do you believe these statements to be true ?



In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Public opinion thus mobilized by them is, in its turn, split up into political parties. The difference between these parties is as small




man does not exist on theories and phrases, on declarations or on systems of political philosophy


Everything points to the fact that capitalism is fighting against peoples, and against the progress of humanity


We see that the primary cause for the existing tensions lies in the unfair distribution of the riches of the earth.


One might well believe that in these countries of liberty and riches, the people must possess an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no! On the contrary, it is precisely in these countries that the distress of the masses is greater than anywhere else.



the people as such are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters is the existence of a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the factories and their stock and, through them, control the people


The people as a whole definitely suffer. I do not consider it possible in the long run for one man to work and toil for a whole year in return for ridiculous wages, while another jumps into an express train once a year and pockets enormous sums. Such conditions are a disgrace.


I could continue to cite examples indefinitely. The fact remains that two worlds are face to face with one another. Our opponents are quite right when they say: 'Nothing can reconcile us ....' How could a narrow-minded capitalist ever agree to my principles? It would be easier for the Devil to go to church and cross himself with holy water than for these people to comprehend the ideas which are accepted facts to us today.

Now you know I googled all those quotes so what's the point of the exercise?

seems to me I hear these sentiments on this board all the time .

Aw well you know humans, especially with self serving agendas like conquering the world. You're not accusing liberals of something nefarious are you? I don't think you are, but do we both agree that shepherding the sheeple is lucrative for whatever agenda left or right, or should we focus on the top down capitalists ways that are as old as man and a religion unto itself?

capitalism is not that old . As an economics system where there is private ownership of the means of production for profit , is about 3-400 years old .So no it is not as old as man and a religion unto itself .


No I was not accusing you or anyone else of something nefarious . All I'm says is that the rhetoric of socialism ,be it national socialism or international socialism has not changed since the days of Henry de Saint-Simon or Robert Owen. Later when Marxism and Fascism became part of 2th century socialism ,the same rhetoric used today was still employed .

Yeah without factoring in your google search . I bet you agree with most of the sentiments in the statements ;if not all. You've written variations of them here many times .

1. Empires were built on capitalism, but were monopolies with armies, but making money and protecting merchant trade routes goes back to well before Christianity. I define capitalism as any endeavor for profit. Has it been refined, and somewhat complicated absolutely, but at least we have moved to marketing strategies from conquest strategies to gain wealth. Even slavery was about capitalism using subjugation as a tool to get enriched and that has evolved to keeping labor cheap and paying unlivable wages despite the spin justifying the devaluations of humans to exploit them for personal gains. Yeah, all that is and always has been part of capitalism.

2. All these labels doesn't hide the fact that it's the capitalist bad mouthing the socialists as opposites instead of acknowledging most societies on earth have both a combination of capitalism and socialism at the core of there economic structures in varying degrees of balance.

3. Yes but I'm not greedy or corrupt and trying to use propaganda to take over the world by wrangling the sheeple for my own private gain. That's why I looked them up to get better context of who said what and why. Anything no matter how good it sounds on paper can be corrupted...that includes capitalism, patriotism, and all the other isms, liberalism included.

Empires were built on capitalism
now you are making up history .

Throughout history there have been many economic models .I won't bother discussing ancient models except none of the democracies became empires until representative government was lost and dictatorships developed .

Europe went through various forms of economics systems post Rome . Feudalism being the dominant one in the Middle Ages . Post feudalism ,European nations that became empires used mercantilism which emphasizes nations accumulating wealth by means of extraction. Typically mercantile nations collect wealth by exporting products (think today's China ) . Empires would steal the wealth of territories they colonized and then manufacture and export the goods ;often to the territories they colonized .

Capitalism is an economic philosophy built around competition and productivity.In capitalism, most property and tools of production are held in private hands. While the government can, and typically does, produce a range of goods and services for general consumption, this role is typically limited. The default position for a capitalist economy is that, unless otherwise specified, a given product or service will be produced and marketed by private individuals using privately-held wealth.
The logic of capitalism is built around productivity and the idea that wealth can increase over time. Mercantilism is a zero sum game .

They all enrich the guy(S) at the top and the posse they surround themselves with. Its always been a top down class system with layers to the bottom. Think pyramid schemes.

I define capitalism as any endeavor for profit.1. You don't understand what capitalism is.

2. Wouldn't that describe your entire life? Didn't you work in order to make a living, a "profit"? So if endeavors for profit are wicked, then wouldn't that make you wicked as well?

3. If you really think capitalism has been a negative for the guys "at the bottom", then you don't know your history.

1. I fully understand what capitalism is as well as all the other isms and except for subtle nuances of implementation and applications they all are eerily similar despite the labels applied.

2, Striving to thrive and survive as I follow my path in lifes journey.

