Things We Cannot Do
“Because a thing seems difficult for you, do not think it impossible for anyone to accomplish.” – Marcus Aurelius “
I came across this article and it seemed a clear explanation of some of the issues looming before our country as the presidential election draws near.
Regardless of the winner things that "we cannot do" ae likely to remain the same.
People will always think their answer to a problem is absolutely correct and their opponent's answer to the same problem is absolutely wrong.
But alas compromise - give a little to get a little (a lost art in U.S. government these days) is till the ultimate answer
Red Box Rules
Talk about the article not each other.
The article is not about Harris or Trump, Democrats or Republicans, but rather about the future of our country and what shape it will take.
Be civil
Have fun
What would you add to this list of sentences?
Nothing. They're not the best. Noting to add to.
Interesting insight, thanks
Sell to the rich, eat with the poor ... sell to the poor eat with the rich.
A penny saved is a penny earned!
A rolling stone gathers no moss!
People will always think their answer to a problem is absolutely correct and their opponent's answer to the same problem is absolutely wrong.
I would add that this is a great over-generalization!
"People will...?" That implies all people will act the same.
"will always think their answer to a problem is absolutely correct."
WTF-- that's absolutely...just weird! I myself think the opposite if the stakes are high. (If my initial guess is that my theory is correct one of the first things i do is test it to see if it true-- or merely a mere fig newton of my imagination!)
And generally good scientists have a theory-- and don't just assume its correct. rather they test it (this is called an experimet-- it they assumed it was correct they wouldn't bother to perform experiemnts!).
Number three is 100% wrong.
Start with our Constitution, the Amendments and the Bill of Rights.
I haven't studied all of them, put at first glance they are mostly totally false.
IMO the quickest way to debunk #3: point out that the government can print money. (Maybe some people didn't know that?)
There are probably other good arguments as well-- that point out that #3 is false.
The government issued our "inalienable rights" to certain people without taking anything from other men or women. Then they changed them twenty times, lol.
I would add:
All most Democrats support are tax reforms where the wealthiest pay their fair share and children, the disabled, the elderly and those who have fallen on hard times and lost jobs through no fault of their own don't fall through the cracks of society and die on the street as we saw when our nation had no social safety net like during the great depression.
The question could be asked which group IMPACTS the Earth and the nation the most: 1) The Wealthy. 2) The Poor.
I agree with the points you make
Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking.” – Clement Attlee “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely.”
Opinions vary. So who should we choose to rule on what is wise-- and what is not?
Each person must conclude for themselves what a "wise choice" is personally and vote & participate in governing according to their personal values and beliefs - there should be no "herd instinct" following on the left or the right but rather a steady central oriented flow which allows allow to participate and all to benefit favoring no one person or group over another.
This comment has no (true) meaning since we are being tugged to one side or the other; the 'worse' could win and for four years we (all) will be dragged along in horror of a choice; some will 'reap the whirlwind in injustice being 'shelled down' upon them by hateful people in this country.
WE should not be "tugged" to one candidate or one political position or another, we should make our own way, according to each's conscience and beliefs - free choice and government "by the people" does not mean following an incompetent or and lunatic regardless of party affiliation.
That position reads as "Neutral." We can't afford just going our own way-that is, not expressing a bias.
Our bias should reflect truth, decency, integrity, and integration. We have a former president who is resulting to hysterical LYING to sway people on the fence as to whom to give their vote in this presidential election. Think long and hard about this.
A FORMER president is deliberately LYING without any proper cause (meaning not in the interest of some higher stated cause-but for personal gain) in order to deny truth its proper place in this presidential election! We can't be okay with that.
Because, if we do allow self-indulgent LYING then we are doomed to repeat a tragedy of the past! Our national past. . . its problems, negatives, and positives yet stand in relief and we should not look longingly to repeat them. The masses, citizens, and yes taxpayers suffered mightily back then while 99.99 percent of the time this nation's majority thrived. It was wrong then and it is wrong today to return to the past as some form of 'expediency.'
If there are problems of equality and inclusion in our land, we should continue working hard to eliminate those matters—not regress and 'retreat.'
When some imply an unbiased position should be preferred in a critical presidential election where the outcome will determine whether we continue as democratic republic or change into 'one-man' rule and control, I am compelled to remind us, elections have consequences.
We should want the best for all our citizens - all of us - not just some of us.
