question for Liberals
12 Mar 2014, 9:43 pm
Maybe it has to do with the rhetoric Conservatives use to express their opinions. Conservatives enjoy using rhetoric that is derogatory, disrespectful, reckless, irresponsible. Conservatives seem to go out of their way to be offensive, and to piss people off who disagree with them, as in Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a "slut", just as an example. With the likes of Limbaugh I could bring complete chapters of his uncivilized dialogue. I often post in CL politics forum where 95% of anything critical of Conservative ideology is immediately flagged. While commenting on the right-wing interference with the Tennessee union voting which recently took place, could say I was flagged easily 25 times over a 10 day period for saying nothing other than outside interference by State politicians should be investigated by the DOJ. Not to mention the disgusting names I am routinely called by Conservatives, and threats of violence. Perhaps not here on WP, but in other political forums. And the disgusting behavior of Conservative politicians like Darrell Issa having the microphone shut off rather than allow ranking Democrat sitting right next to him to make a statement. Censorship? During the budget fiasco last fall, Congressional Republicans changing the rules of the floor in secret then refusing to allow a Democrat to call for a vote on an issue based on the previous rule, when no one had been told the rules were changed. Perhaps if Conservatives learned to behave like civilized human beings instead of like wild dogs fighting over a pork chop in a back alley. I have heard the likes of Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh and their ilk bragging about how they love pissing Liberals off. Then they invoke the "Christian moral superiority BS". I'm sorry but I think you need to look in the mirror. Conservatives love using rhetoric that is intended to be threatening, intimidating, incendiary and provocative. It is Conservative strategy to brutalize Liberals with language in hopes that Liberals will back down because things are too rough and tumble. If Liberals fight back using similar tactics, it is on. Liberals are not permitted in the sewer slinging the same crap Conservatives sling. As I have mentioned before, your "avatar" symbolizes your manner of discourse, and personality. It is not always necessary to force feed your opinion. But if brute force is what you are going to exert, don't whine when you feel resistance.
12 Mar 2014, 10:28 pm
Shrapnel wrote:
With the ascension of Mao Tse Tung, his comrades killed all factory owners and all landlords and all farmers who employed at least one employee.
After that, they went after "the rich". They took the farms of large farmers and killed the farmers. After that, "the rich" included any farmer who owned his own land. They took that land too. Finally, "the rich" was defined as any peasant who owned a pig.
We will each be considered "the rich" after those who were above us are harvested. Class Warfare is like a grass fire...it is difficult to keep it from spreading and getting out of control.
After that, they went after "the rich". They took the farms of large farmers and killed the farmers. After that, "the rich" included any farmer who owned his own land. They took that land too. Finally, "the rich" was defined as any peasant who owned a pig.
We will each be considered "the rich" after those who were above us are harvested. Class Warfare is like a grass fire...it is difficult to keep it from spreading and getting out of control.
Mao was responsible for vast chaos, death, and destruction, but your description is ahistorical.
Quote:
LKL wrote:
Shrapnel wrote:
The war on poverty has been ongoing for 50 years and has been an utter failure
That is not correct.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-les ... 30159.html
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 1653433800
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-war-pove ... ng-success
You've provided three links to op-ed pieces, I hope you understand that they are nothing more than someone else’s opinion.
Can you contradict the facts that they're based on?
Quote:
I also find it interesting that one of your links is to the Wall Street Journal which is owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns Fox.
I deliberately try to find non-liberal sources so that people like you can't say that they're "all left-wing."
I have to wonder if you actually read the links you cited. For example here's about half of the content of the last one:
Quote:
Krugman comments, “progressives have stopped apologizing for their efforts on behalf of the poor, and have started trumpeting them instead. And conservatives find themselves on the defensive.” At its crux, Krugman’s argument Friday stresses the importance of a social safety net in reducing poverty, highlighting that antipoverty programs have been significant in aiding the lives of low-income Americans.
