Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
July 31, 2014, 07:17:39 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: 24/7 Ventrilo Voice chat -click for instructions and free software here
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Made in America  (Read 13130 times)
T Beek
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2776


Location: USA, N/W Wisconsin


« Reply #160 on: December 24, 2011, 08:19:14 AM »

boca; (and all on this thread) Have to Thank you Again, I had a chance to peruse the 'link' you sent above and am thrillled.  Although I have an old battered copy, the 'audio' feature on the link is a joy for my tired old eyes. 

Quite frankly, it s/b required reading/listening in every school/home in the Country/World.

thomas
Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."
bee-nuts
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1101


Location: Northwest Wisconsin


WWW
« Reply #161 on: December 24, 2011, 08:56:07 PM »

Quote
What a concept, tax those who benefit the most.

that would be....the poor.

  i'd go for your plan if we ended all welfare by feds, all unemployment payments by feds, all SSI and Medicare, payments to schools, and any other things that the states should be doing. 

if you are taxing the "rich" to pay for only the constitutional mandated jobs of the federal govt, i think they'd go for that and probably pay less than they do now.

I agree, return the power to the states to choose how to conduct welfare, how to handle unemployment, how to care for the retired, the elderly, and how to run their school systems.  And remember, if you think your state sucked, you could move.  There would always be a state that did a bad job, and states that did a great job, and other states would try to model their system by the ones who succeed. 

Logged

The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory

Thomas Jefferson
T Beek
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2776


Location: USA, N/W Wisconsin


« Reply #162 on: December 25, 2011, 05:50:56 AM »

Why even bother w/ a 'UNITED' States, heh?  Is that the message?  Further/deeper divisions will cure all of our problems? Undecided Undecided

States already have the power to 'self' determine their own welfare rates. 

Why are there so many living in California?  It ain't 'all' because of the weather.  Even the differences between Illinois and Wisconsin present a wide gap.

thomas
Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."
buzzbee
Ken
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5424


Location: North Central PA


WWW
« Reply #163 on: December 25, 2011, 06:30:20 AM »

The Bill of Rights was written into the Constitution to limit the powers of the Federal Government. Power was reserved to the States and the people.The only power the Fed was to have was that specifically granted to it.
Although I would not have agreed with the idea of slavery, Lincoln actively overstepped the powers granted to the Fed.The Fed has been on a constant take over ever since.
Slavery just happened to be an issue of states rights.
This is why it was one of the top ten:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
They wrote the Bill of Rights pretty plain and simple so as there would be no confusion over what these items meant,but boy have they been twisted.

  Seems activist judges and executive order Presidents have been busy for a long time. However all Ten of the Bill of Rights are still in the Constitution,not to be overwritten By Congress but still needing approval of a majority of State legislatures to be changed.Yes, State legislatures,not the fat cats in Washington that think the citizens work for them.
 Not teaching this stuff in school is the best way the feds have of taking over every activity in our day to day lives.
 I think the States need to use their collective powers to reel in the Fed.They are not doing justice to their citizens by allowing the Feds to run what they should be.
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 15032


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #164 on: December 25, 2011, 10:38:05 AM »

Quote
Why even bother w/ a 'UNITED' States, heh?  Is that the message?  Further/deeper divisions will cure all of our problems? 


there is an 's' on states for a reason.  it's not the United State of America.  we were intended to be divided. it's very instructional to read the founders letters, speeches, etc. to see why they did what they did.  i notice that many of you can pull the odd quote about banks or war, but how many of you really understand what they were talking about and why?

the larger the government, the greater the opportunity for oppression. and really, that's not theory, is it?  we see it here and now and we complain about it.....and we want the government to DO SOMETHING to fix what they have already done....and that always works so well, doesn't it?

do any of us feel we have control of our federal government?  probably not.  yet we demand that they do more, make more laws, take more control, and demand that they be given more money to do it all.  that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
bulldog
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 267


Location: Chenango County, NY


« Reply #165 on: December 25, 2011, 10:56:29 AM »

Quote
Why even bother w/ a 'UNITED' States, heh?  Is that the message?  Further/deeper divisions will cure all of our problems? 


there is an 's' on states for a reason.  it's not the United State of America.  we were intended to be divided. it's very instructional to read the founders letters, speeches, etc. to see why they did what they did.  i notice that many of you can pull the odd quote about banks or war, but how many of you really understand what they were talking about and why?

the larger the government, the greater the opportunity for oppression. and really, that's not theory, is it?  we see it here and now and we complain about it.....and we want the government to DO SOMETHING to fix what they have already done....and that always works so well, doesn't it?

do any of us feel we have control of our federal government?  probably not.  yet we demand that they do more, make more laws, take more control, and demand that they be given more money to do it all.  that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 applause
Logged

Confucius say "He who stand on toilet is high on pot"
SEEYA
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 274

Location: USA

Poke a meek dog enough times.........!