“There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.”
– Bill Clinton
OMG-- I had always thought that Bill Clinton was at least a litlle bit nore intelligent than that.
For starters-- WTF does that mean? its pure gibberish.
In my opinion, he was making the point that the U.S. works best when no politician or political faction is followed with blind loyalty (on the left and the right) but rather we never forget that "we the people" means all of us.
Just because one doesn't understand a point does not make it gibberish
Sounds like something the robber barons might have written.
Really? Sounds like something Jefferson might have written to me.
Actually both Benjamin Franklin as well as Shakespeare used to love writing to me-- did it frequently. (And if they didn't have time to write they always texted me).
Who exactly are these "robber barons" you refer to, do they have names?
"The Not So Magnificent Seven"?
Morgan, Rockerfeller, Getty, Vanderbilt, Gould, Carnegie, Fisk among others
Yes. They are Moe. Larry, and Curly.
(All three used to be on NT. We gave them many chances. And they tried to avoid the moderators by changing to Moe, Larry, and Shemp. But because of their ongoing thefts all three were were cancelled)
Some of things posted in this discussion are not exactly...um...well not exactly accurate! But these "robber barons" were real.
(I've read about some of them-- fascinating stuff! In their own way they were brilliant-- but they were not nice people!!!)
Oh yeah, I remember seeing a documentary
The Men Who Built America : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
I don't agree with these '5 best sentences' of 'things we cannot do'.
I think they are nonsense.
I agree with John.
Of course you do....
What makes you say that?
Well reasoned.
Tessy
Again thanks for the interesting insight - differences of opinion are good for debate
A lot of wisdom in those five concepts. Problem is, it seems fewer and fewer folks these days display that they have much wisdom.[✘]
You're a member of the pudding ... /s
And a veritable "card carrying member" of the pudding to boot!
[✘]
[✘]
The flat earth theory of economics...
Can you elaborate on why you think that?
Those truisms are not restricted to government. Wall Street works the same way. Here are some of the same truisms stated a little differently.
Tell that to the flood victims who now have expectation of federal assistance, some more - some less, from local, state, and federal government authorities. Until these "individualists" among us get it through their thick heads that we are ONE NATION COMMUNITY (UNION) of mixed race immigrants and indigenous people we will suffer mightily as we strain to keep from pulling the UNION (ourselves) apart!
You are conflating different differing truisms.
So, you endorse Clinton's concept of pubic/private partnership? The government won't do one goddammed thing for the flood victims. The government is going to make an army of private contractors rich. That's why it will take years for recovery. The contractors and union workers don't want to kill the job. There's gonna be enough red tape produced to travel to Mars and back. Lawyers will get rich. Commodity gamblers will get rich. Stock buyers will get rich. If the people of NC are lucky, there'll be a little left over for them.
The United States army has several divisions of engineers who can build roads, bridges, power lines, water grids, and housing. That was a core mission for the military in fucking Iraq and fucking Afghanistan. But the people in NC are just fucked; waiting for contractors to put in their low ball bids and do shoddy work on the government's dime. Joe Biden would send more resources to Ukraine and Gaza to rebuild than to NC. North Carolina is Trump country and we sure as hell can't have that.
Amazing!
Has anyone told you you should be a writer?
True-- but remeber, even a stopped watch is right twice a day!
Joe Biden...sending more resources to Gaza?
Yes, Biden is wasting the taxpayers noney by spending such huge amounts of our money and resources to Gaza-- and Biden is stopping aid from reaching N Carolina/
(/Sarcasm)...or worse!!!
Sometimes I write hurried and a lot of the time tired. So, it is what it is. I think the gist gets across more often than not!
So if I gamble on stocks and win-- then someone else loses.
But how come that other person is also gambling on stocks-- do they always lose?
What happens if I gamble on stocks and lose-- and someone else wins?
How do those stock make it onto the market? Who is the first seller of stocks listed on the market?
Investment banks don't gamble. Investment banks always get first chance. And, thanks to Bill Clinton, investment banks can now use your commercial bank deposits to rig the markets in their favor.
Only chumps gamble on stocks. Bankers don't gamble; bankers rig the market to scam chumps.
Many people don't realize what stocks are. They signify part ownership of the company. (The percentage of the company you own depends upon how many shares you own-- and how many shares there are).
As an owner of part of a company, you get to vote on company policy-- the number of votes you get is equal to the number of shares you own.
