2004 Democratic Primary

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

or is it because they can be employed at sub-standard wages?

What "standard" are you using?  Certainly not their standard, for they're very grateful for the opportunity to work.  

What we now call "poor" would have been called "rich" just a few generations ago in America; and it is still considered "rich" by a large majority of the world TODAY.

[opebo]

Bingo. The only way to add more value to the company then the 3rd-world workers offer is to be willing to work for very low wages, often below the U.S. minimum wage even. That's not fair to expect people to take a huge cut in their standard of living just to be able to maintain their jobs.

The reason that we are such a great nation is because of the great wealth of the poor and middle class relative to other countries, not the great wealth of the rich.

It's unpatriotic for corporations to move their factories overseas and show no loyalty whatsoever to American workers. How can they expect any loyalty from us as US consumers if they show us no loyalty in return?

Its called a Market.  If you're selling something for $20 an hour I can get for $1 an hour somewhere else, I'd be an ass to pay your inflated rate.  You'ld be quite literally ripping me off.

And consumers will always buy the cheapest product they can of equivalent quality, whoever was employed making it.  

Neither companies nor individuals live by your Mercantilist philosophy.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well, yes, I admit I'm guilty of not being willing to take the risk of working for $1/hour.

I explicitly referred to the risk of starting your own business instead of waiting for someone to offer you a job.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Its called a Market.  If you're selling something for $20 an hour I can get for $1 an hour somewhere else, I'd be an ass to pay your inflated rate.  You'ld be quite literally ripping me off.

And consumers will always buy the cheapest product they can of equivalent quality, whoever was employed making it.  

Neither companies nor individuals live by your Mercantilist philosophy.

Correct.  Only a fool pays more than neccessary.  These liberals believe they should have the right to demand a higher price than the going rate.

[Nym90]

Its called a Market.  If you're selling something for $20 an hour I can get for $1 an hour somewhere else, I'd be an ass to pay your inflated rate.  You'ld be quite literally ripping me off.

And consumers will always buy the cheapest product they can of equivalent quality, whoever was employed making it.  

Neither companies nor individuals live by your Mercantilist philosophy.

Correct.  Only a fool pays more than neccessary.  These liberals believe they should have the right to demand a higher price than the going rate.

No, because it is not foolish to be willing to pay more to support a cause that you believe in. I would be willing to pay slightly more for an American made product than for a foreign made product, even if they were of the same quality, because I want to support American workers.

Not everything should revolve around the almighty dollar. There are moral principles involved in how you spend your money, too. I don't think that it's too much to ask the corporations to have some morals as well.

You are right that the poor have a much higher standard of living in this country than in others, and higher than we had in the past. That is what makes America a great nation, the relatively high standard of living that everyone, even those on the bottom, have. We shouldn't be expected to have to sacrifice that so that the corporations can make a few more dollars.

[Gustaf]

Its called a Market.  If you're selling something for $20 an hour I can get for $1 an hour somewhere else, I'd be an ass to pay your inflated rate.  You'ld be quite literally ripping me off.

And consumers will always buy the cheapest product they can of equivalent quality, whoever was employed making it.  

Neither companies nor individuals live by your Mercantilist philosophy.

Correct.  Only a fool pays more than neccessary.  These liberals believe they should have the right to demand a higher price than the going rate.

That depends on your definition. Most people value other than things than just money, and then it can be perfectly reasonable to pay more. This is one of the benefits of capitalism that a lot of people fail to see.

[opebo]

All you are doing is expressing economic *theory*, opinions and
ideology. Economic theory is just that: *theory*.

How about dealing with the facts: HIGH unemployment and HIGH deficits.
The theories and opinions you are expressing are meaningless unless
you look at the facts. Record job losses and record deficits. Bush
has had a Republican House for the last three years, so you can't blame
the realities on the Democrats.

Compare the Clinton years of more jobs and a balanced budget.

Unemployment is not very high at all - only 5.7%.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All I am asking is that the Republicans do what I do. I pay my debts. The Republicans should be paying off the debt, not increasing it.

No, you're asking for something, success, for which you are unwilling to pay the price.

And FYI, I am a Republican and I pay more taxes than the vast majority of Democrats.  The national debt transcends parties, it is owed by all of us, but it will be paid by the most productive of society.

You also act like you have no clue of history.  During WWII this country ran deficits equal to 30% of GDP, dwarfing the 4-5% we're now running by fighting the War on Terror and trying to stimulate the economy.

