Democrats & Liberals Archives

Eric Cantor: Victim of the Hobgoblin of Small Minds

Eric Cantor plainly wants to demonstrate what a tough-minded budgeter he and the Republicans are. Now, we can argue about the wisdom of dealing with an economic disaster with federal dollars without offsets, but honestly folks, are historic disasters the appropriate time to show off just how much of a fiscal hawk you are?

Our framers gave us the ability to take out debt for a reason: **** happens. What's more, it doesn't restrict itself to happening in times when we have the means to simply pay for it all ourselves. Now, the East Coast Earthquake that struck in Mineral, VA was a rare event, in fact exceedingly rare on the timescale of US History. Expecting people to be insured for this kind of rare event, and chastising them for not preparing for the risk is idiotic. If somebody had told you that the Washington Monument would have been cracked by an earthquake, you'd have probably asked them what work of science fiction that was from.

It's also a rare thing to take a direct hit from a hurricane, much less for the track to take it at hurricane strength all up the East Coast. This is going to be a storm to remember.

But Eric says, forget that if you don't offset it from the budget.

I say forget Eric Cantor. Times are hard enough for the average American and the economy as a whole. Are we to take another cut in services, another cut in economic activity, to make up for the consequences of the storm? This isn't rugged individualism, this is dogged adherence to and already oversimplified catechism of supply side economics.

Ah, but we were stupid enough to give this guy real power, weren't we?

This may end up being one of the most expensive disasters this country faces, and he wants us to foot the bill now, out of an already strained economy, an economy already facing enough uncertainty, enough drag on its activity, especially fiscal drag from the hundreds of thousands of jobs that Republicans have killed already.

Are they looking to take this country to the breaking point, holding hostage this nation's economic prosperity and prospects for recovering from this historic disaster, just to get their way politically?

I don't think Cantor should be using situations like this in order to leverage himself into a more favorable light, politically. I don't think we should penalize the rest of the economy right now in order to absorb the costs of these disasters. The whole point of the debt finance provision in the constitution, which Republicans abused for years before handing things off to the Democrats, is to serve our country in its time of immediate need. If we have a war we need to fight now, and equip for now, we shouldn't have to wait for revenues. If, as in WWII, we need to win the war more than we need to balance the budget, we take the hit, do the debt spending, and we worry about things later.

When disasters hit, whether economic, natural, or man-made, we don't need to be getting cheap on our nation's good fortunes. We need to recover as soon as we can, so we don't end up setting a less prosperous new normal for ourselves. That's what debt should be for, not absorbing the costs of elective wars and new programs that politicians can't be bothered to pay for. And the people who spent like drunken sailors while giving everybody free tax cuts have no business trying to exploit disasters like these to make themselves look good as fiscal conservatives.

The good fortunes of the people of the East Coast and America are more important than a small-minded false consistency that takes abusive measures of stinginess, in order to make up abusive levels of irresponsibility earlier.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at August 26, 2011 12:20 PM
Comments
Comment #328275

Stephen,
This is another example of conservative hostage taking. The GOP wants to hold the American people hostage during a possible catastrophe in order to advance an ideological agenda. Notice Cantor does not demand a surtax or anything to raise revenues- just offsetting spending cuts. It’s about their ideological agenda in one way only, through cuts.

At some point, Obama is going to be forced to let the GOP follow through on its threat, and kill the hostage. That’s a terrible thing, but until he does, these economic terrorists will continue to threaten the American people in order to advance their ideology.

Posted by: phx8 at August 26, 2011 11:09 PM
Comment #328277

phx8-
He’ll be blamed for killing the hostage, too.

No, I think Americans have to realize what’s being done to them on a visceral level. I’d argue that if Obama plays his cards right, the blowback from this BS could strip the paint off their houses and give them permanent orange afros.

Besides, It doesn’t just have to be Obama. It could be politicians of all different places and levels of government.

What gets me is that this is an unsustainable position. Eric may think he’s being clever, and showing that his party is more responsible, but he’s forgetting that the responsibilities and expectations of our leaders are not purely fiscal. He’s failing to realize what a world of **** he’s going to bury himself in if he doesn’t watch out. There’s a reason that even as they’ve succeeded in dragging Obama’s approvals down, that theirs have stayed lower than his.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2011 12:00 AM
Comment #328278

The time to deal with budgeting problems is during the construction of the budget. It is normal for funds to be put aside for emergencies. To treat each individual event, each emergency, as another excuse to press an ideological agenda, is disgusting.

Obama and the Democratic Party need to present a unified front with a focused message: we face a possible emergency that could affect tens of millions of citizens, and the GOP refuses to act. Keep it simple. Keep it focused. And say it loud, again and again, until the GOP either approves emergency funds, or leaves citizens to suffer.

These Republicans, these economic terrorists, will continue to threaten the well being of American citizens until they are faced down.

Posted by: phx8 at August 27, 2011 3:02 AM
Comment #328283

Found in the posts above…

“conservative hostage taking”
“economic terrorists”
“exploit disasters”
“small-minded false consistency”
“abusive measures of stinginess”

All of these descriptions fall only on the heads of Republicans and Conservatives. We elect citizens to political positions to be stewards of the nation’s natural and people resources.

For some, it is an extreme position to wish to retain the fruits of our own labor. It is stingy, exploitative, terroristic and small minded they claim.

Some believe it is honorable to receive, and dishonorable to produce. I would remind all that every single benefit that government provides comes from the work of another. The workers of America foot the bill for those who can not, or will not, work or provide for themselves.

Do we place these workers in high esteem? No, we thrash them for wishing to hold on to that which they have produced by their own hand.

It is alarming that so many are so thankless for the generosity of those willing to share voluntarily and thru the taxes they pay.

I open my checkbook to the government every April 15th. I open my checkbook to charitable causes nearly every month. I am a conservative. Abuse me at your own peril.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 27, 2011 12:51 PM
Comment #328284

“Eric Cantor plainly wants to demonstrate what a tough-minded budgeter he and the Republicans are. Now, we can argue about the wisdom of dealing with an economic disaster with federal dollars without offsets, but honestly folks, are historic disasters the appropriate time to show off just how much of a fiscal hawk you are?”


it would appear that there is never a good time to be a fiscal hawk when your name is followed by a (D). when we have a surplus? no, this is when we should use it to spread around. when we have a deficit? no because the gov’t needs to spend money to stimulate the economy, and increase reciepts to the gov’t, so it can spread it around. when we have a recession and people are having to tighten thier belts? no…..see my last answer. so you see there really is never a time when we should cut gov’t spending. that is if your name is followed by a (D).

Posted by: d at August 27, 2011 1:27 PM
Comment #328285

d,
Military spending is government spending. Maybe you forgot.

Royal Flush,
I must have missed this in your comment. Do you approve of Cantor withholding emergency funds from possible flood victims until the government cuts non-defense spending?

Posted by: phx8 at August 27, 2011 1:52 PM
Comment #328287

phx8, I will be pleased to respond when I know what aid is needed, for whom, and how it will be paid for.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 27, 2011 2:30 PM
Comment #328288


d, throughout Obama’s presidency, the Democrats have shown a willingness to compromise. The Republicans have stubbornly refused to compromise.

The Democrats have taken a lot of flack from their own constituents for their willingness to give concessions with nothing in return from the Republicans.

The tea party people have praised the conservatives for refusing to compromise and demand more of the same.

Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Three of these former presidents increased the size of government. Can you guess which three did that? Here is a hint, R.

The war between Monarchy and democracy will continue on schedule.

Posted by: jlw at August 27, 2011 2:54 PM
Comment #328289

Royal Flush,
You are describing reaction, not preparation.

Posted by: phx8 at August 27, 2011 3:01 PM
Comment #328290

it seems no one has a response as to when it is appropriate to cut gov’t spending, instead choosing to focus on the (D) issue.

BTW d should be dbs. i must have screwed up when filling out the name box.

Posted by: dbs at August 27, 2011 3:07 PM
Comment #328291

it seems no one has a response as to when it is appropriate to cut gov’t spending, instead choosing to focus on the (D) issue.

BTW d should be dbs. i must have screwed up when filling out the name box.

Posted by: dbs at August 27, 2011 3:08 PM
Comment #328292

phx8


“Military spending is government spending. Maybe you forgot.”


what does this have to do with my statement? when is it ok to cut gov’t spending?

Posted by: dbs at August 27, 2011 3:12 PM
Comment #328293

The war between Monarchy and democracy will continue on schedule.
Posted by: jlw at August 27, 2011

What Monarchy was elected in 2010, and what Monarchy is running for office in 2012? Please use the word democracy in a liberal sentence for us.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 27, 2011 3:20 PM
Comment #328294

Royal Flush,
You are describing reaction, not preparation.
Posted by: phx8 at August 27, 2011

Really? How many billions of preparation do you believe we need? And, based upon what damages, where, and to whom?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 27, 2011 3:30 PM
Comment #328295

Royal Flush-

All of these descriptions fall only on the heads of Republicans and Conservatives.

They’re cutting off their toes and heels to make the shoe fit, using emergencies and self-inflicted fiscal crises in order to push their agenda.

I’m not taking back what I said, just because you’re offended that I’m using such strong languages. In my time on Earth, I’ve rarely seen politicians so pointlessly petty and stingy. I really do think that this is small-minded consistency with the principle of fiscal conservatism, and I think fiscal conservatives of the past would certainly have rated disasters as an appropriate time to spend what needs to be spent, and worry about cost later.

For some, it is an extreme position to wish to retain the fruits of our own labor.

For some, it is an extreme position to suggest that people be able to even be paid a good days wages for a good days work. Organizing to stand up for your interests is seen as socialism, instead of simple defense of one’s own needs.

