Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Underrated Obama

It’s truly amazing how often President Barack Obama is underrated. True, everybody agrees he’s likable and is an outstanding orator. But because Obama says he will listen to all sides, Republicans assume he’s a pushover. On the left side of the spectrum, liberals bitch constantly that Obama has no spine because he compromises too much.

The president is underrated by everybody. How wrong they all are!

Read this thumbnail review of the recently ended Congress by a man whose day job is to study Congress:

"This is the most dysfunctional political environment that I have ever seen. But then you have to juxtapose that with [this Congress being] one of, at least, the three most productive Congresses" since 1900, said Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

This Congress is so dynsfunctional because of the rabid antagonism of Republicans to President Obama. With Obama, there was no "honeymoon," such as that given to all previous presidents. Immediately after Obama's inauguration, Rush Limbaugh, the informal head of the Republican Party, pronounced that the main goal of Republicans was to see that Obama failed. Soon thereafter, the formal Minority Senate Leader, Mitch McConnell, said the same thing. From then on, whatever Obama asked for, Republicans did their best to block.

Through it all, President Obama stayed ready to listen to all sides and made significant compromises. So, liberals, who had been waiting for years to get some of their ideas enacted, were outraged by Obama's concessions. As the conventional wisdom says, Obama hurt his "base."

And yet, here is respected Ornstein saying that this Congress is "one of, at least, the three most productive Congresses" since 1900.

Ornstein says he is baffled. But I'm not baffled. This Congress was very productive because of the brilliant leadership of President Barack Obama. THE most important ingredient of his leadership that made this huge success possible is what both Left and Right consider his Achilles heel: his COOPERATIVE STANCE.

Obama always asks for ideas from both Democrats and Republicans. Whenever he does so, Republicans seek to take advantage of Obama and Democrats wail about the compromises Obama makes. But Obama gets things done.

Now, all the pundits are underrating Obama again. They are saying that yes, Obama won a great deal in the so-called lame duck Congress, but next year, he will have a tougher time with a more Republican Congress. The Tea Partiers are especially eager to fight.

There will be plenty of fighting. The House will present Republican versions of bills and the Senate will present Democratic versions of bills. At the conference table, the 2 views will need to be adjusted by compromise. And who will have the last word? President Barack Obama.

I believe that Barack Obama, the most consistently underrated president, will defy his critics and demonstrate in the next 2 years, that his COOPERATIVE STANCE is the best way to solve both domestic and international problems.

Posted by Paul Siegel at December 24, 2010 1:18 PM
Comments
Comment #315797

If Obama can compromise and bring along the lefties, he will be a decent president, like Clinton was. I am not sure he is as clever as Clinton.

IMO - Obama will do better now because he doesn’t have to contend with so much Democratic power, especially ideologues like Nancy Pelosi.

Posted by: C&J at December 24, 2010 4:01 PM
Comment #315799

Paul,
With President Obama being younger than most in the Media I do believe much of the blame and the problem can be the age gap. For although for years we have been lead to believe no one can change Wall Street and Washington. Knowin firsthand that in 1980 we seen a great shify in the rebellion of children, I do believe President Obama does carry himself well as a representative of that era.

Because why we don’t see him take to the bully pulpit screaming or using his position to belittle his opponent. What is seen by many of today’s media pundits as weakness is actually a salute to the mindset of the Children of the 80’s IMHO. And it is due to this strange behavior that both political parties find themselves lost.

However, in defense of my peers I do wish President Obama and the Children of the 80’s would learn how to fight the Status Quo instead of blindly accept the Corporate Way. For IMHO if America is to really achieve its greatness than both needs to come to terms with the fact their parents and grandparents limited Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders for a reason.

C&J,
Why conservatives may not like the idea President Obama in his first two years elected to follow his party leaders like President Bush did his first years in office. Like you I do hope President Obama in the next two years will start to challenge the political thinking of both political partis extremes.

For why both sies Political Leaders must come to the terms established by “The Corporation” I do believe in the Debate between Labor and Management needs to move forward. Because unlike the Workforce of Our Generation, today we need to reconize the average citizen is not so ignorant. And why that may make some conservatives nervous as Corporate Leaders need to rearrange the pay scale between Labor and Management to maintian their Standard of Living due to the increase of prices for material and goods.

Thus, you can go on blaming folks like Nancy Pelosi for standing up for the Rights of Labor; however, seeing the Republicans cannot defend the 500:1 pay difference of Management or their willingness to protect the tax cuts for the top 2%. I do wish Americans could once again find a political party defend the Rights of All Americans to make a Profit. Because why the Tea Party would have us believe that the Euro Elites deserve all the money and power, in keeping with the Spirit of the Founding Fathers I hope we can all see the day where Labor and Management can walk as Equals in their effort to govern “The Corporation.”

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 24, 2010 5:05 PM
Comment #315812


Henry, according to the Republicans, labor is no longer an accepted form of referring to workers. Hence forth, the appropriate term to use for workers is the workforce.

Your talking about Equal and they are talking about pulling teeth.

Posted by: jlw at December 25, 2010 3:17 PM
Comment #315813

jlw & Henry

I think you are mistaking Nancy Pelosi standing up for unions for standing up for workers. Unions and workers are not the same thing.

I have worked for wages all my life, as have most people, but I consider myself an individual, not part of a entity called labor. I also have never met an entity called management. Those terms are as outdated as the old union movement. Today many of us are workers, managers, researchers and owners at the same time.

Unions and “labor” played an important role in my father’s generation. Not so much anymore.

I have a lot of trouble defining my “job description” and certainly would not want it specifically defined by contract. I also need those that work with me to be flexible.

How also do we handle mobile work? People want to work from home sometimes. Do they get overtime if they work past closing time, but maybe didn’t do much work during the day? Flexible has to work both ways.

Unions tend not to work well with this sort of flexibility. They are best suited to “labor” where you can treat large numbers of workers the same.

The fact the workers are “not so ignorant” is harder for old labor than it is for old management. More intelligent workers tend to want to do things in different and innovative ways, ways that often tend to change or even eliminate jobs in any particular shop. They also want to be paid more if they do more and have job flexibility.

Does your average union leader really like workers who share ideas with management about how to make work more efficient, so as to require fewer workers? Is the average union leader really enthusiastic about workers who are more innovative getting greater rewards than others? These are things that smarter workers want to do and want to have.

Equal outcomes, BTW, indicates corruption and unfairness. People are never equal in their abilities, motivations, preparation or plain luck. If you have unequal inputs and yet have equal results, somebody is cheating.

Posted by: C&J at December 25, 2010 3:42 PM
Comment #315824

C&J,
Why unions may be seen as a problem for most conservatives, I do believe it is out of fear that Organized Labor can and has caused The Corporation to bend to the Common Sense of Man. And why Management and Workers are more content to allow The Corporation to screw them without saying a word, I do believe the mind set of the 20th Century as well as today does not refeclt the reality of the workplace.

For why managers and office help have grown up thinking that The Corporation cannot function without them. Are you aware that for the most part business operates smoother when Labor is allowed to do their job? For example; restuarants have both Labor and Management, but why the manager can call in sick without a problem if the dishwasher does not show up for work the whole operation shuts down. So who’s job is more important?

Now, in all fairness the manager should know how to do the job of the dish washer just as the dish washer should know how to do the job of the manager. And why accountability and responsibility may seperate them, the mere fact both humans have obligations of family and community their pay should not be so different as to force a burden on one above the other IMHO.

Yes, even the CEO and Janitor has a job in the Corporation. And why many of My Generation could not understand why Henry Ford paid both well, today I still don’t see the CEO offering to clean his own office or keep the grounds of the corporation clean. Yet the Janitor from time to time most make the executive call or answer the questions of customers that the CEO can’t. So again who’s job is more important to the operation of The Corporation?

Thus, in moving forward I do believe we should train everyone in the Art of Conducting Business and making a Profit. For why I do not see the role of a manager changing much in the 21st Century. I do know that if we do more to educate Labor and Workers on how they conduct business adds or subtracts from the bottom line of The Corporation will provide us with better customer service and a workplace.

For example; why napkins are cheap and not thought of by both Labor and Management to be a major expense I wonder how much Profits are lost every year due to the over depensing of the product. For how many of us have gone through a drive through window and got a handful of napkins with our order? And even at a penny a napkin, who wouldn’t want to have the money wasted every year by McDonalds, Burger King, and the other Fast Food chains because Workers and Management dom’t care or con’t know the money they are spending belongs to the Taxpayer and them. Unions on the other hand can and should train Labor to know why The Corporation has guidelines for such matters.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 25, 2010 7:27 PM
Comment #315833

Henry

I like the flatter organizational structure. I recognize that it is good if all can understand what others are doing and that we should break down unnecessary hierarchies, but I recognize that the dishwasher probably cannot understand the job of the manager and that the manager would not be using his time well if he was doing the job of the dishwasher.

re - whose job is more important - it depends more on who can do it. Some very important jobs are very simple. You could argue that the guy who turns the lights on in the operating room is more important than the surgeon, since nobody could work w/o the lights. But this job is easily learned and so the person doing it is less crucial.

I would also point out that unions tend to perpetuate hierarchies and stove piping by closing defining jobs and bargaining units. In many union shops, it is actually a violation of the contract for “management” to do the work of “labor” or for various types of workers to do the jobs of others.