Krugman locates the unsolved problem of poverty within the broader question of inequality — a spiraling problem for which the poor cannot be blamed. Krugman notes:
'At this point, the rise of the 1 percent at the expense of everyone else is so obvious that it’s no longer possible to shut down any discussion of rising inequality with cries of “class warfare.” Meanwhile, hard times have forced many more Americans to turn to safety-net programs. And as conservatives have responded by defining an ever-growing fraction of the population as morally unworthy “takers” — a quarter, a third, 47 percent, whatever — they have made themselves look callous and meanspirited.'
Krugman locates the unsolved problem of poverty within the broader question of inequality — a spiraling problem for which the poor cannot be blamed. Krugman notes:
'At this point, the rise of the 1 percent at the expense of everyone else is so obvious that it’s no longer possible to shut down any discussion of rising inequality with cries of “class warfare.” Meanwhile, hard times have forced many more Americans to turn to safety-net programs. And as conservatives have responded by defining an ever-growing fraction of the population as morally unworthy “takers” — a quarter, a third, 47 percent, whatever — they have made themselves look callous and meanspirited.'
Here's the entire text of another of your links:
Quote:
Safety net lifts millions out of poverty
Without government programs such as food stamps and unemployment insurance, the poverty rate would grow from 16.0% to 28.7%, causing the ranks of the poor to swell from 50 million to 90 million people.
This year marked the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty, launched by Lyndon B. Johnson in his 1964 State of the Union address, and it has prompted a wide-ranging debate on whether that battle has succeeded or failed. Republicans such as Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Marco Rubio have called it a failure, citing the official Census poverty rate, which shows basically no improvement in the last half-century.
On its own merits, the measurement is misleading. As has been well-documented, the official poverty rate fails to take into account significant parts of the nation's safety net. In reality, as you can see in the interactive chart above, the safety net has reduced the poverty rate from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent in 2012. The chart is using a measure of poverty developed by economists at Columbia University and elsewhere that analyzes how many people fall below the poverty line once taxes and transfers (such as food stamps) are factored in.
So, to the degree that the War on Poverty was a war to ensure that more Americans have the resources to meet the most basic needs of their lives -- even if that required a massive increase in the size of the welfare state -- the effort has been a resounding success. Millions upon millions of Americans have lived a more decent life because of taxpayer support.
But to the degree that the War on Poverty should have led U.S. companies to pay their workers adequate wages and prompted sufficient enough demand to ensure full employment, the war has been a failure. If you return to the interactive chart above, and click on "poverty rate without the safety net," you'll see that 28.7 percent of the country would be in poverty today without government policies to help them -- actually higher than it was 50 years ago.
And so, in that sense, it's hard to say we've won the War on Poverty when nearly 1 in 3 Americans lacks, without the government's help, the sustenance necessary to meet the basic needs of life.
Without government programs such as food stamps and unemployment insurance, the poverty rate would grow from 16.0% to 28.7%, causing the ranks of the poor to swell from 50 million to 90 million people.
This year marked the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty, launched by Lyndon B. Johnson in his 1964 State of the Union address, and it has prompted a wide-ranging debate on whether that battle has succeeded or failed. Republicans such as Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Marco Rubio have called it a failure, citing the official Census poverty rate, which shows basically no improvement in the last half-century.
On its own merits, the measurement is misleading. As has been well-documented, the official poverty rate fails to take into account significant parts of the nation's safety net. In reality, as you can see in the interactive chart above, the safety net has reduced the poverty rate from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent in 2012. The chart is using a measure of poverty developed by economists at Columbia University and elsewhere that analyzes how many people fall below the poverty line once taxes and transfers (such as food stamps) are factored in.
So, to the degree that the War on Poverty was a war to ensure that more Americans have the resources to meet the most basic needs of their lives -- even if that required a massive increase in the size of the welfare state -- the effort has been a resounding success. Millions upon millions of Americans have lived a more decent life because of taxpayer support.
But to the degree that the War on Poverty should have led U.S. companies to pay their workers adequate wages and prompted sufficient enough demand to ensure full employment, the war has been a failure. If you return to the interactive chart above, and click on "poverty rate without the safety net," you'll see that 28.7 percent of the country would be in poverty today without government policies to help them -- actually higher than it was 50 years ago.
