Chess Online

Play online chess!

Pages:  1 2 Next »
From	Message
changeling 09-Apr-13, 20:28	The Conservative Way? www.addictinginfo.org
anomalocaris 09-Apr-13, 20:33	Change Cmon man. You can do better. A company makes a bad decision and then this article mentions conservatives in an unrelated way? Yes, this is the conservative way. Im glad it happened and I hope they starve.
changeling 09-Apr-13, 20:37	rotflmao, not nice stinky.   The serious part is the bit about more homes empty than there are homeless (all owned by banks presumably). Surely renting these homes out even at vastly discounted rates would give the banks some return? I suppose the cry would then be 'It devalues all our homes, so bugger them, let them live on the streets and suffer'! Capitalism at its best?
anomalocaris 09-Apr-13, 20:49	Change If you had a home for sale would you put it up for rent until you sold it? To a homeless guy? Not someone you get to pick and choose but the only criteria being homeless?
ace-of-aces 09-Apr-13, 20:52	What is your opinion ? I want to hear your story first. Is this kind of throw away behavior by the bank acceptable or disgusting ? People eyeing to salvage on piles of non perishable food are mostly African Americans. Unlike skin and bones of famine stricken Africans, they are well nourished and dressed by Obama. Why do they need more? Correct me if I am wrong. I want o hear both sides of the story.
ace-of-aces 09-Apr-13, 21:04	Foreclosure of homes and our nation's bankrupcy. I believe these are the same people who bought the homes which they could not afford. Our housing market went down the drain after so many homes were foreclosed. Our banks and the nation become bankrupt. So, the bank was teaching the people that there is no free lunch. They should earn and can afford to buy food. Free giveaway will not stimulate the economy and recover from recession. I believe this is the take home message and lesson for these people.
anomalocaris 09-Apr-13, 21:11	ace I don't think you can throw food away to teach lessons. That's kinda dumb. I don't think these people we are talking about did anything or caused this problem or even needed a lesson. So you think it would be ok to throw the food away because they were out of a job? So what about someone working? Can they get free food?
ace-of-aces 09-Apr-13, 21:51	Are they on unnecessary welfare? stinky. I am not a racist. When I was a medical intern I worked at DC General Hospital in Washington DC serving the mostly African Americans who are on welfare. They have no incentives to work. When the men get the welfare check they will abuse drugs and alcohol. Women have no husbands but have many kids with different men. They don't mind to have many children because the more children they have the more welfare money they will get. I am an immigrant. Compared to these people, many of my friends will try to get whatever jobs they can find and not necessarily medical jobs. I believe they are on unnecessary welfare abusing other tax payers' money. I don't know how to correct this problem. They are the majority and Obama wants to get their votes by inducing with generous entitlements. This is the wakeup call to correct these problems. Otherwise, our nation will not recover from this economy. I will give you an opinion from another person below. It is true that capitalists do it for profit and without profit capitalism cannot exist. If no viable and profitable economy exist how can our nation survive? People must work hard and earn it to survive for the long run. =========================================================== Joe Villanova · Follow · Top Commenter · 880 subscribers "In a capitalist society, the motive behind the production of food is not to feed people, housing is not made to give them shelter, clothing is not made to keep them warm, and health care is not offered primarily to keep people healthy. All of these things, which are and should be viewed as basic rights, are nothing other than commodities—to be bought and sold—from which to make a profit. If a profit cannot be made, usually due to overproduction in relation to the market, the commodity is considered useless by the capitalist and destroyed. In this case, it appears the bank simply did not care. For the banks that have made their profits through evictions and foreclosures, it is little surprise that they showed no remorse in leaving people staring in disbelief, with empty bags, as they watched the food that could be feeding their families dumped into a landfill instead."
softaire 09-Apr-13, 23:19	change You really hate capitalism don't you. You post that garbage story that makes this about conservatives. You ought to be ashamed but you aren't smart enough to see through the partisanship... or you don't care. I don't know the whole story here but it is not that the bank wasn't making anything on the deal and would rather see poor people starve. It doesn't matter if the bank was owned by one person or thousands of stockholders and it doesn't matter if he, she, they were conservatives, liberals, R's or D's... there is more to it than what this story says... and you should be grown up enough to figure that out. Is it possible that the bank is not licensed to distribute food? Could it be a violation of law to distribute food without the proper sanitary conditions, employee training? Is it possible that there is a union involved that would be happy to sue if their workers didn't package, move, distribute the food? Is it possible that any organization that distriutes food needs a business license in that particular SIC code? Without any number of prerequisites being satisfied, the bank would be in violation of one to many rules/laws. Having already suffered the loss of having to take over the store and inventory, they probably decided against violating some other conditions that would be costly. And, btw, any laws or union bargains that they were avoiding were probably instigated by Liberal politicians and unions.
changeling 10-Apr-13, 05:59	softy I see I caught at least one! You may notice this at the end of my OP ?