You want to demonize Democrats for our points of view fine. You want to call what we ask for class warfare, and make ridiculous allegations about us just wanting to take from the working to give to the lazy, fine. Then I will show you exectives who run their companies into the ground and then expect to be rewarded, who toss employees out of their jobs rather than accept pay cuts, who build up destructive bubbles of bogus derivatives, and then expect all the rest of us not only to pay for it, but indeed to let them do it all over again.

And really, every time Democrats have pushed for tax cuts to the middle class, or renewal of those, it’s either ignored, disaparaged, or dismissed as too expensive. This while trillion dollar cuts for the rich “job creators” seem to have to be preserved at all costs. Oh, by the way, the job creator’s response to the Bush tax cuts seems to have been to keep the money. Who knew? Hand people who already have more money than they can spend more money, and they won’t spend it! Wow!

Look, I’m not looking to abuse you, I don’t even think it serves my purpose. But your comments about me, and the policies you promote, those, I will proceed to beat the hell out of, and with cause.

dbs-
You tighten government’s belt when it won’t hurt the rest of the economy to do so. During the good times. You know, like Bush didn’t?

I believe we need to pay for things out of tax dollars in good times If we’ve got spending we don’t need, cut it. If the private sector is pushing something fine, government shouldn’t have to do so much, and shouldn’t be doing so much.

But if times are crap, and we’re faced with a national crisis, we shouldn’t be failing to deal with the economic crisis or any other crisis for that matter, just to balance a budget. If a budget was all there was to governing, that would be one thing, but we expect our government to defend this country, secure our elderly from destitution and poor health, and help remedy the problems of disaster-stricken states and localities when the scale of their problems overwhelm their need to respond.

Your false consistency is this Mr. Scrooge mentality that leads you to support the fortunes of the elite, even at the expense of the fortunes of the nation as a whole.

Republicans should not be budget cutting on the backs of disaster victims, cynically using their plight to wring otherwise unattainable cuts, especially in these tough economic times.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2011 3:56 PM
Comment #328297

SD writes; “You want to demonize Democrats for our points of view fine. You want to call what we ask for class warfare, and make ridiculous allegations about us just wanting to take from the working to give to the lazy, fine.”

Really, the comments I copied, in parentheses, came from you and other dems/libs. And you have the silliness to say that I am “demonizing”. Running scared is no excuse for sloppy thinking or sloppy writing.

He writes; “I’m not taking back what I said, just because you’re offended that I’m using such strong languages.”

I wouldn’t expect you to. That would require some honesty and introspective thinking.

He writes; “Organizing to stand up for your interests is seen as socialism, instead of simple defense of one’s own needs.”

If you are referring to public employee unions, standing up for taxpayer interests is appropriate.

He writes; “Hand people who already have more money than they can spend more money, and they won’t spend it.”

Typical liberal viewpoint. All money and assets belong to the government (people) and reducing tax rates is a hand out. Actually, that’s right out of Karl Marx.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 27, 2011 4:11 PM
Comment #328299


Royal, the question is, did monarchy win in 2010? The answer is yes. It has won every election for several decades. Monarchy has been winning concessions, democracy has been giving concessions. If you would prefer the word aristiocracy that is alright by me.

dbs, why wasn’t 2001 thru 2008 an appropriate time to cut spending instead of an appropriate time for huge tax cuts and massive deficits?

Why, with the election of Obama, has it now become politically expedient for Republicans to cut the size of government after spending decades enlarging it?

In Great Britain, the largest government agency, in terms of employees, is the Department of Works and Pensions.

In the U.S. the largest government agency, in terms of employees, is the Defence Department, followed by the Department of Veterans Affairs and third is the Department of Homeland Security.

Posted by: jlw at August 27, 2011 4:45 PM
Comment #328300

Royal Flush-
Is it demonizing a Republican to suggest that requiring spending cuts in order to fund emergency disaster relief is hostage taking?

Well, I may not be giving you fifty lashes with the rhetorical wet noodle, but then, when you’re coming forth to defend such extortion, you shouldn’t expect flowers and box chocolates. If somebody did this in a movie, the audience would be hissing at them.

But Republicans nowadays don’t have that kind of perspective. Your leaders are so insular, they hardly register anything of the outrage their tin-eared comments make. And folks like you are too willing to dismiss it as political correctness, or something like that, rather than face the fact that your side might have landed on the really wrong side of the issue here.

I know where your quotes came from. I also know that your comment interprets them in a negative light, as overblown rhetoric. Unfortunately, you fail to realize that your people are very close, if not already there, in terms of putting yourself in the position of being objectively objectionable.

I’m not taking back what I said, because I really believe that Cantor and his types are scum for doing this. They were irresponsible for years, giving the excuse that to cancel the tax cuts or find some other offset in that time would hurt the economy. But now, faced with huge natural disasters of epic proportions, and the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, they say it’s time to tighten the belt.

They jacked up our debt when we could have easily paid the piper, and now want to squeeze blood from a stone now to prove they’re responsible. Well, I got news for you: it’s not responsible. It’s a dereliction of the long recognized duty of the federal government.

Typical liberal viewpoint. All money and assets belong to the government (people) and reducing tax rates is a hand out. Actually, that’s right out of Karl Marx.

There you go again.

Money doesn’t belong to anybody in particular. It’s not really that useful if it’s not moving around, buying things. You have this certain fantasyland notion of government finance. In this fairy-tale land, we can squeeze revenues as far as they can go, and then expect the resulting economic growth to cme back and gratify us all with an economic boom.

You’ve had three strikes, the idea’s struck out. Your tax cuts for the rich failed to create jobs, an epic failure to be sure, since job creation was worst of all time, going back to 1947.

The reality is, we were able to pay for government for the most part. Then your party stopped aligning how much it spent with how much it taxed. It didn’t raise taxes or shift funds from elsewhere when it spent, and it didn’t really cut spending or streamline things when it cut taxes. In fact, many Republicans, when asked, professed the notion that this was meant to be a Keynesian stimulus, and that there would be no point in offsetting it.

But now, of course, since we’ve had a major screw-up, it’s the poor who have to pay, losing benefits, even though their benefits had nothing to do with the fiscal collapse.

The Rich took a lot of money from the average taxpayer, in order to keep a float, hundreds of billions in fact. But suggest that they have to pay the government more for the government that helped them so generously, and they tell us to take a hike.

Your people had their fun. The balance needs to be made. The generosity of the government, and it’s subsequent seeking of funds to pay for that should not fall exclusively on any one class. The taxes should be balanced to those who can pay them best, and the generosity should be tuned towards the general interests and I dare say what would be the moral aid for a society to give those who are poor and disadvantaged.

I’m not interested in confiscation, nor am I interested in people just remaining forever on government assistance if they can help it. I’m interested in a government whose activities balance the interests of the country against one another, while maintaining a well-policed, well-ordered free market.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2011 4:55 PM
Comment #328301

Apparently jlw doesn’t believe “democracy” works as it continues to elect Monarchy’s or aristocracies. What would jlw recommend we should have instead of our democratic republic? What “ism” is appealing to jlw?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 27, 2011 4:58 PM
Comment #328302

Royal Flush-
Apparently, we ought to impute opinions to people that RF believes are apparent.

What I draw from jlw’s comment is that Republicans simply don’t acknowledge that they’re not the whole affair when it comes to people who have the right to determine the shape of our government. They just try to simply shut people out.

Well, the rest of us want better than that. We don’t want some has-been party gumming up the works because it doesn’t want to admit that it squandered the goodwill of the voters.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2011 5:14 PM
Comment #328303

Thanks for interpreting jlw’s words. However, I beleive I will wait for him to respond as he may not agree with what you wrote.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 27, 2011 5:25 PM
Comment #328304

Royal Flush-
Why should you have all the fun, speculating on what people mean?

You insinuate that he might not agree with Democracy, but if you’re reading for clarity rather than rhetorical opportunity, then you’d find that his use of those terms was to distinguish the Democrats, who negotiated and compromised more, from the Republicans who were saying “my way or the highway” on everything.

You didn’t wait for him to explain his point of view. Why should I?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2011 5:37 PM
Comment #328305

Notice how Royal Flush & dbs never directly respond to the issue raised in Stephen’s article: Cantor (R) wants to withhold emergency aid to victims of Hurricane Irene until the Republicans can advance their agenda, and it can only be done one way, their way.

Posted by: phx8 at August 27, 2011 5:44 PM
Comment #328306

Nearly every commnt I attempt to post reverts to another page which says…OOOPS, broken link. I have asked the WB editor to see what he can do about it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 27, 2011 6:15 PM
Comment #328307

phx8

“Notice how Royal Flush & dbs never directly respond to the issue raised in Stephen’s article:”

i quoted the first paragraph, and responded. so……when is it appropriate to cut gov’t spending? seems you and no one else can respond to that.

jlw

go back and re read the the paragraph of stephens i responded to. can refute my claim? when has the left ever found a time to cut gov’t spending. IMO the left are NEVER fiscal hawks. go ahead….prove me wrong. BTW where did i ever excuse the bush admin. for over spending?

Posted by: dbs at August 27, 2011 6:19 PM
Comment #328311

dbs-
It’s a loaded question with a hidden premise, which demands a ridiculously simple answer to a question that really shouldn’t be answered as carelessly as you would like.

I don’t want to bankrupt my country. I have an odd attachment to it, and I want to see what’s best for it done. So do you. But we have a dramatic disagreement about that. The constitution offers us basically two ways to proceed, if we are to act: have one side convince enough people, so that the tradition of majority rules wins out, and something is passed, or each side negotiates on something both sides can agree on.

Given the divided nature of Congress, no side is going to be able to force something on the other side, except by attempting hostage drama’s like we’ve seen again and again.

And really, it’s a ridiculous way to govern. First, you’re not really convincing anybody to make a long term change in policy. In fact, when people looked at the budget deal, both in terms of how it was created, and then in terms of the economics of the cuts, the reaction on Wall Street and at Standard and Poors wasn’t celebration.

