Utterly greedy f**kers??
Nov 30th 2012, 8:14 pm
#63
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: South Florida
Posts: 2,068
Re: Utterly greedy f**kers??
DaVita have been accused of Medicare fraud on a massive scale. If it's true it might be the largest ever Medicare fraud...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/30/health...ase/index.html
Nov 30th 2012, 8:16 pm
#64
Mouthy Yank
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,229
Re: Utterly greedy f**kers??
It's an excerpt from the second paragraph of the US Declaration of Independence. And I personally don't happen to think that anyone was created at all, nor were human rights the gift of a Creator I don't believe in. But the statement represents the time in which it was written (when there wasn't enough science to fully justify an intellectual elite's atheism; Tom Paine tried anyway) and the humanist ideals that any community should aspire to. Of course corruption is unavoidable, but a community with the highest possible ideals of virtue and reason and justice will naturally be swifter and fairer in dealing with wrongdoing than will a community rooted in distrust, greed, and emotional reactionism.
Last edited by Speedwell; Nov 30th 2012 at 8:26 pm. Reason: tired and my grammar is for $#!+, sorry :)
Nov 30th 2012, 8:36 pm
#65
BE Forum Addict
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,847
Re: Utterly greedy f**kers??
Actually, I had a pretty amazing day (seriously, I really did).
It seemed to me that his initial post smacked of jealousy since it had the appearance of a rant. I have no agenda: again, all I have done is to point out a slightly different view of the situation which you are free to ignore as I am free to ignore your perspective. BTW, I consider myself pretty middle of the road, politically, I prefer consensus politics to a straight left or right view: both sides have good and bad ideas.
It seems to me the core issue here is about the morality of what they are doing. If you read my posts you might see I have not taken a side, just asserted that morality is a shifting base upon which society bases it's view of the world and how i's members should behave at that moment in time.
The bankers (I have not expressed nor do I have any feelings for them either way) are doing what they are allowed to do. If the lawmakers let them get away with it, for whatever reason, then vote to remove those lawmakers (I do understand that, at an individual level, that is difficult; however, if you truly felt strongly enough about it, you would do something a tad more tangible than take the piss out of me - which, by the way, feel free to do - it does make me laugh).
As for the morals of what they do, look at it from their point of view: they have an opportunity to make even more money. So what? Are you saying, if in the same position, you would turn it down? Really? I would find that very hard to believe.
It's not that they are immoral - they just have a different moral compass than you or I might have. To them this is what they do. You should also consider what they do with that money.
A great deal of it is, one way or the other, returned back to the economy. Many of these people will invest in startup and other companies (as angels or venture capitalists) and/or will buy homes, or employ local workers to improve the homes they have or simply spend the money on food and living. Capital does not stay in one place, it is fluid.
My big concern would not be that they earn it, but that they don't spend the majority of it in the local or national economy.
The banks may not be lending money (another issue and one where they are wrong) but bankers are and always have done, even if most people don't know about it.
Now, again, have a nice day. I know I will.
It seemed to me that his initial post smacked of jealousy since it had the appearance of a rant. I have no agenda: again, all I have done is to point out a slightly different view of the situation which you are free to ignore as I am free to ignore your perspective. BTW, I consider myself pretty middle of the road, politically, I prefer consensus politics to a straight left or right view: both sides have good and bad ideas.
It seems to me the core issue here is about the morality of what they are doing. If you read my posts you might see I have not taken a side, just asserted that morality is a shifting base upon which society bases it's view of the world and how i's members should behave at that moment in time.
The bankers (I have not expressed nor do I have any feelings for them either way) are doing what they are allowed to do. If the lawmakers let them get away with it, for whatever reason, then vote to remove those lawmakers (I do understand that, at an individual level, that is difficult; however, if you truly felt strongly enough about it, you would do something a tad more tangible than take the piss out of me - which, by the way, feel free to do - it does make me laugh).
As for the morals of what they do, look at it from their point of view: they have an opportunity to make even more money. So what? Are you saying, if in the same position, you would turn it down? Really? I would find that very hard to believe.
It's not that they are immoral - they just have a different moral compass than you or I might have. To them this is what they do. You should also consider what they do with that money.
A great deal of it is, one way or the other, returned back to the economy. Many of these people will invest in startup and other companies (as angels or venture capitalists) and/or will buy homes, or employ local workers to improve the homes they have or simply spend the money on food and living. Capital does not stay in one place, it is fluid.
