OT Neighbor (rant)

Page 3 of 7  
Jim Elbrecht wrote:

IIRC, George Washington insisted for some time that the POTUS be addressed as "Excellency"....or was it Adams? George fought against strenuous opposition to have a "standing army"...many opposed that.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/4/2009 12:09 PM, snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net wrote:

He also was against the Party system, fearing that any political party would eventually become an entity that exists to perpetuate itself, rather than to benefit the People.
Looks like he was right, based on the Democrat and Republican parties.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:09:15 -0400, " snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net"
-snip-

I think you recall incorrectly. A recent Ellis bio is titled,"His Excellency, George Washington" [or something like that] - but he was known as "His Excellency" when he was the General of the Army.
When the title for presidency was first discussed, and Washington was president, Adams' suggestion was "His Highness, the president of the United States and Protector of the Rights of the same" - Washington chose 'President of the United States.' and further designated that Mr. President was title enough.
Jim
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/4/2009 11:31 AM, Jim Elbrecht wrote:

Thomas Jefferson said “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.” My general understanding of TJ is that, with a few exceptions, he believed that Government shouldn't be involved in micromanagement of its citizens and industries.
Of course, one's personal philosophy will color how such writings are interpreted.
Their grand experiment HAS stood the test of time, yes. But how much resemblance does it bear to the ideals they had in mind when the framed the Constitution? In my mind, its a cursory resemblance. Sure, better than most places in the world, but IMO, that's in spite of what we've done to our country since WWII.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Heh,WHAT "strong limits" did the -Founding Fathers- put on corporations?
In what document?
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Did you look?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dgk wrote:

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html
Corporations - and citizens - rely on voluntary contracts. But there must be SOME enforcement mechanism. The only businesses that have the wherewithal to enforce these contracts themselves are Mafia-related. To the extent these contracts need enforcement, governments were created. Therefore, governments exist to SERVE corporations (and business), not to suppress them.
In, I think, the late 1300's, when merchants began trading extensively, piracy sprang up. A group of merchants in England equipped some ships with weapons to deal with the pirates BUT they gave these ships to the crown! Thus begun the British Navy.
The only mention of business I can find in the Constitution are: The right of contract shall be enforced and monopolies are encouraged (patents and copyrights).
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Governments or every sort were around long before modern corporations came into existence, and corporations (or similar entities that conducted business and had legal rights) have been around since antiquity as well.
It's not a "which came first - the chicken or the egg?" thing. It's more like the two forms grew and overlapped and became concerned in each others' affairs.

Pirates have been around since people took to boats. I mean you are only off by a few thousand years, minimum, and stealing predates recorded history as does travel by boat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirates#Ancient_origins
I haven't bothered reading most of this thread, but I hope your 'facts' are more thoroughly researched. An opinion based on bad facts is almost always a bad opinion.
R
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I view government in this case more of a referee. They aren't there to serve either side, but just to make sure both sides play by the rules and to arbite the occassional dust-up.

--
The inevitable Godwinization of Usenet threads is a principle
as immutable as Newton\'s Third Law meaning that, for every action
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That should be tattooed on every politician's head, in reverse, so they'd read it when they got up each day and went into the bathroom.
R
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Exactly my point. A neat book on the subject is "Systems of Belief" in which the author contrasted the "Commercial" mindset vs. the "Guardian" mindset. The two operate way differently and we really have to beware applying the techniques of one to the provinces of the other.
For example, bonuses, commissions, and quotas do not work well in government (such as in traffic enforcement), or, more recently, the president's plan to implement a "wage czar" to regulate executive pay. Likewise, secrecy, deceit, and distrust don't work well in business.
Possibly the worst thing one can do is believe expertise in one arena translates to the other. That is, don't EVER vote for someone who touts his success in business as a qualifying factor for elective office.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Would be nice if we could get back that point. Unfortunately, in the US, the referee has taken too much power on himself, and has too much stake in who wins.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
As long as business supplies what customers want, there is no need for "enforcement mechanism". Go to a flea market sometime. You'll see a good example of suppliers providing what customers want. Works nicely.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stormin Mormon wrote:

What if the vendor doesn't have the proper apprenticeship, union membership, business license, bonding, or insurance or the customer has not obtained the proper plans, permits, inspections, or zoning approval?
We're all gonna die, that's what will happen.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

I believe at least PA has started collecting sales tax from swap meet vendors. Has cut back on the number of businesses setting up stands at car show/swap meets.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dgk wrote:

Private enterprise creates wealth; governments destroy wealth.
The commercial mindset depends upon voluntary contracts and eschews force. Unfortunately, governments must exist to compel compliance with these voluntary contracts - as such, governments are a cost of doing business (like giving away paper bags). The only private business that has the wherewithal to compel compliance is the Mafia.
As for corporations enriching themselves, they don't. They don't take the money and put it in a mattress or destroy it, they use it to create jobs and more wealth. It is governments that do the equivalent of burning money.
There is almost nothing that private enterprise can't do cheaper than a government. Military? Most wars have been fought by mercenaries or militias. If we need an army, we could hire one. Police? There are FAR more private security guards in my city than cops. Fire protection? 85% of America's fire fighters are volunteers. And what has any branch of government ever done regarding bubble-baths or bee-bites?
Even Walmart (according to one study funded by Walmart) has done more to improve the standard of living for lower and middle-class people than all the government programs combined (food stamps, AFDC, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.). "...Wal-Mart saved American consumers $236 billion in 2004, or $2,239 for the average American household..." http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/09/0309/furman.html
Heck, just today, a study was released showing the presence of a Walmart reduces obesity among its patrons! http://boards.ign.com/current_events_board/b5361/180289454/p1 /
No, as George Will once said: "Government should protect the borders and deliver the mail. When they prove competent at those tasks, we might trust them with something else."
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And I am a space alien from planet Zorgon!
Typing something in a usenet* forum does not automatically make it true.
EL
*Usenet, running over the Internet, which evolved from ARPANET, which was created at the request of, and funded by... the US government.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

That would be all cute and nice except for all of the pirates in the banking/investment sector who recently demonstrated what greed due to lack of regulation can do.

And it is ironic that most of the people who need to "save money at walmart" need to do so because walmart was a major player in the loss of their previous good jobs because they demanded lower and lower prices from their suppliers causing most to go off shore.

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/3/2009 12:05 PM, George wrote:

Of course, all those banks that were handing out mortgages to people who couldn't afford them were doing so because the Government told them to.

Again, follow the train a bit further... things are cheaper to produce overseas because the US government makes it more expensive to do business here.
Why do you think GM failed? GM's profit margin is so much smaller than the competitions because of government regulation. And that's before you even get into the price impact that unions have.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

demonstrate that they are willing to write loans for "disadvantaged groups" (minorities etc.) as much as for non-disadvantaged groups. They had two options to do this: write more high-risk loans to members of disadvantaged groups, or write fewer loans to members of non-disadvantaged groups. Because the first option was more profitable (short-term), that's what they chose, and now we've seen the results.

Honda, Nissan...) have factories and offices in the USA and therefore are subject to exactly the SAME regulations as the "domestic" makes. That is of course in addition to the vehicles they sell having to meet all the same regulatory standards such as safety, emissions, and MPG. So in that way, the playing field is completely level.
The unions, which HAVE had a crippling effect on the domestic auto industry, of course are not part of the government. It's not hard to see that if the industry had been more regulated by the government, the unions would not have gained as much power and the picture might be very different right now.
EL
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.