If the idea is to restore certainty, and we have less of it afterwards, what good was the tactic? If our idea was to make it clear that this country would pay its bills, a more counterproductive means could not have been found to do so.

My critique of the Republicans these days is that they have political ambitions and dogmas which they have painted themselves into a corner on, giving them no choice but to take a chainsaw to the budgets in a time where America doesn’t need to be creating big swings in economic activity towards the negative.

In better times, we could handle the spending cuts, private enterprise could take on more of a role. But those idiots in the financial sector screwed up the system to where the businesses that created jobs weren’t able to do it.

We’re trying to recover from a structural failure in our nation’s ability to finance robust growth through private enterprise. Unfortunately, Republicans have written themselves a rule that says we can’t intervene by government means, except perhaps by cutting taxes. But those tax cuts, as I keep on repeating, didn’t result in people getting more jobs. Job growth suffered instead.

What are we supposed to do? I may as well ask Republicans when it is alright to use deficit spending. Is it just some odd thing that the framer threw in as a lark, so they could laugh from heaven as we bankrupted ourselves?

Or did they forsee that America would face crises, both economic and otherwise, where time would not afford them the opportunity to raise the money in cash?

At the end of the day, the perspective on government of a person like me, of most liberals, is one of function. It’s not that we want people addicted to government. Rather, we want society to function without a whole lot of unnecessary, avoidable screw-ups. We want food that is safe to eat, drugs that are safe to take, and taken properly, courts and legal systems that put the guilty in jail, clear the innocent, and punish people appropriately. We want clean air to breath, clean water to drink, and clean land to live upon. We want wilderness preserved so it doesn’t become an overdeveloped memory. We want disasters averted where they can be, and where natural disasters occur, we want to get ahead of these events where we can, and where we can’t we want to get society back up and running and the damage contained and remediated as soon as possible.

Ultimately, any conflict about whether we should pay to remediate the disasters that have hit the East Coast are going to be purely manufactured. Most Americans would say, and sensibly so, that we need to get these places back to normal, and back to functioning, and we need to minimize the suffering and mitigate the ill effects of this disaster.

I mean, would you seriously make the point to me that with a multi-state disaster like this, with an Earthquake and a storm which did not respect state borders, does not deserve federal attention? Or is the point that whenever a disaster like this occurs, we have to inflict an equivalent man-made economic disaster on some other part of the country, on some other people?

Congress’s ability to debt finance things was likely meant to help this country in emergencies, in times of want, and in times of war, when the cost of fighting the war would be too much for our economy to bear, all at once.

But modern Conservatives have decided to show their deficit cutting mettle, by hamstringing the president in dealing with disasters of this magnitude. They’ve chosen to force this country to bear the economic brunt of this disaster now.

How much does America have to suffer so Republicans can prove they know what’s best for this country? How much pain do they have to cause it before America will realize how much they love this land?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2011 10:51 PM
Comment #328312

For all of you who want the “rich” to keep paying for everything, I have one question.

When you are or were going to school, If you had a GPA of 4.0, would you be willing to give up a portion of that to give to someone with a GPA of 2.0?

Posted by: tdobson at August 28, 2011 3:38 AM
Comment #328314

stephen


“It’s a loaded question with a hidden premise, which demands a ridiculously simple answer to a question that really shouldn’t be answered as carelessly as you would like.”


it’s actually a very simple question. it is quite apparent to me that no one can answer it, or won’t, because they believe gov’t should never under any circumstances reduce spending. self reliant, and independent thinkers are the enemy of the left, because they render thier political philosophy moot.

Posted by: dbs at August 28, 2011 8:13 AM
Comment #328315

SD summed up the liberal position in one sentence in comment #328300, when he said “Money doesn’t belong to anybody in particular.” I believe, as all conservatives and most people in this country believe, that if you work for money, the money you earn belongs to you.

Posted by: tdobson at August 28, 2011 8:57 AM
Comment #328316

SD summed up the liberal position in one sentence in comment #328300, when he said “Money doesn’t belong to anybody in particular.” I believe, as all conservatives and most people in this country believe, that if you work for money, the money you earn belongs to you.

Posted by: tdobson at August 28, 2011 8:58 AM
Comment #328317

For all of you who want the “rich” to keep paying for everything, I have one question.

When you are or were going to school, If you had a GPA of 4.0, would you be willing to give up a portion of that to give to someone with a GPA of 2.0?

Posted by: tdobson at August 28, 2011 3:38 AM
If you are at the scene of an accident and the person laying on the ground had two quarts of blood and you had five would you be willing to give up a portion of that so that person could live?

Posted by: Jeff at August 28, 2011 9:08 AM
Comment #328318

For all of you who want the “rich” to keep paying for everything, I have one question.

When you are or were going to school, If you had a GPA of 4.0, would you be willing to give up a portion of that to give to someone with a GPA of 2.0?

Posted by: tdobson at August 28, 2011 3:38 AM
If you are at the scene of an accident and the person laying on the ground had two quarts of blood and you had five would you be willing to give up a portion of that so that person could live?

Posted by: Jeff at August 28, 2011 9:09 AM
Comment #328319

Jeff, I’ll answer your question and you can answer mine.

“If you are at the scene of an accident and the person laying on the ground had two quarts of blood and you had five would you be willing to give up a portion of that so that person could live?”

That depends. I would make the decision based on conditions at the time. If my family and friends needed my blood, I would probably want to keep it for them. However, it would be MY decision to make.

Now, answer my question.

Posted by: tdobson at August 28, 2011 9:16 AM
Comment #328320

Yes jeff I’d give a pint, now would you be willing to give up part of your 4.0 gpa to someone with a lesser gpa?

Posted by: KAP at August 28, 2011 9:18 AM
Comment #328321
If you had a GPA of 4.0, would you be willing to give up a portion of that to give to someone with a GPA of 2.0?

That’s a meaningless question. Money is a medium of exchange. GPA is not a medium of exchange; it’s a rough measure of how much work puts into one’s coursework. If I gave some grade points to someone else it wouldn’t do anything except make GPA a meaningless number. The person with the 2.0 GPA would still have the same poor habits that got them the 2.0 in the first place.

Also, the taxes we pay are in exchange for the services the government provides. The rich utilize far more government services than the rest of us, which is why they pay more. As I said earlier, GPA is not a medium of exchange; I’m not getting anything back when I give grade-points to someone else.

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 28, 2011 9:27 AM
Comment #328322

I disagree, WR.
Your GPA IS a medium of exchange. You put in a lot of effort and in exchange you get a high GPA. If not, you get a lessor GPA. THAT makes it a medium of exchange for the student.

Would you give up part of your GPA to someone with a lessor GPA?

Posted by: tdobson at August 28, 2011 9:33 AM
Comment #328323

warped

“The person with the 2.0 GPA would still have the same poor habits that got them the 2.0 in the first place.”


the same could be said for those on public assistance. welfare, food stamps etc.


“Also, the taxes we pay are in exchange for the services the government provides.”


i don’t think that’s the issue. the issue is IMO, and that of a lot of others is what services should gov’t be providing?


“The rich utilize far more government services than the rest of us, which is why they pay more.”

how so?


“As I said earlier, GPA is not a medium of exchange; I’m not getting anything back when I give grade-points to someone else.”


it may not be a medium of exchange, but like income represents the effort that is put into the quest for success. rewarding someone with the fruits of someone elses success will not encourage them to improve thier habits in order to succeed. when you take away the consequences that come with poor choices, you also eliminate the natural desire to change those choices in order to change future outcome.

Posted by: dbs at August 28, 2011 9:46 AM
Comment #328324

If it were a medium of exchange tdobson he would be able to sell it to someone that doesn’t go to school. Can he do that? Comparing a GPA to money is just plain silly. You have to assume WR is going to school for the sole reason of earning a high GPA not to pursue and education that will see him through the future. A diversionary tool and an illogical conservative argument that didn’t make sense then nor does it now.

Because the wealthy are able to use their money to buy laws that have resulted in an income inequality in this country not seen since before the great depression they should have the personal responsibility and duty to pay taxes.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 28, 2011 9:52 AM
Comment #328325

tdobson-
To all of those who think the rich should pay equally, I have one question:

Who has the money to pay, but still maintain a comfortable lifestyle? Who, in these times, has a surplus in income which means that when their rates go up, they won’t find money they literally need as part of their additional payment?

Some folks have made the lazy argument that wanting the rich to pay a little more is equal to wanting to confiscate their wealth. This is used because people are trying to justify the similarly extreme position that because of their status, the rich should pay less than average than most people. I bet if you look at those doorstop tax codes that Republicans love to point to as evidence of the decadence of the system, you’ll find a lot of breaks for them padding the pages.

You make it out to be something like GPA, but in my experience not all wealth is earned. I mean, your analogy would be better if you had some who got their GPA because their parents got good grades, or they got it because they rolled the right dice with their teachers, or because they had the teacher transfer the good grades from others, or something like that.

In short, if nobody every got wealthy by ****ing somebody over, or being born in the right family, or by cheating the system or others, your analogy could work. But it doesn’t. People would like to feel like they deserve their wealth, and plenty of folks come up with plenty of reasons to tell themselves that, but all too much wealth has been transfered in this country on dubious grounds.

Wealth in this country seems to many people to be less earned than in past years and decades. More people feel, and with factual backup, than many have gotten rich off their misery and loss of quality of life.

As for “money doesn’t belong to anybody in particular?”

Well, does it belong to the people entirely? Well, our currency is worth something because the government prints it, and says it’s worth something. We’ve set a legal standard for it’s worth, and without the government’s backing and production, it wouldn’t be worth anything. So in that sense, all money belongs to the government.

But seriously, much of our money is in private hands, in the hands of the wealthy, the middle class and the poor, and obviously that economic power would be useless if it just sat there in Washington.

So, money means something both because a sovereign government produces it as it’s currency, and because we out in the real world use it as a means of facilitating economic activity.

