Taurus Firearm Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,559 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
While having a civil debate about the occupy movement with an occupier I had an epiphany of sorts. This lady was expressing that she and her group were mad at the evil rich 1% of course. But she said that they didn't by default support Obama either. A young 18 year old girl joined the conversation and said why aren't any companies looking out for the good of the community instead of profits? I informed her that no business was ever created without profit in mind. The reason some companies have been in business for decade is because they make profit. When a company stops making profit, they eventually cease to exist. So the other lady said her company looks out for people, giving rides, clothes, etc.

But then it dawned on me. She said they want to make things better. No company can take away your freedom and liberty. Only the evil corrupt government can. They should focus on fixing the government, not attacking businesses. Only the government is tasked with looking out for the good of the people. If we all focus on getting the greed out of Washington, things will eventually get better. But if the government attacks businesses and knocks them all down to be equal with everyone especially, guess who becomes the evil 1%? The dictatorship government required to make that happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,781 Posts
Just out of curiosity, has anyone in this little thought-fest ever heard of company towns? Prior to various laws preventing this phenomena, companies all too often actually provided homes, stores, and other features for their workers to use. In fact, they were required to use them. Returning virtually all of the pay back to the company.

Companies today have too much regulation, I agree, but be careful what you ask for, you may get it with relaxing the regulations. Remember Love Canal? The Super Site Clean-up Funds? Lead poisoning by paint? The lost is long, and lethal, when it comes to companies producing products that were dangerous, if not fatal, even when knowing that they were doing so. It wasn't so long ago that companies routinely dumped sewage, and chemical effluents into our rivers, untreated. The same with local municipalities. Shipping companies dumped bilges in inlets and rivers on the way to ports. Chemical companies developed pesticides, and defoliants, that were lethal to humans, and simply used them without warning. Thinking Agent Orange here.

If the purpose of government is "Only the government is tasked with looking out for the good of the people." Then what are they doing when they regulate such things, if not what is expected of them?

Our government is "corrupt" because we've let it become so. US. Those who whine and cry, yet never seem to vote, or who can't seem to even get their key-boards to send emails to their elected reps. This has been going on since the First Continental Congress. No matter what choice was made by representatives, there were always those who cried that they were corrupt, giving in to special interests, or simply "constitutionally" wrong. That's the price of making a decision. If it weren't then it wouldn't be making a decision, would it?

The Occupy people see the corporations as the source of a lot of this "corruption". They're correct in that. It's common wisdom that large corporations "buy" representation in all levels of government. They then can manipulate legislation to benefit them. Want an example? Look at the Banks. We GAVE them money when they, by their avaricious tactics, ran themselves broke. Where's that money today? We get it back? Any interest? Instead, they've twisted the laws to allow for usurious interest rates, added fees for basic services, and are still manipulating the housing markets. Often in blatantly illegal ways.

Add in that there are a lot of small to middle sized businesses that exist only to bilk the people. When caught, they declare bankruptcy, and return shortly with a new name and registration, and do it all over again.

This is a "chicken or egg" situation. Corruption is a way of doing business for today's companies in all too many cases. Government is the usual place where they do business. Which one started it? Which one should be first to go?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,559 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I agree with what your saying. I never said regulation was bad. When you look at the real intent of the regulation and who writes it, you can determine if there is any conflict of interest. The regulation of carbon emissions speaks for itself. How can you regulate carbon dioxide when every breathing animal expels it from their lungs?

You mention the banks. The first bailouts happened under a slightly progressive George Bush that had a progressive dominated Congress. They let Lehman Brothers tank but not Goldman and AIG. But why? Maybe because the current Treasury Secretary and former ones all were heads of Goldman at one time. They let Lehman tank because they were Goldman's competitor. The government decided who would win and who would fail. That's not their job. Their job is to make AND ENFORCE regulations to keep companies on the up and up. When a company plays by the rules, and still messes up by making bad decisions, and they can't survive, let them change course or fail. When any business is allowed to reap the consequences of their bad decisions, they will make less of them.

The feds changed the rules of bankruptcy for Chrysler and shafted the actual share holders, who according to bancrupcy law, should have been first in line to be paid. But Obama ignored the current laws, and gave them pennies on the dollar, yet saw to it that the union got payed first. Chrysler was in a position where they needed bankruptcy, yet the government changed the rules to pick the winner.

So chicken or egg? I say it doesn't matter since the government works for the people. The government has to be fixed before anything will change with businesses. The buck stops with the government. Their job IS NOT to pick winners and losers. Just to make sure everyone plays by the same rules that don't benefit one group over another.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,331 Posts
A thought on where occupiers should focus their energy
Er, work? There isn't much these idiots have to say that interests me. Every now and then you hear a salient point from them, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. This 'movement' is pure astroturf, and it's got Andy Stern, George Soros, and BO himself behind it. While I agree their goals (whatever they are this week) would better be met by going after government it isn't going to happen because the liberals in government are behind the movement. The sooner they shut up and go home the better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,559 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Er, work? There isn't much these idiots have to say that interests me. Every now and then you hear a salient point from them, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. This 'movement' is pure astroturf, and it's got Andy Stern, George Soros, and BO himself behind it. While I agree their goals (whatever they are this week) would better be met by going after government it isn't going to happen because the liberals in government are behind the movement. The sooner they shut up and go home the better.
I agree completely. I have been trying to tell people that claim they don't support the things the occupy founders support that they need to join a different group. If you don't understand where the movement started and by whom, yet you want to fix our country, join the tea party. No one to this day has been able to show me any video evidence of nefarious and illegal activity at any official tea party gathering. No riots, no drug use, no violence. But they want to identify with a movement that bass all those things and more. People try to say the tea party is extreme. But I can't seem to find any anarchists or professed communists that have ever been to a tea party event.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,331 Posts
I think it's completely hypocritical for them to rail against corporate greed, when what they're really protesting for is their own personal greed. Pay back my student loan, give me a high paying basket-weaving job, etc., etc., etc. If these little weasels hold corporations in such contempt, then maybe they should start their own business and show us how well this whole anti-profit scheme works out for them. At least that will keep them busy for the two weeks they're in business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,566 Posts
Regulations are now drafted in a manner that protects those corporations that are large and operate offshore.
What we need is politicians who will create an environment that will allow new business to grow and prosper in this nation, not politicians who hire unAmerican bureaucrats to run unAmerican agencies, or vote for treasonous agreements such as GATT, NAFTA, or go along with the WTO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,781 Posts
"Regulations are now drafted in a manner that protects those corporations that are large and operate offshore."

Specifics, please. That sounds more like an Occupy mantra than anything else.

"What we need is politicians who will create an environment that will allow new business to grow and prosper in this nation, not politicians who hire unAmerican bureaucrats to run unAmerican agencies, or vote for treasonous agreements such as GATT, NAFTA, or go along with the WTO."

How are these agreements treasonous? There are quite specific definitions for treason, and under what conditions they apply. A decision to do something that some people find unpalatable is NOT treasonous. It may well be morally wrong, again, to some, but laws are specific.

As far as hiring unAmerican bureaucrats to run unAmerican agencies, we're back to Occupy jingoism once again. Most of today's politicians were in diapers when the heads of Departments and Agencies started their jobs. They didn't start of heads of those departments, either.

What we need are VOTERS willing to pay attention to what goes on at the base levels of politics. By the time we get to Congress, or the President, the politician is set in their ways. The place for change is at the local level. There a few hundred people can sway an election, or re-election. Good people there should be encouraged to continue onward and upward, not tarred with the same brush used to vilify others. It would appear that some of us are incapable of differentiating between individuals, and consider everyone as a group.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top