The War in Israel may be at it's end.

[LDSGator]

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

left the republican party

I left as well, but I still mostly vote republican only because they are the lesser evil. 

 

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I worked desperately to become a democrat

Not me. Democrats love war as long as the bombs are made by LGBTQ people and are environmentally friendly. They also tend to get their morality from their politics, which I find obnoxious. At least non-MAGA republicans don’t assume they are morally better than you just because you disagree with their tax policies. 

Edited Thursday at 09:44 PM by LDSGator

[Phoenix_person]

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

It's not really clear what you're arguing here.  From what I gather, people who are gainfully employed are able to get money from the government that is usually reserved for people who can't work or can't find work.  But I get the feeling you're saying something else??  What I get out of the comment is that the government offers a very public and very easy way to fleece our tax dollars.

I'm arguing that Amazon and Wal Mart employees should make wages high enough that they don't need government assistance. Taxpayers are subsidizing low wages while the CEOs of those companies fly to space and buy new yachts. I'm not against rich people flying to space and owning yachts so long as their employees can afford basic needs, but that condition often goes unmet. 

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Again, I'm not sure that this is a winning argument for you.  You're talking about how government spends money.  By definition this exchange is a socialist endeavor.

Yes, corporate welfare. It's the only aspect of socialism that capitalists have fully embraced.

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Every venture in new developments/technologies requires trial and error.  That's in any venture into the NEW and ORIGINAL.  The fact that his end product is so much better that he can perform better at a lower cost should say that this is a GOOD thing.  But for some reason you think this is a failure of capitalism?

As I said, we put men on the moon in the 60s. This isn't new or original technology. And I fail to see why the business ventures of a man worth $400B+ need government assistance.

[JohnsonJones]

14 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, it has... during this administration.  And one of the reasons why is that we're cutting away at socialism.

Yes, that is a public good.  So, not necessarily socialism.  And there are some privately run fire departments that do a better job by focusing on prevention rather than remedy.

This is the quintessential example of a public good right behind military and police.  So, again, not really socialism.  And yet again, private versions do a better job.

Lol.  Not the best argument to get a conservative to consider socialism as a good thing.

Are you joking?  You're calling the post office a good example of a socialist program?

Once upon a time it was necessary because there was no practical alternative.  But now???  I believe we've had this discussion already.

Disagree.  If it were run as a watchdog (basically being the "police" of how food is made) maybe.  But it has gone FAARRR beyond that. 

Ever heard of the 2001 Roadless Rule?  They recently rescinded it because the greenies that imposed it didn't realize that we need roads in forests to provide services such as controlled burning, debris removal, manage wildlife, etc.  And it causes the ecosystem to die.

And then there is the recent chicken epidemic.  I think that was the USDA wasn't it?  I could be mistaken.  It may be another govt. department.

I don't think any educated capitalist would argue that private enterprise is immune to corruption.  But the self-correcting mechanisms either keep it down to a minimum, OR cause the enterprise to fail. And when it fails, there are alternatives that come to pick up the pieces and offer new jobs to those ground-level workers who are out of work.

Government has no such mechanisms or alternatives.  While I'm sure you think DOGE was an evil group, it really did get rid of a LOT of corruption (incl. waste fraud and abuse) in government.

It's not really clear what you're arguing here.  From what I gather, people who are gainfully employed are able to get money from the government that is usually reserved for people who can't work or can't find work.  But I get the feeling you're saying something else??  What I get out of the comment is that the government offers a very public and very easy way to fleece our tax dollars.

Again, I'm not sure that this is a winning argument for you.  You're talking about how government spends money.  By definition this exchange is a socialist endeavor.

Every venture in new developments/technologies requires trial and error.  That's in any venture into the NEW and ORIGINAL.  The fact that his end product is so much better that he can perform better at a lower cost should say that this is a GOOD thing.  But for some reason you think this is a failure of capitalism?

I think you are confused about what socialism is and how it can be both socialism and a public good.

Fire Departments, Roads, and even police departments are all socialism and run via socialistic policies.  

All socialism is, is a system where something is owned or run by the people or the state, or owned collectively and run by the state (aka...government...aka...why the Fire Department and Police are almost always also part of the County or City government organizations in the area...OR...run by a group of citizens in the area itself).

If a Road is owned by the government, paved by the government, and paid for by your taxes...it is...by definition...being made available via socialism.

I'm not sure why you think a Public Good cannot possibly be from socialism, when in fact...a LOT of public goods as you may put it, are directly from socialistic policies in the United States.

