FI, you are guilty of wanting government to legislate a risk proof life and you seem unwilling to recognize that there are very negative unintended consequences to all this.
No. I'm saying that society and economics needs to be stable and balanced for human being to have families. If people want to personally take risks outside the basic risks of life, then they have options. What I'm saying is that society and economics should be as affected by these risk takers that unstablize things to a degree we saw in the Great Depression and recent recession. Neither of those were due to ordinary people minding their own business. But most all those folks saw their retirement portfolios get stomped.
Really? Really? You want government to enforce a rule that farmers patrol their crops to keep out rabbits?
If the net result is they can't guarantee a safe product, then yes. If they are going to provide produce for the public to eat then they need to find a way to assure it's safe. Is that not reasonable to you?
So adverse you are to any risk from food you are willing to basically destroy agriculture? This is a big difference between your mindset and the hopefull conservative mindset.
Such exaggeration. Not all produce has safety issues. The one's that do need to be monitored and kept out of markets. That is what the government does for us.
Why should consumers take the risk to health? Why should the producer collect money for dangerous products? I doubt you would eat a salad if two were placed in front of you and informed one has deadly bacteria. Take your chances and pick one. Good luck. But you are smart enough to go hungry, because we expect food placed in front of us to be safe, not Russian Roulette. If I'm wrong, explain.
I agree, modern meat production is flawed. So lets each of us as an individual figure out what is best for us. Some of us are going to reduce meat consumption (more vegetarian), some of us are going to spend more on our meat (organic or grass fed) and some of us are not going to worry about it. What do you want government to do? force everyone to buy organic or force everyone to go vegetarian?
In a perfect world where health was more important than money, yes. But we as Americans don't care about health. So that is a problem they have to deal with in life Not me, as I'm educated and mind my health. Of course all of us get to pay more for insurance premuiums because so many don't care about their health. So it's not like you and me are untouched by our better choices.
I'm not suggesting the government force anyone to eat anything. I'm saying the reason government exists in the modern era is to assure safety of the products we buy. That is best for the greater good. The balance in cost will have to be absorbed. Many junk food ingredients are subsidized by the government, and that makes crap cheaper to buy, thus "forcing" some to defer to worse options.
Again, you want government to legislate away all risks.
What kind of fun risk is buying a head of lettuce that makes you sick? That's not a willful risk. I take my risks because I choose them. I can't grow all my own food, I doubt you can either. So we and our families have to trust the system of food production. Or is it OK that a child gets violently ill and has to go to the ER? If so, explain why that's a fair risk for a child to endure.
The way you set it up is like a Battle Royale, via bad food.
And YES there are standards for commercial meat! Don't pretend no standards exist. Now if those standards should be kept, reduced, increased is up for debate.
I never said there were no standards. There needs to be more funding to assure quality. What is true is conservatives cutting funding to the FDA. Look for yourself:
Again, a very different mindset. I accept there are risks in life. I don't want to destroy quality of life in the misguided hope that risks will be eliminated. I am an adult, I understand risks can't be elimiated from this life. For each individual issue, there is a tipping point when our policy makers need to analyze if the status quo is better or changes need to be made. I very hesitant to demand alot of changes to industry because I am well aware of very negative and handicaping unintended consequences.
The risks I'm talking about are those taken by OTHERS for the sake of greed. I never said life is without risk. I'm saying we are ordinary citizens have an interest in reducing the risks and greed by those who have a civic trust. Investment banks need to be separate from commercial banks. Food production needs to follow practices that are safe and sustainable. There is always a solution to the shortcuts and greed that business looks for. If citizens want to life a healthy life, which is part of the liberty guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, then it is reasonable to demand government represent our interests.
Wow. That is so much more than crap.
What you are representing is what every Leftist desires and that is a government that controls your motions in life from cradle to grave.
I prefer freedom. Freedom to the largest extent possible with zero interference from any government entity. You desire freedom left in hands of federal bureacrats who decide how much freedom you're entitled to on his whim. And you're good with it as long as no other gets any more than you do.
Thats how they lived in the old Soviet Union, and I hear its making a comeback.
I do hope you find your panacea, just not here.
Any man can count the seeds in an apple.... .......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Why are you assuming that? I've been talking about the collection of wealthy taking such large amounts of money out of the whole of the US economy that it is resulting in more living in poverty and a shrinking middle class.
Where is the proof that some people are getting so rich it is making others poor? I think this is probably a misconception on your part.
Pretty easy to find. Here a study shows
"The richest 1% have seen their share of global wealth increase from 44% in 2009 to 48% in 2014," Oxfam says in a report Monday.
You are aware that money is a finite resource, yes? The government can, and does, print extra money to pay some bills, but that is risky. Even if they did the money isn't given away. The bottom line is that wealth makes it easy to get more wealth, and that comes at the ability for the rest to compete to get some of that. If the average person wants to play in ths stock market then they had better have very safe investments.
And here in a report on the number of children in poverty:
Better mortage rates would help the middle class have more money. A great deal of the payments only go towards interest, not the principle. Ordinary loans don't work that way. Banks make huge profits on mortgage loans.
