How's that graph of increasing government spending coming?

ThomasK wrote:
How's that graph of increasing government spending coming?
Moot point. Increased spending is not an issue if you have increased revenue along with it. You can spend as much as you want as long as you have money in the bank to back it up. I won't argue that spending is not too high, but our present problems are more revenue based, or rather the lack of revenue. That is the point I have been addressing. You must have attended the "John McCain School of Economics."

How's that next PM to me coming along? Will it have any swear words in it?

truthhurts wrote:

Fact: There is nothing in capitalism that will protect the environment, worker safety, or anything else that does not relate to the profit motive. Capitalism is a wonderful economic system provided it has some controls to protect it (and us) from the abuses it will, without fail, exhibit without said controls. Case in point: Said mortgage mess mentioned above.

You don't know what you are talking about scout.

Capitalism; an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
How's that graph of increasing government spending coming?
Moot point. Increased spending is not an issue if you have increased revenue along with it. You can spend as much as you want as long as you have money in the bank to back it up. I won't argue that spending is not too high, but our present problems are more revenue based, or rather the lack of revenue. That is the point I have been addressing.

Well scout, if you want to increase revenue and the place where you are going to get that revenue is in a down cycle, what do you think will happen. You don't care it's that evil capitalism, they deserve it. Of course you've never seen a government program you didn't like. And you won't even think of asking to government to tighten their belt.

ThomasK wrote:
truthhurts wrote:

Fact: There is nothing in capitalism that will protect the environment, worker safety, or anything else that does not relate to the profit motive. Capitalism is a wonderful economic system provided it has some controls to protect it (and us) from the abuses it will, without fail, exhibit without said controls. Case in point: Said mortgage mess mentioned above.

You don't know what you are talking about scout.

Capitalism; an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
A wonderful definition. Please be so kind as to point out where it says that capitalism itself, this private ownership of the means of production, protects the environment (the reason we have to have an EPA), protects the safety of the workers (the reason we have to have an OSHA), protects stockholders (the reason we have to have a SEC), or protects consumers (the reason we have to have a FDA and a Consumer Products Safety Division) to name a few. Get back to me on that.

Indisputable fact: If capitalism itself did that, we would not need an EPA or OSHA or EEOC, SEC, or FDA, would we?

You are digging your hole deeper and deeper, Thomas. So deep, in fact, you can't even toss the earth back out of the hole. It's falling back on your head.

truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
truthhurts wrote:

Fact: There is nothing in capitalism that will protect the environment, worker safety, or anything else that does not relate to the profit motive. Capitalism is a wonderful economic system provided it has some controls to protect it (and us) from the abuses it will, without fail, exhibit without said controls. Case in point: Said mortgage mess mentioned above.

You don't know what you are talking about scout.

Capitalism; an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
A wonderful definition. Please be so kind as to point out where it says that capitalism itself, this private ownership of the means of production, protects the environment (the reason we have to have an EPA), protects the safety of the workers (the reason we have to have an OSHA), protects stockholders (the reason we have to have a SEC), or protects consumers (the reason we have to have a FDA and a Consumer Products Safety Division) to name a few. Get back to me on that.

Indisputable fact: If capitalism itself did that, we would not need an EPA or OSHA or EEOC, SEC, or FDA, would we?

You really don't get it. Whatever way you create economic gain, whether it be in a capitalist system, or in a socialist system, or in a communist system; there are resources used. Any of those systems, or any others you can think up, use resources for economic gain. It is not the fault of the system. It is how those good and services are produced within those systems that need to be monitored and controlled in order to minimize harm to the environment. Now do you get it scout?