Apple's Steve Jobs to meet with President Obama on Thursday - Page 3

Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot

... I do believe (as many do in the Democratic party) that [President Obama] believes in wealth redistribution and although says he doesn't he doesn't believe in putting a penalty on 'those that can afford more' I think he really does not mind it at all. In his (and others minds) its OK to take away from those that have worked hard to make their money (or those fortunate enough to have someone else in there lives that did) as long as it is to help the poor or some other group he wants to help. I personally think that is what charities are for and that we would all pay less if we paid a flat tax. ...

Originally Posted by libertyforall

... There is only one major political party in the US -- the big government party. We need libertarians for smaller government.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Libertarianism is the most entirely self-contradictory and absurd political philosophy that has ever been developed. Taken to its logical conclusions, it bears no difference from anarchy. Yet, it never follows its premises anywhere, but simply creates arbitrary categories of instances where the government ought to act, while, just as arbitrarily excluding others.

Essentially it's nothing more than cheap window dressing on a belief that the rich ought to be able to do as they damn well please and that the resources of society ought to be directed solely at preserving their wealth. Perversely, the selfish, childish and uncritical impulses of the not rich often drive them to adopt it, in name at least, as some sort of utopian ideal where life will be wonderful because they can live without any societal responsibilities.

Originally Posted by shadash

The right in this country tars Obama with the label "socialist." Their Exhibit A is the insurance reform he got passed. But it is hard for them to explain how Obama's use of the ideas of Senator Dole and Governor Romney in putting this package together is "socialist," while those two aren't. It is easy for them to make him an "other" because of his race.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

And, therefore, your choice would be......?

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

In theory all of the partisan political blather should be confined to the political forum, but in practice it frequently boils over into other discussions, and unfortunately the mods don't make much of an effort to shut it down. This is the rare time when posters who are almost never seen participating in any discussion outside of the political forum turn up to pollute other threads.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Libertarianism is the most entirely self-contradictory and absurd political philosophy that has ever been developed. Taken to its logical conclusions, it bears no difference from anarchy. Yet, it never follows its premises anywhere, but simply creates arbitrary categories of instances where the government ought to act, while, just as arbitrarily excluding others.

Essentially it's nothing more than cheap window dressing on a belief that the rich ought to be able to do as they damn well please and that the resources of society ought to be directed solely at preserving their wealth. Perversely, the selfish, childish and uncritical impulses of the not rich often drive them to adopt it, in name at least, as some sort of utopian ideal where life will be wonderful because they can live without any societal responsibilities.

Originally Posted by razorpit

It's a story about Steve Jobs visiting President Obama. Did you expect a discussion of 10.7?

Originally Posted by razorpit

... I think the government over the years has done some good things, however since about the days of LBJ there have been some disastrous government programs introduced which have destroyed entire communities. I don't think there is anything wrong with people who want to go back and remove some of the stuff that's bad.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Libertarianism is the most entirely self-contradictory and absurd political philosophy that has ever been developed. Taken to its logical conclusions, it bears no difference from anarchy. Yet, it never follows its premises anywhere, but simply creates arbitrary categories of instances where the government ought to act, while, just as arbitrarily excluding others.

Originally Posted by razorpit

however since about the days of LBJ there have been some disastrous government programs introduced which have destroyed entire communities. I don't think there is anything wrong with people who want to go back and remove some of the stuff that's bad.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Everyone believes in redistribution of wealth. The difference is in which direction it ought to be redistributed. Republican economic policies favor redistribution from middle class and poor to the rich, and these policies have become much more actively aggressive over the past 30 years. Democratic policies tend to favor redistribution in the opposite direction.

As far as either approach supports the goal of a free, open and democratic society, it seems to me that one that tends to hinder the development of a moneyed aristocracy is the correct approach. So, while it's easy to complain about, "taking money away from those who have worked hard to make it," -- as though the poor and middle class are entirely a bunch of idlers who never put in a hard days work in their lives -- and to pretend that wealth isn't very much due to the accidents of circumstances (for every rich person who became rich because they had a "good idea" (defined in retrospect based on their success) and profited from it, there are at least a thousand people who had equally good ideas, worked hard and didn't succeed) the reality is that unless a society has a mechanism (or mechanisms) in place to hinder the development of hereditary wealth, the power that that wealth gives its possessors will ultimately undermine any democracy.

