Federal Reserve Bank, mother monopoly/conspiracy fact

[Velokid1]

it's just that ideas get connected with emotions and making decision based on them instead of logic and reason is a huge problem when that is done for some of topics we discuss on here. IE, For the political things we discuss logic is good, emotion is bad.

I don't agree at all. You have this idea that emotions are some foreign object infecting our minds and that serve no purpose. You cannot argue with evolution; our emotions are a part of us just as our feet and our eyes are. Making decisions, whether it's politics or preparing breakfast, in the absence of emotion is a foolish thing to do, not to mention absolutely futile. You may think you're turning off your emotions, but you aren't.

Decisions should be made with an awareness of both logical thought and emotion. Not only that, but they can ONLY be made with both. You can't shut off your emotions; the best you can do is to recognize them. But recognizing them shouldn't lead to you disowning them and banishing them from you mind and then sprinting toward the other end of the spectrum where you lavish Logic and Reason with hugs and kisses.

Both reason and emotions are tools we have been provided with by the universe. I'm not about to throw tools out of my toolbox and frankly, I don't trust the decision-making capacities of those who do.

I don't feel the gov rules and regulations help the people nearly as much as you think they do. I think they help the wealthy more.

Some regulations do; many don't. Again, let's avoid the black and white thinking and recognize that the world we inhabit is one of nuance and subtlety. Let's have some reverence for the complexity of this life and realize that we are surfing, tackling challenges as they come to us. We couldn't be further from Having It All Figured Out and we should have the humility to admit that.

Humility: another tool in the box. Very useful.

The Federal Reserve Bank mentioned in this thread is an example of government and regulations helping the wealthy and hurting the middle class.

Perhaps. But it's one example. It's an example of its own inefficiencies and corruption, nothing more. It doesn't serve as an example that should convince us that all government action is bad. Are there other examples? Yep. Are there perhaps dozens? I think so. But let's not be so black and white that we ignore the many ways that the federal government works and works very well.

[steve74baywin]

The Federal Reserve Bank mentioned in this thread is an example of government and regulations helping the wealthy and hurting the middle class.

Perhaps. But it's one example. It's an example of its own inefficiencies and corruption, nothing more. It doesn't serve as an example that should convince us that all government action is bad. Are there other examples? Yep. Are there perhaps dozens? I think so. But let's not be so black and white that we ignore the many ways that the federal government works and works very well.

True that one example doesn't mean everything the gov does is bad, but the private stock holder owned Federal Reserve Bank is the worst.
I see very little done by the government that is good, the bad outweighs the good by so much it is hardly worth considering.

[Velokid1]

[steve74baywin]

I was going to leave if for a bit, but I just have to pick apart that thing.

"There is nobody in this country that got rich on his own. You built a factory out there - good for you"

As long as he didn't force the people to build it but they worked for a wage they agreed upon, what's the beef?

You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.

She is forgetting that perhaps he contributed to the roads too, and let's not forget that the Fed Gas tax pays for alot of highways and property taxes for local roads, and I'm sure the trucks pay their share.

You hired workers the rest of us paid for to educate.

Again, maybe he paid even more towards it, why does she assume he has been exempt for all the same taxes she and others had to pay?. Just because others willingly or unwillingly paid for something they thought was good, why does that subject him to it? Either way, she shouldn't be proud of using force to get people to pay for that, and now she wants more force. Is she God? Does she have the true ultimate plan we must follow?

You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces the rest of us paid for.

Once again, what makes her think he didn't pay some also? Was there no property tax on that factory? What about all the workers who earned money at that factory, they paid for those services with money they made from the factory, doesn't that count for something?. If the people in that town get their income to live from that factory, and they pay taxes for the police and fire, then protecting that building is in the interest of those that work their as much as the owner? And more than likely the property taxes on a factory is pretty good.

But part of the underlying social contract is you pay a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid that comes along.

So now we have to be subjected to some underlying contract of her mind?
Velo, did you just post that to piss me off?
That there is probably a good example of utilizing emotions to affect people. I categorize that bit from her as propaganda.

[Velokid1]

To be fair, everything gets under your skin, Steve. LOL

You are missing the entire point of what she is saying. You really are. Right over your head. At no point does she say that the wealthy entrepreneur didn't also pay toward those services. What she's saying is addressed to what has become the knee-jerk, frenzied litany of the political right: "Government is bad! It offers us nothing and takes away everything!"

Here it is in a nutshell: without government pooling taxpayer money and managing the colossal projects of building roads, establishing a police force, orchestrating a fire response, that entrepreneur's contribution wouldn't have been able to pay for even a fraction of any of them.

You can't replace a fire station that has 6 engines and 30 firemen at the ready with 1 fireman and a pickup truck with a garden hose. The entrepreneur in our story enjoyed an extensive and comprehensive system of roads and other infrastructure componentry in the establishment of his business; not just the fraction thereof that he was responsible for funding.

You say government does a ton of bad things and only a couple of good things. I say that government does a ton of good things and a few bad things. Trying to change my mind about that, besides being futile, isn't going to make the roads under your car wheels disappear.