And so, in that sense, it's hard to say we've won the War on Poverty when nearly 1 in 3 Americans lacks, without the government's help, the sustenance necessary to meet the basic needs of life.
There's a good graph in there, too, that isn't included in my citation.
luanqibazao
Veteran
Joined: 13 Jan 2014
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 754
Location: Last booth, Akston's Diner
12 Mar 2014, 10:31 pm
The_Walrus wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Conservatives don't claim the authority to compel your behaviour at gunpoint, unless you try and murder.
Or gamble, or smoke marijuana, or buy a beer on Sunday morning (or at all, some places). Or marry someone of the same sex. It wasn't libertarians who until recently, historically speaking, made simply being homosexual a criminal act.
Those rules aren't enforced at gunpoint. Unless the USA is worse for that sort of stuff than the UK is.
Of course, the illegality of such things is a great wrong in itself (except perhaps for some forms of gambling, like those machines that exist to eat the money of gambling addicts), but exaggerating to say that behaviour is controlled at gunpoint, well, it makes you look like a shrill.
Ad hominems do not strengthen your argument.
Perhaps in the UK some laws are no more than polite suggestions, and their violation will merely bring PC Featheringstonehaugh round for a cuppa and a genteel discussion of the social contract. In the US, however, all laws are backed by the threat of government violence. Flout them consistently enough, ignore the summonses and other official documents which then come your way, and eventually men with guns will show up to drag you away and lock you in a cage. This is not to say that all laws are unjust, but to mention that they are backed by force is not being a "shrill," it is recognizing reality. There are many laws which people would have little reason to obey were it not for fear of punishment meted out by the government.
It's the first time I have seen "shrill" used as a noun. Divided by a common language again no doubt.
12 Mar 2014, 10:37 pm
luanqibazao wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Conservatives don't claim the authority to compel your behaviour at gunpoint, unless you try and murder.
Or gamble, or smoke marijuana, or buy a beer on Sunday morning (or at all, some places). Or marry someone of the same sex. It wasn't libertarians who until recently, historically speaking, made simply being homosexual a criminal act.
Those rules aren't enforced at gunpoint. Unless the USA is worse for that sort of stuff than the UK is.
Of course, the illegality of such things is a great wrong in itself (except perhaps for some forms of gambling, like those machines that exist to eat the money of gambling addicts), but exaggerating to say that behaviour is controlled at gunpoint, well, it makes you look like a shrill.
Ad hominems do not strengthen your argument.
Perhaps in the UK some laws are no more than polite suggestions, and their violation will merely bring PC Featheringstonehaugh round for a cuppa and a genteel discussion of the social contract. In the US, however, all laws are backed by the threat of government violence. Flout them consistently enough, ignore the summonses and other official documents which then come your way, and eventually men with guns will show up to drag you away and lock you in a cage. This is not to say that all laws are unjust, but to mention that they are backed by force is not being a "shrill," it is recognizing reality. There are many laws which people would have little reason to obey were it not for fear of punishment meted out by the government.
It's the first time I have seen "shrill" used as a noun. Divided by a common language again no doubt.
Yes, if only the IRS asked people committing tax fraud to pretty, pretty please stop being big meanies.
13 Mar 2014, 3:42 am
khaoz wrote:
Maybe it has to do with the rhetoric Conservatives use to express their opinions. Conservatives enjoy using rhetoric that is derogatory, disrespectful, reckless, irresponsible. Conservatives seem to go out of their way to be offensive, and to piss people off who disagree with them, as in Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a "slut", just as an example. With the likes of Limbaugh I could bring complete chapters of his uncivilized dialogue. I often post in CL politics forum where 95% of anything critical of Conservative ideology is immediately flagged. While commenting on the right-wing interference with the Tennessee union voting which recently took place, could say I was flagged easily 25 times over a 10 day period for saying nothing other than outside interference by State politicians should be investigated by the DOJ. Not to mention the disgusting names I am routinely called by Conservatives, and threats of violence. Perhaps not here on WP, but in other political forums. And the disgusting behavior of Conservative politicians like Darrell Issa having the microphone shut off rather than allow ranking Democrat sitting right next to him to make a statement. Censorship? During the budget fiasco last fall, Congressional Republicans changing the rules of the floor in secret then refusing to allow a Democrat to call for a vote on an issue based on the previous rule, when no one had been told the rules were changed. Perhaps if Conservatives learned to behave like civilized human beings instead of like wild dogs fighting over a pork chop in a back alley. I have heard the likes of Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh and their ilk bragging about how they love pissing Liberals off. Then they invoke the "Christian moral superiority BS". I'm sorry but I think you need to look in the mirror. Conservatives love using rhetoric that is intended to be threatening, intimidating, incendiary and provocative. It is Conservative strategy to brutalize Liberals with language in hopes that Liberals will back down because things are too rough and tumble. If Liberals fight back using similar tactics, it is on. Liberals are not permitted in the sewer slinging the same crap Conservatives sling. As I have mentioned before, your "avatar" symbolizes your manner of discourse, and personality. It is not always necessary to force feed your opinion. But if brute force is what you are going to exert, don't whine when you feel resistance.