3. I should give you a chance to explain your position on that but fair warning, don't compare our poor to any 2nd, or 3rd world developing nation. Life is better here for the poor, as well it should be for a dynamic country, when things are working smoothly.

1. I fully understand what capitalism is as well as all the other isms and except for subtle nuances of implementation and applications they all are eerily similar despite the labels applied.You said capitalism is "any endeavor for profit". That's what I was questioning.


2, Striving to thrive and survive as I follow my path in lifes journey. Exactly, and true of most of us. So you have engaged in your description of capitalism all of your adult life.


3. I should give you a chance to explain your position on that but fair warning, don't compare our poor to any 2nd, or 3rd world developing nation. Life is better here for the poor, as well it should be for a dynamic country, when things are working smoothly.Go back three or four centuries ago prior to the widespread development of capitalism. The vast, vast majority of people were poor. Practically all wealth was concentrated at the VERY top. Capitalism changed that.

Go back three or four centuries ago prior to the widespread development of capitalism. The vast, vast majority of people were poor. Practically all wealth was concentrated at the VERY top.

What makes you think that this isn't true today, population is greater, so there are more wealthy people, but as a proportion of the population not much has changed

The financial condition of poor people in capitalist countries is so much better than what existed centuries ago that it's hard to make that comparison. The development, for instance, of a large, vibrant middle class has been almost miraculous.

You said capitalism is "any endeavor for profit". That's what I was questioning.

Should have clarified that as PERSONAL profit. My bad.


Exactly, and true of most of us. So you have engaged in your description of capitalism all of your adult life.

Doesn't that make every working person everywhere a practicing capitalist then even in communist countries?


Go back three or four centuries ago prior to the widespread development of capitalism. The vast, vast majority of people were poor. Practically all wealth was concentrated at the VERY top. Capitalism changed that.

Go back further than that and it was the same dynamic even after they changed the name on the label.

Doesn't that make every working person everywhere a practicing capitalist then even in communist countries?It does if your definition is right. That's what I'm questioning. What kind of work gets done that is not an "endeavor for personal profit"? There is some charity work, but most work done anywhere is an endeavor for personal profit.

It does if your definition is right. That's what I'm questioning. What kind of work gets done that is not an "endeavor for personal profit"? There is some charity work, but most work done anywhere is an endeavor for personal profit.
For "personal profit"? -- or to pay the bills?

How can you pay the bills unless you have made a personal profit?

How can you pay the bills unless you have made a personal profit?
After I've paid the bills (money I owe), if there's any money left, that's personal profit, my financial gain.

So you made a personal profit. Congratulations. According to Tal's definition, you are a committed capitalist.

So you made a personal profit. Congratulations. According to Tal's definition, you are a committed capitalist.
And it went into the offering plate on Sunday.

You gave your personal profit away. It was yours to do with as you pleased.

You gave your personal profit away. It was yours to do with as you pleased.
And so I did. Amen!

It does if your definition is right. That's what I'm questioning. What kind of work gets done that is not an "endeavor for personal profit"? There is some charity work, but most work done anywhere is an endeavor for personal profit.

Honest work (And for some dishonest work.) is done to survive and not always personal profit. Food, shelter, heat and light and maybe a new pair of shoes for the kids kind of takes personal profit off the top of the list. I guess it depends on how you look at it.

Honest work (And for some dishonest work.) is done to survive and not always personal profit.Sorry. Can't agree with that. Personal profit is used to pay the rent, buy a car, buy food, etc. That's why you work, in order to gain the money to pay those bills. The vast majority of people end up with money left over to spend on whatever. So I imagine that both you and WG own a house, furniture, clothes, a car (or two), retirement account(s) of one kind or another, and have money in a checking account. Do you know the term for those things? Capital!!

Good night, you two. God bless you both. More tomorrow and stay healthy.

Sorry. Can't agree with that. Personal profit is used to pay the rent, buy a car, buy food, etc.

Profit is the money a business pulls in after accounting for all expenses.

Total income or cash flow minus expenditures.

Profit is the money a business pulls in after accounting for all expenses.

Total income or cash flow minus expenditures.

Jl is confusing income with profit.

WG-1, J-0.

Sorry. Can't agree with that. Personal profit is used to pay the rent, buy a car, buy food, etc. That's why you work, in order to gain the money to pay those bills. The vast majority of people end up with money left over to spend on whatever. So I imagine that both you and WG own a house, furniture, clothes, a car (or two), retirement account(s) of one kind or another, and have money in a checking account. Do you know the term for those things? Capital!!

Good night, you two. God bless you both. More tomorrow and stay healthy.

I call it making an honest living! That's how my dad put it when I was growing up, and how I taught my kids. Capitalism is but a label concocted by a marketer to spin the idea that this is something brand new to get involved with. It's not, nor is the brand repubs love to taut trickle down economics.

