[b] Is it true that the more change you get the more you get of the same thing?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » [b] Is it true that the more change you get the more you get of the same thing?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2010 04:35 am
All throughout history we have had the beggers and the choosers, do you think this will ever change or is it too embedded in human nature?
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2010 05:28 am
@Ali phil,
"Those who are first shall one day be last, and the last shall be first". Mark 10:31
 
Ali phil
 
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 04:10 am
@Ali phil,
'the winner now will later be the losser, for the times they are a changing.' Bob Dylan
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 04:33 am
@Ali phil,
Pretty much the same idea, I guess. All of that said, I support democratic socialism, the equitable distribution of wealth, and every effort to ameliorate the plight of the poor.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 06:46 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;155194 wrote:
Pretty much the same idea, I guess. All of that said, I support democratic socialism, the equitable distribution of wealth, and every effort to ameliorate the plight of the poor.


The trouble with that is that with democratic socialism in operation, there will soon be no wealth to distribute, and all that will be distributed will be poverty and scarcity. We have already had our experience with democratic socialism in all its incarnations.

Later: The present state of the Greek economy (Debt, nearly 14 percent of its gross income) is a testament to democratic socialism. Greece is going bankrupt, with Portugal soon to follow. And that is because they spend excessively on social programs, and people are retired at about the age of 50 with full pension benefits from the government, which, of course, is a disguise for the few people who actually work and produce. You may be in favor of democratic socialism, but is democratic socialism in favor of you, or the country?
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 08:43 pm
@Ali phil,
but then, is the alternative standing by and watching the wealtheist three percent garner an ever-larger share of the natural wealth while the middle class and working poor work harder and harder for less and less? Allowing Wall St to pay itself enough money for its bankers to own their own islands while takings risks than send billions of people further into poverty? Is that a good alternative?
 
Ali phil
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 05:22 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;155207 wrote:
The trouble with that is that with democratic socialism in operation, there will soon be no wealth to distribute, and all that will be distributed will be poverty and scarcity. We have already had our experience with democratic socialism in all its incarnations.

Later: The present state of the Greek economy (Debt, nearly 14 percent of its gross income) is a testament to democratic socialism. Greece is going bankrupt, with Portugal soon to follow. And that is because they spend excessively on social programs, and people are retired at about the age of 50 with full pension benefits from the government, which, of course, is a disguise for the few people who actually work and produce. You may be in favor of democratic socialism, but is democratic socialism in favor of you, or the country?




Hate to say it but turn of your TV!
Greece is bankraupt because its so corupt!
And nobody pays their tax.
But nobody pays their tax because they are corupt.
But the downfall of the greek economy was designed and acted out by american corporates who made a fake invenstment for the greeks then stole all their money, the greek economy was attack by Americans to get the euro buying power.

Absolutly nothing to do with social democracy.
Greece is an amazing country i was there for 2 months.
The best thing about greece is the free uni.
The worst thing about greece is its history of corupt right wing lying scum.
Greece's economic crisis was desighned not concerquence of government.
Read dont watch. TV lies.

---------- Post added 04-24-2010 at 11:29 AM ----------

jeeprs;155515 wrote:
but then, is the alternative standing by and watching the wealtheist three percent garner an ever-larger share of the natural wealth while the middle class and working poor work harder and harder for less and less? Allowing Wall St to pay itself enough money for its bankers to own their own islands while takings risks than send billions of people further into poverty? Is that a good alternative?


I know right i love your politics, you seems like a really nice person (:

I think its the top 3% or less not sure, own more collective wealth than 150,000,000 Americans put together, this is the alternitive, not one i see as being fair or resonable, or democratic why would 97% of the population be wanting this? I Can't think of a reason yet the same two partys keep getting voted in..? Why is this? In America its imposible to tell who accualy wont the election. People thought Bush stole election, people think Obama stole the election there needs to be a lot of changes. (Change.. haha)
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 05:31 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;155515 wrote:
but then, is the alternative standing by and watching the wealtheist three percent garner an ever-larger share of the natural wealth while the middle class and working poor work harder and harder for less and less? Allowing Wall St to pay itself enough money for its bankers to own their own islands while takings risks than send billions of people further into poverty? Is that a good alternative?


To the bankruptcy of the nation? I think so.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » [b] Is it true that the more change you get the more you get of the same thing?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/28/2024 at 10:38:19