Re-read your post, carefully, then look in the mirror.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
13 Mar 2014, 5:26 am
LKL wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-les ... 30159.html
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-war-pove ... ng-success
I deliberately try to find non-liberal sources so that people like you can't say that they're "all left-wing."
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-war-pove ... ng-success
I deliberately try to find non-liberal sources so that people like you can't say that they're "all left-wing."
Since the other two links you provided are from HuffPo and MSNBC, two sources of entertainment, rather than information, I'm inclined to believe that this was inadvertent rather than intentional.
LKL wrote:
But to the degree that the War on Poverty should have led U.S. companies to pay their workers adequate wages...
Common sense would dictate that government assistance would actually encourage this to happen. How can liberals not see this?
LKL wrote:
If you return to the interactive chart above, and click on "poverty rate without the safety net," you'll see that 28.7 percent of the country would be in poverty today without government policies to help them -- actually higher than it was 50 years ago.
And so, in that sense, it's hard to say we've won the War on Poverty when nearly 1 in 3 Americans lacks, without the government's help, the sustenance necessary to meet the basic needs of life.
And so, in that sense, it's hard to say we've won the War on Poverty when nearly 1 in 3 Americans lacks, without the government's help, the sustenance necessary to meet the basic needs of life.
The war on poverty will be won when government assistance is no longer needed, to think otherwise is irrational. The way to reduce poverty is to increase a person's motivation and education, not spend 50 years and billions of dollars creating a government dependent underclass.
sonofghandi
Veteran
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)
13 Mar 2014, 7:00 am
Shrapnel wrote:
The war on poverty will be won when government assistance is no longer needed, to think otherwise is irrational.
I agree with this statement.
Shrapnel wrote:
The way to reduce poverty is to increase a person's motivation and education, not spend 50 years and billions of dollars creating a government dependent underclass.
So you want to eliminate government assistance, but expect the tens of millions of people who would fall under the poverty line to suddenly feel more motivated? Methinks you should revisit some basic psychology.
And without government assistance, our public schools would collapse even more as well as making higher education nearly impossible for anyone who does not have parents to pay their way.
To be honest, business regulation would accomplish much more in a much shorter period of time than social programs; but since most businesses would much rather let their employees barely survive than to give up a few pennies in profits, it will not happen in significant way. If the minimum wage was increased, you would suddenly see millions of people who would stop collecting checks from the government.
_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche
13 Mar 2014, 8:06 am
sonofghandi wrote:
To be honest, business regulation would accomplish much more in a much shorter period of time than social programs; but since most businesses would much rather let their employees barely survive than to give up a few pennies in profits, it will not happen in significant way.
It's not most businesses. It's a few really big businesses. Most businesses are not raking in crazy profits. Most businesses are struggling to make ends meet. Regulations tend to favor big businesses (anti-competitive) and hurt the rest.
Please stop demonizing businesses. You would find me much more in agreement with you if you differentiated the abusive behavior of large corporations from those of us who are just trying to survive and make payroll. I very much agree that large corporations are behaving badly and there are changes that would be beneficial, but I'm tired of paying the consequences day after day of more regulations that are meant to hurt the large corporations but really only hurt us small businesses and make it harder for us to compete.