Same thing, MO' fo' me and here are crumbs for you, and accounts for most of the income inequality in this country as the guy at the top assigns value for profit for workers. History shows whatever it has been called before, that is still the business model.

Interesting how conservatives will deny that, but can't explain why, even with Toms nuances to justify the branding.

Argue all you want, but you and WG are both capitalists and have profited greatly from living in a capitalist system.


Capitalism is but a label concocted by a marketer to spin the idea that this is something brand new to get involved withWhat?

1. So have you, no matter what we call it. The simple truth is that many have not benefited, and that's a pattern that's prevalent everywhere throughout history no matter what they called it, or themselves, and despite your efforts to push that label on others, I resist your efforts at rebranding old behavior. It's like you changing your name, but are still the same person you were before.

2. Is there a question there?

So have you, no matter what we call it. The simple truth is that many have not benefited, and that's a pattern that's prevalent everywhere throughout history no matter what they called it,So we agree. The three of us have profited under capitalism. On the other hand, the prevalent pattern of history is that many do not benefit. That's why we should be glad that capitalism came along.

"Capitalism is but a label concocted by a marketer"?? That's a strange statement. Like I said, I don't think you understand what capitalism is. Now if you want to say that pols frequently use the term to mean something else, then we can agree with that, but that doesn't change the fact that "capitalism" does have a definite meaning

1. I credit the blessings I have received to the God that I understand, but you can credit whomever you like for yours.

2. What was it called before capitalism? When did it become capitalism? Let's see if YOU understand it. I say it is just a coined phrase to attract new people to the SOS. Back to YOU!

1. I would agree with that. So would people living in communist countries, but check and see which person ends up better in terms of standard of living.

2. Here's a good description. I included the link. Capitalism,” a term of disparagement coined by socialists in the mid-nineteenth century, is a misnomer for 'economic individualism,' which Adam Smith (https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Smith.html) earlier called 'the obvious and simple system of natural liberty' (Wealth of Nations (http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN19.html#IV.9.51)). Economic individualism’s basic premise is that the pursuit of self-interest and the right to own private property are morally defensible and legally legitimate. Its major corollary is that the state exists to protect individual rights."

You will notice that I put that in quotation marks which I suppose now means , certainly on this board, that it's a liberal paraphrase, also known as a "Chicago paraphrase".

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Capitalism.html

1. I'm a fiscal conservative to use a label, because no matter how hard I worked I had to live within my means or render the work a waste of time. I also recognize that it's hard work being poor, but very satisfying to do the right thing with ones labor. Blowing ones limited income on dumb stuff isn't very satisfying and is loathsome and shameful in my house.

Not saying I have always been perfect, or always done the right thing by any means. My own insanity is a very humbling thing.

2. Great LINK!

Not saying I have always been perfect, or always done the right thing by any means. My own insanity is a very humbling thing.We both belong to the same club.

I always knew there is a reason

You will notice that I put that in quotation marks which I suppose now means , certainly on this board, that it's a liberal paraphrase, also known as a "Chicago paraphrase".

You're way over your head, JL. Quit while you're not too far behind.

I know, Athos. Quoting someone's exact words, in your world, is a paraphrase. I get it.

I know, Athos. Quoting someone's exact words, in your world, is a paraphrase. I get it.

I repeat - you're in way over your head. You're embarrassing yourself.

You're right. Responding to your insanity is embarrassing.

Every time I see a post from you I think about your intentional misrepresentation of the words of Aquinas. That's a "scarlet letter" you'll get to wear a long time.

I repeat - you're in way over your head. You're embarrassing yourself.

If he were embarrassed he wouldn't do it, no, he goes on making a fool of himself, like his leader

You're right. Responding to your insanity is embarrassing.

If you're embarrassed by responding to my insanity, who's the insane one?


Every time I see a post from you I think about your intentional misrepresentation of the words of Aquinas.

That quote was explained to you as pressure from the Church hierarchy. As with many other things, you simply refuse to believe it.


That's a "scarlet letter" you'll get to wear a long time.

As scarlet letters go, it's not much - simply another tendency of yours to nit-pick.

Here's your scarlet letter - far worse than what you believe is mine.

People, unbelievers in Jesus or sinners (one or the other or both; it's never quite clear as you dance around the answer) are condemned to hell for eternal punishment. This includes babies, born and unborn, (your original position), and good people who never heard of Jesus.

As I've repeatedly told you, this belief is not only wrong, it is about as sick as one human being can be.

I should be calling you Judas instead of Jl since you have betrayed the message of Christ.

Read Matt. 25. It's all I can tell you. I am completely willing to accept the words of Christ.

You never brought up the "pressure of the church" excuse until I pointed out the significant portion of his text you purposefully left out, a portion which completely changed his meaning to one which did not agree at all with your position.

