In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms, mines, or industry of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return, which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large or small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. Unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.
If we accept these "truths" as self-evident and "obvious," we need to invest NOW in America.
Oh! by the bye! these are not part of the Tea Party or Republican plan for America. Sadly, but truthfully, they remain "the party of no!" In fact, this posting is taken from a speech given by FDR January 11, 1944. It seems as though he got it right and so does Obama. Invest in America NOW!
I think you have confused serving society with serving a particular governmental authority. Certainly you can disagree with a political regime and still do what you feel will best serve the nation?
- Prince John
.
So no one should be able to afford luxuries? If we have money for luxuries, that money should be going to the government instead? OK comrade Ruble!
But we need more middle class spending because that is the only way to increase this Obama economy. Well every middle class Joe has all of the above, which takes spending money, so why cry when they don't have "enough" money or a living wage?
Unless you pay yourself your income is already taxed before you receive it.
Why are you not writing about how evil Obama is picking winners and looser with your money. This seems like something you really are into. You should find an organization backing Obama and type over and over about how they are evil and destroying America. How they have taken over the presidency and our country. Where is all of this?
But you say that if you have money to afford luxuries, then you should be paying more in taxes, right? So if you carried this concept out to it's natural conclusion, any money that one has above and beyond meeting their necessities should all be going to the government, right? Or is the quote not representative of your personal position on the issue?
Do I really have to explain why that would be wrong on so many levels?
This is the USA - United States of America. Not the USSSA - Union of Soviet Socialist States of America.
You contentedly left out my examples from above.
So who exactly is arguing that an employer should have the "right to judge what an employee does with their wages?" I believe that the point is that the government should not be providing social safety net assistance to those who purchase luxuries such as cell phones, cable/satellite tv, bling, fancy shoes, etc. If they have money to spend on that crap, then why do they need government assistance?
If I pay you $50,000/yr but you want $120/mo cell phone bill, $100 TV bill, $80 internet bill, $10 netflix, $400 car pmt, $50/week bar bill, $15 XM radio, $400/mo toy fund... should I feel bad and pay you more so you can have a "living" wage?" Steve is not talking about those on public assistance, but actual working people, who pay taxes and go to work everyday. He's placing himself as judge and jury; and, in my opinion is stepping beyond the bounds of an employer. It reminds me of Dicken's "A Christmas Carol". Another thing is that a living wage has to increase to keep up with inflationary rise. I'm sure Steve and others raise the price of their goods and services from time to time to account for increased business costs. Why should the rising cost of labor be excluded from the business costs? You be the judge.
This guy demands food stamps. And yet, he apparently has money for headphones, some type of music device, a video camera, a computer, internet access, etc. How could he have money for all that crap and not have money for food? I'm really confused. Could some of the social Democrats assist in explaining to Hoffa why this guy has a point and what that point is exactly?
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” ― Benjamin Franklin
"Remember that time is money... that credit is money... that money is of the generating prolific nature... The good paymaster is lord of another man's purse" Max Weber quoting Franklin in The Protestant Ethic. Franklin's view is one of lifting yourself up by your own britches. He wasn't a president, but we cannot refute his success. I am not saying that he was right but I think it is a good addition to Greg's quote. Franklin in many ways represents our view of economics today. My personal problem is that we only teach one way of learning economic success. there are multiple ways of being economically successful. For example, larger governments require higher taxes, whereas smaller governments means tax cuts. This is an example taught in economics now, but many people do not even understand socialism. We have successful socialist programs even now. Take for example our firefighters. At one point in time firefighters would only put out fires for people if they had bought their services. If you did not have a plaque on your building, then they would arrive to watch it burn. Making firefighters a socialist program is to our benefit but we do not teach that to be the case in economics classes.