My big concern would not be that they earn it, but that they don't spend the majority of it in the local or national economy.
The banks may not be lending money (another issue and one where they are wrong) but bankers are and always have done, even if most people don't know about it.
Now, again, have a nice day. I know I will.
You can interpret my original post anyway you like- anyone can. But do not presume to tell me what I meant by it. That goes for everybody. But feel free to challenge me on whether I was really feeling jealous. Of course you don't have to believe my answers - nobody does.
But I challenge anybody to talk to people who really know me, they'll tell you my rant was anger, not jealousy.
My anger is about the lack of morality (sure, my definition of it) that incredibly rich people and companies demand that they continue to get auestiona le tax breaks, to be paid by people who largely cannot afford to pay without compromising their iwn situation, both short and long term.
Nov 30th 2012, 8:38 pm
#66
BE Forum Addict
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,847
Re: Utterly greedy f**kers??
This is highly debatable. For example, putting price caps on medical services as many countries do is not "efficient", it simply distorts the market, stifles innovation and introduces shortages. Please don't misunderstand me, the current US health system is indeed an unsustainable mess. I'm not convinced that government is the solution.
What is debatable is the extent to which private operations in these areas are less efficient than government ones. To the best of my knowledge there is no credible data that supports the reverse view, that private industry is more efficient in these areas...
Nov 30th 2012, 8:41 pm
#67
BE Forum Addict
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,847
Re: Utterly greedy f**kers??
It's an excerpt from the second paragraph of the US Declaration of Independence. And I personally don't happen to think that anyone was created at all, nor were human rights the gift of a Creator I don't believe in. But the statement represents the time in which it was written (when there wasn't enough science to fully justify an intellectual elite's atheism; Tom Paine tried anyway) and the humanist ideals that any community should aspire to. Of course corruption is unavoidable, but a community with the highest possible ideals of virtue and reason and justice will naturally be swifter and fairer in dealing with wrongdoing than will a community rooted in distrust, greed, and emotional reactionism.
Perhaps, though I posit that the US is not swift nor fair when it comes to dealing with capital crimes and the death penalty.
Nov 30th 2012, 8:51 pm
#69
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 498
Re: Utterly greedy f**kers??
Take your word for that.
You post on a public forum, expect to get a reaction. You're not special, far from it. If you don't like the reaction, stop posting. I have an opinion which appears to be slightly different from yours and I will respond, in any way I choose, to make my point. Hopefully I'll do it it in a measured, polite manner and you are free to ignore it if you so choose.
My anger is about the lack of morality (sure, my definition of it) that incredibly rich people and companies demand that they continue to get auestiona le tax breaks, to be paid by people who largely cannot afford to pay without compromising their iwn situation, both short and long term.
I really don't care (or think about) what other people have got. I just worry about making enough to satisfy my needs and those of my family. Does that mean I resent that someone else may be earning millions? No, of course not: good luck to them. Perhaps they're smarter than me or luckier or in the right place at the right time. Should I get angry at them? Of course not: first, what would be the point and second, what right would I have to get angry? The only reason that jumps out is jealousy.
Nov 30th 2012, 8:53 pm
#70
Mouthy Yank
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,229
Re: Utterly greedy f**kers??
Nor is the US as a nation particularly adherent to the high and noble humanist ideals of its founding, or to any other high and noble ideals, come to that. Nevertheless nations don't have ideals, people do.
Nov 30th 2012, 9:06 pm
#71
Banned
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,065
Re: Utterly greedy f**kers??
Sounded that way to me.
Take your word for that.
You post on a public forum, expect to get a reaction. You're not special, far from it. If you don't like the reaction, stop posting. I have an opinion which appears to be slightly different from yours and I will respond, in any way I choose, to make my point. Hopefully I'll do it it in a measured, polite manner and you are free to ignore it if you so choose.
I accept that our views of morality may be somewhat different: that doesn't make them wrong. It would be a pretty boring world if we all thought the same way though I'm sure we would both agree that, for instance, murder is wrong but, plainly, disagree that people, staying within the law, make huge sums of money.
