Hello There, Guest!

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Diamond, Jim Floor
#1
Most who become IBO's never get the opportunity to meet those truly successful in the Amway business, a Diamond, especially in large and dynamic organization. Rarely do we meet a Diamond from outside of our own line of sponsorship unless they are guest speaker at a major function and the tapes of what they say are usually not available. There are sound business reasons for discouraging cross-pollination in teaching; we do not want our process altered by different methods because that must come downward from the top of a line of sponsorship so that everyone follows the same duplicable methods.

What we miss is the motivational, inspirational and the philosophical thoughts of some very accomplished people.

Amway Diamond, Jim Floor
was a business representative to the California State Government when he was sponsored. He spent years learning about government from the inside, the good and the not so good. He also saw that more and more of what was happening was a result of politicians using our money (taxes) to give goodies (programs, "benefits" and entitlements) to people who would vote to keep the politicians in office so they would keep giving them goodies.

For twenty years Jim has shouted the message from the mountain top, and from in front of a white-board, that America is headed for serious trouble because, eventually, the people getting goodies would outnumber the tax payers and then the money would quickly run-out.

THEY DO AND IT HAS.

If the America you were raised in is to continue, the insane, uncontrolled spending by State and the Federal Government must stop. Now.

The way is to vote for the Conservative running for office in the upcoming elections.
 Reply
#2
shatto Wrote:the people getting goodies would outnumber the tax payers and then the money would quickly run-out.

THEY DO AND IT HAS.


The baby boomer problem aside, which is a pure "numbers of people" issue, I would think the amount of money is a bigger problem that the number receiving it. Things like the infamous "bridge to nowhere" or the trillions spent in Iraq.

Quote:The way is to vote for the Conservative running for office in the upcoming elections.

Why? How do conservatives suggest the baby boomer problem be addressed? It's an issue throughout the western world.

Here's 2009 US Federal spending. Defense is nearly a quarter of spending, Social Security & MediCare/Medicade is 39% and nearly entirely made-up of payments to the elderly.

[Image: U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png]

Put simply the problem is the government is spending more than it's bringing in. A look at historical data suggests they answer might be to recall Bill Clinton, the only President to not have run a deficit in the last few decades. Somehow I don't think that's Jim Floor's recommendation Big Grin

[Image: 20080729_BUDGET_GRAPHIC.gif]
 Reply
#3
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but until the majority of the general public demonstrates sound fiscal responsibility with their own household economies; minimizing deficit spending, borrowing from one "program" to pay for another, operating on borrowed money from outside sources, losing the, "I'm entitled" mentality, etc., how can we expect to reliably identify and elect leaders who can?

Why do the rich keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer?

Because the rich keep doing what the rich do to get rich, and poor keep doing what the poor do to be poor!

And, that goes for countries, too.

It just takes longer to qualify.
 Reply
#4
Sigh - I used to be a Republican (which of course is the "preferred party of Amway IBOs") :grin:

Now I'm just a bitter old woman who hates both political parties. What the Republican fail to mention is that this "wanton spending" (and I agree it's terrifying) gets further bloated by all the freakin' PORK added to the bills that get passed :rant: :rant: :rant: And BOTH parties are equally proficient at dipping into the public coffers..... :nono: I was astounded that John McCain - Mr "Let's get rid of the pork" during his campaign - agreed to the first ridiculously un-accounted-for bailout gift under the Bush Administration.

Jim Floor wants us to vote "conservative Republican"?? As in "Sarah Palin" Confusedhock: Confusedhock: Confusedhock:

I can't think of ANYTHING more terrifying than that......
 Reply
#5
Deb Wrote:Sigh - I used to be a Republican (which of course is the "preferred party of Amway IBOs") :grin:

Now I'm just a bitter old woman who hates both political parties. What the Republican fail to mention is that this "wanton spending" (and I agree it's terrifying) gets further bloated by all the freakin' PORK added to the bills that get passed :rant: :rant: :rant: And BOTH parties are equally proficient at dipping into the public coffers..... :nono: I was astounded that John McCain - Mr "Let's get rid of the pork" during his campaign - agreed to the first ridiculously un-accounted-for bailout gift under the Bush Administration.

