> [Krimel] > Yes but non-profits are an integral part of the capitalist system and have > a long history within it. Churches have been around since before there was > capitalism.
m surplus is an integral part of the operation of most enterprizes except as pointed out earlier: charities. I did not bring churches into the discussion and see no reason to. [Krimel] I only mentioned churches because I suspect that the vast majority of 501's are churches. I could be wrong here but I think there is a misconception. Non-profits can make a profit. Non-profit has nothing to do with making a profit. It has to do with what is done with the profits. In the private sector profits are paid out to the owners of the enterprise. In a non-profit the profits are used to expand or enhance services or give raises to employees or hire more employees. m >From the above you've not specified if, for you a social agenda or a political agenda are what you expect of politicians. Spending public money to push moral agendae is definitionally Liberal, classical or progressive. One side pushes anti-Roe v Wade and the other pushes pro Roe v Wade. One side pushes its so-called 'conservative' social agenda the other a so called 'progressive' one. if you believe in the government as the source of social value, then you are embracing a liberal mode of thought it just remains for you to choose which flavor of liberalism. However, if you see the agenda as political only, this is different. Improvement of the highway between city A and city B. Making an attempt to exempt food from sales tax. Specific infrastructural support changes or taxation formulation or standards coordination or modiications of liability are all clearly political and likely to interest all stripes of politician. [Krimel] I understand the concept of a liberal democracy and understand the distinction you are making. I do think in these times though, the colloquial use of terms makes your distinction a bit artificial. We generally speak of liberals and conservatives. It is not as though any of us is choosing between say liberal democracy and monarchy. Government in the United States is all about deciding making Value decisions. Do we Value the rights of citizens to make moral decisions for themselves or do we try to legislate and inflict moral choices on citizens, (Roe v Wade). Do we promote social Values through the criminal justice system, drug prohibition or through the education and health systems. Do we demand compliance with environment regulation or do we encourage compliance through the use of our tax codes to promote socially desirable changes. One problem in our current system is that it is polarized rather than pluralized. Two parties restricts the range of options and because of the polarity, they evolve solely in relationship to one another. I certainly do not think government is the "source" of social value but I do think it should be a reflection of social values. m You have helped prove my point, thanks Reagan, was a classical liberal shading toward post-classical he ran up the budget. (There is considerable confusion in language as to what a Conservative or a Liberal is. My prior post classified how I see the R's and D's in their operational philosophies as both being Liberals, but of differing camps...hence the animosity they evince) Clinton never balanced anything in full budget terms, he simply divided the budget and renamed the parts to service debt as something else and pretended it was not part of the whole, so for the operational year he could pretend the inflow and outflow matched. The debt, recategorized, continued to grow. Bush is neo-con, which is a misleading label for his fully post- classical liberalism. He never met a budget dollar it did not make him gleeful to spend. [Krimel] The budgetary standards are the budgetary standards unless there are significant changes in economic reporting then the playing field is level. Bush's deficits are comparable to Clinton's surpluses to the extent that the accounting practices are similar. I can imagine not accounting tricks that would make the profligacy of Reagan or Bush disappears. These free market, fiscal responsibility champions were nothing more than liars and fakes. They talked the talk then broke out the credit card. > [Krimel] > Isn't "raiding of Social Security" just borrowing from it? It is not as > though the money just gets spent with no accounting. m The difference is that in stealing the principal you've also stolen the possiblity for interest and even if you pay back the principal, you will never replace the interest. SS was intended to be a trust. No one uses that term anymore. (Speaking for myself, if a thief leave me a receipt for the watch he steals from me, I'm still saying he stole it.) [Krimel] I don't think it is true that the Social Security Trust Fund is not referred to as a Trust Fund anymore and I don't think your analogy is correct. Of course the Fund itself is an accounting trick. Any budget is an accounting trick. In this case the Fund's accounting is tracked as the the amounts paid in as SS and Medicaid taxes and the amounts paid out to SS and Medicaid recipients. The excess amounts are credit to the Fund. These are borrowed against as needed and the amounts borrowed are entered in the form of Treasury bonds which to accrue interest. Here is an article on this from the Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/research/socialsecurity/em940.cfm There are of course problems looming on the horizon but they have nothing to do with faulty accounts or lack of interest being charged. So a better analogy would be that you have money in your savings account but need to buy a new car so you borrow the money from yourself and pay it back to your savings account; with interest if you like. m Excellent example of individual managers using profit as an excuse to embrace a low quality behavior. They knew damn well what they did was wrong, but regardless of the structure of the organization, the cowardice of people will "shine through." You could have as easily chosen a non-profit insurance provider decision to deny a proven treatment on the bureaucratic basis of "experimental" and given us the same result. [Krimel] I think part of the problem here is that we no longer seem capable of distinguishing between what is legal and what is moral. It calls to mind one of my favorite passages from the Tao te Ching. This is not an especially good translation but if conveys the idea: "Thus it was that when the Tao was lost, Its attributes appeared; when its attributes were lost, Benevolence appeared; when benevolence was lost, The proprieties appeared. Now propriety is the attenuated form of good-heartedness and good faith. It is also the commencement of disorder; Swift apprehension is (only) a flower of the Tao, And is the beginning of stupidity." Jesus talked about it in terms of the written law as opposed to the law written in the heart. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