softaire 10-Apr-13, 07:20	Here is a little more sane and rational details of this event. It seems that a church was to pick up and distribute the goods, but did not show. It seems that police stopped the crowd from getting the goods. It seems that there are laws that prevent the bank from distributing the goods. www.huffingtonpost.com
chaz- 10-Apr-13, 07:36	... what incentives can we consider to induce people to choose something better than welfare? The truly indigent may need a place to go, but our system is self-perpetuating and growing unwieldy large. We may not be able to stop it fast, but we must channel the growth down. Two suggestions: (1) Could we set up childcare centers, paying a small group of otherwise welfare recipients as staff ... releasing the other mothers to gain employment elsewhere full time, say, or employ them half days doing "general work" while they're looking for employment during the other half. (2) Could we offer direct training to anyone on welfare for free while they're collecting their welfare ... those who attend and "pass" progress points, get bonuses; those who graduate get a bigger bonus plus more aggressive assistance finding work ... those who choose not to attend, get nothing extra (but no direct penalties). I'm just trying to address the issue in a positive way.
changeling 10-Apr-13, 07:53	chaz All decent ideas. The problem is what work? It seems of late that if workers in the US (or anywhere within the industrialized world) want a decent livable wage there is nowhere for them to get it. The unions are being busted almost daily, companies are moving to third world countries where they pay a pittance in wages and still gain even more profits. I hear some argue that the money earners reinvest their money into more jobs (private sector). Not a lot of evidence for that. We have had work for the dole schemes here in Australia, they were a farce. We now have government help to 're educate' workers into alternative industries (that little scheme only takes the unemployed off the unemployed register for the duration of the 'courses' they can take). The only problem being that alternative industry is not growing fast enough. I would imagine the same thing applies in the US. far too many out of work. "There is no work to be found" (Knoffler) springs to mind.
changeling 10-Apr-13, 07:55	softy Perhaps you missed this little bit from the original article: "...The bank ordered the food to be loaded into dumpsters and hauled to a landfill instead of distributed. The people that gathered had to be restrained by police as they saw perfectly good food destroyed. Local Sheriff Richard Roundtree told the news “a potential for a riot was extremely high.”..."
chaz- 10-Apr-13, 08:04	Change ... ... my dad worked during the 1930s depression in something called CCC camps, or labor-type work created by the then government to employ workers in community labor ... building bridges and making roads on one hand, cleaning parks and sidewalks for the less skilled, etc. Though it's "make work" to some, it's still of value and compensation can be paid for it. In today's world, I'm pretty sure we could come up with lots of similar examples of good work for pay, if we put our mind to it.
changeling 10-Apr-13, 08:09	That was the problem with the work for dole scheme, it wasn't realistic. If the government had actually employed for repairing, building infrastructure it might have worked. But as usual 'business and industry got in the way. It seems we cannot have it any way that works efficiently.
chaz- 10-Apr-13, 10:50	... we're not trying hard enough.
softaire 10-Apr-13, 12:14	Change: Perhaps you didn't read the article I posted or watch the attached video. Chaz: Good post... something needs to be done. And, those are good starter ideas. Can you get any politicians to even think along those lines? Of course, you are supposing that the people on welfare, food stamps, or unemployment want to go back to work, or get off the dole. Probably some do. One of the problems I see however is that if you do create a huge government sponsored program, like back in the late 30's, you will be providing relatively low wage jobs which will be competition for existing job holders and will cause lower wages for those already employed. It will be very similar to the large influx of illegal aliens who have taken American jobs and caused lower wages already. The real answer, of course, is NOT for the government to try to create jobs, but for the government to create an atmosphere where companies and entrepreneurs can create jobs. A fair and equitable tax code, decent regulations and equal treatment for all by the government would do a lot to creating a roaring economy.
anomalocaris 10-Apr-13, 14:22	softy Don't let change yank your chain. He knows full well that has nothing to do with conservatives. Its like me posting a story about deforestation then throwing in something about liberals. he knows better.
chaz- 10-Apr-13, 16:02	Softy ... ... well, I agree there could be some competition for other labor as you say; but, I also believe that getting people back into a work ethic is a good way to use our tax dollars instead of just providing endless money without incentives. Just creating an atmosphere for corporations to create jobs, there's no incentive to work ... "let someone else do the labor." The economy might feel better, but welfare would remain. So, come up with something better than just that.
softaire 10-Apr-13, 18:05	Chaz I think we "almost" agree. (are you sick?) One way we could create an incentive to work would be to cut off all welfare, food stamps and unemployment. That would work, don't you think?
changeling 10-Apr-13, 19:42	softy Yes as stinky says I was 'pulling your chain'   This was the serious part; "...The serious part is the bit about more homes empty than there are homeless (all owned by banks presumably)..." The thread has since morphed into a much better discussion. Your last post about cutting all welfare is a dangerous game to play. The jobs are simply not there for the mass of unemployed, particularly blue collar workers and the uneducated. What do you suggest they do starve to death? Or die from the cold in winter because they cannot afford to pay rent anywhere? If these people are left behind you will get your revolution eventually, and it will not be pretty.