The good 21st Century organization you describe - where management and labor are mixed and where all the employees understand profits and work to save money - sounds a lot like Wal-Mart, which does indeed provide low prices and good service, and where I have seen management pitch in to clean up offices, but is not exactly on the union-most-loved list.

Posted by: C&J at December 26, 2010 1:50 AM
Comment #315836

C&J,
Why it is sad to say those with a MBA of just a few years ago are going to find themselve at a disadvantage in the coming year. I can only imagine what others with degrees in college are going to do when they are called upon to defend the positions of Americas’ Institutions on Mans’ ability to build a Green Sustianable World.

For just as conservatives and republicans are quick to point out that about 50% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes. They are even quicker to run away from the question of why these same people are not being paid enough so they can pay taxes, for health care insurance, and even the higher house payments.

And why that would also require Wall Street and Washington addressing the fact that a even greater divide between the Wealthy and Poor exists in Humanity. Other than the need to slow down the economy consuming oil, I can see no reason except for personal fear and greed in keeping with the pay scale of the 20th Century.

So why I do not and will not say how Americans should deal with the pay divide imposed on Labor and Management 30-40 years ago. I do believe that Americans can and should agree The Corporation focuses on producing goods and products which will lower the monthly bills of consumers in order to raise their Standard of Living. For why one can cry they believe in the seperation of Labor and Management, finding that everyone is equal when it comes to paying the electric bill, health insurance, and the many other burdens placed on individuals and families. I do believe today’s MBAs and even High School Graduates need to rethink their Parents’ Corporate World.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 26, 2010 10:54 AM
Comment #315839

C&J,

While I agree that flexibility is important, and something I have strived for in my own career. I am capable of doing any job in my particular business, and find it a bit arrogant when I run into those who deem certain jobs beneath them.

Equating unions with poor management and labor relations is a bit odd, however. Certainly there are union structures that are outdated and non productive, but the function of a union is negotiating power.

Poor negotiating and planning by management is not the union’s fault. A company that finds organized labor oppressive probably is not a healthy company. Well run companies that take care of all the stakeholders, including labor, don’t usually have those issues.

Posted by: gergle at December 26, 2010 11:16 AM
Comment #315842

Gergle

It is not “beneath them” it is just a waste of talent and training.

One of my favorite organizational structures is the U.S. Marine Corps, where every man is a rifleman and the officers mix freely with the enlisted men and share their hardships in the field. (I don’t propose that we could transfer their discipline and commitment to all parts of civilian life, BTW, or that we would want to.) But even in this community of warriors, there are definite differences in tasks.

I believe in pitching in. I have carried gear, loaded boxes etc.But this is not the place were I can add unique value.

Let’s take a more blue collar example, so we don’t get into the class war. What if we have two guys, one of whom is a talented mechanic, while the other is a wonderful writer. Their car breaks down and they are stranded before a winter storm. They find a garage with a stove, but no wood. Two tasks are important. One is to fix the car; the other to gather wood in the cold. Should they share both these tasks equally?

Re management & unions - they often fall into a kind of nasty co-dependence. Management gives in to unions to buy peace and avoid hassles. It also sometimes helps management raise their own compensation, since they can argue that they are managing larger and higher paid staffs. The ones that lose in the short run are shareholders and customers. In the longer run, everybody becomes less competitive.

Consider this thought experiment. Two managers, both running operations with exactly the same revenue and output. One runs a shop with 100 well-paid employees. The other manages only ten employees. Who seems more skilled? Of course, the one producing the same amount with only ten employees is certainly the better manager, but most people are impressed with the guy with the bigger “empire.”

Posted by: C&J at December 26, 2010 12:37 PM
Comment #315843

“Equal outcomes, BTW, indicates corruption and unfairness. People are never equal in their abilities, motivations, preparation or plain luck. If you have unequal inputs and yet have equal results, somebody is cheating.”

C&J I have found many on the right, the more conservative the more it is apparent, to suffer from the rigid constraints of “black or white” thinking. This is such a case. Only communist seek equal outcomes for all IMHO, again a rigid constraint much like we see by those on the opposite extremes.

Most of us would like to see an equitable outcome. What we have now is an inequitable outcome in many business’s. In fact we have such an inequitable outcome that it is a growing problem for the Nation as a whole. This inequitable outcome is also a case of corruption and unfairness and is a result of the demise of the power of unions over the years.

To think that a person promoted to na upper management position suddenly contributes hundreds of times more output is as corrupt as it gets. When you hold the purse strings it is easy to see your self as more valuable than one really is but it is also corrupt to pay yourself more based upon this arrogance. When labor became just a commodity instead of the method used to determine the rate of pay we as a nation lost the game IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 26, 2010 12:55 PM
Comment #315845

Paul judging from the results of the legislation passed in the past month I would also have to sat the repubs/conservatives were out gunned by Obama, Reid and Pelosi as well. We thought, perhaps, that Obama made a bad deal on the extension of Bush tax cuts but it seems Obama also got DADT, the Food bill and other legislation while showing the Country that it really wasn’t about the national debt despite the tea baggers outcry this past 2 years.

Exposing the Tea Party conservatives for the greedy self serving group they are was actually pretty simple but getting the rest of the package took a bit of political savvy that should put the noise about Obama’s inexperience to rest,IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 26, 2010 1:05 PM
Comment #315847

j2t2

Like you, I dislike it that some people are paid so much. This goes for entertainers & athletes as well as business leaders, BTW. It offends my upbringing and I would prefer something to constrain it. My problem is that the constraints available through government are often worse than the disease.

Income inequality has grown worldwide and so I think it unlikely that it results only from U.S. tax or business policy. Interestingly, it grows faster in good times than in bad times. Much of it is due to wealth created by globalization.

I am not trying to be too obscure, and if you are pressed for time skip to the part about the tea party below, but in college I studied the archaic age of ancient Greece. This was a time of “globalization” in the sense that trade was growing and various foreign influences were affecting the Greek world. Inequality was spiking and this troubled people at the time. Some, like the Spartans, addressed the problem by outlawing many types of commerce, replacing their currency with heavy iron bars and enforcing a strict equality among citizens. While we admire the Spartans’ grit and courage, we cannot admire the “civilization” they created. The Spartans were an extreme example, but not the only one. Tyrannies (the word didn’t mean exactly the same thing) spread throughout the Greek world, which at the time included what is not Turkey to southern France and even the northern shores of the Black Sea. The tyrants came to power by promising the people income redistribution and what we would call today “social justice.”

What is interesting is that people generally did not become poorer. Conditions in the times before were horrible. What grew was the contrasts. In the previous time, even “kings” like Odysseus did a lot of their own farm chores and by the standards of subsequent centuries would not have been considered rich. Luxury goods were generally unavailable. The “rich” guy got more to eat and had access to more women, but these sorts of pleasures are self-limiting, based on human capacities.

What changed with what might be the world’s first “globalization” experience (using global metaphorically for the regional multiculturalism) was that some people could have more and so the guy who used to be content with living in a hole in the hill and eating gruel mixed occasionally with a little cabrito or chevon with a little goat cheese on the side, suddenly felt deprived when others had nice houses and got luxuries.

The Greeks never really solved the problem, BTW, but lots of blood was shed in the attempt.

Re “Exposing the Tea Party conservatives for the greedy self serving group” - most tea party people are not rich and according to Gallup about a third of Americans identify with the tea party, so it is not an “elite” group. How do you feel they have been exposed as “greedy and self serving”? According to the General Social Survey (GSS)those against higher levels of government redistribution privately gave four times as much money, on average, as people who were in favor of redistribution.

Being against bigger government and higher taxes does not make you greedy or selfish. Being in favor of higher taxes does not make you generous, since you cannot be generous with other people’s money. You are greedy and selfish to the extent that you are not generous with your own money and time.

Posted by: C&J at December 26, 2010 1:45 PM
Comment #315848

Sorry for all the bold. I must have put the markers in the wrong place. I wanted only to highlight the tea party to call attention to my return from my sojourn in ancient Greece.

Posted by: C&J at December 26, 2010 1:46 PM
Comment #315849

j2t2 wrote; “To think that a person promoted to na upper management position suddenly contributes hundreds of times more output is as corrupt as it gets.”

Obviously j2 doesn’t have a glimmer of understanding about corruption or merit based compensation. It is inconceivable to some that an entire companies future could rest upon the decision of one or a few people…making he/she/they exceedingly valuable and worth every penny of compensation.

But then, when one has their head filled with “group rights” nonsense over individual rights I can understand their resentment of individual value.

Some want everyone reduced to their level of competence, skill, and achievement. Sorry j2t2, you will have to wallow in your misery alone.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 26, 2010 1:52 PM
Comment #315853

Royal many corporations pay the CEO and the upper management for losing money, where is the merit in that?

C&J, When a group shouts at the top of their lungs for months on end about the debt and deficit one can be led to believe they are interested in cutting the debt and deficit, especially when we are told it will destroy the country. However the first thing they do is accept the continuation of tax cuts for the top 1% which without any other action has increased the debt and deficit more than the unemployment insurance compensation.

I realize we hear the term “cut spending” a lot and are led to assume that it is the only way to cut the deficit and the debt. However we all know better. So whether you cater to the wealthy or are included in the wealthy when you support such illogical ideology over actually cutting the debt I consider that to be greedy and self serving.