Of course, the most socialistic program in the United States is none other than the US military (which is ironic, considering how right wing it is).  

As a sort of flawed notion (as @Phoenix_person could easily point out, but for the purposes of the discussion it is interesting to point this out)....

That also points out an obvious problem that conservatives could utilize if they truly wanted to point out the problems with Socialism.  One of the biggest expenses in the United States is it's military.  The military is completely socialistic in most ways, from the way they provide housing and clothing, to how they provide food and even medical care.  Everything is given to them by the state (or via an allowance), so all they need to focus on is the job of defending the nation in which ever capacity they have been appointed.  The military composes less than 10% of the population, but consumes much more of the Budget than that.  There is no way to extend this type of socialism to the rest of the US without bankrupting it.  

Of course, pointing out how socialist our own military is, while saying they support that same military and how it operates, is sort of an ironic twist regarding how one would say they are opposed to socialism, but at the same time supporting the greatest pillar of socialism in our nation.  

[Carborendum]

9 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I'm arguing that Amazon and Wal Mart employees should make wages high enough that they don't need government assistance. Taxpayers are subsidizing low wages while the CEOs of those companies fly to space and buy new yachts. I'm not against rich people flying to space and owning yachts so long as their employees can afford basic needs, but that condition often goes unmet. 

Ah.  I see. You don't know how the money is divided up.

• The chairman of Walmart makes a bit over $500k/yr
• The other 11 executives make slightly less. But to be conservative, let's say they all make $500k/yr
• Total = $6Million/yr
• Divide that up between the 2.1 million employees = About $3/year.

Yeah, that will make a HUGE difference in the average employee salary.

Every walmart employee is given corporate stock as part of their salary.  This means that they also get the dividends from that stock.  The longer they work there, the more stock they get, the more money they make.

This is not the place to complain about how capitalism is crooked.

9 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Yes, corporate welfare. It's the only aspect of socialism that capitalists have fully embraced.

NOOOOOOOOO!!!  We do not. 

I'm hoping you're already familiar with the economic term "public good".  Your comments and verbiage you're using indicates that you are not considering this principle in your resoning.

Most people think "public good" means that you do something for the good of the public.  NOT!!!

When supplying labor and materials for usable public goods, it is necessary for government to go to the free market to find the best source for what the government needs.  That's just plain old free market.

What you call "corporate welfare" may actually earn that title.  And we're against it just as much as you. 

But as long as it is a free will exchange and all is above board for something the appropriate process of government has determined is needed, this is no different than you going shopping for your groceries.  That's how infrastructure is built.  That's how our military gets armed. 

Do you feel like you're participating in corporate welfare when you go shopping?

9 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

As I said, we put men on the moon in the 60s. This isn't new or original technology. And I fail to see why the business ventures of a man worth $400B+ need government assistance.

I'm having trouble following this line of reasoning. Musk developed a better product for cheaper than any competitor.  Do welfare recipients "compete" for a contract?

Yes, we put men on the moon in the 60s.  It's perplexing to me why you think that we don't have new technology.  The technology we have today is much more complex with more capabilities than in the 60s.  The fact you think otherwise really shows a blind spot in your understanding here.

Musk didn't "need government assistance".  He put his first rocket (Falcon 1) into orbit prior to the first government contract through SpaceX.  Have you heard of anyone else doing that?  I believe Andrew Carnegie did something analogous back in his day.  But no, he didn't "need government assistance."

If you want to make a point about corporate welfare, yes, absolutely, there are plenty of examples.  And we're just as much against them as you are.  But SpaceX isn't one of them.

Once he proved he could do it (all on his own dime) the government realized that his design was more efficient, economical, and with faster turn-around than anyone else had.  He provided a service for which he competitively bid against other firms.  His service was better, and cost less.  Why would you consider this is a bad thing?

Edited Friday at 03:50 PM by Carborendum

[estradling75]

40 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Ah.  I see. You don't know how the money is divided up.

• The chairman makes a bit over $500k/yr
• The other 11 executives make slightly less. But to be conservative, let's say they all make $500k/yr
• Total = $6Million/yr
• Divide that up between the 2.1 million employees = About $3/year.

Yeah, that will make a HUGE difference in the average employee salary.

And don't forget.... with out the leadership (which is no longer being paid for) the company tanks.   So all employee get a 3 dollar raise... quickly followed by a pink slip of employment termination.  Thus they are still needing government assistance.   The proposed "solution" didn't solve anything  but in fact made everything worse.

