Monday, January 3, 2011
To my friend Danny
I want to make a couple of statements in response to your comments in general. You throw around the word liberty, as if you or people who think like you only knows the meaning. Liberty is not something that is inanimate. It is living, breathing and an item that we have to be responsible to. The saying, " Of those that have much, much is expected," demonstrates to me part of what our liberties, in America, are. You sound offended that your money, be used for those amongst us that are not as fortunate. What price do you feel is best for our liberties? How about the 9% of our population that has served or is now serving in our armed forces, so you can have these liberties, is that price fair? How about the 1.2 million people that have died in the wars for our liberties is that a fair price? Not every war we have fought has been for the wrong reasons, but these people have paid a price for our liberties. Do you feel it is and was fair that only 9% served and the others did not, but yet they have the same freedom ad liberties as those who served. What would happen if when the time came and we were called we did not answer that call. You have the right to criticize decisions because other have been willing to give of themselves. Hide behind your indignation all you want. The bottom line is we should be willing to help those less fortunate. Do I believe in handing out everything with people not earning it? Absolutely not. To be continued.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think we simply just disagree. You could substitute my use of the word liberty for individuality if you wish. I do not believe in the collective. Our move towards the collective I believe to be what every failed nation has already attempted.
ReplyDeleteI believe that with individuality and personal "inseparable ownership" of property and ones choices we will provide not a perfect society but the best possible society.
I am not angry at the 1% because they are the most intelligent and hardest working individuals in our society. They are the reason I have a job and opportunity. I do get to share in the profits of my company. I have a great job and make good money because of the innovation and dedication of a few individuals with a drive and work ethic far superior to mine. I have opportunity not because of these individuals.
Are there unscrupulous ones... yes... and there always will be. As long as we keep all things private we have a chance for The Law to take care of fraud and dishonesty. However, when you rely on your government to be the charitable one... you can not fight dishonest with Law when they are the law makers.
In regards the the fighting force... that is a choice. Quite possible the most honorable choice. I have no problem paying taxes for fighting defense. (That is a clear obligation of our Federal Government)
I agree that to whom much has been given much is required. However, to require ones giving to others is to take away their choice with their earnings.This is a great personal motto to have but it is completely totalitarian to think that everyone must do as "we" wish with their money. As well I make the point that we would never force through taxation to give to any church organization, right? So instead what we get through Government charity is a politicized charity. It goes to AIG, the BANKS ect... or whomever squeaks the loudest.
You said I have a certain level of indignation... I think that the root of this indignation is on the other side of the political spectrum. It are those seeking more from their government whom feel they are treated unjust and are annoyed at the governments lack of action.
I would like to think that if you are blessed with a large amount of earnings that you would want to better the country or company that helped you to achieve that goal or dream. Of course all the major companies screamed for help when the economy crashed. We helped them with the bail out, so why if they are flourishing, can't they help us out? I mean you know just like all of america knows, when the financial crisis hit, and banks were starting to crash, the stock market, the housing market...the economy. The huge ripple effect took millions of jobs. Those CEO's had to make choices. They could of fired themselves, right??? I mean, why lay off thousands of people, when their Job and salary alone would of made up for some of the companies losses?? Nope, instead the same CEO's that put the companies at risk with their choices decided to let go of others to save themselves. Like you said Danny, they shouldn't have to be required to give their earnings, but if one person steps aside for the better of his/her company, thousands of jobs would be saved. You could use that excuse for so many of the top countries 1%. So much could be done if they were to give back with not having to have a tax break.
ReplyDelete#1 The housing market is what started the "financial crisis". The defaulting on mortgages that had been created, purchased, packaged and sold off again and again. I'm not saying that because you said anything wrong but mostly just so you can put together a time line and sequence of events.
ReplyDeleteNow I'm not being sarcastic but let me get this straight... your saying that "CEO's" should just go away when a company is in trouble?(I make 500K so ill take 50K and keep more of my companies jobs?) I think I understand what you saying but I just don't think there is any reality in it. Its a pure emotion response... We as the average citizen see these companies grow large and then start to crash and then all we understand is the "fear" coming through the TV, and the truth is we don't understand all of these issues. So, we just want to say
"well why don't those rich CEO's just step down"? Is the government supposed to restructure the entire company with pay rates ect??... (here is were I would list the examples of private enterprise that a government can NOT run efficiently) Are you saying that you would support the Federal Government making decisions for a private company...???
Now the good part... If your like me your probably thinking "Well, it was our money that bailed them out so yeah I do want them to be restructured and regulated. Let the president or a committee pick a new CEO".
I agree!!! But that's the problem. Even as you post your comment you glase over the fact that "we bailed them out". The Federal Government literally chose what companies to help and what ones to leave to the markets for liquidation.
Kinda like how Mac Donald's and other companies are given permission and exemption for parts of the current health care law. The pick and choose. That is not a free market...
Think about that Jess... we are sitting here talking about what to do with the companies that our government NEVER should have bailed out. Once again who is the villain? The CEO whom made bad decisions and was just about to be held accountable by the market...ie go out of business, or your government whom takes from your checks and then said "lets take care of AIG but leave Lehman Brothers to the dogs?
Pick your posion Jess. A free market where compies fail when bad descisions are made. A constantly changing enviroment of technology, and communication.
Or Central Economic Planning. The government subsidizing markets that don't exist yet spending money on products that people don't want or that cost an arm and a leg to produce, bailing out friends whlie increasing regulatiosn on enimies?
The individual CEO or worker is not the problem!