In addition, some companies return part of their profits to shareholder (in the form of dividends). There a set dollar amount a shareholder gets for each share they own.
The dividend policy (frequency and amount!) of the dividends are determined by a vote of the ownders of the company-- i.e. a vote by people owning the stock.
Those are referredto as stocks for income.
Other stocks don't pay money back to shareholders. Rather people buy them in hopes they will do well and shareholders can sell the part of the company they own (i.e. shares of stock) in the future-- at a profit. These are called "Growth stocks".
And then thereare some stocks they (hopefully) increase in value over time and also pay dividends.
The company of those stocks. (For example, if Microsoft wants to issue more stocks,they do-- and bring them to market. Then ordinary people decide whether or not to buy them.
If itsa good company and you get to buy them when they are first issued you can sometimes getthem at a great price, (its actually more complicated than that).
Sometimes companies decide to issue more stock-- if they guess right (and are smart of lucky) people snap them up and the price rises.
Sometimes the new shares of stock are issued and few people want them-- so the price drops!
What are you basing that on?
Just curious-- how many years (decades?) have you been trading stocks?
Where is the magic money tree that supplies all the cash? The only way to generate wealth is by combining resources and labor to produce something of value. The government does not produce anything. Wall Street does not produce anything. The government and Wall Street can only redistribute wealth.
I am not registered to trade stocks. So, it's necessary to deal with a middleman who takes a skim for themselves.
The main function of government at every level is to protect individual and property rights and the safety of citizens. Without government the powerful would rob and kill without consequences. It is true from Country Clerk to Commander In Chief...
Its not magic. The company is a business that sells goods and or services and makes ,oney. When you buy some stock you own part of the compny and therefore make money if its a decent business.
No one controls how well you do. If you're smart (and educate yourself) you pick stocks in good companies.
A lot of its based on how much research you do so you pick stocks in good companies.
Some people don't have time for that so they hire brokers who make the decisions for them for a small fee.
Although now-a-days many brokerage houses do free research for their clients.
You don't have to be registered! You can pick a brokerage house who does the trade for you.
In the past they charged a comission on every trade. But then one started doing trades for free, soto compere all the others have to do trades for free. (A few exceptions-- if you trade derivatives there a tiny fee. Also IIRC there's a small fee if you buy foreign companies -- but I believe those are tax refunds. Anyway most beginners don't do this stuff).
Here's a list of well known brokerage houses I just found on the web-- they rated "the best" but that's their opinion. I'm just posting these as examples, you may or may not have heard of any of these:
Summary of the best online brokers:
Fidelity.
Interactive Brokers.
Webull.
Robinhood.
Charles Schwab.
E*TRADE.
J.P. Morgan Self-Directed Investing.
Public.
SoFi Active Investing.
Ally Invest.
Firstrade.
Here's how to get involved if you wish. Pick one, and open an account (you'd deposit some money). There used to be minimums to open accts but I believe there isn't or its a tiny amount.
Then if you want to buy a stock you clicvk on a the trade menu, type the stock symbol.and a few other items and put in a buy orded. and a target price.
Its takes a short time to learn how and there are tutorials or you can call their free suppost line-- they are very helpful (its a competitive business-- tye want to give you good service).
Most people start with small amounts of solid well known companies-- for example buying stocks of Amazon. Microsoft, Apple. Proctor and Gamble. Coke, Pepsi. JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Exxon Mobil. Verizon, TMobiie, Ford, GM. etc.
Nope.
It produces wealth-- and people who use Wall St to buy and sell stocks (if they are smart) can over time become well off-- by the opportunity to make money from investing in a business (by buying stocks of that business).
Safeguarding individual rights and safety doesn't require redistributing wealth. In fact, the government redistributing wealth requires infringing individual rights.
Really? What goods and services does a bank produce? A bank actually pulls money away from future labor for today's exploitation. Our economy runs on wealth that doesn't even exist yet.
Debt exploits the future to transfer wealth to the wealthy.
These are all middlemen who produce nothing. They have not produced the stocks they trade and they have not produced the money needed to trade those stocks. These middlemen are exploiting existing savings (that they do not own) and future labor (that they will not contribute) to transfer wealth to themselves.
None of these registered brokers are charities. None of them are non-profits. They do not produce what they sell. So, where do all these brokers get their profits? Have we come full circle back to a magic money tree?