« Reply #166 on: December 25, 2011, 10:52:05 PM »

That is enlightening! I am going to sit down and do some serious thinking!
I pledge allegiance to the flag .. and to the REPUBLIC...
Am I a Michigander? Am I an American?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


To get way off topic: Would Lincoln be considered such a great president if he hadn't been assassinated?
                              Canada is located on the North American Continent - Does that make them Americans?
                              And if it does, that makes us USians, USers, ?


« Last Edit: December 26, 2011, 12:03:55 AM by ray » Logged

Live long and prosper!
T Beek
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2776


Location: USA, N/W Wisconsin


« Reply #167 on: December 26, 2011, 10:27:58 AM »

Some always get hung up on that 'general welfare' part Wink

thomas
Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 15032


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #168 on: December 26, 2011, 12:53:30 PM »

Quote
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

good start.  keep reading.

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
 -Thomas Jefferson

“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
 -Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 15:332

James Madison in a letter to James Robertson:
 “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
 -James Madison
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
SEEYA
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 274

Location: USA

Poke a meek dog enough times.........!


« Reply #169 on: December 26, 2011, 04:46:54 PM »

From another great document:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Not trying to make a point! I just really like this paragraph!

Logged

Live long and prosper!
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 15032


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #170 on: December 26, 2011, 05:11:23 PM »

Quote
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

and it is a good one.  unfortunately, people often confuse secure with provide.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
T Beek
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2776


Location: USA, N/W Wisconsin


« Reply #171 on: December 27, 2011, 06:05:17 AM »

As w/ beauty and beholders, much can be missed in the interpretations of words spoken/written many years ago and that will likely continue for at least another 230 years.  

Whenever the founders words are used 'today' to stress a point, I'm always concerned over 'what was left out' since those guys were such a very wordy bunch and often contradicted themselves (especially in the eyes of the beholders Wink and each other while forming their opinions.  Jefferson's writting is a good example of a man willing to challenge his thoughts, especially if began at his earliest known words and continuing to his death.  Fascinating stuff.

It is especially helpful if the 'most recent' opinions (and their content) are viewed along with any particular 'selected' sentence or paragraph (and complete content), as leaving out the 'whole' can usually miss the proper/intended content and that only serves to garner support for a particular argument.  

Americas founders were a complex group by any/all definition.  It is unfortunate when we try to pigeon hole their thoughts and opinions to serve our own beliefs, while leaving out the parts that don't.  History is full of these contradictions and challenges.  It is our 'responsibility' as free people (?) to tell the full story as often as the opportunity presents itself.  

This may not be the place Undecided

"were great pecuniary (moneyed) interests at stake acknowledgement of gravitation would even now be met with opposition."
   -Lord Macauley

thomas
« Last Edit: December 27, 2011, 06:41:53 AM by T Beek » Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."
SEEYA
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 274

Location: USA

Poke a meek dog enough times.........!


« Reply #172 on: December 27, 2011, 09:21:47 AM »

>>They wrote the Bill of Rights pretty plain and simple so as there would be no confusion over what these items meant,but boy have >>they been twisted.

>>Americas founders were a complex group by any/all definition.  It is unfortunate when we try to pigeon hole their thoughts and  >>opinions to serve our own beliefs, while leaving out the parts that don't

Example(?): The 'separation of church and state' issue. Why isn't / wasn't the first amendment enough?

>>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of >>speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We research the writings of our Founding Fathers, and hurl quotes at one another, for what purpose? Many believed in freedom and kept slaves. Many were 'landed gentry' who believed the common man wasn't educated enough to make important decisions. (Was their love of a weak government self-serving?) An 18th century dictionary and quotes from the individual states constitutions, should be adequate. 
( I LOVE THIS COUNTRY - AS MUCH AS YOU DO ! let's not go there)

Lawyers have been enriched (and our tax money spent) challenging and defending the current definition of our RIGHTS.

There are times when I think that; Our Great Nation has become an Oligarchy, ruled by the American Bar Association.

