How do a person's political views relate to self sufficiency?

[farmerlor]

You should watch Fox. It is very enlightening.

When a single entity holds 60% of a company they have some say so in how it is run. Beside this is really old news and what does the constitution have to do with it?

Yep....that was expected.

Are you saying the constitution has NOTHING to do with it?


So, based on your post, you think the government SHOULD have some say in how it is run.....meaning control it. hmmmm...


Here's a number for you: "The bottom 50% pay 3% of all tax collected"

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/me...96_09__of_income_taxes.Par.0008.ImageFile.jpg



So....don't know where you are getting your numbers.....

I'd be interested in knowing how those figures were calculated. I know the tax laws STATE that this is how it should work but since we all know that the very wealthy have themselves some loopholes, tax shelters and little off-shore hidey holes do they actually PAY what the tax laws say they should be paying?

 

[Big Daddy]

Scott, I just noticed you got those figures from Rushlimbaugh. com. That's like me posting something from Randy Rhodes and expecting anyone on the right to take it seriously.

Like Farmerlor pointed out.There is probably a significant amount of money that is not even reported. Either way they should be paying more. I hope this administration finds some of those hidey holes.

 

[bibliophile birds]

the problem i have is that CEOs of companies apparently don't believe that they are A PART of their company. they are more than happy to share in the wealth, but they refuse to share in the losses. we've seen companies who are laying off thousands of people and still sending their execs on exotic vacations. and CEOs who show up for their bailouts in private jets... that doesn't make sense. of course the government should step in. the government should be more concerned with it's citizens than the interests of big corporations.

if a business like GM or Chevrolet isn't smart enough to realize they are in a bad economy and should stop producing completely pointless giant SUVs that no one can afford to fuel anymore, then they should be told how to run their business. we all know that being self sufficient means constantly reevaluating what we are doing to find more effective, sustainable ways of doing it. if we don't, we're going to go bust. that may be fine for our personal businesses, but when a company like GM goes bust because of negligence, that leaves thousands of people without jobs, in which case the government is going to have to pick up the tab.

if someone doesn't like the idea of people being on welfare, why don't they support government intervention that helps stop that from happening? keeping people employed so that they are more likely to be able to be self sufficient seems like a great thing to me.

 

[bibliophile birds]

BTW: Is anybody else tired of this "self sufficiency" label? I know a forum needs a name, but I feel it hinders the conversation sometimes.

my research focus in Anthropology is Socially Sustainable Development, which means finding ways to help people develop business opportunities that also preserves their cultural, religious, and environmental lives.

local Farmers Coops are great examples of this. you build a viable local economy around something that directly benefits those involved as well as preserves the rapidly disappearing local food/farming cultures. most of our work is heavily political, which i'm sure has some influence on my view of politics being directly related to the success of self sufficiency. there are legal regulations that try to prevent people from actually achieving that goal.

a good friend and colleague of mine did a lot of work in South America with local peoples who traditionally ate sea turtle eggs. of course, sea turtles are very endangered, so the local people were banned from collecting the eggs to eat. a group of Anthropologists and Scientists went down to study the issue. what they found was that sea turtles lay their eggs in 2 waves. after the first wave, almost all those eggs are destroyed by animals. very very few actually make it to maturity. the second wave has a much higher survival rate because most of the predators have moved on.

what they came up with was a system that would not only help improve the number of sea turtle eggs that hatched, but would give the local communities their indigenous culture back AND a business opportunity. the locals are hired to stake out the beaches on turtle watch. as soon as nests are laid, they collect them. a percentage goes to researchers who hatch the eggs in labs and return the turtles to the ocean, while the rest are given to the locals. they get a little money from the researchers and they get the eggs to eat, eggs that would have otherwise been destroyed anyway. when the second wave comes in, those same locals go out and protect the nests from predators. they are now seeing great improvements in the number of sea turtles each year. these people are extremely interested in maintaining healthy sea turtle numbers because they are such an important source of protein. and now a great source of income. they're even doing ecotourism now for foreigners who want to come help collect eggs!

that is what sustainability is all about.

 

[ScottSD]

I thought you were done? Couldn't stay away?
It is an enticing subject isn't it?

Scott, I just noticed you got those figures from Rushlimbaugh. com. That's like me posting something from Randy Rhodes and expecting anyone on the right to take it seriously.

Yet another person you should listen to so you can be enlightened.

You do realize that the numbers came from the IRS......you have a problem with them?

Like Farmerlor pointed out.There is probably a significant amount of money that is not even reported. Either way they should be paying more. I hope this administration finds some of those hidey holes.

This is fun.

You keep bringing up things based only on opinion.

No sources.

No facts to back up what you are saying.

Just language like "probably" and such.

Why should the wealthy be paying more than their share?

And.....please tell me what you meant when you asked what the constitution had to do with it?

you seem to be determined to get this thread shut down.

huh?

Why would I want that? Having too much fun. As long as things are kept civil and respectable, why would it get shut down? I even wished you a joyous Christmas season....

It just appeared that when you said :

what does the constitution have to do with it?

That was a typical thing a progressive such as yourself would say......so I said it was expected.

 

[Big Daddy]

I thought you were done? Couldn't stay away?
It is an enticing subject isn't it?

Scott, I just noticed you got those figures from Rushlimbaugh. com. That's like me posting something from Randy Rhodes and expecting anyone on the right to take it seriously.

Yet another person you should listen to so you can be enlightened.

You do realize that the numbers came from the IRS......you have a problem with them?

Like Farmerlor pointed out.There is probably a significant amount of money that is not even reported. Either way they should be paying more. I hope this administration finds some of those hidey holes.

This is fun.

You keep bringing up things based only on opinion.

No sources.