More to the point, even the rich and powerful are constantly channelling at least part of their wealth out there to do something, so it doesn’t necessarily all stay theirs for good. Money circulates. But I would say it only does some good when it circulates broadly and healthily. When we let the rich and powerful just horde all their wealth, when we encourage that retention, they just tend to keep it and save it.

My sense is that over the last few decades, we’ve encouraged less actual meaningful activity in our country, and more simple accumulation by the rich. But regardless of the fears of folks like you, a little more taxation, a little more Regulatory burden will not kill commerce. It may even liven it up, since folks will be able to do less stupid, unproductive things to get wealthy, and will actually have to do business to get rich.

I have no problem with people being wealthy, so long as they recognize that their greater wealth comes with obligations, and expectations that as people do so much for them, and they ask so much of government, that they do active good for the community and the nation with their activity.

I have not seen conditions improve for the average person over my lifetime, in my economic class. All I’ve seen is decay of that position, as greater burdens were shifted from those who could shoulder it, to those who couldn’t. Folks like you had the naive idea that this would somehow improve things, as the job creators could create more jobs, but as time has gone on, we’ve found that the upper class did not suddenly become altruistic and start giving people jobs and better paychecks. Quite the opposite.

It’s easy for the wealthy to accumulate more wealth. The natural currents of economy flow most easily to their sides, because they already have the wealth and power necessary to gain more wealth and power. You really don’t need to look out so much for the interests of the rich and powerful, because they’ll see to their interests just fine if you let them. Trouble is, as in all societies, not everybody’s interests lie together.

I think it’s unfair to expect the poor and middle class not to look out for their interests, lest they be called union thugs or instigators of class warfare. The idea that we must defer on what’s important to us, on what keeps us happy, healthy and more prosperous, in order to suit the interests of the wealthy and the powerful is an elitist one, and one that’s proved mostly false for the average person.

The rich and powerful have become very rich and powerful riding our economy into the ground. They’ve taken up an even greater share of the wealth, and part of that has been government money spent to keep them from losing their shirts. Yet even a few months after the crash, they had the balls to give themselves pay raises and bonuses out of that taxpayer money, as if they had just done a good thing.

There’s this massive sense of entitlement in the upper class these days, a sense that they have their money because they deserve it, because they were the fittest, in the survival of the fittest. The reality is, these people are earning money because of their position and status, often enough, not because they managed their businesses right, or did the right thing.

My sensibility is that there should be constraints that force these people more towards economic arrangements that benefit others, that make others prosperous, even as they profit the people in question. I don’t care that a person profits, but I care why they profit, and I believe that there are things for which people should not be making gains, that not everything you can do to make a buck can or should be justified. In other words, I have a moral vision of capitalism, rather than an amoral or immoral one which assumes that anything that is not forbidden is free game.

dbs-
It’s a simple question that deals with a complex subject, and anybody giving you a simple answer is just bull*****ing you. Hell, that’s much of what all our debates are about here. What’s worth spending on, what’s not? It’s a judgment call. I could tell you generally that if the burden of maintaining that debt is getting too high is overwhelming us, then spending cuts would become imperative, but that’s not happening.

I could tell you that if the economy can take the austerity, then we might try it then, but I don’t think now’s the best time.

I could tell you that if what is being bought is silly our stupid, please cut our spending.

But these are general answers, and I don’t get more specific because I don’t have the information or the training to give you a full answer.

But you’re not really interested in anything but the simple answer, because you actually think there’s a simple answer. You actually believe that we can just make wild swings with the federal budget these days, and not hurt the economy. People like you treat the massive economic activity center that the federal government is as if it’s some family budget, which will basically just effect itself and a few other people.

But with the Federal budget, we’re talking about the economic conditions of nearly every American out there. The ripple effects from federal policy can be huge.

I don’t think you have respect for the complexity of the answer to the question you’re asking.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 28, 2011 10:08 AM
Comment #328326

If a GPA is not a medium of exchange, would you work as hard to get such a high one?

“You have to assume WR is going to school for the sole reason of earning a high GPA not to pursue and education that will see him through the future.”

And you have to assume that people who want to hang on to their money are doing so just to look at it and not use it to prepare for their future.

Posted by: tdobson at August 28, 2011 10:13 AM
Comment #328327
“The rich utilize far more government services than the rest of us, which is why they pay more.”

how so?

The military, the courts, the patent office, the weather service, the usgs, agriculture subsidies, etc… Basically everything the government does except for the social safety net.

Your other concerns were answered by SD & jt2t.

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 28, 2011 10:18 AM
Comment #328328

stephen


“Who has the money to pay, but still maintain a comfortable lifestyle? Who, in these times, has a surplus in income which means that when their rates go up, they won’t find money they literally need as part of their additional payment?”


the old they can afford it argument is weak. that money is thier property, and not yours. you may feel you have a moral right to redistrbute it through gov’t force, but you don’t. just because someone has more than they need does not automaticaly give you or anyone else the right to decide whether they should be allowed to keep it. that is a marxist view.

Posted by: dbs at August 28, 2011 10:31 AM
Comment #328329

warped


“The military, the courts, the patent office, the weather service, the usgs, agriculture subsidies, etc… Basically everything the government does except for the social safety net.”


this answer i have to say is extremely weak. especially for you. as far as the the answer to the rest. a cop out.

Posted by: dbs at August 28, 2011 10:37 AM
Comment #328330

I guess by not getting a direct answer to my question, but a lot of excuses from the left, I got my answer.

By giving up part of their GPA, the left feels like they are giving up something they worked hard to get and the people who didn’t work as hard don’t deserve it as illistrated by WR’s comment ” If I gave some grade points to someone else it wouldn’t do anything except make GPA a meaningless number. The person with the 2.0 GPA would still have the same poor habits that got them the 2.0 in the first place.”

I feel the same way about money. If I give it to someone who don’t work for it, it makes my work worth less.

If you give up a part of your GPA you suffer by possibly not getting the job you want. It doesn’t stop you from learning everything you strived to learn. You are not a lesser person for it.

If I give up my money, then I’m possibly giving up a better future for me and my family.

People on the left don’t understand this because like SD, they think all money belongs to the government.

Posted by: tdobson at August 28, 2011 10:43 AM
Comment #328331

j2t2

“If it were a medium of exchange tdobson he would be able to sell it to someone that doesn’t go to school.”


horses#!t ! he would be able to sell it to someone at school not making the cut, and needing to bolster thier GPA. but that’s not what we’re really talking about. he would be required to give away with no compensation that which he has worked hard for in order to support someone who has not. is that fair?

“You have to assume WR is going to school for the sole reason of earning a high GPA not to pursue and education that will see him through the future.”


that future would also include increasing his earning potential. if it didn’t he could flip burgers, or some other career that requires no formal education. that GPA represents success, and hard work. something potential employers look at. to say there is no connection is absolutely asinine.


“A diversionary tool and an illogical conservative argument that didn’t make sense then nor does it now.”

actually it’s a comparison. someone works hard to achieve, and is expected to surrender the fruits of thier labor to someone who didn’t. nothing illogical about it.

Posted by: dbs at August 28, 2011 10:50 AM
Comment #328332

stephen

“But you’re not really interested in anything but the simple answer, because you actually think there’s a simple answer.”


and you have tendency to overcomplicate simple things. when you get over all the hand wringing, and over thinking, and just reduce things to thier most basic principles, you’ll find they’re not as difficult to resolve as you would have others believe.

Posted by: dbs at August 28, 2011 10:57 AM
Comment #328333
quote text
If you give up a part of your GPA you suffer by possibly not getting the job you want.

No, because GPA would then become meaningless. Employers would use criteria other than GPA to select their workers.

I feel the same way about money. If I give it to someone who don’t work for it, it makes my work worth less.

I’m not advocating forced charity, so all you are doing is defeating a straw man that you erected. It’s not DC’s job to redistribute wealth.

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 28, 2011 11:01 AM
Comment #328334

“It’s not DC’s job to redistribute wealth.”

It is according to the left. Just ask our president. Or should I drag out his quote to Joe the plumber?

Posted by: tdobson at August 28, 2011 11:05 AM
Comment #328335
Just ask our president. Or should I drag out his quote to Joe the plumber?

I disagreed with what Obama said there. I’m on the Left though and I say it’s not DC’s job to redistribute wealth directly. Maybe they can do it indirectly; perhaps by eliminating inequities in access to education for children, but I don’t think people should be able to live their whole lives receiving a check from the government.

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 28, 2011 11:10 AM
Comment #328336

I would say that puts you in the minority of the left.

I guess spreading your GPA out indirectly would be OK, then?

Posted by: tdobson at August 28, 2011 11:14 AM
Comment #328337

dbs-
So, what is it, you want government, but you insist government can’t obligate people to yield up a portion of their wealth to support it? That’s fantasy land politics.

Let’s put it plainly: people have no moral right, and no practical claim to government, to the protection of property, if they will not pay taxes. Governments that have tried to govern under your model just weren’t capable of exercising their authority, and were therefore of no use to people. That’s part of why the Framers went into the Constitutional Convention to reshape the Articles of Confederation.

You’re treating a few percentage points rise in the taxes of the upper class as if it were a Soviet revolution. I mean, it won’t even match what was under the first term of the Reagan administration. But there you go! This isn’t a relevant concern. It’s just rhetorical excess. You’re nowhere near to describing an actual event, so why the rest of us should share your view that it’s Marxist, when even decidedly capitalistic Republicans have set higher tax rates than this, is beyond me.

By the way, calling an argument weak doesn’t make it so. You have to actually convince others that their arguments are weak, and so far you’ve failed.

As for GPA? Quit it. Wealth isn’t all earned, in fact, the accumulation of wealth is not particular dependent on Merit. The Hedge Fund managers who helped crash the economy enjoy large fortunes despite the harm they caused the economy, as do many of the non-bank lenders. You don’t need to do something worthwhile to make a million dollars, hell you can be CEO of an underperforming company, and get tossed out on your ear for that, and you’ll still get a big golden parachute.

