Good evening, Krimel, <snip>> > [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 I see, now why you mentioned churches. Looking at the last two sentences I find that I have a case of double vision for three reasons. First, of the for-profit entities with which I've been involved only a small portion of profit went to owners, the largest went to fund the buiness' future, and for excess-beyond-cost a significant amount was paid as bonus to employees. So, secondly, that makes the distinction in your last sentence a point of commonality, rather than a point of contrast. Third, in the Fortune 100 companies, much of stock ownership is now a market value perception based on numbers that assure you of the company's value, but no actual profit is paid to the stockholders, instead the management siphons off the value as enormous, stupendous, amazing changes in their own benefits, but zip to ownwers. Hmmm, non-profit ownership of for-profit companies making record profits. > <snip> > [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 It is an understatement for me to say that you are certainly right about the complexity of Value decisions, however, the colloquial use of terms confuses us by hiding the truth of the political situation. Polarity is due to two groups of Liberal thinkers with different aims, trying to effect change as true-believers. We can argue, politically, about the merits of one versus the other, but the "two party" restricted range of options, makes most of us not even see the hint of alternatives outside the elephant and donkey poop we have to keep on shoveling. > <snip > > [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. m I guess that is one of the points. Unlike GAAP, as heinous as that is, there is no fixed, stable, transparent buget standard for government. Each administration seems to 'reinvent' the budget and the use it to hide what they do, knowing that they only have to hide for a few weeks or months at most and by then a new crisis will grab attention from all but a few budget geeks who no one listens to anyway. Liar and fakes does not begin to capture the descriptions. <snip> > [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 They may use the language of "borrowing," but if you borrow the seed corn and eat it, you have nothing to grow next year. or, as I see with your analogy of the savings account, is that the banker "borrows" the money from your account and buys himself a new car and some quality call-girl time and when he gets caught promises to pay it back with interest, but all he can do is steal from other depositors to pay you back. And you never see the interest. <snip> > > [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. > m I think you've scored a blackout-bingo with that observation. Maybe it looks like low-quality biological acts masquerade as intellectual acts behind the confusion of social rhetoric. thanks for the help, Krimel thanks--mel > > > 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/ 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/