Barack Obama proved that the Federal government can protect a corporation, like GM, from its shareholders. And Bill Clinton accepted the repeal of Glass-Steagall to save Citibank (City Bank of New York).
Owning shares in those enterprises entitles the owner to what? Exploit labor? Exploit savings? Exploit consumers? Exploit a magic money tree?
How is corporate equity different than social equity? Brokerage houses tell us that equity is a commodity that can be bought and sold. But those brokerage houses aren't that different from those demanding social equity. Equity only has value when wealth is redistributed to support it. And that redistribution is accomplished by brokers who do not produce anything. The brokers of equity only exploit labor, savings, consumers, and magic money trees.
Wall Street really does function in the same manner as government.
Well, you're not the first person I've come across who is opposed to Social Security-- and for the very same reason!
I was thinking about this post and realized I may not have been clear-- I was not recommending anyone buy these-- I was just using this as an example of what most informed investors would consider to be solid, relatively low risk investments.
P.S: I myself do not currently own most of these-- and of the ones I do own its in relatively small amounts.
I recognize some old right wing talking points. They’re also mostly BS.
My responses (i won’t be retyping the statements, and they aren’t in a state where I can copy and paste them, so scroll up if you’ve forgotten them):
1. Says who? Legislation can come in infinite forms. It may be about taxes, creating infrastructure, creating opportunity for business development, improved farming, and on and on and on. Taxing the wealthy might pay for that. What I have never seen taxation do in this country is to present such a severe burden on the wealthy that they are taxed “out of prosperity.” So this premise is a straw man. Anyone so easily removed from prosperity was probably not that prosperous to begin with. Good news, though, you probably won’t have to pay so much in taxes now that you’re suddenly poor.
2. I don’t get the point of this, I guess. This is how economies work. People specialize. Some grow food. Some make furniture. Some make art. Some govern. Everyone consumes something they didn’t produce. It’s also how things like insurance work. Good drivers pay premiums that fund accidents. Healthy people fund medical care for the ill.
3. Easily refuted by many examples. The government guarantees equal justice for all, but only by taking away special privilege, not by taking away justice from someone else. The government provides security for all, but not by taking it away from someone else. But you know, if think you can live life without having to contribute to the general welfare, you can try to find some unclaimed piece of land and go live on it by yourself. Good luck with that. But if you want to be part of civilization, that requires some cooperation and sharing. Grown ups know this. Hell, most children know this.
4. You 100% can grow wealth by dividing it. I don’t know how you would grow it any other way. That’s why people invest, and it’s why they diversify their investments. We live in a consumer and service economy. The more people who have money for goods and services, the more numerous sources we have to drive the larger economy.
5. This is a made up problem. It does not exist. Where in the world do “half the people” think they don’t have to work? Currently, the unemployment rate in the United States is 4.1%. That is not close to “half the people,” and even if it were, most people aren’t out of work because they have decided other people should take care of them.
And here all along he's claimed to be one of the "Purples" -- but now perhaps he's showing his true colors and is actually a "Red".
Very mysterious if you ask me-- very mysterious indeed!
True.
And one of the reasons that is so is that they can afford to hire the most brillaint lawyers and accountants!
stop making sense, it's a wasted effort here, as these articles inch closer to the inevitable trump endorsement...
same old turd, new paint job ...
But alas compromise - give a little to get a little (a lost art in U.S. government these days) is till the ultimate answer.
Some people feel you can rate things on a scale from total horrific total disaster to excellence,.
So what do you have if you compromise with excellence? MEDIOCRITY!
[✘]
Everyone consumes something they didn’t produce.
WTF? If you live in an area where some plants grow wild, and they are food producing plants (let's say fruit trees) can plant the seeds and produce fruit!
Assume the phrase "they didn't produce" means another person or persons produced it? (Of course some very religious person might argue that humans didn't produce (create) anything-- because a God (or Gods) created everything.
Somethings.
But so what?
Because some things you didn't produce, other things you did.
Anyone ever heard of Adrian Rogers ? He appears to be the person responsible for these "5 sentences".
The five sentences in the seed are simply an attack on the "welfare state".
The "welfare state", like it or not, is a major component and necessity for modern life. Capitalism creates wealth for some, and an abundance of goods and services for all who can afford them, and it also creates poverty. The "welfare state" is the recognition of this indelible reality.