The comparison is faulty. You talk about the fruits of their labor, but is that really true? Or are we talking about the fruits of the labor of all their employees and customers? What did they do, besides take the fruits that some had, the work that others had, and manage that?

This is not to say executives and rich people don’t earn everything they get. It just means they don’t have to. They can make money without really doing other people good, or doing a lot of work, much less productive work.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 28, 2011 11:23 AM
Comment #328338
I guess spreading your GPA out indirectly would be OK, then?

That doesn’t make any sense because GPA isn’t a medium of exchange (we already went over this). The closest analogy would be to mandate that I tutor my peers before awarding me my grade points.

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 28, 2011 11:25 AM
Comment #328339

“The closest analogy would be to mandate that I tutor my peers before awarding me my grade points.”

No, that would apply if it were mandated that I help someone else make money before I got paid.

Posted by: tdobson at August 28, 2011 11:34 AM
Comment #328340

And yey a GPA IS a medium of exchange. You perform in EXCHANGE for a GPA that equals your effort.

Posted by: tdobson at August 28, 2011 11:37 AM
Comment #328341

stephen

“So, what is it, you want government, but you insist government can’t obligate people to yield up a portion of their wealth to support it? That’s fantasy land politics.”


we’re talking about contributing a portion of thier money to support gov’t opperation. EVERYONE should contribute. to look at the wealthy as a gov’t reserve fund, to be tapped when gov’t wants to spend more than it has is wrong.


“people have no moral right, and no practical claim to government, to the protection of property, if they will not pay taxes.”


who said anything about paying NO taxes? by your very own words you would take away gov’t services from those who through the tax code PAY NO INCOME TAX AT ALL. wow….that’s really harsh.


“By the way, calling an argument weak doesn’t make it so. You have to actually convince others that their arguments are weak, and so far you’ve failed.”


sorry stephen, warped is quite capable of laying out a well explained argument, and has done so on many occassions. to throw out a list of gov’t agencies, and claim the rich use them more without explaining how is weak.


“You talk about the fruits of their labor, but is that really true? Or are we talking about the fruits of the labor of all their employees and customers?”


who builds the business which costomers patronize which creates the need for employees in the first place? who assumes the financial risk? who makes all the important decisions that determine whether the business succeeds or fails, thus keeping the employees in a paycheck? you act as if financial success is something that just happens, and there are no mitigating factors.

“What did they do, besides take the fruits that some had, the work that others had, and manage that?”


why is it that they did this, but all thier employees did not? could it be drive and determination?


“They can make money without really doing other people good, or doing a lot of work, much less productive work.”


really…..how can you make money without creating a benefit to someone else? whether you’re creating physical object, or creating a return on investment, you are creating something that is useful to someone else.

Posted by: dbs at August 28, 2011 11:53 AM
Comment #328343

warped


“That doesn’t make any sense because GPA isn’t a medium of exchange”


actually when used as a comparison, the way tdobson has. it is. would you accept the taking of one grade point against your will to be givin to a fellow student currently failing, in order to make sure they pass to be fair? after all isn’t failure a strong motivator?

Posted by: dbs at August 28, 2011 12:05 PM
Comment #328344

tdobson,

Lets look at this from a different perspective. If you have a society in which its wealth is increasingly concentrated in a very small percentage of its population, what do you think will be the long term consequences for that society? Do you not perceive that it will result in a concentration of power in a small, elite segment of the population? Do you not think that such a concentration would threaten a democratic based political system?

Conservatives always interpret calls for wealth re-distribution as simply taking from the rich and giving to the rest. However, what most progressives are really concerned about is creating an economic system in which income and wealth flow more equitably throughout the population.

In recent decades, the post war economic expansion of the middle class and the softening of the wealth gap has reversed. Indeed, middle class wages have stagnated and the percent of the nation’s wealth captured by the upper 10% has accelerated in the last three decades. The amount of the nation’s wealth now controlled by just 1% is staggering. I don’t know about you, but I always considered that the strength of the US was in its large and growing middle class. Spreading the wealth around can mean a lot of things.

Posted by: Rich at August 28, 2011 12:07 PM
Comment #328345

Rich,

Let’s look at it from my perspective first.

I’ll ask you the same question. If you were in school and had a GPA of 4.0, would you be willing to give up part of your GPA to someone with a lessor GPA? It’s a simple question.

Posted by: tdobson at August 28, 2011 12:13 PM
Comment #328346
would you accept the taking of one grade point against your will

This is a contradiction. It won’t be against my will because I’m accepting it.


givin to a fellow student currently failing, in order to make sure they pass

I’d accept doing that, but I fail to see the purpose. The failing student won’t be helped with my grade point. Giving the student my grade point wouldn’t give the student my study habits, nor would it transfer my knowledge. If such GPA transfers were routine then the value of GPA would be quite different. Employers would no longer use GPA to evaluate potential new hires.

quote text


I said earlier that the rich utilize government services more. I listed a few examples of government services utilized by wealthier people more than poorer people, but you didn’t even attempt a rebuttal. I guess I’ll have to spell it out to you:

The military: The reason we have a military is to ward off a foreign invasion. Such a foreign invasion would have dramatic negative consequences for people who are currently wealthy and own lots of assets. People who aren’t that wealthy wouldn’t be impacted all that much (relatively) by an invading army. Thus, the money we spend on the military primarily benefits the rich.

The courts (and our entire justice system): The rich have assets and our justice system is the only thing preventing the poor from taking it by force. Seems like a good deal for the rich to me.

Public Safety: The rich have more assets so they receive more benefits from agencies such as NOAA, USGS etc that warn us of impeding natural disasters.

Transportation: Government built transportation infrastructure aids wealthy business owners with lots of goods to ship far more than any layperson.

Other: Many corporations utilize the results of government sponsored research in their products. I doubt that most poor people even read about the results of all that research.

I could go on, but I’ll save you the trouble of having to read paragraph after paragraph.

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 28, 2011 12:55 PM
Comment #328347
And yey a GPA IS a medium of exchange. You perform in EXCHANGE for a GPA that equals your effort.

I’m hungry right now and can’t eat hot food due to Irene. Can I exchange my grade points for some hot food?

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 28, 2011 12:59 PM
Comment #328348

I’m president of the university you attend. I’ll trade you a hot dog in exchange for your 4 years of hard study instead of a good GPA.

We can play these games all day. Let’s get beyond that. A GPA is a valuable asset to a student which he works very hard to aquire. Do we agree on that? Money is a valuable asset to me that I work very hard to aquire. Can we agree on that? Just as you are unwilling to give up the fruits of your labor, I am too. It’s really that simple.

Posted by: tdobson at August 28, 2011 1:19 PM
Comment #328349

tdobson-
This GPA thing is a crock. Basically you assume that wealth must be earned the same way a GPA is earned, and that the merit of what a person does varies directly with that score.

Ah, if I make a million dollars a year, I must be doing something of stupendous importance, that does a tremendous amount of economic good!

Yet we see executives bailing out of failing or underperforming companies with golden parachutes, or taking pay raises while their company’s profits remain flat. Merit does not directly vary with pay.

So, a GPA is not like a salary. People don’t have to necessarily do anything of value to be paid well. Even the notion that high-paid executives get more money because they’re making more money for the business doesn’t necessarily wash. Many practically ruin their businesses, but get paid big anyways.

It’s a myth used to justify an elitist system, used to justify lightening the burden on those who can afford it, in order to shift it on the backs of those who can’t. It’s not marxist to point it out, it’s simple economics.

By the way, a GPA is not a medium of exchange. How do I know thia? Because you can’t, say, hand them back points from your GPA to get them to forgive student loan debt, or to get additional classes. It’s an actual measure of performance, or at least it’s meant to be.

Our currency is a medium of exchange. Somebody handed me money for the work I did last week, and I exchanged that for the food I will eat during the week, some socket and crescent wrenches, and some entertainment. The grocery stores, record companies, computer companies, and tool companies will receive that money, and pay it on to employees, executives, debtholders and shareholders.

The Conservative/Libertarian viewpoint on things is rather one-sided these days. They don’t consider the need for customers, being supply side-oriented. They see it as a lack of companies able to invest, rather than recognizing that companies won’t invest or hire if customers are unable to pay for goods. They don’t see that in the mad rush to shift so many burdens and make so much money off of people, irrespective of their ability to pay, Wall Street and corporate America strangled people’s ability to afford much more than the basics.

Wealth is in a constant state of redistribution, but even if the Rich were taxed more, where do you think the money would go? If you redestribute it to the poor, in small part, what do you think they do with the money?

They spend it. They spend it on paying their bills, they spend it on paying for groceries, they spend it on the services people use when looking for work.

Who perform those services? Private companies. Companies which then turn around and pay the salaries of workers, executives, debtholders and shareholder.

Oh, and of course, Uncle Sam. Who then turns around, gives money to people, and the whole cycle starts all over again.

A little bit of redistribution, especially in a time of need, is not a bad thing. Trust me, rich people will find ways to remain rich, find ways to take advantage of the new situation. Redistribution does not cancel out re-concentration.

But having that dollar pass through more hands means that the dollar is stimulating, encouraging, rewarding more economic activity.

Capitalists, I think, (in the old sense of the word) can’t be allowed to keep capitalism all to themselves. a modicum of redistribution helps cushion the rises and falls of the system, and helps give the average American a greater stake in the continued functioning and freedom of the system. People believe that capitalism can work for them.

If the system doesn’t live up to that, well then, you’re encouraging socialism, real socialism with real seizure of the means of production by the government, rather than what are essentially transfer payments. Like Adam Smith might tell you, people will tolerate, even love a capitalist system that doesn’t work entirely fairly with them, if they get the idea that through hard work and effort, they can raise their status. Your system reinforces the inequalities, and thereby reinforces the belief that Capitalism is a suckers bet for a person of the lower socioeconomic classes.