Logged

Live long and prosper!
T Beek
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2776


Location: USA, N/W Wisconsin


« Reply #173 on: December 27, 2011, 12:03:25 PM »

IMO; In our current state, we more reflect a plutocracy than any other that I can see and heading further in that direction all the time.

thomas
Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."
Scadsobees
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3198


Location: Jenison, MI

Best use of smileys in a post award.


« Reply #174 on: December 27, 2011, 01:12:26 PM »


So....little ol me has somehow denied poor Indians huh.....what exactly rolleyes.  You seem to know little about 'this' topic and from the words typed I think you are very confused about poverty.  Are you injecting my stated desire to speak w/ 'Americans' about American made products, who speak like me?  Is that what's going on?  More nitpicking rolleyes  
Anything to twist the message, right?
[\quote]
It is more in reference to your other comments about ONE...world union?  You may call it nitpicking, you say one thing one place, and then a different message a different place.  If we're one world, one union, why does language/location matter?

Quote
How many millionaires do you 'actually' know kathyp, sorry I meant Scads (hard to keep track sometimes Wink?  No, its NOT a competition, although I've known a few too, even have some 'private' numbers.  Big deal, I still prefer to spend time w/ poor folks.  Your answer will hopefully explain some things.

(scads doesn't read my posts either, see 'his' comments re; CEO's above rolleyes)  duh?  Really scads?  Name ONE scads.
I don't know if I know many millionaires, I rub shoulders with quite a few I suspect are but I don't know what their financial situation is and I don't really care.  They don't wear it as a status, and it isn't my business to find out.  But they if are, I know that they did earn it.

As to the CEO's... there are thousands of ceos running thousands of businesses, big and small.  Name a couple? Dave Ramsey was a millionaire (I don't know about CEO) who made bad decisions and lost it all and spent time in poverty.  He's since built it back up. Bernie Madoff is a very smart man who could have done great honestly, but made some wretched decisions and now is contemplating his cell walls, although I'm not sure if that qualifies since his family still has some of the money.

I've read the Reader's Digest enough when younger to know there were plenty of fall-from-grace to redemption stories of successful people who've lost it all to various bad decisions/addictions. 
The smaller company CEOs who fall aren't the ones making headlines, so aren't going to be very well known.   And they're all human so have the same addictions and failings as any other person.   No, I don't know ex-ceo's who've lived in poverty personally , but I'm sure it has happened more than once.

To connect poverty with CEO's would be like connecting obesity to the NBA just because there aren't any overweight athletes playing.  Although I'm sure that I probably could make a convincing (even if false) case that they do promote obesity.
Logged

Rick
Scadsobees
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3198


Location: Jenison, MI

Best use of smileys in a post award.


« Reply #175 on: December 27, 2011, 03:43:33 PM »

Here's a little known secret;  We don't 'really' have a war on poverty, never did


Thomas, I think you understand the situation. I recommend to read the more than one hundred years ago written economics book, which is a thorough analysis of poverty as a phenomena of the not so modern western society.
http://www.henrygeorge.org/pcontents.htm


I perused that briefly as well.  WOW! He was obviously a dyed-in-the-wool socialist and huge fan of Marx (Carl, not Harpo  grin).  I didn't read the whole thing, and perhaps some of his theories in the middle of the book are accurate, I can't say, but I wonder how he'd feel about it when he saw his solution:
Quote
We must make land common property.

...put into practice 30 or so years later and the devastating effects it had?
Logged

Rick
T Beek
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2776


Location: USA, N/W Wisconsin


« Reply #176 on: December 27, 2011, 04:48:44 PM »

"Obviously" scads you didn't read 'far' enough, if that's your conclusion.   

Didn't get beyond the intro did ya?  Can't fool me this time, sorry. 

I've been reading Henry George for over thirty years, and you don't know anything about his position or remedies to our current mess, as evidenced by the above response.  Henry George was no Marxist, thank goodness cool

Too bad scads, you might have ....... maybe,,,,,, just maybe........oh forget it, its not worth it if 'you've' already given up. 

Return to the HGI site 'only' if you seek enlightenment and remedies to today's economic issues. 

You've already decided I don't know what I'm talking about long ago, but I'm weary of it.  Not my job to educate anyone (said that more than once rolleyes.already  Your right, I'm wrong.  I can almost accept that.