Lets face facts this same group, by and large, is the same group that spoke no outrage when the previous administration and the conservative led Congress borrowed and spent us into doubling the deficit by going to war while cutting the taxes.

The charity talking point is just that a talking point,IMHO.

As far as the Greeks, while an interesting read I was thinking of the Tulip bubble and forward when referring to globalization, read Kevin Phillips (Wealth and Democracy) for more info on that subject if you are interested.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 26, 2010 3:58 PM
Comment #315856

j2t2

There is some simple math here. You are complaining about not raising taxes on the top 1%. Even if all that 1% was in the tea party (not likely since we know that many of the richest people vote Democratic), more than 1/3 - 33% of Americans identify with the Tea Party. So the motivation of the vast majority of Tea Party supporters could not have been greed.

Re the Greeks - almost everything we experience today was familiar to the Greeks, albeit usually in a much more primitive form. In a very real way, they invented our world. I don’t agree with Alfred North Whitehead, that all philosophy is just a footnote on Plato, but they did originate the study of history as we understand it, philosophy as we practice it, science as we pursue it and in many ways the whole idea that the world can be understood instead of just contemplated or viewed as a supernatural entity.

The “globalization of the 6th Century BC is very interesting and feels very modern if you adjust for the speed of travel and the funny costumes.

Posted by: C&J at December 26, 2010 5:37 PM
Comment #315858

C&J you seem to be associating greed with money when you use the percentages argument. Perhaps lust for control and forcing bad policy on the American people would have been more descriptive but I am not that wordy, am I?

BTW I am not complaining about raising taxes I am pointing out the inconsistency between what the conservatives/repubs/teaparty campaigned on, what the same people claimed the voters wanted done and the lack of anything other than maintaining the same tax rates for the wealthy while raising the debt. Putting ideology above progress should be called out IMHO.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss if we are to judge by this effort from Boehner, McConnell and the boys.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 26, 2010 6:04 PM
Comment #315859

C&J,
Why some say management is a waste of time and talent in your stroy of a mechanic and writer I would have to say it depends on the car problem and the weather. For though running out of gas may be easily fixed at the pump. Dragging a tree from the woods might be a bit much for the writer.

Besides, if we are talking about mechanics today I coubt if they can fix the car without first ordering a part. So in the meantime both should spend their time gathering firewood since they may be there for a while.

Hence, this is the problem that Labor and Management faces. For why the manager of a 100 clearly has more headaches than the manager of 10. At the end of the day, they both mosy go home to face the same bills. For why both have a family to feed, a house to maintian, as well as other onligations, who deserves the higher pay especially if both coorporations have the same profits?

No, moving forward we could keep debating on who deserves a bigger piece of the pie; however, we could take advantage of the technology today to reduce the cost of monthly bills for everyone. Because why I have no doubt people with college degrees will always say they deserve more pay than high school grads, knowing that in the real world it takes more than book education to get the Corporation Job done. I do hope conservatives will learn not to use the Ignorance of the Learned as a political weapon. Considering it is a waste of talent, time and money to think the CEO or expert knows more about the Corporations’ product than the high school grad who builds them everyday.

RF,
For years the Wealthy of Society have used the Working Class to pay their bills. And though one can claim to be for groups or individual rights, I doubt if even the most conservative human would allow me to take all the profits just because.

No, promotions have and will always go to those who would rather kiss butt tham tell the CEO the truth. And why these problem cannot be solved through political means I do hope our future generations will learn from our mistakes. For even if a person can bring in the Big Deal unless they are able to fill the order on their own than the Group deserves IMHO to take the bulk of the profits.

Take a CEO who signs a million dollar contract for snow shoes. Should he deserve 70% of the profits even though he will not spend a single day making one pair of snow shoes? No, even the CEO risk losing all the profits if the workers decide they are not going to honer the contract or fill the order on time so who deserves the bulk of the profits in order to keep the name of The Corporation in good standing?

Posted by: Nenry Schlatman at December 26, 2010 7:39 PM
Comment #315860

“It is inconceivable to some that an entire companies future could rest upon the decision of one or a few people…making he/she/they exceedingly valuable and worth every penny of compensation.”

Is it also incomprehensible for some to understand that these few decision makers were paid handsomely for their efforts in the ‘60’ and ‘70’s yet the difference in earnings were not the astronomical amounts they are for the decision makers of today? Have these people all of a sudden become more rare or more common?


“But executive pay overall remains far above inflation adjusted levels of years past. In fact, after adjusting for inflation, CEO pay in 2009 more than doubled the CEO pay average for the decade of the 1990s, more than quadrupled the CEO pay average for the 1980s, and ran approximately eight times the CEO average for all the decades of the mid-20th century.”

http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/executive_excess_2010

Posted by: j2t2 at December 26, 2010 7:48 PM
Comment #315863

j2t2

Your definition of greed would include everything. Surely then, those who voted for Obama were greedy for control too and they seem to have been in favor of what many consider bad policy.

We usually define greed as getting something for yourself. If you want to expand it to include wanting to change political policies, all political activity is greed motivated.

re executive pay - it is hard to address. What about somebody like Time man of the year Mark Zuckerberg? Does he “deserve” the billions? How would you determine how much his innovation is worth? Even more absurd is the money earned by top celebrities. Even the little ones, like Ben Afleck, earn tens of millions of dollars. How is that “worth it.”

Now, we agree that these guys are getting paid too much, but what do you propose to do about it?

Henry

I cannot believe that you so missed the point about management.

Henry Ford, when asked who should do a job, said it was like asking who should sing tenor in the choir. People have a variety of different talents. Some talents are less common and so are paid more. Sometimes it is just “unjust”.

But it is not much use to argue about who deserves what, since we don’t know the details of the work.

Why is a diamond worth more than an ham sandwich? Which is more useful? Taxes don’t seem to make that much difference. The rich already pay most of the taxes. We can tax them more, I suppose, but don’t you think it is good if most people at least pay a little, just to keep a little skin in the game?

Posted by: C&J at December 26, 2010 8:24 PM
Comment #315872

C&J,
No I do not believe I missed your point about management; however, you may have missed my point about the dish washer. For why the manager does not have to be present or even assign tasks in order for a corporation to operate smoothly, allow the dish washer to call in sick and watch as everyone scrambles to make sure the corporation has the pots and pans needed to prepare and serve the meals.

And why some talents are rare, why is it we continue to pay the so-called Skilled Labor higher wages when the Unskilled Labor must fix their mistakes?

Now, why a diamond cost more than a ham sandwich is a question which has a deep answer; however, there should be no question on which one is more useful to humans since I have never heard of a diamond being able to feed someone.

And why it is true the Rich pay most of the taxes, is it because they hoard the money or are afriad that if most of the people could afford to pay the same amount of taxes the Rich would have less of a voice in government?

No, management was given the opportunity 40 years ago due to the fact the Elders of the Era believed a higher education would yield to better citizens joining the ranks of the Wealthy. Yet, given the yelling of the conservatives over the last 10 years can you really say management added to the betterment of government and society?

Hence, the problem facing the Republicans and Tea Party. For why they want to reduce government entitlements and spending. Are they willing to increase the Rights of Americas’ Labor and Workers to have a better Standard of Living than their parents and grandparents? And if not than doesn’t it become a Manmagement problem when the majority of Americans no longer see it in their Inherent Best Interest to serve The Corporation.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 26, 2010 11:37 PM
Comment #315882

Henry

It is a long and a short term problem and a big and small operation. If Albert Einstein wanted to give a talk, he probably needed chalk to write his equation. If the chalk was unavailable, it would be a big problem, but we would not call chalk the key to Einstein’s success.

Management is a difficult skill to understand, but you can see it work. We like to imagine that teams can be self managing, and they often can within limits. But somebody decides how to deploy the resources and that is key.

I don’t think we (you and I) will resolve this. My father was a blue collar worker all his life. He was convinced that management added no value and that it was all the workers. I used to ask him to imagine his “workers” managing themselves. Now who decides what they do? “They do”, he would answer. What about knowing about new markets and technologies? “they would know”, he would say. He was always unable to answer how they would know, especially when he obviously didn’t know or understand these things himself. Since he was my father, I let it go at that.

I have been a worker. I have been a manager, an investor, an owner and a leader. Sometimes I have been all those things at the same time, but usually I have found it prudent and more effective to specialize mostly in one role and get people who were better at the others to take the lead on them. That is my experience and it seems to be the experience of most successful people.

Posted by: C&J at December 27, 2010 8:52 AM
Comment #315883

C&J you may need to reread what I said. I wasn’t redefining greed.

I agree with you that excessive executive pay is a problem that is hard to resolve. Shareholders are the answer but what are the chances of curbing a greedy executive from intentional mischief when the executive is reigned in by shareholders.
The real problem is what passes as innovation today is off shoring and eliminating jobs and then being overly rewarded for this “innovation”. It allows the executives to become lazy yet still reap the riches for becoming lazy.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 27, 2010 10:54 AM
Comment #315887

Henry writes; “Because why I have no doubt people with college degrees will always say they deserve more pay than high school grads, knowing that in the real world it takes more than book education to get the Corporation Job done.”

Henry, I believe you have inadvertently defined conservatism and liberalism and socialism with a single word…DESERVE.

Perhaps the most common definition of the word “deserve” is to “earn” or “merit”.