The strange (my opinion) thing about you that I cannot figure out is this. If I understand you correctly, you don't believe the NT we have now is reliable. In other words, it's been corrupted over the centuries, books were left out, the Canon was politically influenced, and so forth. If that's the case, then how could you or anyone else think you have "the message of Christ"? Wouldn't it all just be idle speculation? How could you know that anyone else's belief was wrong without a reliable NT?

You sound like the dufus, everybody is wrong except him, and like the dufus your evidence of that falls short, simply because your premise is you know better than anyone else and nobody but you could be right and that's all the time.

That would explain why you glom so readily on the notion that we invented capitalism and it's the greatest thing since bubble gum, but it was your link that chronicled it's evolution from at least the last 400 years as Tom has eluded. Does that make me wrong for saying it has been around forever, but in different forms and called different things, by different people?

For sure we are finding out that capitalism in it's present form, as practiced by this administration/country has not handled this present virus situation very well as yet, since I must acknowledge the incredible enormity and complexity of it's challenge. I don't think we should be distracted by ideology or religious leaning, in such a discussion, since this about economic systems, rather than religious ones.

You sound like the dufus, everybody is wrong except him, and like the dufus your evidence of that falls short, simply because your premise is you know better than anyone else and nobody but you could be right and that's all the time.If you want to believe that nonsense about paraphrases and quotes, then go for it. I can't believe we are even discussing something as stupid as that. It's one of the most obvious things in the world.


That would explain why you glom so readily on the notion that we invented capitalism and it's the greatest thing since bubble gum,It would really be helpful if you would stop making things up. I've never said that. I don't even know who the "we" is that supposedly invented capitalism.


but it was your link that chronicled it's evolution from at least the last 400 years as Tom has eluded. Does that make me wrong for saying it has been around forever, but in different forms and called different things, by different people?The concept has no doubt been around a long time. I'm not sure why that would be an issue, but I would agree with that.

1. I've said my peace about the grammar police.

2. Another semantic battle?

3. It's only an issue when you don't recognize the evolution, and cannot imagine any further evolution.

2. Another semantic battle?No, it's a truth battle. You made up a position and attributed it to me. That was not true.


3. It's only an issue when you don't recognize the evolution, and cannot imagine any further evolution.I would largely agree with that with the possible exception that the concept of private ownership of the means of production, and the freedom and prosperity that brings forth, doesn't strike me as an idea that can evolve very far without losing it's meaning and significance entirely. I just don't think there is much wiggle room there.

As far as I know, there are only four possible models. 1. Government ownership of the means of production (socialism). 2. Private ownership of the means of production (capitalism). 3. The ownership of the means of production being arbitrarily held by a very small group of very wealthy and powerful people (feudal system?). 4. Some mixture of those which is probably what you have nearly everywhere with the possible exception of communist countries.

Do you see it otherwise?

You never brought up the "pressure of the church" excuse until I pointed out the significant portion of his text you purposefully left out, a portion which completely changed his meaning to one which did not agree at all with your position.

I gave you the original quote because I assumed you would not believe the reason for the later addition. When the later clause was given, I was correct - you did not believe my explanation. You are not hard to figure out.


how could you or anyone else think you have "the message of Christ"

Here it is for you - straight from the Gospels. Love God, love your neighbor, love yourself. For emphasis, Christ later added love your enemy. That last part was especially for people like you, so you wouldn't condemn unbelievers (the enemy) to punishment in hell for all eternity. An idea that couldn't be more foreign to the message of Christ.

I gave you the original quote because I assumed you would not believe the reason for the later addition. When the later clause was given, I was correct - you did not believe my explanation. You are not hard to figure out.Sorry. Just don't believe you.


Here it is for you - straight from the Gospels. Love God, love your neighbor, love yourself. For emphasis, Christ later added love your enemy. That last part was especially for people like you, so you wouldn't condemn unbelievers (the enemy) to punishment in hell for all eternity. An idea that couldn't be more foreign to the message of Christ.But as you well know, you did not answer the question. Do you consider the NT to be accurate to the original documents? If you don't, then wouldn't it be true that neither you nor I have any idea what Jesus taught? And if it IS accurate, then why don't you believe Matthew 25, and why would you ask me to take your teaching over the teaching of Jesus?

No, it's a truth battle. You made up a position and attributed it to me. That was not true.

REFRESH me please.


I would largely agree with that with the possible exception that the concept of private ownership of the means of production, and the freedom and prosperity that brings forth, doesn't strike me as an idea that can evolve very far without losing it's meaning and significance entirely. I just don't think there is much wiggle room there.

I think that given the rise of corporations are people too, and the corruption of money into the political system which seems to be a major factor into the income inequality, as well as a two tier judicial system I can see much wiggling to be done.


As far as I know, there are only four possible models. 1. Government ownership of the means of production (socialism). 2. Private ownership of the means of production (capitalism). 3. The ownership of the means of production being arbitrarily held by a very small group of very wealthy and powerful people (feudal system?). 4. Some mixture of those which is probably what you have nearly everywhere with the possible exception of communist countries.