 

 

[NeuroTypical]

14 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I'm arguing that Amazon and Wal Mart employees should make wages high enough that they don't need government assistance.

Well, if we're trying to turn the subjective world of should into the real world, I think AOC should have stuck with her original summary of the Green New Deal.

People shouldn't have to work at all. 

Get on that, wouldja @Phoenix_person?

 

Edited Friday at 08:29 PM by NeuroTypical

[JohnsonJones]

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Ah.  I see. You don't know how the money is divided up.

• The chairman of Walmart makes a bit over $500k/yr
• The other 11 executives make slightly less. But to be conservative, let's say they all make $500k/yr
• Total = $6Million/yr
• Divide that up between the 2.1 million employees = About $3/year.

Yeah, that will make a HUGE difference in the average employee salary.

Every walmart employee is given corporate stock as part of their salary.  This means that they also get the dividends from that stock.  The longer they work there, the more stock they get, the more money they make.

 

What you call "corporate welfare" may actually earn that title.  And we're against it just as much as you. 

But as long as it is a free will exchange and all is above board for something the appropriate process of government has determined is needed, this is no different than you going shopping for your groceries.  That's how infrastructure is built.  That's how our military gets armed. 

Do you feel like you're participating in corporate welfare when you go shopping?

 

I can't speak for @Phoenix_person, but that's not what a lot of people think when they are talking about Corporate Welfare.

The biggest one I can think of, which was probably the worst that we've seen in the past few years were the Loans to keep Banks from going under during the early part of this century (21st century) when we started the "Great Recession" as many call it. 

Was it necessary to prevent us from possibly going into a depression...probably.

On the otherhand, we probably should have let all those companies and businesses go under.  Nothing should be "Too Big to Fail" in that way.  It would have hurt a Lot more initially, but I think in the long term we would have had better capitalism and a stronger economic future (probably cheaper housing for our children and grandchildren, many who now are wondering if they will ever even be able to afford a house, more competitors in the banking arena and car market, as well as more securities that came about due to capitalism rather than government intrusion in regards to loans and banking options, etc) overall.

If we want to talk about Walmart specifically, it isn't the CEO payments that are causing the corporate Welfare, it's literally giving the Company Welfare from the government Coffers For Welfare.  What I mean by that, is that Walmart underpays it's employees (especially in rural areas where it is a big employer and driven mom and  pop shops out of business).  They do not pay a living wage.  Thus, though the employees are working full time in those areas, they also qualify for food stamps, housing assistance, and welfare in general.

AS one for smaller government and less money spent, I actually am sort of outraged by this.  My proposal (which will never occur due to how massive corporatism is in the US, with Walmart being very much involved with government policies) would be to charge the companies.  If they have an employee that uses food stamps, welfare, or other social programs to aid the poor, WE CHARGE THEM 10x the amount we spent on their employee.  

We, as taxpayers, don't need to be paying Walmart for their own company.  Let them pay their employees to work,  not us.  This type of change would either force them to pay employees enough so that my tax dollars are not supporting them, OR...bring in more money to our coffers (who knows, with that amount, maybe we could even pay off the US debt...though I highly doubt even Walmart could afford that).

Corporate Welfare means that we are literally paying that companies employees to live from our tax monies, rather than the company actually supporting itself without using our tax dollars.

This has nothing to do with some CEO and the Board's pay, and everything to do with lowering government costs by doing away with a Welfare state which these companies promote in order to make a bigger buck by using the Taxpayer's money to supplement their worker's incomes.

[JohnsonJones]

8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Well, if we're trying to turn the subjective world of should into the real world, I think AOC should have stuck with her original summary of the Green New Deal.

People shouldn't have to work at all. 

Get on that, wouldja @Phoenix_person?

 

 

I think the bigger point, is that any Conservative should want a smaller government and less Welfare going out.  Why are my tax dollars paying their full time employees to work at Walmart?

As I mentioned above, if Walmart want's to subsidize their workforce that way, have them pay our government to reimburse us (the taxpayer).  I propose that they pay us 10X the amount we subsidize any of their full time employees.  Any welfare or food stamps or anything else that a full time employee (note, full time means that this should be the only job the employee needs to do) has to use or qualifies for and uses, will need to be paid back to us 10 fold.

Stop using taxpayer money to subsidize their own workers.

This would reduce our Welfare monies we spend, reduce the social programs needed, or bring in more money for us to use on other things in the government.