The way you use the word Henry seems to imply just the opposite…that all “deserve” equal pay and are equally meritorious.

Isn’t that the basis of socialism, the next step for unchecked liberalism?

WINSTON CHURCHILL WROTE; “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

There is no way we can accurately describe all corporations and workers as simply being good or bad. Some are and some aren’t.

The vast majority of businesses in America are small businesses. These companies don’t spring up as full blown multinational entities. Most begin with someones dream, financed from their own resources, with only the entrepreneur as an employee. Some are successful and many fail. The successful ones grow and add employees. The business offers jobs and defined wages. Potential employees can accept or refuse the offer of employment.

Regardless of how large the business grows the ownership seldom reverts to the employees.

Cooperatives are more in line with the liberal thinking. Such legal entities have a range of unique social characteristics. Membership is open, meaning that anyone who satisfies certain non-discriminatory conditions may join. Economic benefits are distributed proportionally according to each member’s level of participation in the cooperative, for instance by a dividend on sales or purchases, rather than divided according to capital invested. Cooperatives may be generally classified as either consumer cooperatives or producer cooperatives. Cooperatives are closely related to collectives, which differ only in that profit-making or economic stability is placed secondary to adherence to social-justice principles.

The primary difference between privately owned business and coop’s is the former is focused on “profit maximising” and the latter is focused on “welfare objectives”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 27, 2010 2:09 PM
Comment #315888

Credit Unions are cooperatives and have served the “welfare objectives” of their members very well.

Posted by: Rich at December 27, 2010 2:52 PM
Comment #315889

Rich, I don’t disagree, merely point out the differences between objectives.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 27, 2010 3:03 PM
Comment #315892

j2t2

I am getting mixed up. I don’t understand how tea party people, as a whole, could be defined as greedy, since I cannot figure out how most of them will personally get more money from shrinking government. Since tea party supporters make up around 1/3 of the American voters, and probably the largest single block currently in the American electorate, it is not a small group trying to take advantage of “the people”

Judging from the tea party people I have talked to, the only thing that seems to unite them is the desire to have a smaller Federal government because they mistrust the concentration of power. Tell me how this is greedy?

Unless you have indeed redefined what it means to be greedy, then, the tea party people as a group are not greedy. Although perhaps those those who seek the have other people taxed at a higher level so that they can reap additional benefits, might be greedy.

Posted by: C&J at December 27, 2010 4:11 PM
Comment #315894

For libs it is mostly about greed so they don’t understand those who have other motives.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 27, 2010 4:25 PM
Comment #315901

Perhaps Henry and a few other libs on WB should form a producers coop and realize their fondest dreams of equality.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 27, 2010 4:49 PM
Comment #315902

C&J ok lets go through this once again.
First of all it seems you agree with the rest of the comment which said the conservatives were outgunned by Obama this past month.

Secondly it seems you agree that this now puts the “experience” issue to rest.

Third it seems you prefer to shift the subject away from The underrated Obama topic of this thread to the defense of the Tea Party based upon my comment. This it seems has worked to deflect attention away from the real issue at hand so it has been effective I will give you that.

And fourth of all the definition of greed is:
1. excessive consumption of or desire for food; gluttony
2. excessive desire, as for wealth or power
and:
3.An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/greed

Now you have assumed the use of the word greed is wrong due to the amount of people you believe to be in the Tea Party. Of course that is a rather weak argument IMHO. Are you sure that these people don’t assume they are in the top 1% or close enough to worry about a return to the tax levels that worked for the country?

I did attempt to get more descriptive, to no avail. However I did use the term greedy as the more I am forced to think about it the more it rings true. The tax cuts that passed has allowed more debt to be incurred by the next few generations and as the Tea baggers are mostly older people (the youngsters knew what the term originally meant and wouldn’t have used it to describe themselves) led by those that want the tax cuts, they won’t be helping to pay off the debt of this generation because they got their way on tax cuts.


As they have a lot to gain in their own minds if not in reality. Lets face it C&J, did you actually ask these people you talked to what small government means to them? It means personal gain in terms of wealth and the ability to force those they control to their will you can be assured. It means no EPA to tell them not to pour their oil into the groundwater. It means they can pay less than minimum wage to those that work for them. It means no SS and Medicare and the proceeds turned over to Wall street, it means whatever they want it to mean. So greed does come into play here IMHO. For the movement leaders it means control of the repub party as well as personal gain for the Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity groups that plan the protest. It means Money for Murdoch and his minions at Faux. It means more listeners/followers for Malkin, Palin and Bachmann, and the list goes on.

And so do I. But I have grandkids over, gotta go.


Posted by: j2t2 at December 27, 2010 5:44 PM
Comment #315904

j2t2, I am very disappointed with your comments. That was the weakest argument one could imagine. You need to give it another try with some logical reality, not imaginary assumptions.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 27, 2010 6:02 PM
Comment #315905

C&J,
We may not say the chalk was the key to Einstein’s’ success; however, the ability of people to read and write was. For although numbers and letters allow us to communicate, even in the 21st Century we still have a hard time explaining those things that exist beyond one’s knowledge.

Now, I agree you and I probably cannot and should not resolve this problem. In fact, I would say the Youth of Today has no business trying to define it; nevertheless, institutionally I do believe the American Citizen needs to be taught they are the Owner, Stockholder, Manager, and Laborer of any business they are a part of. And though I realize the idea goes way over the head of most people today. As one who has held all positions, would you say that The Corporation could exist without all working toward the same goal?

Yes, Blue Collar and White Collar Workers may never agree if history is any example; nonetheless, I can see no harm in teaching the Children of the 21st Century why all the positions most exist and work in harmony. For why the Owner/CEO must call the ball, the Stockholder supply the money, the Manager decide the order in which the tasks are to be done, and the Laborer insure everything comes together. How do you say one position is more important?

No, Royal Flush said “Henry seems to imply just the opposite…that all “deserve” equal pay and are equally meritorious.” Yet, nothing could be farther from the truth. No, the architect and engineer believe they deserve higher pay because they went to college to earn a degree; however, neither IMHO deserve the higher pay because the Laborer who has the experience (merit) to look at the blueprints and prove where their design will not work. Now this scenario plays out every day in the real world, but given the Institutional Learning of our generation we accept the idea architects and engineers deserve the higher wages than those who have spent years doing the job firsthand. So who is more valuable to the Corporation?

RF,
“Perhaps Henry and a few other libs on WB should form a producers coop and realize their fondest dreams of equality”

Well, if the truth was to be told your parents will not allow me due to monopoly laws and your guaranteed civil and constitutional rights to be ignorant. And though that leads to a discussion which is better answered by a room full of Lawyers, I wonder what the Automotive Industry and Oil Companies would do if I was to build an Electric Car powered by man-made wind which allowed a 16 year old to get paid for driving up and down Main Street?

Because why I do believe that it makes a great Unbreakable Argument to hold against My Elders and Peers of the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s, knowing that the Youth of the 21st Century today are not ready to deal with such a problem maybe the Learned and Unlearned of Society need to rethink the role of The Corporation in their Life.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 27, 2010 6:25 PM
Comment #315906

Henry…it is too challenging just to understand what you are saying never mind what you mean. I hope you will understand why I Am just going to give up with deciphering your cryptic comments.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 27, 2010 6:38 PM
Comment #315907

Royal what imaginary assumptions are you talking about? I didn’t use any. When you hear small government you salivate over something. I may not have mentioned it here but you know you do.

It was this generation that during the conservative led 2000’s doubled the debt, went to war, borrowed to fund the war and cut taxes.The tax cuts during war time is the greediest thing done the past decade. Greedier than Bernie, greedier than Ken and greedier than we have a right to be.

Those that hollered the loudest after they were booted in the ‘08 elections whined for months about the deficit yet demanded the tax cut. They all did, not some, but all the tea baggers demanded the tax cuts. what was done about the deficit?

But I am asked to believe they all could not be greedy, I am asked to believe that they all did not benefit, but they did, they have the past almost 10 years since the tax cuts were enacted. I am also asked to not believe what I heard but instead believe the revisionism of C& J when they say “Judging from the tea party people I have talked to, the only thing that seems to unite them is the desire to have a smaller Federal government because they mistrust the concentration of power.”

Well we all know the buzz word “small government” means something to every one of them as it does you. It is a bumper sticker phrase for a bumper sticker mentality crowd that envisions what they want it to mean while the movement leaders do as they will. Imaginary assumptions really!

Posted by: j2t2 at December 27, 2010 7:09 PM
Comment #315909

RF,
What is so hard in believing the American Citizen does not need to follow the Euro Thinking taught?

Or is it because conservatives feel more confortable being slaves of the corporation?

No, political ignorance was bliss some 40 years ago; however, it will not win the Race to the Top. So unless the Republicans are willing to go the way of the Whigs than may I suggest you learn there are other way of doing things than that of your Old Man.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 27, 2010 7:20 PM
Comment #315911

Imaginary assumptions really!

Posted by: j2t2 at December 27, 2010

Here’s the short list…

1) It means personal gain in terms of wealth and the ability to force those they control to their will you can be assured.

2) It means no EPA to tell them not to pour their oil into the groundwater.

3) It means they can pay less than minimum wage to those that work for them.