13 Mar 2014, 9:21 am
luanqibazao wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Conservatives don't claim the authority to compel your behaviour at gunpoint, unless you try and murder.
Or gamble, or smoke marijuana, or buy a beer on Sunday morning (or at all, some places). Or marry someone of the same sex. It wasn't libertarians who until recently, historically speaking, made simply being homosexual a criminal act.
Those rules aren't enforced at gunpoint. Unless the USA is worse for that sort of stuff than the UK is.
Of course, the illegality of such things is a great wrong in itself (except perhaps for some forms of gambling, like those machines that exist to eat the money of gambling addicts), but exaggerating to say that behaviour is controlled at gunpoint, well, it makes you look like a shrill.
Ad hominems do not strengthen your argument.
Perhaps in the UK some laws are no more than polite suggestions, and their violation will merely bring PC Featheringstonehaugh round for a cuppa and a genteel discussion of the social contract. In the US, however, all laws are backed by the threat of government violence. Flout them consistently enough, ignore the summonses and other official documents which then come your way, and eventually men with guns will show up to drag you away and lock you in a cage. This is not to say that all laws are unjust, but to mention that they are backed by force is not being a "shrill," it is recognizing reality. There are many laws which people would have little reason to obey were it not for fear of punishment meted out by the government.
It's the first time I have seen "shrill" used as a noun. Divided by a common language again no doubt.
"Hello, I'd like to buy a beer this Sunday morning!"
"Scum, freezebag! Don't move or I'll shoot!"
versus
"Hello, I'd like to buy a beer this Sunday morning!"
"Sorry sir, we don't serve beer on Sundays"
"Oh, go on!"
"OK then."
6 months later
"Oh, a small fine for breaking Sunday trading laws. Won't be paying that!"
3 months later
"Oh, a court summons... will be ignoring that!"
1 month and another court summons later
"Hello officer... no, I won't be coming to the station... oh, if you insist..."
One of those is "compelling behaviour at gunpoint". One of those is not.
13 Mar 2014, 9:53 am
Shrapnel wrote:
The war on poverty will be won when government assistance is no longer needed, to think otherwise is irrational. The way to reduce poverty is to increase a person's motivation and education, not spend 50 years and billions of dollars creating a government dependent underclass.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. "Education"? What kind of Communist propaganda is this?
sonofghandi
Veteran
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)
13 Mar 2014, 10:26 am
adb wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
To be honest, business regulation would accomplish much more in a much shorter period of time than social programs; but since most businesses would much rather let their employees barely survive than to give up a few pennies in profits, it will not happen in significant way.
It's not most businesses. It's a few really big businesses. Most businesses are not raking in crazy profits. Most businesses are struggling to make ends meet. Regulations tend to favor big businesses (anti-competitive) and hurt the rest.
So you are saying that small businesses that are barely scraping by are somehow more motivated to pay their employees more? I will agree that our current business regulations are poor (at best), and that the worst abuses are with large corporations, and that this is the largest contributor. I personally feel that this is due to our backwards approach to regulating business. The smaller the business, the less regulations it should be subject to, not vice versa. I also feel that once a company has gotten to the point where they can measurably impact the national economy it should be subject to fairly heavy regulation.
In my opinion, there also needs to be a separation of business regulation and corporate regulation. Corporations should have human beings that can be held accountable the same way that small businesses are (especially sole proprietor small businesses). Small businesses should be subject primarily to safety regulations and not to financial ones.
_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche
luanqibazao
Veteran
Joined: 13 Jan 2014
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 754
Location: Last booth, Akston's Diner
13 Mar 2014, 10:50 am
The_Walrus wrote:
"Hello, I'd like to buy a beer this Sunday morning!"
"Scum, freezebag! Don't move or I'll shoot!"
versus
"Hello, I'd like to buy a beer this Sunday morning!"
"Sorry sir, we don't serve beer on Sundays"
"Oh, go on!"
"OK then."
6 months later
"Oh, a small fine for breaking Sunday trading laws. Won't be paying that!"
3 months later
"Oh, a court summons... will be ignoring that!"
