Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

55901Re: Possibilities

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    Jun 3, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Tom,

      You don't understand socialism. Employees wouldn't exist; everyone would be an owner. Are you saying a citizen isn't free to vote in their own best interest?!?

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
      >
      > Mary
      >
      > Yes, I see it; but I also see the impact having tens of thousands of employees voting, for and their unions giving money to the politician who will give them the best raises, pensions, and most important expand rather than cut back their departments.I certainly favor not allowinjg corporations or unions to make political contributions.
      >
      > Peace
      > Tom
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Mary
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 7:00 PM
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
      >
      >
      >
      > Tom,
      >
      > The public (you and I) don't own, operate, or make any decisions regarding these enterprises. Governments tax us to subsidize their operations, and/or hire private contractors (other capitalists). This is not socialism. If profit is eliminated from this, the M.I.C., and the drug trade, many of these issues you are so passionate about will disappear. As it is now, they are completely interwoven. Prison corporations trade stock publicly, drum up business via criminal justice system, and pay lobbyists.
      >
      > Don't you see the connection between capital and oppression? MSNBC, the media's token Liberal network, is owned by General Electric, and they build prisons and airs prison programming on the weekends!
      >
      > Mary
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Mary
      > >
      > > If we take the profit out, I guess you mean to change from private to public ownership. By so doing, you get large numbers of people to form voting blocks to give them raises and expand their departments. I am not denying problems with private ownership, but public ownership tends to create large well paid machines that soon become the master rather than the servant. In reality, it is usually a combination of both public employess and private contractors pushing expensive cash cows. The police state prison complex is a great example. Private construction companies and sometimes private prison systems are part of it, but police and guards unions provide the large voting blocks, p-lus often cash contributions just like private interests.
      > >
      > > Peace
      > > Tom
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: Mary
      > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 4:55 PM
      > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Tom,
      > >
      > > Taking the opportunity for profit out of all these enterprises will solve much. By constantly endorsing the status quo, you will never even come close to the idealistic society you envision.
      > >
      > > Mary
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Mary
      > > >
      > > > George Soros's "Open Society" paradigm is that our thoughts can never completely match reality, an open society would be one in which there is an awareness that no ideas are 100% describing reality, so ongoing debates and elections between relatively liberal, and relatively conservative forces are hoped to result in ideas that more nearly describe and deal with the challenges that are being faced. Certainly the problem of the huge vested interests that have successfully engineered the massive growth of the military industrial complex over our life times is extreme. The incarceration rate has quadrupled since 1980;whereas violent crime has remained fairly stable.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges. wikipedia----- -----
      > > >
      > > > The expenses for so called defense is much higher than in the days of the cold war. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent each year for more missiles, jets and nuclear bombs allegedly to fight terrorists is like getting canons to fight spiders.
      > > >
      > > > So I see any voting blocks of both liberals and conservatives to fight either of these evils as a possible beginning of a place where people of good will could debate the advantages and disadvantages of more socialization or more privatization. So much of the present debates are not about matters of opinion as much as the paid lackeys justifying their sugar daddies.
      > > >
      > > > Peace
      > > > Tom
      > > > From: Mary
      > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:03 PM
      > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Socialists would push agendas which eliminate most the root cause of these problems :)
      > > >
      > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Mary, Bill etc
      > > > >
      > > > > Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of reducing government. Then debates and votes could occur as to the disposition of saved sums. Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul pushing anti war agenda allows other Republicans to do so without being seen as leftists. The military industrial complex just like police state prison complex is a monster that feeds on the body politic like a cancer.
      > > > >
      > > > > Peace
      > > > > Tom
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic