comfort has made us shop at WalMart where the lowest-paid employees run the store on less than 40 hours per week so the greedy owners don't have to provide benefits. Too many good "mom and pop" stores now sit vacant as people value "cheap" over "real service" to customers. It proves once again that "you can't legislate morality."

Quality and quantity of profit don't always go hand-in-hand.

Can we make this discussion one of what Jesus said, "The LOVE of money is the ROOT of all evil?"

[Dave Roberts]

I think the difference here between Ed and Keith may be over the interpretation of scripture personally vs. interpreting scripture corporately. Ed, and the conservative orthodoxy, is to take a verse like I John 3:17 and take it very personally.

...If any one has this world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against hm, how does the love of God abide in him?

I know very few among the Republican orthodoxy who would not help someone who asked them for assistance.

However, some of us choose to take verses like that and to see them in a broader social context that looks at the structures of society that keep help from being given and want to restructure that society to be more fair and equitable in its distribution of wealth not only to the owners who provided the investment but who want to share some with those at the bottom of the scale who need a helping hand. It's that differentiation to whether the gospel is purely personal of whether it has a corporate level of responsibility that basically separates the sides who both claim to be acting in a Christian manner.

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

Read about the attack on Elizabeth Warren for her effective statement that led off this thread.
. Is there still any doubt who is behind the RW media pundits like Limbaugh, Politico and the Financial Times. It's big business who wants the gravy train to keep rolling their way.

[Gene Scarborough]

I think you are totally right, Keith!

Until we find a more equitable way of taxation, there is little hope for corporate survival.

[ET]

[Gene Scarborough]

ET---

It's more than obvious you never worked for those "generous" employers at WalMart!!!!!

Why can't you just admit that the "Capitalist Ideal" is seldom realized without the subjigation of employees to slave wages?

I stand by what Keith said in the beginning---and I hate the way taxes are being run in the last 20 "wonderful" years!!!!