The question therefore, is not whether redistribution of wealth is right or wrong -- it will happen in one direction or the other in any case -- but which direction and degree of redistribution is best for maintaining a healthy democracy.

(And, as far as tax policy goes, a flat tax is utterly regressive and favors a redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. It's hard to imagine a less "fair" tax system, nor one which threatens the foundations of a democracy more, in and of itself. That doesn't mean our current tax system is the best of all possible systems, it just means that while emotionally appealing to some, a flat tax would be ultimately destructive of our society.)

Originally Posted by Apple ][

What is the great Steve Jobs doing meeting with that loser for? Apple is a very successful company, one of the biggest, and Obama is anti-business. If I were Steve, I'd rather spend a few hours visiting a horrible Microsoft Store instead of meeting with Obama.

Originally Posted by surferfromuk

My life is substantially better because of the free industry of Steve Jobs in the free country known as America. That is why I don't believe in the state mandated re-distribution of wealth that led to Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.

Originally Posted by surferfromuk

My life is substantially better because of the free industry of Steve Jobs in the free country known as America. That is why I don't believe in the state mandated re-distribution of wealth that led to Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Libertarianism is the most entirely self-contradictory and absurd political philosophy that has ever been developed. Taken to its logical conclusions, it bears no difference from anarchy. Yet, it never follows its premises anywhere, but simply creates arbitrary categories of instances where the government ought to act, while, just as arbitrarily excluding others.

Essentially it's nothing more than cheap window dressing on a belief that the rich ought to be able to do as they damn well please and that the resources of society ought to be directed solely at preserving their wealth. Perversely, the selfish, childish and uncritical impulses of the not rich often drive them to adopt it, in name at least, as some sort of utopian ideal where life will be wonderful because they can live without any societal responsibilities.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

Umm... there are a lot of countries and political systems in-between, you know.... Some of them even have perfectly happy people living there....

Originally Posted by TenoBell

He's right that every system redistributes wealth. The difference is in how this is accomplished.

I wouldn't count a successful society based on the number of wealthy people it has.I would count a successful society based on the health, happiness, and productivity of its people.

In some ways the US is great at this, in other ways we are falling behind.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

Umm... there are a lot of countries and political systems in-between, you know.... Some of them even have perfectly happy people living there....

Originally Posted by anonymouse

You mean like gutting regulation of financial institutions? That's certainly destroyed entire communities, and more.

Or did you mean something like repeal of those pesky civil rights laws that have so increased the white man's burden?

Originally Posted by TenoBell

Reagan gutted federal social services programs just as AIDS and crack cocaine became rampant. He wanted government to get out of the way and let people take care of themselves. Crime rates soared and AIDS was free to spread without a coordinated effort to battle it.

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Libertarianism is Libertarianism, anarchy is anarchy. They are different things, even though there are people who lean more anarchist than others. The point is, personal responsibility and self-governance are essential to full human potential... or no potential whatsoever, for that matter. Force is not necessary to shape human action. Human action simply IS. ...

Originally Posted by razorpit

Race card? Really? After I specifically mentioned I like Allen West? No response needed...

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Oh, I see, you played the race innoculation card, so we can't go there. Whether it's true for you or not, whether people want to admit it or not, a large measure of the anti-government, anti-Obama feeling in this country has its basis in race issues.

But, perhaps you'd like to tell us exactly which are these harmful laws and policies enacted since LBJ that need to be repealed or rescinded.

Originally Posted by surferfromuk

My life is substantially better because of the free industry of Steve Jobs in the free country known as America. That is why I don't believe in the state mandated re-distribution of wealth that led to Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.

Originally Posted by razorpit

We now have a president meeting with successful business people, for what? Photo opp, nothing more, nothing less. His stance on taxes and handouts isn't going to suddenly change. Nothing was gained from the last meeting with Steve and nothing will be gained from this meeting either.

Originally Posted by justflybob

I'm glad they are meeting, but I must admit that I found the title of the article hilarious.

"Apple's Steve Jobs"... like there is more than one prominent Steve Jobs that would be mentioned in an article from AppleInsider?

Originally Posted by Flaneur

Yet you say you would like to be a fly on the wall for this meeting. Were you on the wall at the last meeting? Was it painful do be so diminished in size, but not in intellect?