No facts to back up what you are saying.

Just language like "probably" and such.

Why should the wealthy be paying more than their share?

And.....please tell me what you meant when you asked what the constitution had to do with it?

you seem to be determined to get this thread shut down.

huh?

Why would I want that? Having too much fun. As long as things are kept civil and respectable, why would it get shut down? I even wished you a joyous Christmas season....

It just appeared that when you said :

what does the constitution have to do with it?

That was a typical thing a progressive such as yourself would say......so I said it was expected.

Scott, all your doing is trolling. You haven't answered any questions yet.

What does the US government suggesting that an inefficient CEO be replaced in a company that they just gave 60% of what the company is worth have to do with the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it say that the feds can't loan a company money and suggest the CEO step down?

If the numbers came from the IRS then post the IRS figures.

Based on these figures you provided the upper 5% that get 95% of the wealth distributed in a year only pay 53% . That would indicate they pay much less than their share.

If you were a progressive you would have been gone by now with your innuendos and sarcasm. Or at least if you were me.

 

[QueenRed]

Huh???

What I mean by that is that Capitalism looks more into the industry type life. You're supposed to be using the newest and most advanced technology that you can buy. It's all about the consumer/business relationship. It's not that there are not people in a capitalist society that are not self sufficient, but it's not as encouraged.

Are you saying you can't use advanced technology and be self sufficient?

I guess I better get rid of the computer I'm typing on right now......

Are you saying that non-capitalists don't have a consumer/business relationship?

I wonder...how do non-capitalists get access to the internet......

Just having some fun with you.

No, that's not what I am saying. I'm saying the elements of society are more likely to be bigger in some instances (such as self sufficiency or dependency on electronics/grocery stores) dependent on the governmental entity in power.

It's like what was said about communist nations. Their people are more likely to be self sufficient because if they aren't they may starve. In a capitalistic society you are more likely to be dependent on electronics and the grocery store (or what have you). The reason being is that in a capitalist society you have more of an option to be that way than in a communist one.

That's all I was saying. Being self sufficient can be more prevalent in a society for economical reasons, societal reasons, or even a moral code in a country/community.

 

[enjoy the ride]

the problem i have is that CEOs of companies apparently don't believe that they are A PART of their company. they are more than happy to share in the wealth, but they refuse to share in the losses. we've seen companies who are laying off thousands of people and still sending their execs on exotic vacations. and CEOs who show up for their bailouts in private jets... that doesn't make sense. of course the government should step in. the government should be more concerned with it's citizens than the interests of big corporations.

if a business like GM or Chevrolet isn't smart enough to realize they are in a bad economy and should stop producing completely pointless giant SUVs that no one can afford to fuel anymore, then they should be told how to run their business. we all know that being self sufficient means constantly reevaluating what we are doing to find more effective, sustainable ways of doing it. if we don't, we're going to go bust. that may be fine for our personal businesses, but when a company like GM goes bust because of negligence, that leaves thousands of people without jobs, in which case the government is going to have to pick up the tab.

if someone doesn't like the idea of people being on welfare, why don't they support government intervention that helps stop that from happening? keeping people employed so that they are more likely to be able to be self sufficient seems like a great thing to me.

Oh I so agree with this- there is an unsustainable expectation that the corporate leadship has. Every year they want more- how can they think well of themselves unless it is more. So each year they take more and more- fine as long as the pots expanding but they can't let go when it's not.

BTW though the next post caused me to give pause because locally there is a dairy co-op that was a great deal for the farmers for years. Until suddenly 2 years ago, the CEO of the plant where the farmer's milk (the farmers owned the plant) disappeared with 2 million dollars, leaving a note on his desk not to believe any of the books the plant kept. Turned out he'd been cleverly cooking the books and taking money for years. The farmers lost money owed them and the plant went bankrupt and was sold to an outside producer. The farmers. feed stores, vets, etc all lost money as they didn't get paid what was due them and the whole small town was turned upside down with people being on one side or another. The errant CEO was a member of an ol family in that town.

My previous point in an earlier post was that people are corrupted by money and power- no matter who and no matter what system. The only safeguard that I can think might minimize this is a society where personal honesty is more valued than a person's position and wealth. Old fashioned- never totally worked but at least would slow dishonesty down.

 

[QueenRed]

Wow--really interesting points, everyone!!



___________________
QueenRed: I clearly understood you to say that SS is not AS encouraged in a capitalist society. Makes perfect sense to me. As per another thread, my spending less money is not helpful to our capitalist economy, although it works great for me
___________________



BTW: Is anybody else tired of this "self sufficiency" label? I know a forum needs a name, but I feel it hinders the conversation sometimes.

Thanks for understand what I was saying. Each form of government will have its own economic problems and way of doing things. Capitalism is more along the lines of "Hey you should buy this!" not "Hey, instead of buying that why don't you try to make it yourself?"

Some people weren't really getting that,

I agree about the label, but think of it as just a way of explaining what you believe people/you should do. It may hinder conversation, but if nothing else it's an explanatory term. I think the whole "green" thing is hindering conversation as well. I don't really like the whole green argument. Yes we should try to help the environment, but regulations are getting a bit ridiculous. The EPA is going to start regulating a lot of different things (CO2 in particular. Which is what we breath out) if Cap and trade doesn't pass.

I'm not going to buy into the whole "green" stuff. Environmentally friendly is perfectly ok though. I know that sounds confusing, but they are two different things.

 

[FarmerChick]

tax paying will never be fair.

all those NOT working --they sure aren't contributing

all those who NEVER want to work---they sure aren't paying

all those middle class with the big rebates back...how much did they contribute

all those higher class who pay taxes and what did they get back?


hmm....there are loopholes out there for everyone!!