And ironically-- the same was true with Communism under Stalin!
(There must be some very significant deeper hidden meaning here...but I've totally missed it!)
I look at it differently: Capitalism, Socialism, etc are just systems. Ideas. They don't create-- or destroy-- anything. Its peopple who create wealth, an abundance or scarcity, good and services, etc. Its people who do that.
Long ago I read a lot about Soviet Communism. (The so-called "classless society"). Well, it prodiced a few extremely wealthy elites-- as well as masses of people living in poverty.)
Well that's partly true-- if we had slavery today we probably wound't have "this welfare mess"> Instead we would probably have something even worse!!!
“Because a thing seems difficult for you, do not think it impossible for anyone to accomplish.” – Marcus Aurelius
Well, you know the olde saying:
When Winter comes we'll know which trees are Evergreen!
My thanks to all for a good discussion from all directions.
As I said I saw the list on FB and thought it might generate some conversation - while I do not totally disagree with some of th e points, I do not totally agree with any of them. Our society is a complicated thing.
Thanks again for everyone's point of view
Would you agree that the five sentences are an attack on the welfare state?
And would you like to comment on the right wing pastor who created these sentences?
John
I accept that as a factual inference on what the author was speaking about
I found the list on FB - not attributed to anyone and I merely thought it inspire conversation (which it did) and that is a good thing. I see a lot of quotes and excerpts here on NT from right wing nutjobs and from leftwing nutjobs but if they inspire debate, it is good.
I did not present the list as factual or say that I supported all or any of the items on the list. I merely stated that that list would likely remain regardless of the winner in the fall
So to recap the list is an indictment of the welfare state and since the welfare state is a highly controversial item, I thought it would inspire debate.
The government used to pick winners in losers in this country by establishing its majority representation. Now, the government seeks and acts to bring justice to all its people through recognition and policies that include the minorities and this nation's majority. We live in a national community. . . there is not a damn thing wrong with acting like it. This notion that each man, woman is an island unto themselves deciding whom can occupy space with him or her. . . misses the point of COMMUNITY.
Apparently, it is a little late in my life for people to start caring about each other (even through their differences), as we see the forces trying to reclaim and reconstitute the past are at work in politics. . .and in the highest court in the land (there is no mistake what SCOTUS is doing by incrementally opining its way backward), but somebody should give a damn about the future of all the children up and coming!
And perhaps more importanly-- perhaps its a little late in those peoples' lives to start caring about each other!
I will say it: The "five best sentences" misses the point. We are a community. . . it is way past time we start acting like it! That is, we don't have to 'fall in love' with each other, but damn it we're 'drawn together' in this nation by birth. All of us with our weird 'looks,' likes, and dislikes . . . may be we should let ourselves and the children of tomorrow 'live together' in a semblance of peace!
(The politics of separation and 'angriest obnoxious citizens' are killing our sense of community.)
1. The idea as presented is a false dichotomy. That is, just because the expressed benefits of legislation would be to help raise the standard of living of poorer people does not necessarily mean that the wealthy at the other end would have to become poor with no other possible outcome. I have always hated the line of the song "I'd Love to Change the World" by Ten Years After because it gets the idea wrong. It should be " Tax the rich, feed the poor 'Til there are no poor no more …" double negatives aside.
2. What do you consider work? I know of many people across cultures who work day in and day out and receive no monetary compensation. In this society, only the work that one does that is monetarily compensated is considered "Work". Again, this is a postulation of "Them Against Us" and an assumption of zero-sum, dichotomous, either-or actions and outcomes.
3. This sentence is a very libertarian talking point. As a society, we have democratically provided a safety net for those who do not have their basic needs met. What exactly defines a need is up for debate, but to state it as in the sentence, once again we have the "Them vs. Us" and zero-sum mentality.
4. Bullshit. If you take an amount of money, divide it and give it to people to invest, there is little doubt that those who invest it wisely will make that wealth increase, barring catastrophe.
5. I would say that this last sentence is in keeping with rest of the sentences in that it once again reduces the choices to a "Them vs. Us" perspective and presents us with a preordained conclusion based on a capitalist/Libertarian (party, not individual) pronouncement. It is, once again, a false dichotomy.
In short, this list is pernicious in that it does not allow the reader to think independently, but sets the stage to arrive at the conclusions that one is meant to through specious argumentation.
Or I could just be grumpy.