Yes, I will pay my taxes.  I always have.  And along with paying taxes, I will continue to search out opportunities while constantly retooling my skills.  I work 60-70 hours a week on the job and another 10 hours a week improving my skills through self study.  

I don't wait around hoping for a change in administrations, I work for my living.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"Whoever watches the wind will not plant; whoever looks at the clouds will not reap." (Ecc 11:4)

Mark 8:36   "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?

I don't see your point for the passages are not in conflict with each other.  But the bible does have a lot to say about whiners and those that are unwilling to work day and night to provide for themselves.

[opebo]

All I am asking is that the Republicans do what I do. I pay my debts. The Republicans should be paying off the debt, not increasing it.

No, you're asking for something, success, for which you are unwilling to pay the price.

And FYI, I am a Republican and I pay more taxes than the vast majority of Democrats.  The national debt transcends parties, it is owed by all of us, but it will be paid by the most productive of society.

You also act like you have no clue of history.  During WWII this country ran deficits equal to 30% of GDP, dwarfing the 4-5% we're now running by fighting the War on Terror and trying to stimulate the economy.

Yes, I will pay my taxes.  I always have.  And along with paying taxes, I will continue to search out opportunities while constantly retooling my skills.  I work 60-70 hours a week on the job and another 10 hours a week improving my skills through self study.  

I don't wait around hoping for a change in administrations, I work for my living.

One thing's for sure, if any taxpayers ever 'pay off' these deficits the Dems are so worried about, they'll be the so-called rich along with the uppermost upper-middle-class.  High earners pay the great majority of the taxes.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

No, because it is not foolish to be willing to pay more to support a cause that you believe in. I would be willing to pay slightly more for an American made product than for a foreign made product, even if they were of the same quality, because I want to support American workers.

Not everything should revolve around the almighty dollar. There are moral principles involved in how you spend your money, too. I don't think that it's too much to ask the corporations to have some morals as well.

You show favoritism by paying more for American products yet you invoke morality?  Don't you know that the bible explicitly forbids favoritism?

Also, tell me how it is immoral for a company to outsource work to areas where people are willing to do the same work at lower wages?  What gives you the right to control the way a company spends its own money?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The point is obvious.

No, I don't believe it is and I would like you to explain your understanding of the verses that you quoted.

Are you under the impression that:

1) that all those who pour themselves into their careers only do so for the "love of money"?
2) that God does not wish for his people to prosper?
3) that a man can not be rich in wealth and please God?

[Gustaf]

No, because it is not foolish to be willing to pay more to support a cause that you believe in. I would be willing to pay slightly more for an American made product than for a foreign made product, even if they were of the same quality, because I want to support American workers.

Not everything should revolve around the almighty dollar. There are moral principles involved in how you spend your money, too. I don't think that it's too much to ask the corporations to have some morals as well.

You show favoritism by paying more for American products yet you invoke morality?  Don't you know that the bible explicitly forbids favoritism?

Also, tell me how it is immoral for a company to outsource work to areas where people are willing to do the same work at lower wages?  What gives you the right to control the way a company spends its own money?

Favoritism? Do you mean that it would somehow be immoral to buy a product that is not the cheapest possible?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"The point is that those who are well off should be willing to help those who are not. That is the morality of the Bible. It is very clear on that. "

No, I don't think rich people are 'evil'. I just am saying that I believe in a progressive tax.

First, the idea of a progressive tax does NOT come from the bible, rather it is contrary to scripture.  The bible's tax is a flat tax so that everyone gives back the same percentage according to how they have prospered.

Second, unless you are hungry or naked or don't have a roof over your head, the bible does ask NOT anyone to provide for you, unless you are truly helpless.  Also, the bible's commands are at the individual and church level - the bible never attempts to impose its code at a national secular level.

Also, the Good Samaritan helped someone who truly could not help himself and even then only provided for one night of the most basic of needs.  This temporary help is also verified by:  “if anyone gives EVEN a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward." (Mat 10:42)

There is no biblical requirement for me to pay higher taxes to keep you, during hard economic times, from having to scale down from a three-bedroom-house to an efficiency apartment.  And if you think you have the right to expect that kind of help, then you are the one idolizing your possessions.

[Nym90]

I think that you are getting Macfarlane and I confused. I never mentioned the Bible. While I am a Christian I do not take every word of the Bible as literal truth, because it was written by men and not by God himself and thus I think that the men who wrote it probably made a lot of mistakes in their interpretation of what God was trying to tell them. But if you wish to discuss that further we should start a new thread.

