Welcome to PatsFans.com

Moving Ahead To The Past

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Mrs.PatsFanInVa, Apr 12, 2010.

  1. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,887
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +560 / 9 / -5

    #24 Jersey

    It seems very odd to me - like we have a whole board, maybe even a whole nation, that wants to move backwards.....back to the "old days" which were not "the good old days" at all, but rather a time when life expectancy was low, health was poor and life was hard. Back when the average worker had no recourse if he were put at danger, if he were abused by his employers, if his situation was an unhealthy and unhappy one. A time when corporations called all the shots and no one monitored them or watched over them and they could do whatever they wanted, to whoever they wanted, whenever they wanted. A time when people had 12 and 14 children for two reasons - one being that there was no such thing as health insurance and so you had to produce many so at least a few would live. The second reason being that you needed them to live long enough to support you, their parents, because you sure as hell couldn't save enough and there sure the hell was no pension plan or social security to work for or to rely upon.

    It was a time of very little "government interference," granted, but it was also a time when children routinely ate lead paint and got brain-damaged. A time when conditions in factories were horrendous and people routinely suffered life-threatening injuries - and were promptly fired without compensation when they did - and all because there was no mandatory insurance protecting them. A time when people went hungry, children of hard working fathers suffered rickets and malnutrition, gainfully employed men died from untreated pneumonia and undiagnosed ulcers, mothers of 10 children died giving birth to their 11th - and all because there was simply no money to pay the doctor and there was no employee-sponsored insurance plans. A time when, because there were no unions to speak for the common man and there were no government agencies making sure safety laws were passed and enforced, men and women worked 16 and 17 hour days, 7 days a week in the most hellish conditions and children under 12 were routinely hired at half the wage of an adult and made to do the same job as the adult would have done.

    Is that what we want? All in the name of "freedom" and all in the name of "being mad as hell and not wanting to pay taxes" any longer?

    Sometimes, the more laws we have, the more oversight and safety that's provided, the more free we become.

    Those days of lower taxes and less government intervention - people weren't "free" then. They were slaves to making a dollar - that and only that. There wasn't much joy to go around, nor was there any "freedom." A person is not free when he worries constantly about a dangerous work place, an illness that he can't afford, a child he cannot feed, an old age he cannot support, a house full of lead paint and asbestos, two parents who are destitute and looking to him for sustenance.

    All good things come at a cost - the cost is sometimes taxes. If we were to suddenly have all taxes repealed, as well as the loss of all those things that government provides us by virtue of our paying those taxes, how much better off do you think you'd be? How much richer? Does a few dollars a week more in your paycheck offset the cost of providing your own health insurance, the painfully higher cost of commercial products which do not contain things like lead and asbestos, your own retirement fund - without matching funds from your employer, your own workman's comp. insurance in case you get hurt in your suddenly way-more dangerous workplace, tuition for your children's schooling since the government will no longer be able to subsidize them, your own security since the police force will be full of under-qualified patrolmen because salaries will not longer be competitive, hauling your own trash to the dump - which will be full of radioactive junk and harmful materials, since the government will no longer regulate things like waste? The list could go on and on, but you get the point, I'm sure.

    The Tea Party is telling us what they don't want....they don't want government interference. They are telling us what they do want - which is LESS TAXES. What they are not telling us is how we survive if and when they succeed.

    They are telling you what they want to give to you - but not what it will cost you in the end - or what you will give up to get it.
  2. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I think you're trying to align technological progress with government expansion?
  3. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    The only thing I'd like for us as americans to "Go Back" to, are the days where a single parent could work a single decent job and raise a family of 4 comfortably.


    Other than that...the past is BS, and harkening back to the time where people of color were considered 'less than' at best, and slaves at worst. Where women didnt vote, nor went to college. Where 7 year old kids worked in the textile factories.


    Heck no
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2010
  4. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,887
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +560 / 9 / -5

    #24 Jersey

    I'm not sure what I'm trying to do, Khayos - I'm ruminating out loud, I suppose.

    Technology does give rise to the possiblilty of bigger governments and bigger corporationsm doesn't it?

    I'm thinking of a time when sweat-shops and factories came into being. The technology (machinery) which made it possible, the owners of the factories who abused mostly women and children in order to make the profit suddenly available by mass production and the subsequent deaths and injuries which took place - thus requiring union forming, union intervention and eventually the entrance of the government into the fray.

    We no longer have sweat-shops, fortunately, in part due to unions/government laws but also in part because even more technology, and machines which can do the work of 100 humans, has been discovered and once again changed the face of the average worker - this time by disappearing it.

    So, no, I'm not talking about technology so much as I am the fact that a good deal of change has come about - and while much of it was necessitated by technology it's still tangential.

    If we did away with all of the laws brought about by work places changing and getting larger, the safety laws, the workman's comp. laws, the "extra" benefits now being routinely offered as a sweetner to future employees, pollution laws, laws governing the hours a person is allowed to work, (trucking regulations come to mind immediately) what happens? Do you think companies would police themselves effectively or would they revert to the past and start cutting corners again?

    Perhaps we do have a "Nanny State," I don't know. I've, personally, never regarded it as such, but I've always been more interested in humna behaviour than I've been in anything else. Most of us need watching - it's in our nature to take advantage of any given situation. Because life is still muchly based on survival of the fittest we need someone or something to watch out for the less fit - at least we do if we want to remain a country 'with liberty and justice for all." The past has proven that we don't do a good job of it if left to our own devices. That's sad, but I think it's mostly true.

    If you do away with taxes, if you lower them, you are going to be forced to eliminate some of the watchdogging which goes on - and much of the law enforcing.

    I guess my question is - can we afford to do it? Monetarily and morally, would it really be such a good idea?

    I think we need to cut spending, yes....I'm sure we all agree on that - but we diverge when we discuss what needs to be cut. More than even cutting spending, however, I think we're probably going to have to raise someone's taxes - hopefully everyone's so that no one group feels the bite the worst.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>