chaz- 10-Apr-13, 20:19	Softy ... ... no, such "penalties" it would create chaos ... elevate crime ... and massive protest. It might sound good, but I don't think you want to go there. And the value of incentives would be lost.
softaire 10-Apr-13, 20:26	change and chaz You usually like to say that Republicans, conservatives, and Tea Party people want to throw granny over the cliff (in fact, you made a commercial about that) and that we want kids to starve, poor people to freeze to death and that we want to pollute the rivers, oceans, sky and land. I just thought I'd give you a little more fuel.
changeling 10-Apr-13, 20:40	softy We are all more alike than not. We all have some modicum of social inequity to ponder. One of the problems is that the very top few who own almost all the wealth of any nation do not, and couldn't care less about the damage being caused daily to everyday 'Joe's' and their families. This is where many of us differ, some believe the crap put out by the megalomaniacs, others with perhaps at times a better insight (because of myriad reasons) see straight through the crap and see it for what it is, pure greed.
softaire 10-Apr-13, 21:24	change Oh, I see... good one. I hadn't realize that you are blessed with such clarity. I guess the rest of us will just get down and allow you to lead the way, oh wise one. You can see the crap put out by megalomaniacs and you can guide us to the better life. You are able to discern the differences between crap and the word of government. I think DM would say you are able to manage the nuances. I'd say that you are able to mangle the nuances. But, despite your clarity you have not been able to grasp the basics of economics, business, or anything about capitalism. (imho) You probably have the Union Workers Manual and Communist Manifesto memorized though.
changeling 10-Apr-13, 21:34	softy Did I mention that I personally see through all the crap? No I didn't. My perspective on business is vastly different from yours that is all. I did however live under oppressive circumstances at some point in my life, as I assume many of us have. The workers manual and the Communist Manifesto? I have not read either of them.   The basic economics of business huh? The deal is to make as much as possible for as little as possible. That includes paying workers who are dependent on said businesses as little as possible also. Working for the man mentality. There are two opposite ends of the spectrum, the trick is to find a livable middle ground which has slowly but surely disintegrated over the past couple of decades. Whose at fault? Probably all parties concerned, but the power still remains with those who own the wealth. The guys at the bottom of the pile do not get a say and now your Republican led states are decimating the unions (just like Thatcher did in the UK) things will only go from bad to worse for a whole generation of people (but not for those who have!).
changeling 10-Apr-13, 21:36	I forget to add that your country's wealth was not only built by the owners of the wealth and power and the entrepreneurs, but on the backs of your workers and unions. Greed took over long ago (on both sides).
softaire 10-Apr-13, 21:54	change I understand that you don't think life is fair and equal for everybody. And, it's natural to blame somebody else... like the wealthy. After all, if they are wealthy, they must have taken it from the poor or else the poor would be wealthy. That's not exactly how the world works however. Cost of things (like labor) is basically determined by supply and demand. If you have a lot of laborers relative to the amount of work needed, the cost for those workers go down. And vice-versa. Employers cannot reduce the cost below a going rate... or the workers will go to another company. If there is no other companies to go to, then the demand for workers goes down (and rates go down) because there are too many workers for the smaller demand. The government is a huge influence in determining the demand and the rates paid for things (including labor) because of their policies. It's not the companies, or the wealthy. It is mostly determined by fiscal policy, domestic policy, energy policy and regulations. The businessman only takes what he has to work with and plays with the rules he is given, tries to make a profit. It's not quite as easy as you seem to think. But, I do agree there are greedy businessmen, greedy corporations (corporations run by greedy men) but they are few in number compared to the many honest, fair and hardworking people who run most companies. But, it is disingenuous to blame them for the workings of the real world. If you are really interested in helping the out-of-work people then get government to create better policies, better (fairer) tax codes and regulations so that businesses can expand and create jobs.
changeling 10-Apr-13, 22:22	softy You are beginning to sound like you are 'preaching'. Perhaps you missed this bit of my post: "...Whose at fault? Probably all parties concerned, but the power still remains with those who own the wealth..." I do not place the blame entirely on the rich, although they do have a lot to answer for. The ones with the money and the power to 'create jobs' (and by that I mean the super rich top few in business), as you say, are simply not doing it. Your take is because of restrictive government policies and the tax system. When the US became the giants of industry, your tax system and rates were very much higher. How do you account for this? Your minimum wage in the US is way below (comparatively) what it was during the early sixties. How do you account for that? Take away all the nonsense arguments about the social ills of a generation who you say want everything for nothing and think about the real issues of why it is so different today. American businesses paid far more in tax during the 'good years' than they do now. It is a misconception that they are being harder done by now.
Pages:  1 2 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, free online chess games database, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess teams, chess clubs, online chess puzzles and more.