Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
12 years ago

Sorry man, I don't live in a fantasy world where our country's economics is left up to human kindness, because I don't believe there is enough of it to make it work.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



The possibility of DakotaT being correct on this is why "charitable contributions" remains my only "tax deduction." It's also why I chose my tax rate of 10% -- tax to me is justified only if we justify it as a sort of secular tithe. I do believe we have a moral obligation to those less fortunate and I also agree that people can't be relied on to satisfy that moral obligation on their own. They don't have to give to a particulasarc charity, but they must be charitable to some degree.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Pack93z
12 years ago

Primary requirement: Only spend on activities for which the government actor has a comparative advantage (i.e. can do it better, at a lower opportunity cost, than any market actor could).

Originally Posted by: Wade 



Here is my issue with Market based "actors".

They have and will always have one primary agenda, turning a profit. Which then brings in a ethical question and in many cases no checks to keep them in balance.

Example. Red Cross.

They have noble intentions, however without a paying customer base, there is no check system in place to ensure that their primary objectives as a organization are kept in line. Hence we have a organization that actually utilizes incoming funds very poorly for their intended purpose. Helping people.

Now imagine if they were under a contract of sorts to provide those services.. they would be performing as poorly as some of the government programs do.

Again, in my eyes, we need to kick the government back into what they should be and not what they are. A non biased, public servant for the good of the people, all people. Not just those that can afford to contribute to the campaign machines.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
12 years ago

Here is my issue with Market based "actors".

They have and will always have one primary agenda, turning a profit. Which then brings in a ethical question and in many cases no checks to keep them in balance.

Example. Red Cross.

They have noble intentions, however without a paying customer base, there is no check system in place to ensure that their primary objectives as a organization are kept in line. Hence we have a organization that actually utilizes incoming funds very poorly for their intended purpose. Helping people.

Now imagine if they were under a contract of sorts to provide those services.. they would be performing as poorly as some of the government programs do.

Again, in my eyes, we need to kick the government back into what they should be and not what they are. A non biased, public servant for the good of the people, all people. Not just those that can afford to contribute to the campaign machines.

Originally Posted by: Pack93z 



Yes, but if you give the task to someone who can't do it as cheaply, you're also using your funds poorly. IMO the Red Cross wouldn't be able to get away with their inefficiency were they subject to the market constraints that those evil profit-seekers would. Because they'd either fix things or they'd be bankrupt.

The problem isn't profit-seeking. The problem is profit-seeking combined with government-instituted insulation from the bad consequences of their choices: in the case of the Red Cross, that insulation comes from their tax-reducing status as a not-for-profit; in the case of the current for-profit corporations, it is the protection offered by limited shareholder liability and an unlimited lifespan.

That's why the absolute requirement has to be "only if they have an actual comparative advantage." And why any grant of power to the state must NOT be accompanied with insulation from civil liability. Because acting through the state ALWAYS yields insulation of the decision-maker from market constraints otherwise. Always.

Noble intentions are never enough. That's why DakotaT's position, while noble as aspirations and showing him to be as compassionate as anyone can be, the kind of person one wants as a friend and neighbor and fellow citizen, is wrong. Noble intentions alone merely pave the way to hell. Because, unfortunately, whether one is in the private sector or the public one, there are far too many people who don't share his moral character, people who, if you insulate them from the consequences of their choices will make bad choices.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
12 years ago
I think we should give all our money to the government and trust that they will take care of us from the cradle to the grave.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
12 years ago

I think we should give all our money to the government and trust that they will take care of us from the cradle to the grave.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



You forgot your sarcasm smiley! [grin1]
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
12 years ago

You forgot your sarcasm smiley! [grin1]

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



no I did not. You and all your government dependent friends have convinced me. I was wrong to fight the inevitable for so long. It is what the people want so give it to them.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
12 years ago

no I did not. You and all your government dependent friends have convinced me. I was wrong to fight the inevitable for so long. It is what the people want so give it to them.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



It has to work better than trickle down economics.
UserPostedImage
PackFanWithTwins
12 years ago

Primary requirement: Only spend on activities for which the government actor has a comparative advantage (i.e. can do it better, at a lower opportunity cost, than any market actor could).

First example: Various "security" and "war" services: Marines, Army, Navy, Air Force combat personnel. Coast Guard search and rescue. The uniformed beat cop. Fire departments. Criminal court. Border control to prevent entry of criminals and infectious diseases.

Does not include such things such as REMF functions, police detectives, or anyone or any function provided bye the so-called "Department of Homeland Security". Does not include enforcers of "limit immigration" laws.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



I primarily agree, but differ slightly. Government should only supply what private sector cannot, like a national military, interstate system. And much of that, federal government should be more of a coordinator of the states instead of provider. Everything else should be provided by the private sector, cost is never really an issue. There is no reason government can do anything cheaper, and even if there was, even if more expensive, it would be generating revenue and expand the tax base.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
DakotaT
12 years ago

no I did not. You and all your government dependent friends have convinced me. I was wrong to fight the inevitable for so long. It is what the people want so give it to them.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



I don't have any government dependent friends. All my friends are just like you momolucs. And like all of you, none of them have had a life altering crisis with their child that have made them re-evaluate everything. Needing all the toys and bells and whistles is just not important anymore - and voting for the assholes that make sure a small percentage of our country has all those things is not something I'm on board with anymore - but I once was.


UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
12 years ago

I don't have any government dependent friends. All my friends are just like you momolucs. And like all of you, none of them have had a life altering crisis with their child that have made them re-evaluate everything. Needing all the toys and bells and whistles is just not important anymore - and voting for the assholes that make sure a small percentage of our country has all those things is not something I'm on board with anymore - but I once was.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



agreed. I could care less about the crap people collect. If I had my way we would all live without 3/4 of the stuff we have. and be far better off for it.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (1h) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026
Zero2Cool (1h) : It's so awesome.
Zero2Cool (1h) : new site fan shout post fast
wpr (4h) : Slow posting in Fan shout.
wpr (4h) : Only 4
wpr (4h) : Only 4
Zero2Cool (7h) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!
dfosterf (7h) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am
wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days
beast (18-Apr) : 6 days
wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep
dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire
dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that
dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.
dfosterf (15-Apr) : I may have to move
dfosterf (15-Apr) : My wife just told the ancient Japanese sushi dude not enough rice under his fish
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I think a dozen is what I need
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Go fund me for this purpose just might work. A dozen nurses show up at 1265 to provide mental health assistance.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Maybe send a crew of Angels to the Packers draft room on draft day.
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I am the Angel that gets visited.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Visiting Angels has a pretty good reputation
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : what
Martha Careful (14-Apr) : WINNING IT, not someone else losing it. The best victory though was re-uniting with his wife
Martha Careful (14-Apr) : The manner in which he won it was just amazing and wonderful. First blowing the lead then getting back, then blowing it. But ultimately
Zero2Cool (12-Apr) : I'm guessing since the thumb was broken, he wasn't feeling it.
dfosterf (10-Apr) : Looking for guidance. Not feeling the thumb.
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : If they knew about it or not
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : I don't recall that he did which is why I asked.
Zero2Cool (10-Apr) : Guessing they probably knew. Did he have cast or something on?
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : Did they know that at the time or was that something the realized afterwards?
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
19-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Apr / Random Babble / wpr

16-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

13-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

12-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

11-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Rockmolder

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

30-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

29-Mar / Random Babble / wpr

28-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

26-Mar / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.