Do you see it otherwise?

I feel you are mixing economic systems with government systems and that's the problem, because either the people chose the leaders or a small group chooses the leaders. Even dictators cannot function in a vacuum and need support of other influences to gain and keep power, usually the military or other tools to place powerful cronies around them. There are just too many different countries all with their own unique way of governing. Some have moved to more modern democratic ways and some are stuck in ancient ways and many in between both extremes in some manner.

So maybe I just see them all as the same, just in different phases of evolution. Indeed some have evolved faster, but even those hopefully are still evolving or would advancing be a better term?

REFRESH me please.Read post 44. It's all right there.


I feel you are mixing economic systems with government systems and that's the problem, because either the people chose the leaders or a small group chooses the leaders.I don't think I did, but I'm open to having it explained how I did that.


Even dictators cannot function in a vacuum and need support of other influences to gain and keep power, usually the military or other tools to place powerful cronies around them. There are just too many different countries all with their own unique way of governing. Some have moved to more modern democratic ways and some are stuck in ancient ways and many in between both extremes in some manner.I'm not talking about governance. That's a different topic. I'm talking about how economies are structured.

1. I think I was referencing the conservative orthdoxy as opposed to liberal orthodoxy as related to how Tom framed his thread in the beginning, which seemed to compare liberals to Hitler propaganda. So the "we" reference is the neo version of American capitalism, which I have held is corrupted by rich guys taking all the money which you have argued they deserved. That would be the very definition of trickle down economics long favored by repubs and conservatives without the fiscal hawks to keep it honest.

The results of that trickle down stuff keeps and widens the inequality gap on many levels and areas perpetrating the have and have not class systems quite effectively.

2. Inequality and poverty are the divisive tools to tyranny.

3. Economic structure IS the function of governance in every system, since nothing else effects the well being of it's people than that.

3. Economic structure IS the function of governance in every system, since nothing else effects the well being of it's people than that.I don't think it is in ours. I don't think it is THE function in hardly any. According to our preamble, government exists to:1. provide for national defense. 2. promote the general welfare. 3. Create a system of justice. 4. hopefully preserve liberty for our children. 5. Keep the peace.

I paraphrased some, so I did not put it in quotes. (Sorry...couldn't help myself.) At any rate, there is no mention that determining an economic structure is THE function of govt.

As to your #1, that is fine and legit. But bear in mind that I have NEVER argued that rich guys "deserve" to get all the money. In fact they DON'T have all the money or anything even approaching all the money.

1 and 2. Show me government anywhere that doesn't write and enforce the laws of the land. There are none, because they all do.

3. They control their money, the stock market, commerce state and local budgets and revenues, international monetary policy, your paycheck, and the schools you send your kids too, all through lobbyist, political donations and commerce. The contributions to the federal budget is a drop in the bucket compared to the total control of the monetary supply.

That's just American capitalism that we are dependent on. They know it, we all know it.

PS.

I let that paraphrase without quotes go because I understand the temptations. 8D

1 and 2. Show me government anywhere that doesn't write and enforce the laws of the land. There are none, because they all do.Who said they didn't?


3. They control their money, the stock market, commerce state and local budgets and revenues, international monetary policy, your paycheck, and the schools you send your kids too, all through lobbyist, political donations and commerce. The contributions to the federal budget is a drop in the bucket compared to the total control of the monetary supply.Well I hope they control their money. Why shouldn't they? They don't control my paycheck. To say they control the schools is crazy. Local school boards control the schools. They pay more than 85% of fed income tax. That's a "drop in the bucket"???


I let that paraphrase without quotes go because I understand the temptations. 8DYou're a good man!! 8D

1. Government sets economic policy throught the laws they write.

2. What about all the other stuff they control? The certainly control how much trickles down to everybody else. I mean who controls the local school board? Yeah 85% of the American budget is a drop in the bucket compared to the money generated through economic activity.

3. Aww! You're softening me up aintcha?

Yeah. I'm just becoming a regular softie. What is happening to me!!

Sorry. Just don't believe you.

That was apparent from the very beginning when I challenged your belief that unbelievers are condemned to hell for eternal punishment. You've never gotten over that.


wouldn't it be true that neither you nor I have any idea what Jesus taught?

I have a very good idea what Jesus taught. It's in the Gospels for all to see, including you. The Psalmist wrote about your kind, "Having eyes, they see not". In the Gospel according to Matthew, the same sentiment is written.


why would you ask me to take your teaching over the teaching of Jesus?

You're confusing yourself with Jesus.

That was apparent from the very beginning when I challenged your belief that unbelievers are condemned to hell for eternal punishment. You've never gotten over that.



I have a very good idea what Jesus taught. It's in the Gospels for all to see, including you. The Psalmist wrote about your kind, "Having eyes, they see not". In the Gospel according to Matthew, the same sentiment is written.