I really don't care (or think about) what other people have got. I just worry about making enough to satisfy my needs and those of my family. Does that mean I resent that someone else may be earning millions? No, of course not: good luck to them. Perhaps they're smarter than me or luckier or in the right place at the right time. Should I get angry at them? Of course not: first, what would be the point and second, what right would I have to get angry? The only reason that jumps out is jealousy.
Take your word for that.
You post on a public forum, expect to get a reaction. You're not special, far from it. If you don't like the reaction, stop posting. I have an opinion which appears to be slightly different from yours and I will respond, in any way I choose, to make my point. Hopefully I'll do it it in a measured, polite manner and you are free to ignore it if you so choose.
I accept that our views of morality may be somewhat different: that doesn't make them wrong. It would be a pretty boring world if we all thought the same way though I'm sure we would both agree that, for instance, murder is wrong but, plainly, disagree that people, staying within the law, make huge sums of money.
I really don't care (or think about) what other people have got. I just worry about making enough to satisfy my needs and those of my family. Does that mean I resent that someone else may be earning millions? No, of course not: good luck to them. Perhaps they're smarter than me or luckier or in the right place at the right time. Should I get angry at them? Of course not: first, what would be the point and second, what right would I have to get angry? The only reason that jumps out is jealousy.
Do you not believe in noblesse oblige?
You come across as a (wannabe?) Gordon Gekko type, worshipping on the altars of greed and selfishness.
"No man is an island unto himself" (J Donne)
Nov 30th 2012, 9:27 pm
#72
Mouthy Yank
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,229
Re: Utterly greedy f**kers??
The fact is, we should all participate in helping a thriving society function and take care of all of its members. Philanthropy isn't just a virtue, it's a necessity. If you can't give yourself, you need to participate in the public awareness that people can and should legitimately be helped. That means you don't abuse help when it's offered.
Which brings us back to bailouts and why we resent them, doesn't it.
Last edited by Speedwell; Nov 30th 2012 at 9:33 pm. Reason: jesus, I am starting to sound sophomoric. To bed. :)
Nov 30th 2012, 9:37 pm
#73
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 498
Re: Utterly greedy f**kers??
No, I come across as someone who examines both sides of an argument and tends to try to be fair and unemotional about the conclusions I might reach. Your assumptions about me are, frankly, ridiculous and you clearly did not read/understand my last post.
Nov 30th 2012, 9:41 pm
#74
Banned
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,065
Re: Utterly greedy f**kers??
Well, there's a difference in believing in noblesse oblige, and believing that the let-them-eat-cake types and the glasses-wearing intellectuals need to be put up against a wall and shot. Or to be less dramatic, the idea sounds a lot different coming from the mouths of the wealthy than the mouths of the poor. I've been dreadfully poor myself and never reached out a hand to gather in the help that was offered to me, and I have come to realize that is almost as bad as to not extend the offer of help in the first place when you are able to. Claiming that you don't deserve help when you really need help is just the same as claiming that other guy over there doesn't deserve help when he really does need it.
The fact is, we should all participate in helping a thriving society function and take care of all of its members. Philanthropy isn't just a virtue, it's a necessity. If you can't give yourself, you need to participate in the public awareness that people can and should legitimately be helped. That means you don't abuse help when it's offered.
Which brings us back to bailouts and why we resent them, doesn't it.
The fact is, we should all participate in helping a thriving society function and take care of all of its members. Philanthropy isn't just a virtue, it's a necessity. If you can't give yourself, you need to participate in the public awareness that people can and should legitimately be helped. That means you don't abuse help when it's offered.
Which brings us back to bailouts and why we resent them, doesn't it.
Nov 30th 2012, 9:47 pm
#75
Banned
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,065
Re: Utterly greedy f**kers??
Yes, but these ideals are not relevant to the discussion. Besides, just because you and I might believe in these notions, I will not condemn another who doesn't without fully understanding why they take that stance.
No, I come across as someone who examines both sides of an argument and tends to try to be fair and unemotional about the conclusions I might reach. Your assumptions about me are, frankly, ridiculous and you clearly did not read/understand my last post.
No, I come across as someone who examines both sides of an argument and tends to try to be fair and unemotional about the conclusions I might reach. Your assumptions about me are, frankly, ridiculous and you clearly did not read/understand my last post.
You definitely seem to have some kind of paranoia and are attacking everyone whilst claiming others have not read your post.
I go back now to my existential perch and await your rather predictable reply! LOL