It means no SS and Medicare and the proceeds turned over to Wall street

4) It means whatever they want it to mean.

j2t2 reminds me of Tinker Bell sprinkling fairy dust.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 27, 2010 7:44 PM
Comment #315912

Henry

The concept of blue and white collar is disappearing. Fewer and fewer people are “workers” in the old union sense and much of middle management has disappeared. It is possible for a few people to run a business essentially w/o any direct employees. That is all that outsourcing and it can be outsourced right in the U.S.

Modern communications and efficient transport has eliminated many of the reasons why employers wanted to keep people on their staffs. I know of people who run whole businesses using part time contractors.

It is too much for us to analyze here, but it is one big reason why unions don’t make much sense anymore in industrial organizations and won’t really survive outside government entities or w/o government help.

A large business, these days, is more a center of shifting alliances. Henry Ford used to own everything that went into his cars, from the forests that produced the wood and the mines that produced the minerals. He needed to lock in supplies. Today you can lock in supplies via market networks.

Posted by: C&J at December 27, 2010 7:45 PM
Comment #315913

Royal watch the video of Tea party protesters in action (a tribute to Faux news, misinformation half truths and outright lies) and then talk to me about logic and imaginary assumptions.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-wilstein/the-top-5-funniest-politi_b_798868.html#s211615

Posted by: j2t2 at December 27, 2010 7:52 PM
Comment #315914

C&J,
Why I suppose Institutions teach Henry Ford owned everything in order to lock in supplies. And why one can use the market to lock in supplies only in the short run. I do believe history shows that Henry Ford did it because others kept increasing the cost of supplies thus lessening Ford’s Profits.

No, today you can make a penny by paying everybody else to make, market, and sell your product; however, the short sightedness of that road is you soon run out of customers able to afford your product. And why history is full of such adventages, Henry Ford and other America Barons made their million by increasing their customer base.

So why the Corporation of the 20th Century is in risk of dying, who will in the 21st Century show the Institutions and Wall Street how to increase their consumer base while increasing their profits using less supplies? Hence, how does one own, invest, manage, and build a Green Sustainable Government and Society. For why I know of one way, it happens to be a way that neither parent or child wants to travel.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 27, 2010 8:06 PM
Comment #315918

Henry

Getting them at the price he wants. That is the same as locking up supplies. I didn’t mean that he was trying to corner the market.

j2t2

It is easy to make a film that asks questions that ordinary people answer poorly. Think of all those code pink and moveon.org pinheads. Think of all the dummies who thought that Cheney started a war to make oil profits or the one who thought that Bush had stolen votes in Ohio or Florida.

I would point out that the author of the film made one significant mistake. He showed the Obama Hitler poster, but failed to leave off the bottom, which showed the LaRouche trademark. As I am sure you know, these guys way predate the tea party and opposed Bush as strongly as they do Obama.

Posted by: C&J at December 27, 2010 9:05 PM
Comment #315919

BTW - Bill O’Reilly has a feature called “pinheads and patriots” He often shows liberal activists and politicians. He just shows them talking and doesn’t have to say anything else except, “you make the call.”

Posted by: C&J at December 27, 2010 9:07 PM
Comment #315920

So what C&J you are actually saying there was no intent to misinform? Those that watch Faux are probably not use to that but for many of us it is the norm.

C&J ordinary people who are protesting health care based upon the ridiculous statements they made. It was a tribute to the ability of the conservative movement to fool the ordinary people with the propaganda via talk radio and Faux news.I see that as a problem as it goes beyond the natural informed voter we need to make the right decision at the voting booth. These characters were for the most part unable to discuss any point rationally yet they were protesting based upon false information as if they understood what they were protesting. To me that is wrong, but then the ends don’t justify the means for me. Now hopefully you can understand when I refer to the German people of the ‘30’s and the Tea baggers of today. If you don’t think those people wouldn’t follow Rush or Glenn Beck to do anything they were asked to do in the name of conservatism then shame on you, actually shame on me because I give you to much credit.


Cheney and Bush did start a war for oil.Well oil and neocon nation building. They lied to get us there. Didn’t find squat. Knew they wouldn’t going in. Look at the dates the contracts were issued and the dates when the withdrawal started. Use your head not your heart to figure out why.

LaRouche may have been a far left extremist at one point in time but he is far right now. According to wiki his followers marched at Tea Party protest, yes a teabagger he is. Hence the signs.

The JBS back then were considered far right and now they are main stream conservatives as the whole spectrum has moved so far to the right. For grins go back and read some JBS stuff then look around you today. What is the difference between the JBS and the Tea Party?It’s all mainstream conservative prattle today.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 27, 2010 9:40 PM
Comment #315922

C&J,
Not only did Henry Ford get his supplies at the price he wanted, but he also made additional profits which is something one cannot do with just the market.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 27, 2010 11:48 PM
Comment #315928

Is obama underrated? The question should be, “is obama overrated”? If he is, it is by the progressives. He certainly isn’t by conservatives. Is he just a “stupid” liberal or does he have a master plan to dismantle America, piece by piece? I have had a chance to meditate on obama and the left for several days. The conclusion I have arrived at is that the progressive left are liars and the most evil hypocrites. It has been said many times that the left picks talking points and hammers individuals by attacking them personally. During the course of time, they move on to new talking points and attack someone else, but in the mean time when truth comes out about their lies, it is ignored. Case in point, “the right is lying about death panels”. Well, it turns out, there will be death panels. So who are the liars and hypocrites?

“NYT’s Krugman Slips and Tells the Truth about ‘Death Panels’ Holly Pitt Young

“Nat Hentoff certainly is no conservative but he is a principled civil libertarian who has stood up for life since his days writing in the Village Voice. Unlike most liberals, Hentoff fears that the threat of rationing under the President’s health care plan is not only real but imminent and he is willing to go after those who advocate rationing of care leaving no sacred cows behind. That’s why Paul Krugman is now in Hentoff’s sights and he is firing at will.

In a recent column, Hentoff writes:


Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner in economics and an influential New York Times columnist, also has a blog, “The Conscience of a Liberal.” On ABC’s “This Week” (Nov. 14), during a discussion on balancing the federal budget against alarming deficits, he proclaimed the way to solve this problem is through deeply cost-effective health-care rationing.

“Some years down the pike,” he said, “we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes.” That would mean the U.S. Debt Reduction Commission “should have endorsed the panel that was part of the (Obama) health-care reform.”

Sarah Palin was one of the first, and the most resounding, to warn us of the coming of government panels to decide which of us — especially, but not exclusively, toward the end of life — would cost too much to survive.

She was mocked, scorned from sea to shining sea, including by the eminent Paul Krugman for being, he said, among those spreading “the death penalty lie” as part of “the lunatic fringe.” (Summarized in “Krugman Wants ‘Death Panels’” Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (Nov. 15).

Soon after he had left the ABC Studio, someone must have alerted Krugman that — gee whiz—- he had publicly rooted for death panels!

Swiftly, on his blog, Krugman admitted he had indeed said those dreaded words, but:


“What I meant is that health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care.”


“Extreme care,” Professor Krugman? To be defined by government commissions, right?


The first battle in the death panel wars is underway and the winner will be declared on December 17. On that day, the Food and Drug Administration will determine whether insurance and Medicare should provide breast cancer patients and their doctors the option of using Avastin — a late-stage cancer drug that has been proven to extend life. Should the FDA deny coverage for the drug because of its cost, it will be apparent that Krugman and his ilk are winning to battle to ration care in America. Rest assured we are watching the outcome.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/nyts_krugman_slips_and_tells_t.html

Posted by: Conservativethinker at December 28, 2010 9:56 AM
Comment #315933

I provided j2t2 with four of his imaginary assumptions and he answers with a Huffington video, with interviews carefully selected no doubt, in defense. Obviously he can’t defend his assumptions because they are nonsense. More Tinker Bell fairy dust. I am certain that j2t2 is quivering with fear after the last election since his dreams of a socialist society in America has turned into a nightmare.

Liberals have a mental disorder that persuades them that 20% of the population must be right and the other 80% just don’t understand what is good for them.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 28, 2010 12:18 PM
Comment #315934

Con is it alright when the developer of the drug Avastin curtails the use to allow for greater profits?

http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/EEP143/fall2007/News/12%20Oct%2007,%20Genentech%20to%20Limit%20Avastin%20Availability%20-%20WSJ.pdf


“Avastin was once expected to become the world’s biggest-selling drug by 2014, but its prospects have faded after doubts over its benefits in breast cancer and after it failed in clinical trials for prostate and stomach cancer.”

“Doctors could still prescribe the drug for breast cancer patients in the future, but U.S. insurance companies are unlikely to cover it without FDA approval. European healthcare systems may also be more reluctant to pay for it.”

http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/nm/us_roche_avastin

http://www.tradearabia.com/news/HEAL_190531.html


So the conspiracy at every corner crowd has found a tenuous tie to death panels based upon this drug Avastin. The fear monrging far right have now been proven to be wrong once again. The drug did not do what the manufacture said it did and there are other drugs available. Seems to me this is the big bad death panel government doing it’s job. What is your beef with that Con?

You’ll note that insurance companies have the choice to continue to pay for the drug, doctors have the choice to prescribe the drug throwing your wild conspiracy theory about the big bad death panel government back to the private sector.