You're confusing yourself with Jesus.

and here I thought he was confusing himself with Aquinas

That was apparent from the very beginning when I challenged your belief that unbelievers are condemned to hell for eternal punishment. You've never gotten over that.Your disagreement is with the words of Christ in Matthew 25 and many other places. Your handling of the Aquinas quote had all the appearance of utter dishonesty so yeah, I haven't gotten past that.


I have a very good idea what Jesus taught. It's in the Gospels for all to see, including you. The Psalmist wrote about your kind, "Having eyes, they see not". In the Gospel according to Matthew, the same sentiment is written.So you do accept the NT as authentic and authoritative?

My question was, "why would you ask me to take your teaching over the teaching of Jesus?" Your response was, "You're confusing yourself with Jesus." That's completely nonsensical.

In the mean time in the capitalist world, big biz is mulling over whether or not to return stimulus money supposedly targeted for small businesses.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/24/public-companies-split-on-whether-to-return-small-business-loans.html

While some have returned the money and a few more intend to, unclear whether the others will and some are actively defending their right to tax payer money. Good luck trying to prying a dollar from a capitalist cold greedy hands. Can't blame them much though, since the guidelines were too vague in the first place, which resulted in the funds being scarfed up in record time, and REAL small biz's being left out.

While some have returned the money and a few more intend to, unclear whether the others will and some are actively defending their right to tax payer money.We live in the age of liberal philosophy which tells us that we all have a right to taxpayer money. Even worse, we all have a right to borrowed money. This "Alice in Wonderland" approach to the federal budget is eventually going to be our downfall.


Good luck trying to prying a dollar from a capitalist cold greedy hands.So have you sent yours back? Wouldn't it be something if everyone who received a check but really didn't need it actually sent the check back?

It's conservatives giving the money away, and you didn't send your deficit funded tax cut money back did you? So unless you admit to adopting the liberal philosophy, I trust you didn't send your stimulus check back either. How dare you blast liberals while making such a choice. That's utter hypocrisy isn't it?

Do as you say do, not as you do, and why would you just assume a liberal like myself doesn't NEED it?

Why should businesses send their checks back if you get to keep yours? You don't need yours anymore than they need there's. I'm just asking you to be consistent with your own ideas. My idea is that most of this 2.2 trillion dollar vote buying scheme was completely unnecessary. For me, I haven't received a check. I haven't decided yet what to do with it. I might put it into a college fund for my poor coming grandchild so he/she will at least have some light at the end of the tunnel.

BTW, our daughter sent us the ultrasound recording of the baby's heartbeat two days ago. What a thrill that was, and how blessed that little child is to be in a family which cherishes it.

You mean repubs are buying votes? They did pass it on a partisan basis so blast them not liberals who opposed it. In addition I did specify BIG biz in my reference to scarfing up money for small biz, so again you see no hypocrisy in your position and continue to point out my inconsistencies...DUDE please, that dawg don't hunt! I got no bones at all with what you do with your money and grand kids is the greatest investment of time money love and support there is in my book and share your excitement for your coming new addition. Heartfelt congrats on that with plenty of well wishes for you and yours.

Kids and grandkids are true blessings by any measure. LOL, wait for the GREAT grandkids to show up, God willing and the creek don't rise.

Are you trying to say that Pelosi and the dem leadership did not support the bill? The vote was 363-40 in the House. It was unanimous in the Senate. That's "partisan"??? What???

If it's wrong for businesses, then why is it OK for you?

This is our first grandchild. We're excited. I just wish they would move back here.

Let me correct your false facts (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/11/16/house-passes-tax-cuts-jobs-act/)...AGAIN



The House passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 227-201, almost entirely on partisan lines. Thirteen Republicans voted against the bill, while 190 Democrats voted against the tax reform legislation.


You flunked your homework!



If it's wrong for businesses, then why is it OK for you?

I did specify the businesses it was wrong for based on the published and known intent of the bill. See my previous posts. As for me, I'm a tax payer and they intended the money for tax payers. You too.


My greatest claim to fame was being designated baby sitter for a few years while everybody was working. OOOOOOOOOOHH what a rush! Missed a lot when I was working. To have that second chance is a blessing that I cherish forever.

You flunked your homework!If you had bothered to look at the date of your article, you would have seen that it was from 2017. The bill we are referring to , which is responsible for all of these checks being mailed out and was the one you are very plainly talking about in your third paragraph, was voted on in March of this year, and the vote was exactly as I described.

So who actually needs to do his homework???

Thought we were talking tax cuts...

I can't imagine how, but it's all good.

Went back and looked and we did talk tax cuts, but it moved to the present. There was little doubt the lock down was necessary, and even less doubt people who had to stay off work through no fault of there own would need assistance through it. While I have advocated a strong safety net, we seem to be in a perfect storm of event, a pandemic in an election year and we got caught wholly unprepared and paid a terrible price as we teeter on depression and deaths.