Jim Floor wants us to vote "conservative Republican"?? As in "Sarah Palin" Confusedhock: Confusedhock: Confusedhock:

I can't think of ANYTHING more terrifying than that......


I can.

In fact, two things.

The the majority of the voting public enable these leaders to do so...

OR, the possibility that if is "isn't that way," the majority of the voting public not fixing it.

The problem is that elected officials mirror the the morals, ethics, financial perspectives, etc., of the voting public.

So, it's virtually impossible for the general public to identify and place responsible leaders if they are amassing huge debt, living on borrowed money, seeking subsidies for expenses, generally choosing unhealthy lifestyles, etc....and not making deliberate, measurable attempts to right their own ships without relying on more of the same.

***Note: I am fortunate to rent space to an office of the Social Security Admin., and during my visits and numerous conversations with their "customers," I've become aware of an overwhelming volume of the above-mentioned behaviors***

Oh, I just thought of a third thing "more terrifying."

I spent 4+ years showing the plan to these people...
 Reply
#6
So are you saying that the good and decent people of the USA are screwed, because we're outnumbered by those with their hands out?? Confusedcratch:

On the other hand - Blago belonged to YOUR state Tongue I can see how you'd feel that way Wink
 Reply
#7
Interestingly the idea that people vote for those who reflect themselves doesn't appear at all true in the US, thanks to the mix of economic and cultural issues. Much of the "base" of the modern republican party is actively hurt by the economic policies of the republican party, but vote for them because of perceived cultural similarities (religion, abortion etc). On the other hand the extremely wealthy tend to vote Democrat, which (at least in the immediate term) damages their economic interests.

So the idea the economy is in a mess because people vote for economic reasons just isn't born out by the data.

I think the biggest single improvement the US could make to their government and economy is to ban "earmarks". It makes your whole system ineffective and unworkable
 Reply
#8
ibofightback Wrote:I think the biggest single improvement the US could make to their government and economy is to ban "earmarks". It makes your whole system ineffective and unworkable


Ahhh...from your lips (fingers?) to the Senate and House's ears......

I really doubt it would ever happen. I really think that by the time anyone gets elected to that level - *most* can be bought :bye: It's a vicious cycle: "I, your beloved Senator, have brought you a make-work project which will put 1500 people to work building turtle shelters - of course, I expect you to support my campaign with copious amounts of appreciation $$$$$".....

barf.
 Reply
#9
ibofightback Wrote:On the other hand the extremely wealthy tend to vote Democrat, which (at least in the immediate term) damages their economic interests.


I've heard similar anecdotal observations, though it is equally interesting to note that many of these "extremely wealthy" got that way using traditional Republican philosophies, even often supporting the Republican party, and once in a position to use their wealth and influence to provide assistance to others, did "swing" Democratic.

That said, "traditional" Republican philosophies are not what is often visible, regardless of political affiliation these days...

ibofightback Wrote:So the idea the economy is in a mess because people vote for economic reasons just isn't born out by the data.


I won't engage in a drawn-out debate here, but can we agree it is arguably the "will" of an American majority that puts politicians in office?

Is that a different majority than the majority of Americans who are, say for example, in debt?

Financially insoluble by retirement age?

The ones who think Americans installing a light-switch in an automobile is somehow, in some cases, "worth" hundreds of times more than in any other country?

Maybe even more than a teacher, or a cop, or a carpenter building houses earns?

Fighting for healthcare reform because they simply cannot afford current healthcare (despite valid healthcare problems) in a country where limits on earnings are largely self-imposed?

Overweight, under-nourished, and practicing largely unhealthy lifestyle behaviors?

I could go on because my argument is not that people vote for "economic reasons".