This is way too ..........useless Undecided to continue w/out further .................. Undecided

thomas
Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."
boca
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 121

Location: Italy


« Reply #177 on: December 27, 2011, 04:57:46 PM »

I perused that briefly as well.  WOW! He was obviously a dyed-in-the-wool socialist and huge fan of Marx (Carl, not Harpo  grin).  I didn't read the whole thing, and perhaps some of his theories in the middle of the book are accurate, I can't say, but I wonder how he'd feel about it when he saw his solution


Of course you did not read the whole thing. If one want to know who he was and what his message is, he has to not only read but comprehend it. One cannot pick a few words.

It cannot be farther than Marx thoughts. Actually it was written before Marx was translated in English.
And what was Marx's opinion about George?
it is here: http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/marx_henrygeorge.html


What he thought about any form of socialism is described in chapter 24:
Quote
5.Government Regulation
Space will not permit a detailed examination of proposals to alleviate poverty by government regulation of industry and accumulation. In their most comprehensive forms, we generally call these methods socialism. Nor is analysis necessary, for the same defects apply to all of them. They substitute governmental control for the freedom of individual action. They attempt to secure by restraint what can better be secured by freedom. We should not resort to them if we can achieve the same ends any other way.

For instance, a graduated income tax aims to mitigate the immense concentration of wealth. The end is good; but look at the means required. It employs a large number of officials with inquisitorial powers. There are temptations to bribery, perjury, and all other means of evasion, which beget a demoralization of opinion. It puts a premium upon unscrupulousness and a tax upon conscience. Finally, in proportion to accomplishing its effect, it weakens the incentive to accumulate wealth, one of the driving forces of industrial progress.

If these elaborate schemes for regulating everything and finding a place for everybody could be carried out, we would have a state of society resembling that of ancient Peru. Modern society cannot successfully attempt socialism in anything approaching such a form. The only force that has ever proved effective for it, a strong religious faith, grows fainter every day. We have passed out of the socialism of the tribal state. We cannot enter it again, except by retrogression that would involve anarchy and perhaps barbarism.

The ideal of socialism is grand and noble. I am convinced it is possible to achieve. But such a state of society cannot be manufactured -- it must grow. Society is an organism, not a machine. It can live only by the individual life of its parts. In the free and natural development of all its parts, the harmony of the whole will be secured. All that is necessary is "Land and Liberty."
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 15032


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #178 on: December 27, 2011, 05:20:57 PM »

i would label him more a humanist...and humanists tend toward socialism.  what they say is that we are responsible for each other.  what that translates into in real life is government redistribution of wealth so that we can all be responsible for each other.

if you read Marx/Engles, they sound really good also.  what they lack is real world application for their theory. when their theory was applied, it didn't work out to well.

we all probably agree that we should care for those who can't care for themselves.  the problem is that we never seem to be able to draw a line between those who can't and those who won't.  ideally, we could use the village/tribal model, but that never seems to be good enough for those who make decisions. 
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Scadsobees
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3198


Location: Jenison, MI

Best use of smileys in a post award.


« Reply #179 on: December 27, 2011, 07:16:10 PM »

"Obviously" scads you didn't read 'far' enough, if that's your conclusion.   

Didn't get beyond the intro did ya?  Can't fool me this time, sorry. 



Actually I read the table of contents, then the intro, then, having only a few minutes, skipped to the Solution chapter, since that is logically where he'd come to the conclusion of his theories.  There, in italics, set apart was the private property thing.  Making all land belong to the government (everybody/nobody, whatever) amounts to a form of socialism, and was a principle tenet of communism.  But yes, you are right, I didn't read the whole thing.
 
Then I checked the preface, where it said it was published in 1878.  Since that sounded an awful lot like a different author so I checked Wikipedia on Marx, and there is said that his Manifesto was written in 1848.  Perhaps the publishing and writing dates don't match up for the different books.  I'm assuming that even if the translation wasn't till later, the ideas still made it over intact.

It looks to me like Marx just said that George was on the right path, just didn't go far enough:
Quote
His fundamental dogma is that everything would be all right if ground rent were paid to the state. (You will find payment of this kind among the transitional measures included in The Communist Manifesto too.) ...We ourselves, as I have already mentioned, adopted this appropriation of ground rent by the state among numerous other transitional measures...


I think we agree on most of the problems, the question of where to go is the issue...I'm not a huge fan of Brooks, but I think this in general summarizes things pretty well...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/opinion/brooks-midlife-crisis-economics.html?_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212
Logged

Rick
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.739 seconds with 21 queries.

Google visited last this page June 10, 2014, 01:04:31 AM