[steve74baywin]

I don't think everything gets under my skin, less gets under my skin than most people.
We are having one of those opposite days, we each have glasses on that invert everything only opposite of each other.
If I knew the context in which she was saying that it could of helped.
What I would then add to that is this.
It is wrong to assume we would not have those things without the coercive force of the government and to assume that he would not have been able to do what he did without the gov.
He could have put forth more effort to protect his factory, just like today people pay extra to provide more protection, whether it be guards or security systems.
We had fire departments and police before the government used force on the people to pay.
People traveled this here country before government used force for roads. A gas tax is responsible for many roads, and that tax I think doesn't violate pre 1900 constitution.
My aircooled VW's do really well on dirt roads.
I'm enjoying the discussion even though there is not much if any talk about the government created privately owned Federal Reserve Bank.

[Velokid1]

You are right about the context of her quote maybe not being obvious. Sorry for that. I see what you're saying; I just disagree with it.

[Amskeptic]

The entrepreneur in our story enjoyed an extensive and comprehensive system of roads and other infrastructure componentry in the establishment of his business; not just the fraction thereof that he was responsible for funding.

Hello! Thank-you, Velokid1.

[steve74baywin]

The entrepreneur in our story enjoyed an extensive and comprehensive system of roads and other infrastructure componentry in the establishment of his business; not just the fraction thereof that he was responsible for funding.

Hello! Thank-you, Velokid1.

So what if what he contributed only built a fraction. And this differs from everyone else how? We all have contributed only a fraction thereof, and we use more than the fraction thereof that we were responsible for funding. So this means what and is justification to what??? He takes risk, has ideas and this creates jobs, allows people to live by earning money, this money further aids in roads and structures, but, somehow because his amount doesn't quite match what he uses, even though nobodies does, you think this is reason to slam him for more money? Maybe next time he can sit home and not let the factory be built and not let people get jobs. It sounds ungrateful and selfish to me what she is trying to do. It sounds like propaganda to work via peoples emotions, to get them behind giving the gov more power to rule.
Using this supposed logic, the poor guy who finally gets a job at that factory, he is using tons more services than he has funded. Maybe he should give up most if not all of his new found income? I mean chee, if he had a very low paying or no job, he is at a great debt to society according to her illogic. Maybe he should just be a slave for life. Maybe this is already happening via the Federal Reserve bank.
Ah, maybe that is it, it is obvious the poor guy is already a slave via the privately held Federal Reserve Bank, so nothing more there, the only thing left is to take more from the slave that built the factory.

[Velokid1]

I'm so glad that you aren't President, Steve. ;)

[steve74baywin]

I'm so glad that you aren't President, Steve. ;)

I wish we could talk in person someday.
I could use your vote.

Edited to add
I missed something yesterday, not that it pertains to the greater ideas, but
you said

"You are missing the entire point of what she is saying. You really are. Right over your head. At no point does she say that the wealthy entrepreneur didn't also pay toward those services."

Three times she say

"the rest of us paid for"

.
Starting out saying

"nobody in this country that got rich on his own"

and then

"on the roads the rest of us paid for"

and

"You hired workers the rest of us paid for to educate"

and

"police forces and fire forces the rest of us paid for"

is a clever way to put the notion that some how he didn't or did less and they did more, when if anything the opposite is true. I'd be very leery of this lady. She seems like another deceiver.

[ruckman101]

The context deemed missing seems pretty obvious to me. Her statement is made with the underlying understanding that the wealthy don't pay taxes. The people do. You know, reality.


neal

[steve74baywin]

Her statement is made with the underlying understanding that the wealthy don't pay taxes. The people do. You know, reality.
neal

Yeah, there are plenty of loop holes and they do manage to weasel out of alot taxes, like I say we elect them to office thinking they are going to increase taxes on themselves, but they also create loopholes.
The biggest tax that we feel, and that hurts us, is the inflation tax, the fact that our dollar is devalued becuase they print money backed by nothing and borrow money from the Fed. For people like us that make just about what it takes to live + or - a little, we feel inflation. When you make over a million or so, the devaluing of our dollar isn't felt as much.
The private Federal Reserve Bank that makes money on the interest it charges us I don't think pays a penny in taxes, we aren't even allowed to see there books or audit them.
Look for candidates that want to End the Fed and aren't as rich as her.

[Amskeptic]

So what if what he contributed only built a fraction. And this differs from everyone else how?

That is precisely her point. He does not differ from everybody else. He is not so damn special that he should jerk the reins of government for special favors and breaks.

When you look at the increasing inequity, Steve, and see that the rich have gotten richer when their productivity gains have been no more than the productivity gains of workers whose incomes have stagnated, then you might wonder why their tax burden has gone down to while our tax burden has gone up. There are regressive taxes, Steve. We who pay sales and fuel taxes and utilities and rent are blowing half of our income right there, just for a job that keeps a roof over our heads.

Now honestly, Steve, why should their riches grow! while we who actually produce the wealth are teetering? Why should their tax burden be going down? Why can't we raise their taxes if only to the rate under Bill Clinton? Why do they fight it so hard? Greedy self-centeredness? Because they do not care about the strangling middle class and increasingly impoverished? When mention is made of increasing taxes on the rich, can we have a fair honest discussion about the effects they will feel? (answer > none at all).

Did you know that the Koch Brothers watched their incomes go up 40% in the last two years to 50 billion dollars, and yet they laid off workers? Do you buy into that crap about taxing the rich loses jobs? Can we all be so gullible STILL?????
Colin

[Amskeptic]

The biggest tax that we feel, and that hurts us, is the inflation tax,

Not yet. Inflation has not been an issue for a long time now.
Tax cuts for the rich under Bush and extended under Obama hurt us.
Colin