On the other issue it seems Krugman is proposing the same thing the for profit insurance companies propose yet because of the false claims by those on the far right of socialized medicine it is used to fear monger the tea baggers into fear based decision making using misinformation half truths and outright lies.
What am I missing here Con?

Posted by: j2t2 at December 28, 2010 12:45 PM
Comment #315935

“I provided j2t2 with four of his imaginary assumptions and he answers with a Huffington video, with interviews carefully selected no doubt, in defense. Obviously he can’t defend his assumptions because they are nonsense.”

Royal where is your defense of the “guy just back from boot camp” “story” in the red column?

“Therefore, private industry and private initiative must be allowed to run all affairs in this nation, including education and health care, with the exception of those few things enumerated here.”

http://www.american-conservativevalues.com/articles/conservative-principles.html

“In Texas’ Republican gubernatorial primary, Debra Medina — a little-known figure supported by the Texas Tea Party — gained traction with a message that EPA should be abolished or, at minimum, ignored. “We begin to do that by telling the EPA, ‘You have no authority here,’” Medina said at a rally late last month. “Get out of Texas energy. Get out of Texas agriculture. Get out of Texas manufacturing.”“

http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2010/03/05/3

“Michelle Bachmann and company want to cut off Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. In time, those cuts might extend to food stamps and unemployment benefits, in the new populist conservative America.”
http://www.examiner.com/political-spin-in-national/if-the-new-conservative-movement-had-their-way-what-would-america-be-like

“John Raese, the Republican candidate for Senator in West Virginia, is running against the minimum wage. But he is not just saying it is a bad idea — he’s arguing that it is fundamentally unconstitutional. Joe Miller, the Republican candidate for Senate in Alaska, is saying the same thing.”

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2026515,00.html#ixzz19QoHJALW


“More Tinker Bell fairy dust.”

” I am certain that j2t2 is quivering with fear after the last election since his dreams of a socialist society in America has turned into a nightmare.”

Royal sorry to burst your bubble but there has been no quivering on my part at all. I had no dreams of a socialist society those were figments of your imagination based upon the fear mongering you have fell for. The sad part in all of this is with your higher level of education you have been victimized by conservative movement leaders when you really should have known better. The inability to distinguish between truth and falsehoods seems to run rampant on the conservative side of the aisle. You have been shown on numerous occasions the fallacies of the movement leaders yet cannot admit that you have let ideology get in the way of any critical thinking skills you may have.


“Liberals have a mental disorder that persuades them that 20% of the population must be right and the other 80% just don’t understand what is good for them.”

Isn’t it more of a mental disorder or a character defect to believe that might makes right, that mass hysteria doesn’t exist and it is the use of propaganda that allows for many to be deceived, which is what this the link to the Tea Party protests proved. I harbor no illusions about being the under dog in the political arena, but let me ask why do you still fall for the BS perpetrated by those on the right when they claim to be the victims of only 20% of the population when they are the vast majority of the voting population?

Posted by: j2t2 at December 28, 2010 1:19 PM
Comment #315937

Ok conservative thinker,
I’m buying your argument that Krugmen et al have discussed limits on end of life care. So my question is what do you care? Those who can afford it will always get whatever care they want - is there some doubt about this? If the plug gets pulled on some it will be the poor. What exactly is the conservative thinker solution? Keep every soul alive to the maximum breaths regardless of cost? Who is going to pay? You sound more like a flaming liberal to me.

Posted by: Schwamp at December 28, 2010 1:39 PM
Comment #315938

LOL…a few snippets here and there and…viola…mainstream conservative thought defined. As I said, typical Tinker Bell fairy dust. I could enlist a child to dig up a few quotes by liberals that would make even t2 blush.

t2’s admission of being part of the 20% is refreshing. By 2012 I fully expect he will be part of the 10%. Within a decade t2 and his liberal/socialist friends can have their national meeting in the back room of of the Steak House in Hell, Michigan.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 28, 2010 1:42 PM
Comment #315939

Morning Bell: Big Government Strikes Back
Posted December 27th, 2010 at 9:33am in Enterprise and Free Markets

Last week’s events in Washington were a preview of lawmaking in 2011, but Congress was not where the real action was. While the media was distracted by the last breaths of a defeated leftist majority in Congress, it was the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that gave true picture of how the Obama Administration will advance their agenda in 2011.

First on Tuesday, the HHS unveiled new price controls for the health insurance industry. Using new powers granted by Obamacare, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that starting next year, health insurance companies must receive permission from the Obama Administration before they can raise rates by more than 10 percent. The experts at HHS believe these price controls will help decrease rising health care costs. They are wrong. Price controls attack the symptoms of runaway costs, not the cause. As any Econ 101 student can tell you, they will cause only shortages, not better health care. This is only one of thousands of new powers Obamacare granted the HHS. Left unchecked, there are many new health care regulations to come.

Later on Tuesday, the FCC released its “net neutrality” rules, which will allow the federal government to begin regulating the Internet. This despite opposition from Congress and a contrary federal court ruling. Dissenting FCC commissioner Robert McDowell described the unprecedented power grab last week: “Nothing is broken that needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist.” And just how competent are the Internet’s new rulers? Just before the FCC decision, visitors to the commission’s Web site couldn’t even access the 1,900 pages of documents pertaining to the net neutrality ruling. The very commission seeking to regulate the Internet saw its Web site go down due to “scheduled maintenance.”

Then on Thursday the EPA announced that it will begin regulating power plants and oil refineries in an attempt to stop global warming. The new regulations will seek to cut greenhouse gas emissions by making it more expensive to turn fossil fuels into energy. But the Obama Administration did not stop there. Later in the day, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that the Bureau of Land Management was issuing new rules that would make it harder to develop natural resources on government-owned land. Both of these measures will not only drive up the cost of electricity but will also make us more dependent on foreign sources of energy.

The ability of the Obama Administration to step up their leftist agenda even after it was thoroughly “shellacked” at the polls is not an accident. It is the purposeful design of the Progressive movement, which has been working to undermine the Founders’ vision of our republic for over a century now.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 28, 2010 2:03 PM
Comment #315942

Royal Flush,
last time I checked the presidential term was four years, not two. What was that phrase you like - Happy Conservative New Year!

Posted by: Schwamp at December 28, 2010 2:44 PM
Comment #315944

“LOL…a few snippets here and there and…viola…mainstream conservative thought defined. As I said, typical Tinker Bell fairy dust. I could enlist a child to dig up a few quotes by liberals that would make even t2 blush.”

A few snippets is about all it takes Flush. You asked for it you got it and now as is typical of conservatives you turn to insults as you are proven wrong. Nothing to disprove my comment. Just name calling and misinformation, how conservative is that. Yet so quick to claim others to have a mental disorder.

Now my turn, are you going tell us the whole story about the “guy you meant just back from boot camp”? Can you admit you were misled by conservative propaganda, the real fairy dust in this thread, once again?

“t2’s admission of being part of the 20% is refreshing. By 2012 I fully expect he will be part of the 10%. Within a decade t2 and his liberal/socialist friends can have their national meeting in the back room of of the Steak House in Hell, Michigan.

All the insults in the world Flush, but nothing to show the blurb I made “small government means different things to different people” is wrong. A simple truth which is why the conservative movement leaders use a bumper sticker sound bite such as “small government” to deceive the 50% you claim are conservatives into actually believing their line of crap. When do you propose that it become mandatory for those of us left of center to be tattooed with big red “L’s” on our forehead so that we can get into the back room of the steak house?

Hopefully you can see where your hopes for a 10% political minority will lead the nation. Just remember what the German people who followed and believed the Nazi propaganda were capable of. Don’t think for a second it can’t happen here or that it is not fascism just because you do it.


Posted by: j2t2 at December 28, 2010 2:58 PM
Comment #315945

Following is a mere sampling of an excellent article which examines in great detail the desire of liberals to circumvent our constitution by administrative fiat as briefly outlined in my post above titled…Morning Bell: Big Government Strikes Back

Few liberals will have the intestinal fortitude to read it completely. It answers clearly why liberals are so fond of talking about our Founding Documents as being incapable of addressing the challenges of today. Throughout the article you will find quotes from liberals and progressives that reveal their disregard for individual rights and law. The elitist ism displayed is despicable.

“The acquiescence in the realms of law, politics, and culture to the concepts of delegation, combination of functions, and insulating administration from political control is explained by what legal scholars call the victory of “functionalism” over “formalism,” or what political theorists might loosely translate as “pragmatism” over “originalism.” Simply defined, a functionalist or pragmatic approach begins not with the forms of the Constitution, but with the necessities of the current age, thereby freeing government from the restraints of the Constitution so that the exigencies of today can be met. As one scholar argues, “Respect for ‘framers’ intent’ is only workable in the context of the actual present, and may require some selectivity in just what it is we choose to respect.”[67] This sentiment, elevating expedience and efficiency over the separation of powers, was expressed very clearly by Justice Blackmun in his opinion for the Court in Mistretta: “Our jurisprudence has been driven by a practical understanding that in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives.”[68]

The rise of the administrative state that is such an integral feature of modern liberalism thus required the defeat of the separation of powers as a governing principle, at least as it was originally understood, and its replacement by a system that allows delegations of power, combination of functions, and the insulation of administration from the full measure of political and legal control.”