So my bad!

even less doubt people who had to stay off work through no fault of there own would need assistance through it.Well, that sure doesn't include the two of us, and yet we're getting checks. It doesn't include the great majority of Americans, and yet they are getting checks as well. It's just looney.

Don't worry about it. I've had my shares of misfires.

Well, that sure doesn't include the two of us, and yet we're getting checks. It doesn't include the great majority of Americans, and yet they are getting checks as well. It's just looney.

You can give yours back if you want, but if I get one, they will have to pry it from my cold dead hands.

I do understand. I wouldn't recommend they try it! 8D

The dufus said I could have it so it must be okay right? Got my letter yesterday. Everybody supposedly gets a check for economic relief during this difficult time.

Not a good time to snoop around my mailbox.

The Congress said you can have it.

A day of reckoning is coming for all of this crazy "borrow and spend" approach to governance.

The Congress said you can have it.

A day of reckoning is coming for all of this crazy "borrow and spend" approach to governance.
What would have been your solution?

The Congress said you can have it.

A day of reckoning is coming for all of this crazy "borrow and spend" approach to governance.

They will just have to sell more of those treasury bonds, at interest, which is pretty low right now.

What would have been your solution?


To have had a balanced budget for the past decades. They might have even wanted to have put aside an emergency fund. Better than that, we might want to have a more disciplined approach in who we vote for.


They will just have to sell more of those treasury bonds, at interest, which is pretty low right now.Yeah. When you are in a hole, then keep on digging.

I see no reason for a country to have a balanced budget ever, if they are fiscally responsible. Don't you think we have enough nukes to eliminate the military budgets? Looking back decades does no good. Spilt milk! Good luck electing the right people, that game is rigged.

Looks like we will just have to hit rock bottom, before we decide to make changes for the better.

I see no reason for a country to have a balanced budget ever, if they are fiscally responsible.

Isn't that kind of like suggesting it's OK to be way overweight as long as you live a healthy lifestyle? I mean you can't say we are fiscally responsible when we are more than 25 trillion dollars in debt, can you?


Looks like we will just have to hit rock bottom, before we decide to make changes for the better.I'm not going to go down that easy. Perhaps a great change could start with the two of us.

1. Bad analogy, mine would be a question of manageability.

2. I doubt that seriously since you beleive in a weak central government, a weak social safety net, legalized stealing and profits over people. All things I have a great aversion too, but open to suggestions.

2. I doubt that seriously since you beleive in a weak central government, a weak social safety net, legalized stealing and profits over people. All things I have a great aversion too, but open to suggestions.Suggestions? Try getting out of your little liberal shell and start raising your voice for fiscal sanity. All of you liberals on this board are all too happy to fund your pet projects as long as you don't have to pay for it.

Suggestions? Try getting out of your little liberal shell and start raising your voice for fiscal sanity. All of you liberals on this board are all too happy to fund your pet projects as long as you don't have to pay for it.
Which pet projects?

Big government. Big social "safety" net. Big fed giveaways like this silly idea of sending out checks to everyone. Spending borrowed money like it's water.

Please engage right wing loony rant font! Like repubs don't have pet projects or deficit funded tax cuts. Fine when repubs do it but sin when the dems did it?

Big government. Big social "safety" net. Big fed giveaways like this silly idea of sending out checks to everyone. Spending borrowed money like it's water.
What are conservatives' pet projects?

Good question. I suppose that many would answer national defense. I, not being your typical conservative, would say that we are all way past the point of being able to have pet projects.

Right now we have a bug to deal with that's reeking havoc on the planet.

that's reeking havoc on the planet.I think it's our panicky response that is wreaking havoc.

I think it's our panicky response that is wreaking havoc.
And calm ol' you suggests what?

If you were in the woods unarmed and a big hungry grizzly emerged 10 feet away, your response may be panicky too. That's about where we are at. Fortunately there are some experienced woodsmen that know what to do, and are armed. We just have to listen to them.

The dufus ain't one of them though, no matter his title of president, he just plays one on TV, and off TV.

He's been basically doing what your "experienced woodmen" recommend, so why are you complaining? I do know this. We cannot keep this economy throttled down.

If you cannot shut the economy down for maintenance and safely restart it, then it was a sham economy in the first place, built on smoke and mirrors. Obviously we have had structural damage for a while that this virus has woefully exposed. Maybe that's a good thing if we pay attention, and fix the structural damage, shame we lose good people in the process.

We will either rise to the challenge or drown in our own crap. I'm hopeful we rise, rebuild, restart, and are better for it.


He's been basically doing what your "experienced woodmen" recommend, so why are you complaining? I do know this. We cannot keep this economy throttled down.

I don't think he has, but governors and mayors, some any way, have really stepped up and rallied the citizens.