I like capitalism, actually. I’m comfortable with the idea of people getting rich, being rewarded for being productive. Most of what I support is about making sure that the people who make money, make it the right way, for the right reasons, and do good for other people in the process, which is how an economy is supposed to work, not parasitically, where one small group of people ruin the fortunes of many to gain their wealth. That wealth can be a reward for behavior of merit does not mean it must be.

I believe we must define in law what is economic behavior worthy of reward. Being responsible with other people’s money should be rewarded, not taking excessive risks while pretending their investments are safe. We should reward those who make sure the average shareholder’s value remains intact, not those who cheat the other shareholders by bailing out before a calamity they know is coming strikes the business and takes it down (like Enron, for example)

Regulation in my opinion is about making sure that we’re exchanging value for value, not being cheated or vampirically drained by those who profit because they exploit the loopholes and cheats in the system. Social services and entitlements, in in my opinion, are about making sure that the inevitable strains of mortality and poverty don’t drag down people, and exaggerate the differences between the haves and the have nots.

It’s about dealing with the age-old commitments to take care of the sick, the old, and the disabled in a way that works in our modern society.

It’s not about dragging down the rich and making them equal. I don’t see the point, and from my perspective, the studies indicate that folks would reconcentrate wealth again, even if we went whole-hog into communism. There will always be animals that are more equal than the other animals, to paraphrase Orwell.

What I’m talking about here is about creating a system where the masses can respond effectively to the way that the elites run the system, to the way they concentrate power and wealth. Rather than rob them of it, and just push the bump under the rug somewhere else, as would happen, we instead put obligations and responsibilities on those who hold wealth and power, and require them to sink some of that wealth and power back into helping people.

The desire for this dynamic is nothing new, and Marx is not the guy who came up with it, not by far. As long as power and wealth have been concentrated, the obligation to sink that wealth and power back into helping the masses, helping the disadvantage has been desired, if not attained.

Read your bible if you don’t believe me. Read what the Prophets say, what Jesus says, what his apostles and his followers say.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 28, 2011 1:26 PM
Comment #328350

tdobson,

“If you give up a part of your GPA you suffer by possibly not getting the job you want.”

I have a friend with several degrees, including a masters in organic chemistry. She now sells real estate.
The point you miss is that actually possessing a high GPA is virtually meaningless in the real world. Yes, some employers do look at a potential employee’s GPA as a benchmark of their abilities, but not all.
Plenty of very successful entrepreneurs. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, for instance, are both collage dropouts.
Would anybody argue their ability to succeed?

The question you should be asking is whether someone would give away some of the drive it took to acquire and maintain a high GPA.


dbs,

“that future would also include increasing his earning potential. if it didn’t he could flip burgers, or some other career that requires no formal education.”

See my comment to tdobson. With the economic downturn you can be sure that there are lots of folks with high GPAs flipping burgers or working similar menial jobs that require no formal education just to make ends meet.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 28, 2011 1:50 PM
Comment #328351

Stephen & Phx8

The correct formulation is a FOOLISH consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

We had a potential disaster. As Royal says, it is best to wait and find out what happened and what people need.

It is certainly NOT the job of the Federal government to make sure everybody is taken care of. We expect people to make reasonable preparations.

When big government moves in, a lot of stuff gets ripped off and wasted. Your trust in government is touching, especially because you so vehemently hate half or more of the American people who vote in people you don’t like.

And we should stop this hate speech. Calling Republicans terrorist etc. You know that if some crazy person attacks any Republicans it is all your fault for using such language. Through your speech, you are advocating deadly violence. At least that is what we hear from you guys when anybody criticizes a liberal in any similar way.

Posted by: C&J at August 28, 2011 1:57 PM
Comment #328352

SD,

I’m assuming nothing of the sort. All that I’m assuming is that a GPA is something of value that a student works hard to aquire. I work hard to aquire money. You want me to hand over more of my money than it takes to support the basic functions of government so the less fortunate can have more. I want you to hand over a small part of your GPA to the less fortunate who don’t have as high of a GPA.
No assumptions are necessary.

Posted by: tdobson at August 28, 2011 2:03 PM
Comment #328353

C&J,
First, while people certainly can and should take care of themselves when possible, and localities should do the same, and states as well, but that formulation does NOT apply to situations which affect large areas. There are situations which overwhelm local resources. In the latter case, We The People, through our government, can and should prepare, and then react, to situations which affect span large areas and involve us as a people.

And I most certainly will not stop referring to Republicans as economic terrorists. Economic terrorism is precisly what the GOP is doing. Precisely. The term fits perfectly in cases like the debt ceiling, the tornado in Joplin, Hurricane Irene, and so on.

Conservatives are threatening the public with economic harm if their ideological demands aren’t met. The economic harm can take the form of default, witholding aid from victims of natural disasters. Senate Majority Leader McConnell refers to this as the “new template” for dealing with the interests of the United States.

Recently Governor Perry referred to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve as treachorous and traitorous because he was taking action to stimulate the economy. The GOP and its conservatives are fully devoted to making absolutely certain the economy does badly prior to the election. Sometimes they seek to do harm passively, for example, by not passing legislation to create jobs, by literally doing nothing. Other times, this agenda becomes more aggressive. It becomes active economic terrorism by doing things such as refusing to provide aid to Joplin after a tornado unless funding for a green project was killed. It becomes more active still when the economic terrorists of the Republican Party proudly push for default on the US debt.

The GOP has lurched so far to the right that it barely makes sense to moderate Republicans anymore, never mind everyone else. Take, for example, GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman. He made it clear how he felt: default on US debt was intolerable. Huntsman is a Republican, he is not an economic terrorist, and his statements put him far outside of the conservative mainstream. The economic terrorists of the GOP, the far right, control the party, and believe in an alternate reality where science no longer applies, whether it involves topics like Global Warming or Evolution.

Posted by: phx8 at August 28, 2011 2:40 PM
Comment #328354


horses#!t ! he would be able to sell it to someone at school not making the cut, and needing to bolster thier GPA. but that’s not what we’re really talking about. he would be required to give away with no compensation that which he has worked hard for in order to support someone who has not. is that fair?

A medium of exchange that is only good if you are in school and you think my answer was horses#!t , really!

“You have to assume WR is going to school for the sole reason of earning a high GPA not to pursue and education that will see him through the future.”


that future would also include increasing his earning potential. if it didn’t he could flip burgers, or some other career that requires no formal education. that GPA represents success, and hard work. something potential employers look at. to say there is no connection is absolutely asinine.

When was the last time an application for employment asked for a GPA?


actually it’s a comparison. someone works hard to achieve, and is expected to surrender the fruits of thier labor to someone who didn’t. nothing illogical about it.

No dbs it is an old email story passed around from conservative to conservative. As far as the fruits of their labor you seem to have it backwards. It is the guy working for a living that have had his wages stagnate over the past 30 years that is not receiving the fruits of his labor. The wealthy investor class has gotten their money from investing while they are taxed at lower rates.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 28, 2011 2:40 PM
Comment #328356


Royal, my use of the word monarchy is in reference to the faction which is determined to use wealth to undermine the democratic process by buying our government and our court. The goal, to establish the market as monarch of America and eventually the world. I deem them the equivalent of people who use hostile tactics to take over a corporation and liquidate it’s assets.

For this end, they have bought virtually the entire Republican party and a working set of Democrats. In addition, they have used propaganda quite effectively to turn the people against each other and gain themselves a coalition of voters. Thus, they have a coalition that is willing to eliminate regulation of business and the governments ability to aid it’s citizens. In essence, the plan is to liquidate those aspects of government that do not aid wealth and the profit motive.

Last night, people could watch a pea brained criminal named Ollie North rant about Obama and his surrendering of our military to the NATO allies in relation to our involvement with the Libyan rebels, on Faux News. Or, they could have listened to a very intellectual assessment of the Middle East, which included Iran’s involvement, the uprisings in various Arab countries, Al Qaeda, Israel, etc., given by General James Mattis, Commander of U.S. Central Command, on CSPAN.

People had a choice, they could take in some good Fox propaganistic fiction or they could find out some interesting facts about the Middle East, a good insight into the quality of our military, and the respect it has earned from the common people of the Middle Eastern countries that we have troops in.

I was impressed by the general, his intelligence and his knowledge of the Middle East and the geopolitical situations.

Posted by: jlw at August 28, 2011 2:53 PM
Comment #328358

warped

“This is a contradiction. It won’t be against my will because I’m accepting it.”


thanks for the grammar lesson. you know what i meant. this is a cheap shot.

“Giving the student my grade point wouldn’t give the student my study habits,”


exactly, and transfering wealth will not transfer the work ethic needed to earn it. like i have said before, hunger is a strong motivator. if someone is not motivated enough to take care of themselves giving them a handout won’t change that. that is also a good reason to reject endless unemployment benefits.

“The military: The reason we have a military is to ward off a foreign invasion. Such a foreign invasion would have dramatic negative consequences for people who are currently wealthy and own lots of assets. People who aren’t that wealthy wouldn’t be impacted all that much (relatively) by an invading army. Thus, the money we spend on the military primarily benefits the rich.”


a foreign invasion would have a dramatic effect on everyone. do you really believe that the rich would be the only ones to be wiped out? do you believe that the middle class value the assets they’ve worked to attain less than do the rich? do you believe the loss of our freedoms would not be suffered by all americans? to argue that the military primarily benefits the wealthy is hogwash.


“The courts (and our entire justice system): The rich have assets and our justice system is the only thing preventing the poor from taking it by force. Seems like a good deal for the rich to me.”


so the poor don’t benefit from law enforcement? really? do you really believe they wouldn’t prey on each other? why do thugs generally prey on those in thier communities? why didn’t the rioters during the 92 LA riots travel to orange county where i lived and try to loot and burn there? the wealthy could afford to hire private security. do the courts not prosecute the wealthy, and the corrupt business owners when they have screwed the little guy? do we not provide free counsel to those who cannot afford thier own defense? once again your theory doesn’t hold water. all benefit from our legal system. BTW the poor would in your scenario would rob anyone with something worth taking.