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/11/The-Birth-of-the-Administrative-State-Where-It-Came-From-and-What-It-Means-for-Limited-Government

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 28, 2010 3:39 PM
Comment #315946

Royal posts “Later on Tuesday, the FCC released its “net neutrality” rules, which will allow the federal government to begin regulating the Internet.”

of course he blames the “It is the purposeful design of the Progressive movement, which has been working to undermine the Founders’ vision of our republic for over a century now.”

The federal government has been regulating the internet for some time now.

“The Bush Administration is working to finalize regulations to enforce a ban on Internet gambling despite concerns raised by leading financial service companies that the regulations are ambiguous, burdensome and not likely to stop millions of Americans from gambling online”

http://news.parttimepoker.com/2008/11/10/bush-administration-moving-to-push-through-last-minute-uigea-regulations/

He blames progressives, of course, with a conspiracy theory decades long yet fails to see the elephant in his own yard.

“Here’s what’s most troubling of all. Chairman Genachowski and President Obama — who nominated him — have argued convincingly that they support net neutrality.
But grassroots supporters of net neutrality are beginning to wonder if we’ve been had. Instead of proposing regulations that would truly protect net neutrality, reports indicate that Chairman Genachowski has been calling the CEOs of major Internet corporations seeking their public endorsement of this draft proposal, which would destroy it.
No chairman should be soliciting sign-off from the corporations that his agency is supposed to regulate — and no true advocate of a free and open Internet should be seeking the permission of large media conglomerates before issuing new rules.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-franken/the-most-important-free-s_b_798984.html

Yep the corporations that control the regulatory agencies and buy our elected officials. The conservatives best friend. Those that can do no wrong, that do not need legislation because it interferes in the market. Doesn’t make a difference what party as they are both controlled by corporate America.

Progressives have favored net neutrality for years. They have fought to prevent the large corporations from influencing legislation.


“The FCC let effective Net Neutrality protections expire in August 2006 as the result of a technical change in the way they address Internet governance. But it is important to understand that Net Neutrality has always been a guiding principle of the Internet — it is the reason that the Internet has been able to grow exponentially, fuel innovation, and alter how we communicate.”

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773657#

Progressives have favored net neutrality for years. They have fought to prevent the large corporations from influencing legislation.

It is easy to see why “conservatives are 50% of the voting public, they fall for anything that is said to them. Conspiracy theories are the stock in trade of the propagandist that lead the conservative movement followers around by the hand making every decision for them, while whispering in their ear about the nanny state.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 28, 2010 3:46 PM
Comment #315947

t2 writes; “Royal posts “Later on Tuesday, the FCC released its “net neutrality” rules, which will allow the federal government to begin regulating the Internet.”

of course he blames the “It is the purposeful design of the Progressive movement.

Hmmm, does that mean that your glorious leader obama is not a progressive? He has nothing but progressives and socialists running his agencies. How would you account for that?

t2 writes; “It is easy to see why “conservatives are 50% of the voting public…” Wow, I didn’t know that. Are liberals already down to 10%?

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 28, 2010 4:29 PM
Comment #315950

“The acquiescence in the realms of law, politics, and culture to the concepts of delegation, combination of functions, and insulating administration from political control is explained by what legal scholars call the victory of “functionalism” over “formalism,” or what political theorists might loosely translate as “pragmatism” over “originalism.” Simply defined, a functionalist or pragmatic approach begins not with the forms of the Constitution, but with the necessities of the current age, thereby freeing government from the restraints of the Constitution so that the exigencies of today can be met.

Synonyms: realism, naive realism, naturalism, realness, pragmatism, reality

Antonyms: idealistic, impractical, unrealistic, unreasonable,

But I don’t see “originalism”, wonder why? It seems it is a mental disorder that is used to inspire conspiracy theories in those afflicted with the idea that “originalism” is real political thought and not the braying of an elitist class that yearn for the days of counting people as 3/5ths of a person and voting restricted to the landed gentry.


I believe the founding fathers were not complete idiots who thought the Constitution was not the ending but the beginning of the governance of our Country. What is important is the principles the Constitution were founded upon guide those we elect to represent us. That the rights we have as people ,not some people, all people not be abridged.

That is what the discussion should be about . Not another ridiculous conspiracy theory decades long that is used to circumvent the will of the people to seek justice, as the conservatives believe.

“We have always a right to correct ancient errors and to establish what is more conformable to reason and convenience.” — Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1801. FE 8:82

“We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” —Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41

“[The European] monarchs instead of wisely yielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring progressive accommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves behind steady habits and obliged their subjects to seek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations which, had they been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such examples nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself and of ordering its own affairs. Let us… avail ourselves of our reason and experience to correct the crude essays of our first and unexperienced although wise, virtuous, and well-meaning councils.” —Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41

Posted by: j2t2 at December 28, 2010 4:55 PM
Comment #315951

Royal Flush, you have made some good points. Keep up the good work. The price fixing by Obama and company was also tried by the other worst liberal president and Obama’s mentor, Jimmy Carter. The result was lines of cars looking for gas that no longer existed.

Typical liberals, I offer proof of the ‘Death Panels” that didn’t exist (according to the left) and there answer is to attack big pharma and ins companies. We are dealing with idiots.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at December 28, 2010 4:56 PM
Comment #315952

t2 writes; “That the rights we have as people ,not some people, all people not be abridged.”

Clearly t2 didn’t have the stomach to read the article I linked to as it is all about progressive philosophy denying individual rights in favor of elitists belief that only the highly skilled and educated are capable of making our national decisions thereby bypassing political will and political consequences, with no regard for the separation of powers.

We see that today as highly evident in the recent pronouncements by various government agencies that do not reflect the will and consent of our elected leaders.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 28, 2010 5:13 PM
Comment #315953

“Hmmm, does that mean that your glorious leader obama is not a progressive?”

Of course he is not a progressive, he won election with corporate dollars the same as Bush and any others that now hold office, what do you think the real problem is Flush? Certainly not a conspiracy theory told to the gullible followers of the conservative movement by the likse of Beck.


” He has nothing but progressives and socialists running his agencies. How would you account for that?”

Propaganda on the part of the movement leaders that the gullible movement followers fall for. If your not a far right wingnut then Conservatives label you based upon their current talking point. Of course you already know that.

“t2 writes; “It is easy to see why “conservatives are 50% of the voting public…” Wow, I didn’t know that. Are liberals already down to 10%?”

Flush where did you learn math? 50 plus 20 is only 70. For confirmation of the 50% number ask Con he spouted it in a previous thread. Are you saying he is wrong and misinforming us here at WB?

Posted by: j2t2 at December 28, 2010 5:15 PM
Comment #315955

“Typical liberals, I offer proof of the ‘Death Panels” that didn’t exist (according to the left) and there answer is to attack big pharma and ins companies. We are dealing with idiots.”

You provided squat but nonsensical conservative conspiracy theory. When rebutted you failed to do anything but call names, yes you are dealing with idiots how else would your silly propaganda get 50% of the population to believe it. Why don’t you use your head for something intelligent and offer up a response to the rebuttal other than nonsense?

Posted by: j2t2 at December 28, 2010 5:23 PM
Comment #315957

Conservativethinker writes; “We are dealing with idiots.”

Very tempting to agree with your assessment, but there is not much danger from idiots. The liberal/progressive/socialist is very dangerous indeed. The damage done by the last two congress’s is proof of their intention to bankrupt this country to remake it following their delusion of achieving nirvana.

What they can not achieve by elections and courts they attempt to secure by administraion fiat and regulatory excess. They simply discard the Constitution as worthless paper and write new rules to suit them as they go along.

If we don’t stop them now we may never have another chance.

Have a Happy and Conservative New Year.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 28, 2010 5:30 PM
Comment #315959

“Clearly t2 didn’t have the stomach to read the article I linked to …..”

To much prattle to get through all of it Flush. You linked to elitist telling us that individuals rights for the landed gentry have been violated because the elected representatives of the people have established laws that have existed and withstood SCOTUS challenges for years.

We have half a SCOTUS packed with “originalist” yet they have not turned any of these progressive philosophies over so there must be some separation of powers. Your basic precept is flawed and the result is merely an effort to thwart the will of the people who have worked to establish justice for all not justice for the landed gentry. Get over it.

“We see that today as highly evident in the recent pronouncements by various government agencies that do not reflect the will and consent of our elected leaders.”

What you see are whiners attempting to fool the American public by using fear tactics Flush. You see Conservatives trying to make what is SOP in the Administrative branch appear to be something it is not. The President was elected by the people, he has authority over the administrative branch. It is that simple. When the conservative hoards arrive in DC they have the right to pass laws that change this if they really want to. What we have is an attempt to usurp power by those that have just won election by braying loudly that it is the “will of the people” now, but where were these lowlifes when the shoe was on the other foot? Doing the very same thing.

You fall for about anything don’t you Flush.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 28, 2010 5:41 PM
Comment #315960

t2 writes; “Flush where did you learn math? 50 plus 20 is only 70.”

Poor t2, I believe his anger and fear has robbed him of sensible thought. Can anyone give him a clue about the other 30%?

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 28, 2010 5:44 PM
Comment #315961

Poor t2, he can’t distinguish law from regulations formulated by unelected bureaucrats. The “prattle” he refers to in my link were direct quotes by many hero’s in the progressive movement with most originating in Germany and followed by dense American leaders.