Mortgage rates are pretty damn low these days. I think we need to look back in time when people used to make a much larger down payment. I think that is what is going to be best for the average american. Government forcing lower mortgage rates is only going to destroy more industry and economy since mortgage rates are pretty low already.
The rates are low, but the way the payments are managed means banks profit a great deal over your average 30 year loan. Plus, those who have had serious problems with credit after the recession have little chance of getting a lower rate, and they are the one's who could use the break. How is that fair? Oddly I think it places more risk on the bank because a higher payment means a higher degree of default.
I'm not talking about people like you and me. I'm talking about the whole of the ethics of our economic system. How that may affect you and me might be nothing, or might be a great deal. That is only relevant once we recognize problems and suggest solutions.
I get the impression that you have sloppy thinking on recognizing the problem. therefore you have sloppy sloutions. I don't think you have a handle on what the problem really is and what is really a true problem. I am not calling you a sloppy person but instead a victim of the current liberal maliaise and discontent that seems to be rather formless and rudderless and just kind of whiny.
How does your criticism of my thinking address my point of looking at the bigger picture versus a few independent examples that don't generalize? Talk about sloppy and evasive.
How is it balanced when there are more in poverty and the rich getting richer, and middle class wages stagnant? Explain.
Maybe it is not ballanced now? Maybe it is?
You're guessing? Look at the stats and numbers. Look at how manufacturing jobs are going overseas. That doesn't require too much brain power to realize what helped American create a middle class in the 40-50s is lost to a global market. What can replace it when the jobs are paying $8 and adults can't survive on that without a government handout? let's note the wealthy getting richer, so the money is in the system, just not available to the people whose life circumstances limit them to minimum wage jobs.
Maybe we are comparing things to a very short time in history the 1950's and 60's? The rich are getting richer because this is a time of great innovation, never before paralleled in history. Great innovations bring great money. Henry Ford was just a farmer's kid and became in todays terms woudl be a billionaire. There are alot more Henry Fords than before. Hence the rise in that class.
A lot of the innovation is making money on money, not innovation that is consumer based. Quite a few got very rich on the credit default swaps, but it ruined the global economy. Of course that was built on bad mortgages. This has been my point: the ethics of greed and how the rush to make quick money eventually hurts people.
But these are issues to be managed, they can never be "solved".
So I take it you are willing to see a role for government to manage these tricky financial deals that create undo risks to society and the economy?
How do you know people are not investing in humanity? This is another of your myths.
Well we know some do help, but there is still a huge problem that can't be solved by charity. Why aren't people being helped instead of being harmed in our economic system?
The wealthier people I know who are paying the big bucks for very real needs (autistic children) are by default ALSO investing in humanity. Because they are spending their money in educational programs where there is room for alot of innovation. The best educational techniques are going to enter mainstream education of autism. Without their ability and willingness to spend the money these more expensive programs would never be tried and therefore forever unavailable to other families.
Again, the folks you happen to know who happen to be good (BTW, if socioty was so healthy why are they helping those in need?) doesn't generalize to all wealthy people. It's great to see examples of the wealthy giving their wealth away to help people. My questions on the thread is about the general ethics of the USA and our defense of greed, vilification of the poor, and indifference to real changes to help all people.
I argue that many conservatives have a very low set of ethics about the society as a whole, and some more extreme members have a destructive view, i.e. the Tea Party folks who have ideals that are highly irrational and unrealistic.
Yet our middle class isn't doing well, it's shrinking. Life is getting more expensive and wages have been stagnant for some time. The wealthy get wealthy because there is money in the system to get. A great deal of my concern is the financial markets and how the ability to manipulate businesses with money. Look at Mitt Romney's deals that were exposed when he ran for president. Companies would be bought and then sacked for assets and the employees laid off. I think some sort of regulations on those sorts of transactions whose only aim is to exploit assets to liquidate and then pocket, while the middle class gets screwed, is an imbalance. We have anti-trust laws, and those do help the average consumer.
Again, a cycle.
It is a cylce that is damaging, and that we can help adjust to make society and the economy more stable. I'm asking why there is a resistance to this and why ethics by conservatives more sympathetic to the wealthy than the poor and middle class.
No one has answered except to say the wealthy can get away with it. Right, because the rules are in their favor, not because they are working 12 hours a day while the rest of us work 8.
Companies are going to go in and out of business all the time. They do need to stay profitable. If you can't figure out how to keep it profitable, then you probably need to liquidate. somebody needs to turn what they can into assets, don't you see that?
I do see that. I haven't said anything against this, have I? I'm talking about a company making huge profits while refusing to pay a decent wage. As I've noted, the Costco model versus the Walmart model. Cooperative versus exploitive. Ethics is what I'm asking about. Don't YOU see that?
In your mindset you have this idea that they are enjoying laying people off and just like to destroy ompanies. The fact is you have companies that for wahtever reason are not going to be profitable. What do you do? Ride it into dust or try and use what you can?
None of this fairly represents what I've said. Why exaggerate? Could it be that you recognize I have a point that a corporation able to make huge profits (due to a society) has some ethical obligation to pay their employees a decent wage? Sure, they can legally exploit a workforce that need whatever bad jobs are available. I'm asking about the ethics of that. Should we expect more from hugely profitable businesses towards their employees?