1 month and another court summons later
"Hello officer... no, I won't be coming to the station... oh, if you insist..."
One of those is "compelling behaviour at gunpoint". One of those is not.
"Scum, freezebag! Don't move or I'll shoot!"
versus
"Hello, I'd like to buy a beer this Sunday morning!"
"Sorry sir, we don't serve beer on Sundays"
"Oh, go on!"
"OK then."
6 months later
"Oh, a small fine for breaking Sunday trading laws. Won't be paying that!"
3 months later
"Oh, a court summons... will be ignoring that!"
1 month and another court summons later
"Hello officer... no, I won't be coming to the station... oh, if you insist..."
One of those is "compelling behaviour at gunpoint". One of those is not.
Q. Why, exactly, does the shop owner choose to accompany the nice policemen to the station?
13 Mar 2014, 11:15 am
sonofghandi wrote:
adb wrote:
It's not most businesses. It's a few really big businesses. Most businesses are not raking in crazy profits. Most businesses are struggling to make ends meet. Regulations tend to favor big businesses (anti-competitive) and hurt the rest.
So you are saying that small businesses that are barely scraping by are somehow more motivated to pay their employees more
No, I'm saying that small businesses generally *can't* afford to pay their employees more. We operate on very tight profit margins.
Quote:
I will agree that our current business regulations are poor (at best), and that the worst abuses are with large corporations, and that this is the largest contributor. I personally feel that this is due to our backwards approach to regulating business. The smaller the business, the less regulations it should be subject to, not vice versa. I also feel that once a company has gotten to the point where they can measurably impact the national economy it should be subject to fairly heavy regulation.
Although I disagree with government regulation in general, I can recognize this as a reasonable approach. My issue with what you said before is mostly that my little corporation is getting grouped in with exploitative large corporations.
Quote:
In my opinion, there also needs to be a separation of business regulation and corporate regulation. Corporations should have human beings that can be held accountable the same way that small businesses are (especially sole proprietor small businesses). Small businesses should be subject primarily to safety regulations and not to financial ones.
I don't think corporate versus non-corporate is a good separation. Anyone with more than a couple employees is going to incorporate, including little family businesses.
sonofghandi
Veteran
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)
13 Mar 2014, 1:01 pm
adb wrote:
Although I disagree with government regulation in general, I can recognize this as a reasonable approach. My issue with what you said before is mostly that my little corporation is getting grouped in with exploitative large corporations.
I apologize for how I came across. After re-reading my post, I realize that I made it sound like all business is to blame, which was not my intent. I hope stating it this way will help clarify my views:
Large businesses definitely bear the brunt by several orders of magnitude. Small companies do not want to pay higher wages either, but this is something caused by their tenuous financial position, for which I do not fault them.
I do believe that both large and small businesses would prefer to pay their employees less in order to increase profit, just that their reasoning and circumstances are different. The poor state of things is a product of the corporate run economy, but most small businesses must accept minimizing wages in order to survive. It is a difference of whether the business has any choice in the matter more than anything else.
Business is not evil. Even large corporations in and of themselves are not evil. The problem lies with a select group of wealthy and powerful individuals (in business, politics, and media) working together to maximize personal short term wealth at the expense of the future economic viability.
_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche
sonofghandi
Veteran
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)
13 Mar 2014, 1:07 pm
adb wrote:
I don't think corporate versus non-corporate is a good separation. Anyone with more than a couple employees is going to incorporate, including little family businesses.
I do think that a separation is needed. I feel that in order to incorporate and enjoy the protection to the individual they should meet stricter requirements. Primarily in the area of accountability being established prior to being granted status as a separate legal entity. I feel that if a business is to be incorporated, then someone must be held accountable. Too many hide their actions behind the corporation as an entity to get away with some serious violations of law, morality, fiscal responsibility, and public trust.
_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Very important question. |
29 Jan 2024, 2:41 am |
| Autism Question. |
10 Mar 2024, 6:30 pm |
| DND Question: What do I need to know to be a good DM |
12 Mar 2024, 6:38 pm |
| Hi, new WP user with question |
14 Mar 2024, 9:09 pm |