To the contrary, I argue the majority of voters are unqualified to identify leaders who would represent sound policies, or even policies that somehow greatly deviate from their own perspectives and philosophies, regardless of political affiliation, and often with weak "reasons."

Their "reasons" for how they vote are just an example, as you noted, of the less-than-precise decision-making processes we tend to make.

Arguing ad absurdum, most people who would benefit from psycho-therapy are ill-equipped to provide it to themselves, no?

I stand by my assertion that people in office represent AT LEAST the overwhelming philosophy of those active in the voting process.

And, IMHO, it can't be fixed as long as the government remains as "big" as it is.

No matter what stop-gap we apply.
 Reply
#10
Wearyeyed Wrote:
ibofightback Wrote:On the other hand the extremely wealthy tend to vote Democrat, which (at least in the immediate term) damages their economic interests.


I've similar anecdotal observations, though it is equally interesting to note that many of these "extremely wealthy" did so under traditional Republican philosophies, often supporting the Republican party, and once in a position to use their wealth and influence to provide assistance to others, did "swing" Democratic.


My info was from actual studies, not anecdotal evidence, but if I recall correctly it may support what you say - people vote republican while they're getting rich, but once their rich and money isn't an issue, they vote Democrat.

I don't know if I want to get in to the implications of that!

Quote:That said, "traditional" Republican philosophies are not what is often visible, regardless of political affiliation these days...

Well, I think part of the problem is people vote to much out of "tradition". I suspect if you took the policies of Bill Clinton and Bush I you wouldn't find that much difference. Neither today's Republican party nor today's Democrat party really reflect their "traditional" philosophies. In the case of Republicans I think that's a bad thing, and in the case of Democrats I think that's a good thing.

Quote:I won't engage in a drawn-out debate here, but can we agree it is arguably the "will" of an American majority that puts politicians in office?

The majority don't even vote do they? And few seen to make educated and inforned decisions when they do. I don't think it's necessarily much better elsewhere in the world with regard to the latter, but I suspect with compulsory voting you at least get an overall diluted effect. With non-compulsory voting what I think happens is the one who wins is the one who gets more people out to vote - and that tends to be based on emotion rather than rational decision making. Obama is a classic example - many on "the left" are extremely disappointed in him, but if you actually look at his polices before he was elected - he's pretty much following them to the letter! He was "pro" the Afghan war and not in a hurry to withdraw from Iraq. He never promoted a single payer type health care system, he even flagged the possibility of offshore drilling before the election. But a lot of people were motivated to come out and vote for him based on emotion, rather than whether his policies actually agreed with their beliefs. The same has been happening on the right for years.

Quote:Is that a different majority than the majority of Americans who are, say for example, in debt?

I doubt there's much overall correlation between debt and voting patterns, given the fact the vast majority are in debt. Even Perot voters were probably all in debt.

Quote:To the contrary, I argue the majority of voters are unqualified to identify leaders who would represent sound policies, or even policies that somehow greatly deviate from their own perspectives and philosophies, regardless of political affiliation.

absolutely agree

Quote:I stand by my assertion that people in office represent AT LEAST the overwhelming philosophy of those active in the voting process.

Depends what you mean by "represent". I don't think there's necessarily a causal ingredient outside the ignorance of voters and the desire of politicians to get elected.

Quote:And, IMHO, it can't be fixed as long as the government remains as "big" as it is.

And I think that's focusing on the wrong thing. Size and efficiency and effectiveness are not necessarily inversely correlated. Indeed in the free market it's generally expected that size can bring increases in efficiency. In my view their are natural monopolies that government's should be able to do better than the private sector, and "size" should be able to make it more efficient and effective. What you should be looking for in a government is effective and efficient use of taxpayers money, whether it's "big" government or "small" government isn't the issue. It's like we humans - you want to be fit and healthy not fat and bloated, doesn't matter if your 5ft tall or 7ft tall, 150 pounds or 300 pounds. It's not size per se that's the problem.
 Reply

 
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)