If you buy a product because it is cheaper, you are showing a favortism towards cheaper products. Why is that any better than showing favoritism towards American products, or towards any other cause? My point is that there are other values besides money that can be taken into account when deciding what to purchase. Many people show brand loyalty because they have had good luck with a particular brand in the past. Or they choose to shop at a store with higher prices because they get better service and the people are friendlier there. Whichever value you choose to emphasize is favoritism for that particular value.

Personally I feel that corporations have an obligation to the less fortunate to show loyalty and not move overseas. All of us have this obligation to society to help the less fortunate, I believe. I do not think that they should be forced to remain here, but there should be government policy to provide incentives to keep them here. I feel that government has an obligation in this case to do the right thing because having corporations stay in this country rather than fleeing overseas is in the best interests of America.

I agree that workers need to improve themselves to stay competitive, but why do only the workers have a responsibility to improve themselves? Shouldn't the corporations also have a responsibility to the workers and to their country to provide them with a high enough wage to keep up the standard of living that they have that helps to keep America strong and vital? Corporations and workers are both dependent on each other for livlihood--it shouldn't be a one way street.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Favoritism? Do you mean that it would somehow be immoral to buy a product that is not the cheapest possible?

No, but it is certainly wrong trying to invoke morality while championing favortism, like Nym90 did.  

After I have given back to God and provided for my family, the bible gives me free reign to do whatever I want with my money.  I can be cheap and only buy the least expensive goods, or I can run the corner convience store every time I need a loaf of bread and pay top dollar.  Morality doesn't play a role is such things.

[Nym90]

Also, regarding a flat tax, what is truly "flat"? Is it all income, or just disposable income? The differences in income between the rich and poor are much greater when you take away necessary expenses such as food, shelter, and clothing. So a flat tax on all income would actually be a regressive tax on disposable income.

[Nym90]

I never said that my moral choices were better than anyone else's, I was merely pointing out that it isn't foolish to buy a product that isn't the cheapest. There are other moral values that one can consider in spending one's money, not just the pursuit of the cheapest products. You were the one who said that it was foolish to buy a product that wasn't the cheapest, and I was trying to point out that there are other values that one can invoke in making that decision.

[Gustaf]

Favoritism? Do you mean that it would somehow be immoral to buy a product that is not the cheapest possible?

No, but it is certainly wrong trying to invoke morality while championing favortism, like Nym90 did.  

After I have given back to God and provided for my family, the bible gives me free reign to do whatever I want with my money.  I can be cheap and only buy the least expensive goods, or I can run the corner convience store every time I need a loaf of bread and pay top dollar.  Morality doesn't play a role is such things.

Well, but if you would not want to buy genetically modified food, for example, and bought a more expensive type that wasn't. Would that be immoral favoritism?

[© tweed]

<<After I have given back to God and provided for my family, the bible gives me free reign to do whatever I want with my money.>>

How do you financially give back to god?

[Gustaf]

<<After I have given back to God and provided for my family, the bible gives me free reign to do whatever I want with my money.>>

How do you financially give back to god?

Lol...you burn the bills on an altar, didn't you know?

[© tweed]

<<After I have given back to God and provided for my family, the bible gives me free reign to do whatever I want with my money.>>

How do you financially give back to god?

Lol...you burn the bills on an altar, didn't you know?

That's about the size of it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Also, regarding a flat tax, what is truly "flat"? Is it all income, or just disposable income? The differences in income between the rich and poor are much greater when you take away necessary expenses such as food, shelter, and clothing. So a flat tax on all income would actually be a regressive tax on disposable income.

From a biblical perspective, the tithe was on everything.  If they raised a pumpkin crop of ten pumpkins, then one pumpkin (the highest quality one of the crop) would be given back to God.  

And the tithe was always the first 10% of the crop, not the last, meaning that God didn't accept leftovers, he wanted your best.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well, but if you would not want to buy genetically modified food, for example, and bought a more expensive type that wasn't. Would that be immoral favoritism?

You're taking it out of context.  The favoritsim the bible forbids is towards people, not products.  Meaning it would be a sin for me to give a job to a white person simply because he is white.  

Likewise, if I found a two starving people, one American and one foreigner, it would be a sin for me to show favoritism towards the American while ignoring the foreigner.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

<<After I have given back to God and provided for my family, the bible gives me free reign to do whatever I want with my money.>>

How do you financially give back to god?

Lol...you burn the bills on an altar, didn't you know?

That's about the size of it.

I find it strange that you two mock the fact that churches need money to keep the lights on.  Everything takes money.  Church is no different.