Seriously, we might get a bit more information out of this meeting, because it's a four-way involving at least one who might talk afterward. I am thankful that we have a president with the intelligence to pursue the meaning of the transformation that's going on the knowledge industry. A refreshing change from the last one, who apparently wasn't even curious about 'the Google' and 'the internets.'

Originally Posted by razorpit

After the last two years if that is what you believe I can't change your mind...

Originally Posted by razorpit

From the babel you just spewed I'm going to also guess you have no idea yourself what this meeting is about. If the president had any interest in private business and how it all works he would have done it years ago before he became involved in politics. Now is not the time for on the job training...

Originally Posted by razorpit

After the last two years if that is what you believe I can't change your mind...

Given that I'll still toss a few softballs to you. How about the focus on how much water goes through my toilet whenever I flush it. How about the law which will soon dictate the type of lightbulbs I have in my house. How about other EPA regulations and endangered species acts which shut down an entire farming community because of a smelt.

I picked LBJ because that's about the time "the kid's" started taking over. Since you're pushing the race issue, it's also about the time that many once proud black communities self destructed with help from the federal government.

White and black people are both to blame for the problems then and now, democrats and republicans. Did your head just explode because I didn't go where you thought I was going with this? ...

Originally Posted by Flaneur

Quite a bit of government money went into making Silicon Valley what it is, the culture out of which the personal computer and the internet grew.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

No, your response is pretty typical. You don't care about clean water, global warming or biodiversity, most likely because you choose to deny they are real issues so it won't get in the way of how you want to live, or because you think they are problems that will be visited on someone else, so why should you care.

And, although it's convenient to blame poverty and it's attendant problems on the "Welfare State", there's little or no hard evidence to prove that causation. What you're doing is looking at a period of great change in all parts of American society and picking the ones you don't like as the cause of today's problems. You're also looking back over a period where for most of that time, the income gap between rich and poor has steadily widened. There are no golden days that we can turn back the clock to and magically reach paradise by simply undoing what's been done. That's the sort of simplistic thinking that leads to things like our recent financial meltdown.

But, speaking of golden days and LBJ, maybe we should go back a little further. I'd like to see us return to Eisenhower era tax rates, things were certainly good then, weren't they?

Originally Posted by Tofino

Yes, but then Ballmer really should be there too, shouldn't he? I hear the xbox finally sells well, and is built there too, right?

Originally Posted by razorpit

The fact that the last two winters have been the coldest in recent years confirms the globe is warming?.

Originally Posted by razorpit

So the fact that I am also an avid scuba diver means that I love diving in filthy water? The fact that the last two winters have been the coldest in recent years confirms the globe is warming? If some one doesn't agree with you then it is they who must change. Unlike you I look at the good in people and times and strive to bring them back.

You see nothing but the bad and think that everything can be controlled or dictated in to being fixed. It doesn't work like that. There are natural cycles in business and life. My beef is with those who deny the cycles or react the opposite as to how they should when they do occur thinking that they know best.

Originally Posted by Robin Huber

Willful ignorance is very common.

Originally Posted by shadash

I mean, never mind that those patriots Reagan and Bush Deux are the two presidents that got the US into the massive amount of debt they are in. I mean come on. We had to finance massive tax cuts for the rich and fight godless communism and Islamofascism. But now the $10 trillion of debt were are in is all the fault of "president" Osama - I mean Obama. Jeez. He wasn't even born in America. What does he know about red meat eating, flag waving America? Nothing. And the middle class, of course Obama is targeting that. Forget that the middle class has been stagnant since the mid-1970s, while the income of the top 1% in the US has grown stratospherically. Its all Obama! Now I'm off to watch that patriot Glen Beck on Fox News - the only channel I watch, except for when I have my head shoved up my own ass.

Originally Posted by tyler82

Here's how the meeting will go:

CEOs: Give us more money! Cut our Taxes!

Obama: OK!

Originally Posted by Robin Huber

Willful ignorance is very common.

Originally Posted by Robin Huber

In the lower Himalayas it has been the warmest in recent years. Global warming is a misnomer. The more accurate description is climate change.

The vast majority of respected scientists with expertise in this area agree it is happening. A few outliers say otherwise. It's always that way. Same with evolution. Willful ignorance is very common.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

I'm sure you convince yourself that the water is clean, just like you've convinced yourself that it's been cold where you live so climate change isn't a problem. You see what you want to see, what makes you feel comfortable with your choices.