Finally we agree…much of what these progressives said and wrote was indeed…prattle.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 28, 2010 5:51 PM
Comment #315962

Poor t2, I believe his anger and fear has robbed him of sensible thought.

Flush you are projecting.
Proof? A mere 20% yet the super majority is fearful and angered by:

“The liberal/progressive/socialist is very dangerous indeed. The damage done by the last two congress’s is proof of their intention to bankrupt this country to remake it following their delusion of achieving nirvana.

What they can not achieve by elections and courts they attempt to secure by administraion fiat and regulatory excess. They simply discard the Constitution as worthless paper and write new rules to suit them as they go along.

If we don’t stop them now we may never have another chance.”

Delusions, Denial and Deception, conservatism at it’s best.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 28, 2010 5:58 PM
Comment #315964

“The “prattle” he refers to in my link were direct quotes by many hero’s in the progressive movement with most originating in Germany and followed by dense American leaders.”

Actually it was the attempt by the Heritage foundation to link them into the conspiracy theory of the century that I was referring to. But good guess.

“Finally we agree…much of what these progressives said and wrote was indeed…prattle.”

Right the Heritage foundation prattle, Flush, it is what it is.

Well Flush you have written 4 comments with nothing intelligent or new so I am calling it on this one unless you can provide… oh never mind it is asking way to much.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 28, 2010 6:07 PM
Comment #315965

“The price fixing by Obama and company was also tried by the other worst liberal president and Obama’s mentor, Jimmy Carter. The result was lines of cars looking for gas that no longer existed.”

Con, you are wrong again. Perhaps you should reconsider who the “idiots” are.

Price controls were instituted by the Nixon administration. The Carter administration removed the last vestiges of the controls. For your information, the Carter administration initiated most of the de-regulation that conservatives attribute to Reagan.

Posted by: Rich at December 28, 2010 6:11 PM
Comment #315966

“What they can not achieve by elections and courts they attempt to secure by administraion fiat and regulatory excess. They simply discard the Constitution as worthless paper and write new rules to suit them as they go along.”

Said as though conservative administrations have not used the rule making and regulatory authority of executive agencies to further their political philosophy.

Do you honestly think that each and every regulation or rule should be explicitly stated in the Constitution or explicitly stated in laws? If yes, then legislative bills would have to be enormous and would take years to formulate and enact. Government would grind to a complete halt.

Rules and regulations are not established by fiat. An administration doesn’t just go out and make rules/regulations at their fancy. They are governed by the Administrative Procedures Act which requires public notice, opportunity for public comment and judicial review to establish whether the rule/regulation is accordance with the law providing authority for the rule and constitutional.

Posted by: Rich at December 28, 2010 6:53 PM
Comment #315967

The FTC is a particularly apt example, since it was the “quasi legislative” and “quasi judicial” character of the FTC that was upheld in 1935, in the landmark Supreme Court case of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States—the first time that the Court so clearly acknowledged that agencies technically within the executive branch could exercise substantially non-executive functions.

The Commission promulgates substantive rules of conduct. The Commission then considers whether to authorize investigations into whether the Commission’s rules have been violated. If the Commission authorizes an investigation, the investigation is conducted by the Commission, which reports its findings to the Commission. If the Commission thinks that the Commission’s findings warrant an enforcement action, the Commission issues a complaint. The Commission’s complaint that a Commission rule has been violated is then prosecuted by the Commission and adjudicated by the Commission. The Commission adjudication can either take place before the full Commission or before a semi-autonomous administrative law judge. If the Commission chooses to adjudicate before an administrative law judge rather than before the Commission and the decision is adverse to the Commission, the Commission can appeal to the Commission.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 28, 2010 7:07 PM
Comment #315971

Royal Flush,

The case you cited preceded the Administrative Procedures Act which was passed in 1946. The formulation of the Act was supported by Roosevelt who thought that unbridled rule making authority “threatens to develop a fourth branch of government for which there is no sanction in the Constitution.” Today, all rule making is carried out under the provisions of the Act.

While due process in enforcement of rules/regulations is generally provided in an administrative law court, that doesn’t preclude a federal court challenge as to the Constitutionality of the rule or whether it is consistent and authorized by the law it references for its authority.

Posted by: Rich at December 28, 2010 7:58 PM
Comment #316003

Rich, you’re wrong; it was a democratic congress who placed price controls and Carter did nothing to stop it. It was reagan who abolished the controls. You statements are without logic; you say that carter worked to do away with price controls (for what purpose?), are you sayig it was to bring down the price of oil? And in the same breath you support price controls by the obama admin. I must ask this question, when have you ever seen a liberal democrat deregerulate anything?

Re: Jimmy Carter and oil prices
Rodney F Weiher
Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:58:38 -0700

“The only bright spot in the whole dreadful 10-15 years of petroleum and gas price control era is that even the liberal pols no longer lunge for controls (price) in response to price spikes.

Nixon didn’t eliminate price control authority on petroleum when he administratively abolished the wage-price control program in 1972 and in fact used it to allocate propane; Congress seize on this “loop hole” and turned it into legislatively imposed controls in 1973-74 in the “embargo” hysteria.

Ford in 1975 could have vetoed (and sustained it) extension of the program, ridding us of controls, the immoral allocation machinery, high prices and shortages, but blinked and let the extension take place. Carter not only carried on the program, but went on to create over 40 plus categories of natural gas for regulatory purposes, even though he promised to decontrol gas in the 76’ campaign.

It’s hard for me to believe a counter factual story that the Carter administration and Congressional democrats would have willingly returned the petroleum and gas industry to the private sector. Remember, it was the moral equivalent of war, although ironically the gas lines in the late 70’s probably contributed to their electoral defeat.

Reagan just knocked it in the head—done, gone, finished, end of story, hello $10 oil, although it took longer to get the natural gas situation straightened out and usher in the decade long price control induced “gas bubble”, incidentally making it possible to say goodby to the $10 mcf”

From “Rethinking Carter” by
William L. Anderson
[Posted October 25, 2000]
Posted at
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=535&id=68
by the Von Mises Institute

“First, he announced gradual decontrol of oil prices and the phasing out of the Keystone-Cops like government allocation system. However, Carter also pushed a “Windfall Profits Tax” on the belief that decontrol would bring higher prices and, thus, higher profits to oil companies that “really don’t deserve them.” The Wall Street Journal so opposed Carter’s oil tax that it published an editorial, “Death of Reason,” on the day Congress passed the tax, bordering the editorial in black.
Full decontrol was scheduled to take place in the spring of 1981, but Reagan upon taking office lifted controls almost immediately, thus receiving credit for what was mostly the action of his predecessor. While Carter was mistaken in his belief that decontrol would automatically increase oil profits (many investors also made the same error), one must also recognize the political heat he took for his actions, especially from the left. Ralph Nader, who had endorsed Carter as a “breath of fresh air” just four years earlier, denounced oil decontrol as “the greatest anti-consumer action of this century” and predicted $600 a barrel oil by 1990.”

http://www.mail-archive.com/armchair-l@mail04.gmu.edu/msg00591.html

Posted by: Conservativethinker at December 29, 2010 9:28 AM
Comment #316034

Conservativethinker,

First of all, wage/price controls were indeed instituted by Richard Nixon. That is a simple historical fact. They were eventually phased out during his administration and through the Ford and Carter administrations. Carter was instrumental in a wide range of government deregulation from the airlines, trucking/transportation industries to telecommunications. From the very article that you cited:

“In retrospect, however, I believe that my judgment of the man was too harsh. Carter does not receive the due that should be coming to him regarding his economic record, and in many ways he is the real architect of our current prosperity.”

“Republicans like to point to the failures of the Carter Administration and then claim that Ronald Reagan brought us into the present era. Alas, while I prefer Reagan to Carter, I cannot say that the above statement is true. Granted, much occurred during the Reagan Administration that was good, but if truth be known, many of the important initiatives that enabled those boundaries to expand came from Carter’s presidency.”

“Full decontrol [oil/gas] was scheduled to take place in the spring of 1981, but Reagan upon taking office lifted controls almost immediately, thus receiving credit for what was mostly the action of his predecessor [Carter].”

Posted by: Rich at December 29, 2010 7:36 PM
Comment #316043

“it was a democratic congress who placed price controls”

“In a move widely applauded by the public and a fair number of (but by no means all) economists, President Nixon imposed wage and price controls. The 90 day freeze was unprecedented in peacetime, but such drastic measures were thought necessary.”

http://www.econreview.com/events/wageprice1971b.htm

“In the 1970s, the Democratic Congress provided the tools by passing legislation that delegated authority to the president to impose a mandatory policy.”

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/ess_nixongold.html

” and Carter did nothing to stop it.”
Carter was not in office until 1977.


” It was reagan who abolished the controls.”

Only the last bit, Carter deregulated the 3 phases out of 4 and percentage wise did more than Reagan.


” You statements are without logic;”
They are the truth Con that’s why you are confused. Besides what is the chances you would recognize logic if you saw it. You fall for anything served up as conspiracy theory or conservative mythology?

” you say that carter worked to do away with price controls (for what purpose?), are you sayig it was to bring down the price of oil?”

Oil went up to $39 a barrel a record until the Bush administration. As the crisis in the middle east let up oil prices plummeted and Reagan got the credit.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=32755

Posted by: j2t2 at December 29, 2010 10:11 PM
Post a comment