“Public Safety: The rich have more assets so they receive more benefits from agencies such as NOAA, USGS etc that warn us of impeding natural disasters.”


once again you would have to assume that the poor and middle class value thier assets, and saftey less than the wealthy.


“Transportation: Government built transportation infrastructure aids wealthy business owners with lots of goods to ship far more than any layperson.”

yes wealthy business owners who provide jobs. workers and businesses generate tax revenue. with out the private sector creating a need, gov’t infrastructure would not be necessary. if the gov’t did not provide the infrastructure the private sector would out of necessity build it themselves. either way a certain amount of capital would be needed to provide it whether in private or gov’t hands.

“I said earlier that the rich utilize government services more.”

yes you did, and i have pointed out that it isn’t true.

Posted by: dbs at August 28, 2011 3:09 PM
Comment #328359

rocky


“With the economic downturn you can be sure that there are lots of folks with high GPAs flipping burgers or working similar menial jobs that require no formal education just to make ends meet.”


true, however when things get better as they eventually will the folks with the educations will be able to get better jobs. most of us at one time or another have dealt with these types of challenges. i’m currently in that boat. things have been a lot better, and also a lot worse. i am greatful what i have, even if it is not where i’de truely like to be.

Posted by: dbs at August 28, 2011 3:23 PM
Comment #328360

j2t2


“A medium of exchange that is only good if you are in school and you think my answer was horses#!t , really!”


a medium of exchange all the same. while i can’t trade a GPA for say a TV, i think someone failing would purchase grade points to prevent that if it were possible. i would think there many things with value inside thier own arenas that have no value outside of those arenas. trading things in a prison might fall into that category.

Posted by: dbs at August 28, 2011 3:29 PM
Comment #328361

SD writes; “I believe we must define in law what is economic behavior worthy of reward.”

Of course you do, and obama along with the democrat majority in congress, past and present, have been doing just that. How is that working out? In just the obama years trillions have been spent to control economic behavior and it has been a colossal failure.

Communism marketed as progressive thinking share the same underlying philosophical underpinning. That is, that government should control economic activity rather than the individual.

Free enterprise and individual endeavor are being stifled by regulation at present, and you call for more.

The call for “fairness” and “equality” often heard from liberals is nothing more than reducing everyone to the same level of misery. Unions have failed to attract new membership in the country over the past few decades for exactly the same reason. Unions will not allow any of their membership be rewarded by management for excellence in the workplace. It’s against the “law”. All must be mediocre or leave the union. To excel, is to be expelled.

SD and his like-minded thinkers wish to expel the industrious, the ambitious, the thinkers, the doers, the risk-takers, the savers, and those who love individual freedom from our society.

They are losing that battle…thank God.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 28, 2011 3:42 PM
Comment #328362
exactly, and transfering wealth will not transfer the work ethic needed to earn it. like i have said before, hunger is a strong motivator. if someone is not motivated enough to take care of themselves giving them a handout won’t change that. that is also a good reason to reject endless unemployment benefits.

Neither I nor anyone on the left advocates for endless handouts. You are fighting a strawman here.

do you believe that the middle class value the assets they’ve worked to attain less than do the rich?

No, Middle Class assets are not as valuable as the Upper Class’ assets. That’s why they are middle class (because their assets are worth less). Thus my point still stands, these services primarily benefit wealthier people, which is why they pay a higher tax rate.

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 28, 2011 3:43 PM
Comment #328363
so the poor don’t benefit from law enforcement? really? do you really believe they wouldn’t prey on each other? why do thugs generally prey on those in thier communities? why didn’t the rioters during the 92 LA riots travel to orange county where i lived and try to loot and burn there? the wealthy could afford to hire private security. do the courts not prosecute the wealthy, and the corrupt business owners when they have screwed the little guy? do we not provide free counsel to those who cannot afford thier own defense? once again your theory doesn’t hold water. all benefit from our legal system. BTW the poor would in your scenario would rob anyone with something worth taking.

The rich benefit from the justice system much more than poor. Think of all the patent claims that are litigated.

The 92 rioters didn’t travel to orange county because the wealthy people living there had adequate law enforcement protection. The poor in LA did not have adequate law enforcement, which is why the riots occurred there and the police stood by doing nothing. More evidence that this government service benefits the rich more than the poor (as it should).

yes wealthy business owners who provide jobs. workers and businesses generate tax revenue. with out the private sector creating a need, gov’t infrastructure would not be necessary. if the gov’t did not provide the infrastructure the private sector would out of necessity build it themselves. either way a certain amount of capital would be needed to provide it whether in private or gov’t hands.

Who cares? Government provided a service and the rich benefited far more than the poor. End of story.

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 28, 2011 3:59 PM
Comment #328364
if the gov’t did not provide the infrastructure the private sector would out of necessity build it themselves.

Not necessarily. If the benefits of the infrastructure are externalized, no one has any motivation to build it except the government.

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 28, 2011 4:10 PM
Comment #328365


dbs, I would be grateful if you, C&J, or some other conservative could provide me with the evidence proving that the peoples work ethic has deteriorated.

Welfare-wikipedia

“because TANF gave states increased flexibility in imposing time-limited welfare policies, the reforms implemented vary by state. Recent policy studies have found a statistically significant relationship between the racial makeup of a state’s welfare population and whether a state adopts tougher welfare policies. Aggressive get tough reforms include full-family sanctions, short time limits, and family cap policies. Essentially, as the percentage of blacks in the welfare population rises, the probability that the state will adopt full-family sanctions increased from 54 to 97 percent; the probability that the state will adopt a family cap increases from 5 percent to 96 percent; and the probability that the state will adopt a shorter time limit than five years increases from 10 to 88 percent.

Posted by: jlw at August 28, 2011 4:18 PM
Comment #328366


Warped, don’t you mean not externalized rather than externalized?

Externalized as in toll roads and bridges. The governor of Ohio is planning for a lot of toll booths. In this way, the poor man pays as much to get to work as the rich man does. Toll booths and an increase in the sales tax = elimination of the income tax. More bang for the buck for the rich man, more bucks for the bang for the poor man.

Posted by: jlw at August 28, 2011 4:45 PM
Comment #328367


Warped, sorry, I was thinking of costs rather than benefits.

Posted by: jlw at August 28, 2011 4:49 PM
Comment #328369

I was graded for a number of years on a strict bell shaped curve. It is the fairest method for distributing grades based on competitive merit. If our wealth distribution was anything like a bell shaped grading curve, there would be little problem with a “wealth gap.” Unfortunately, it is not. It is more like a university in which the grading system is highly skewed toward the bottom end of the grading spectrum. A system in which only one student can attain an A, a handful a B and the vast majority C or below.

Posted by: Rich at August 28, 2011 6:10 PM
Comment #328370


a medium of exchange all the same. while i can’t trade a GPA for say a TV, i think someone failing would purchase grade points to prevent that if it were possible.

“To serve as a measure of value, a medium of exchange, be it a good or signal, needs to have constant inherent value of its own or it must be firmly linked to a definite basket of goods and services. It should have constant intrinsic value and stable purchasing power.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_of_exchange

And in the real world a person cannot trade for a few points of another person’s GPA therefore the GPA is not a medium of exchange.

However like wealth, a good GPA can be gotten honestly or dishonestly. A good GPA can signify hard work as can wealth. Or it can signify an ability to guess the right answer on a test or tests much as wealth can signify being in the right place at the right time without any sweat off the brow. The question Tdobson wants answered:

For all of you who want the “rich” to keep paying for everything, I have one question.

When you are or were going to school, If you had a GPA of 4.0, would you be willing to give up a portion of that to give to someone with a GPA of 2.0?

amounts to “A diversionary tool and an illogical conservative argument that didn’t make sense then nor does it now.”

The real conservative talking point is the wealthy earn their money by working many times harder than those who don’t have as much money. As a blanket statement this to is “A diversionary tool and an illogical conservative argument that didn’t make sense then nor does it now.”

Posted by: j2t2 at August 28, 2011 6:21 PM
Comment #328371

Phx8

MOST of the dire predictions don’t come to pass. We should indeed be ready to help, but what you and Stephen are talking about is preemptive help for things that may not happen.

The other part is the idea that government should always step in. I agree that we should deploy Federal resources to prop up infrastructure and extent security, if needed. But we need not make everyone whole for everything via the Federal government. You have insurance if you house burns down. You don’t deserve special Federal help. The same goes for bigger disasters. Again, the Feds should help restore the community, to the extent that is really necessary, but it should be the last resort. And the Feds have no business bailing out improvident individuals or firms.

Re continuing to call Republicans terrorists – okay, but next time someone calls liberals something, you have no complaint coming and if any nut case that might have heard your rhetoric does anything at all, we will apply the usual liberal blame to you guys.

Jlw

If a majority of the people vote for something and they can vote it out it cannot be a monarchy. It is interesting how liberals dislike the will of the people. You can say that if you want. You can say that as a liberal you distrust the majority of the people. In that way, you are calling for an oligarchy, if not a monarchy. But if you apply the term monarchy to an election by the majority of voters you are losing track of the term.

Re work ethic – I think the general work ethic if fine. We have lowered the price of being lazy. It approaches a tautology. If you have a good work ethic, you will work. If you cannot find a paying job, you will be active in your community and/or doing useful things. This would imply that a neighborhood with high unemployment would be very clean and tidy, as all those folks w/o stead jobs would pick up garbage and keep the place policed. Do you find that to be true?