[Ironhold]

23 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I left as well, but I still mostly vote republican only because they are the lesser evil. 

 

Not me. Democrats love war as long as the bombs are made by LGBTQ people and are environmentally friendly. They also tend to get their morality from their politics, which I find obnoxious. At least non-MAGA republicans don’t assume they are morally better than you just because you disagree with their tax policies. 

"It's my belief that society needs to periodically test old and new against each other in order to determine which is the best way forward. Sometimes the old ways survived for a reason. Sometimes new is legitimately better. Sometimes both are terrible and another solution is needed. Sometimes both can coexist. Sometimes putting both together makes something superior to the two of them apart. Either way, we can't just arbitrarily accept one or the other."

This is my overall mindset, and more than a few people have had fits over it. 

[Traveler]

There is some feelings of relief that the wars of Islamic societies against Israel (Jews) is over or coming to an end.  I am impressed that this is not the case at all.  That there is, somewhat in secret and in public, a growing aggression of war against Israel.  That we are seeing prophesy coming to pass.  I am concerned about the acquisition of one or more nuclear devices by Iran.

There is more than one way this could occur.   The first is that Iran finds a way to renew their internal efforts to enrich uranium.  Another is that sufficient plutonium isotope 238 was secured prior to the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities.   Another possibility is that nuclear nations sympathetic to Iran provide them with the necessary additions of the plutonium isotope 238.  Both Russia and Pakistan have shown interest in providing Iran with what is needed to complete their desire for nuclear capability.  There is also the possibility of North Korea and China being involved in the mix. 

Iran has their network of proxies to assist in deliverance of a nuclear device – some secret sleeper cells may be already in the USA preparing for such.  Iran is close enough to Israel that there could be several possibilities to deliver a nuclear device in Israel.  In essence, it is possible that there is a multi teared levels of proxies and a willing to use such a terror network to deliver a nuclear device to Israel or the USA by a large variety of possibilities.

We are specifically warned in our revelations of restoration (D&C) that the greatest threat to the USA will not be foreign but will be within the boundaries of the USA and in the hearts of individuals that seek to destroy liberty and freedom.  The alarm is not so much to fear our enemies as it is to have faith in Christ to preserve his Saints that stand together to uphold their covenants and laws as instructed in our temples (stand in holy places).

 

The Traveler

[mirkwood]

The end to the war between the Islamic world and Israel occurs when the Savior appears on the Mount of Olives during the Battle of Armageddon.

[LDSGator]

57 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

The end to the war between the Islamic world and Israel occurs when the Savior appears on the Mount of Olives during the Battle of Armageddon.

The Lion will lay down with the Lamb is not just talking about animals. 

[Vort]

17 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

The Lion will lay down with the Lamb is not just talking about animals. 

Well stated. I don't remember ever really thinking about this before. I have always taken the words as meaning "The predator and the prey will be at peace", but maybe there are more layers to the story.  For example, the lion is a widely recognized figure of the tribe of Judah, and specifically of David and his reign and progeny. The lamb is obviously a figure of Jesus, but may also symbolize those ruled by David's or Judah's house.

Come to think about it, I don't think the "lamb and lion" metaphor/prophecy/whatever you want to call it is biblical. Pretty sure Isaiah talks about the wolf and the lamb. Okay, looks like Isaiah 11:6, which reads:

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

Hmmmm. Not sure what to make of this. Why do we so often talk about the lion and the lamb? Is there another verse of scripture that I'm missing here?

Edited 12 hours ago by Vort

[LDSGator]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

Well stated.

Thanks.

[Manners Matter]

41 minutes ago, Vort said:

Come to think about it, I don't think the "lamb and lion" metaphor/prophecy/whatever you want to call it is biblical. Pretty sure Isaiah talks about the wolf and the lamb. Okay, looks like Isaiah 11:6, which reads:

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

Hmmmm. Not sure what to make of this. Why do we so often talk about the lion and the lamb? Is there another verse of scripture that I'm missing here?

My guess is the phrasing comes from the lyrics to "The Spirit of God" verse 4:

How blessed the day when the lamb and the lion Shall lie down together without any ire

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Why do we so often talk about the lion and the lamb? 

 

I think there is a reference to predators and prey.  When those whose nature is to hunt/kill has changed, those whose nature is the opposite will feel safe and both will lay together.  One choosing not to hunt/kill and the other not fearing it will be hunted/killed.  I view it as an example of peace.

[zil2]

Quote

Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den.

9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.