If you cannot shut the economy down for maintenance and safely restart it, then it was a sham economy in the first place, built on smoke and mirrors. Obviously we have had structural damage for a while that this virus has woefully exposed. Maybe that's a good thing if we pay attention, and fix the structural damage, shame we lose good people in the process.About on the same level as suggesting that if I can't just shut my job down for several months for "maintenance" and then just pick back up like nothing happened, then my job was a sham. That's a crazy, crazy idea. Go back and look at the Great Depression and see how successful they were with this business of thinking it's really easy to "restart" an economy. Economies are not lawn mowers. You don't just shut them down for months and then turn a key and restart them. Small business owners are going broke by the hundreds every day. It will reach a point where even the feds can't borrow that kind of money.

Case in point and you can multiply this by thousands. https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2020/04/30/jackson-mississippi-steakhouse-closes-permanently-due-coronavirus/3060111001/

I respectfully submit that it's not so crazy since it's the very real situation we find ourselves in because of the virus. Not an easy thing to restart, but like that lawnmower you have a process to follow that will get it started again. Maybe not as smoothly as we want, but doable. Challenging yes, doable certainly. Of course if you have never done it before and have no tools then even bigger challenge. I don't think you can ignore and dismiss as crazy such a challenge through the lens of difficulty or ignoring that the economy was shutdown because of the virus and not acknowledge until the virus is under control the economy cannot be restarted.

Yes some businesses may never reopen, but then again consider that the dead won't be brought back to life either. The longer it takes to control the virus the longer the economy will be sidelined, and the more people will die. Maybe we cannot borrow our way back to health and prosperity as we were before the virus, but I have never been through any life changing event with out making many permanent changes, and adjustment.

Have you? I think we all need to wrap our heads around the fact this may be just getting started and a lot more to come. The data suggests that, and we haven't seen any trend that says it's even close to being over any time soon. I believe in hope and hard work, rather than crying and hand wringing if you want to get the job done and have a positive outcome.

If we're as great as you say, then we need to get busy being about it, don't you think?

since it's the very real situation we find ourselves in because of the virus.No, it's not. This economy was not shut down for "maintenance".

Think "Sweden". Even your beloved WHO is now saying that Sweden is a good model. They did not panic like most of the world did. For that matter, look at South Dakota.

You cannot ignore this virus has exposed many of our service delivery systems as inadaquate. Think of all those small businesses that are waiting for the money that was promised and appropriated and yet to materialize. Maintenance that could have and should have been addressed before the virus. Try driving your car or truck without oil changes and replacing worn tires and let me know how that works out for you.

South Dakota (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_South_Dakota) is just starting to deal with its growing hotspots

Sweden (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Sweden) is a works in progress. As are every country. They are doing better than most without an official shutdown.

Neither of your examples show the 14 day downward trend experts say is a sign of control though Sweden demonstrably has slower rates of increase so far. I also noted this small fact showing how the Swedes addressed their population very differently than others have.



Again, on 11 March, the karensdag, the unpaid first day of sick leave, was temporarily discontinued in an effort to encourage people to stay home if they were experiencing symptoms consistent with COVID-19.[56] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Sweden#cite_note-58)
On 13 March, the government decided to temporarily abolish the demand of a doctor's certificate for 14 days for people staying home from work due to illness (i.e. sick pay period). Previously a doctor's certificate was needed after seven days.[57] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Sweden#cite_note-59)

Having functional systems in place to help the people is certainly a valuable asset. Compare that to the handling of those meat packing plants. HMMMM!

Just an observation --- the people on the ground - the medical people, the truck drivers and grocery clerks, all those who are out there as essential workers are heartening to see how truly heroic they are.

Then I look at the mess at the top. Trump says one thing one day, then something else the next day. He says an admiral and a general are in charge. Then it's Jared Kushner - a completely incapable, incompetent moron. This morning Trump said "I'm in charge". God help us!

The minority hotspots are disgraceful. A country as rich as ours should be doing better.

We desperately need a person to take national charge and coordinate all the efforts. What we do have is 50 people in charge effectively competing against each other raising prices and failing to slow the growth of the virus by a lack of national leadership.

Epidemiologists are now saying Trump's initial delays have caused massive damage economically and caused the sickness and death of thousands of Americans.

Meanwhile Trump gloats and smirks as he congratulates himself.

The dufus now claims he has seen evidence that China is to blame for the virus, so he may have to retalliate, meanwhile we wait for them to send us MORE medical supplies, meanwhile the DNR has not concluded what the dufus has said. So why would he even be shooting his mouth off about this as the country is trying this reopen the economy experiment? Hope all those hunkered down work at home people enjoy their freedom, they certainly have the weather for it.

The dufus doesn't seem happy unless he is trashing somebody, or taking credit he doesn't deserve. One day he will tell the truth and nobody will believe him. The rollercoaster ride continues.