Posted by: C&J at August 28, 2011 6:21 PM
Comment #328372

This would imply that a neighborhood with high unemployment would be very clean and tidy, as all those folks w/o stead jobs would pick up garbage and keep the place policed. Do you find that to be true?

Posted by: C&J at August 28, 2011 6:21 PM

Excellent point C&J. In my community we have many Hispanics. They assemble every weekday in front of the public library and are available for day labor at reasonable wages. Many are hired each day and rarely do I hear that any of them didn’t do an honest days labor.

In over ten years of passing by those assembled, and sometimes hiring a few, I have never…never…ever, seen a white person or a black person standing in the group looking for work.

I wonder why that is?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 28, 2011 6:37 PM
Comment #328373

I believe there is a flaw in the debate going on.

What do you mean upper class?
What do you mean middle class?
What do you mean lower class?

What country are you talking about?

This is the United States of America. There are no classes here!! We are all citizens!! There is no royalty!!

There are some who through their individual became wealthy thru shear knowledge and hard work. Why should they be mandated to share their assets with people they don’t even know just to show they are equal? Why should anybody be mandated to pay to the government monies that the government has mandated they owe because of their hard work? Why should doctors be mandated to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for insurance just to make a living and then pay thousands of dollars in taxes because the government has classified them in a particular way? Why does the government mandate that people who live on a single income of SS pay taxes on what they already payed taxes on?

This is the United States of America and too many above fail to recognize it. All they want is to be equal to somebody who has assets that are more attractive than their own, so the government should re-distribute some of those assets to people who are demanding to receive them because they don’t have what they want (not need).

The worker today is better off. Twenty years ago how many workers could buy a mobile phone? Twenty years ago how many drivers had vehicles 5 years old or newer? Twenty years ago how many workers owned computers? Twenty years ago how many workers were able to own the appliances and electronic devices so prevalent today? Did the wealth man help them do it? NO!! They did it on their own. It did not take asset re-distribution to allow people to do on their own what they wanted to do.

Now just as a general question and one that will knock the shoes, socks, shorts and shirt off of all of you. In thee last twenty how many new regulations are on the books aimed at people that have a high number of assets? I don’t have the number and if I did it would be debated. It is in the 10’s of thousands. And almost too a T they are restrictive.

That is our government at work trying to make things better for all of us. And as their track record shows so glaringly it is an abysmal failure that has put the country into a financial bind that is extremely dangerous.

The person who responds to this and tries to make a republican or democrat issue out of it is out of touch with reality. IT IS NOT A PARTY ISSUE!!!

Posted by: tom humes at August 28, 2011 6:41 PM
Comment #328374

C&J,
Federal aid v individual effort is not an either/or type of argument. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I have given thought to what you said, and whether it is fair to use the term “economic terrorist.” I have considered it, and I still believe it is fair. That does not apply to all Republicans, such as presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, but it does apply to many.

In the next few months, I believe the conservative Republicans will launch an economic attack on the Obama administration, with the goal of ensuring a bad economy going into the 2012 elections. Right now, my best guess is a government shutdown over budget negotitations. The immediate cause is almost incidental. Really, it’s just a matter of accomplishing that overriding goal: harm the economy in order to improve GOP chances. Remember, “Obama must fail.” That is according to Rush Limbaugh. Senate Majority McDonnell has also said that the single most important thing for Republicans is to prevent Obama’s re-election. Period. The best way to do that is to undermine the economy. The calculation is that the Republicans will not be held responsible, or that the blame will be split evenly or even fall mainly on Obama; in any case, the GOP is counting on the public to forget come election time. After all, most people do not understand economics, and some do not even believe in such a thing as fiscal policy. The calculation is that, a year from now, the details of the impending economic attack will no longer be remembered, and only the pain of the here and now will be taken into account in the voting booth.

Count on it.

Posted by: phx8 at August 28, 2011 6:46 PM
Comment #328375

Sorry phx8, you have it wrong about defeating obama. Conservatives wish to defeat his plans for America. To do that, we must defeat him and his liberal party followers.

Should obama suddenly become a conservative, he could very well receive my vote. But, that’s just magical thinking.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 28, 2011 6:54 PM
Comment #328376

RF,
“Conservatives wish to defeat his plans for America.”

I dont’ think so. If the conservatives pitched reasonable alternatives and stood them side by side for comparison with Obama’s agenda, then that might be the case; however, conservatives have reflexively opposed virtually every move Obama has made, even when the moves are consistent with conservative goals. In a case like the Ryan budget, the GOP pitched its alternative and almost every Republican voted for it, yet when called on the issues, most members of the GOP deny the budget does what it says.

A few years ago, there was no such thing as a Republican “fiscal hawk,” and conservative voices were utterly silent about issues such as debt and deficits. Conservatives said nothing, nothing, about the outsourcing of jobs. Today, debts and deficits seem to take priority over economic growth, jobs, and anything likely to stimulate the economy.

Posted by: phx8 at August 28, 2011 8:09 PM
Comment #328377

“It did not take asset re-distribution to allow people to do on their own what they wanted to do.”

Nope, it took debt. Willingly granted by the banking sector and willingly held by the investment class. The private sector debt to GDP ratio in 2008 hit unprecedented levels (350%) not seen since just before the Great Depression. In the absence of growth in wages, how else did the average Joe acquire all those cell phones, McMansions, SUVs, etc.? Now what?

Posted by: Rich at August 28, 2011 9:06 PM
Comment #328378
Why should they be mandated to share their assets with people they don’t even know just to show they are equal?
They are not mandated to share their money with others, Tom. They are mandated to pay taxes. This argument is a red herring. Every one pay taxes, rich and poor alike.


Why should anybody be mandated to pay to the government monies that the government has mandated they owe because of their hard work?

The government doesn’t mandate anyone to pay due to their hard work Tom this is nonsensical. They are mandated to pay for the amount of income the earn whether by hard work or by crook.


Why should doctors be mandated to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for insurance just to make a living and then pay thousands of dollars in taxes because the government has classified them in a particular way?

please be specific Tom, classified how?


Why does the government mandate that people who live on a single income of SS pay taxes on what they already payed taxes on?

Because it is income Tom. Just like unemployment. Perhaps the answer is ask your fellow conservatives to quit whining about the rich being mistreated and change this.

The worker today is better off.
Oh really Tom. I am sure they will be happy to hear this nonsense.

Twenty years ago how many workers could buy a mobile phone?

SO what how many workers today can buy a 8 track cassette. A cell phone does not make a worker better off Tom when it takes more hours of work to pay the rent and to buy food.


Twenty years ago how many drivers had vehicles 5 years old or newer?
More than today Tom.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/03/average-age-of-vehicles-in-the-us-highest-in-15-years/1

Twenty years ago how many workers owned computers?

SO what, this does not make them financially better off. It simply means computers have come down in price over the years. Who needed a computer 20 years ago Tom?

Twenty years ago how many workers were able to own the appliances and electronic devices so prevalent today?

Tom what nonsense, if they were not available 20 years ago who cares. The fact is wages are stagnant, money is increasingly in the hands of the top 1% and many are out of work. They don’t have it better today unless you consider electronic gizmo’s the ultimate test of better off.


Posted by: j2t2 at August 28, 2011 10:24 PM
Comment #328379

Somebody said it before me. Ignorance is bliss.

Posted by: tom humes at August 28, 2011 11:14 PM
Comment #328380

tom humes,

“Twenty years ago how many workers owned computers?”

20 years ago computers were slow and clunky. In 1994 I bought my first computer, and not knowing any better I bought a SX with a 60 meg hard drive and 5 meg of ram. Oh, and it was used and I paid $800 for it. The Internet was dial-up and virtually useless because it was so slow.

20 years ago I wore a pager and had to find a pay phone to return a call. Cell phones were virtually non-existent, and those that were available were heavy and expensive. The Motorola DynaTAC originally went on sale in 1983, was still popular in 1991, and had a retail price of $3,995. The battery was good for an hour, and that only after a 10 hour charge.
It weighed 3 pounds.
Also cell service 20 years ago was extremely limited and outrageously expensive.
I recently bought a Blackberry for $49 that has more than 1000 times more computing power than the SX I bought used 20 years ago for 16 times the price, and it weighs a few ounces.

It’s not called ignorance tom, it’s called progress.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 29, 2011 5:55 AM
Comment #328381
Somebody said it before me. Ignorance is bliss. Posted by: tom humes at August 28, 2011 11:14 PM

Before you or about you Tom? Seems to me that instead of your non-response you could defend your comments…

Posted by: j2t2 at August 29, 2011 8:34 AM
Comment #328383

SD, WR et al: Your comments indicate that the rich receive additional governmental benefits and should be happy to pay more. Let’s accept this premise for a moment. How much should they pay, and at what threshold? I presume the threshold will have to reach low enough to fund all the items you wish to fund, as previous data I have seen discussed in this forum indicates that confiscating all of the wealth of the “rich” (say $1 million or more) would not fund the government for very long. So, if you make $150,000, what should be your federal tax rate? $250,000? $500,000? $1 million or more? The discussions on this thread are not very meaningful unless they have some real numbers.

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at August 29, 2011 10:20 AM
Comment #328384

Mike in Tampa-
Most Democrats are talking about starting by ending the tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year, ending tax breaks for oil companies and the like. The numbers are out there.

And really, with most of the wealth and most of the income, the top few percent won’t be hurting if we return things to how they were under Clinton.

Your people made two promises you could not keep at the same time: that taxes would never go up and that you would resolve the deficit.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 29, 2011 11:59 AM
Comment #328385

Mike in Tampa,

I think a return to Clintonian tax rates would be sufficient. Any further deficit reduction should come from spending cuts. However, I do think additional brackets should be created for incomes in excess of a million, billion etc… However, no tax bracket should ever have a marginal rate above 50%.

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 29, 2011 12:05 PM
Comment #328386

C&J-

The correct formulation is a FOOLISH consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

False, foolish, small, little…

Don’t get hung up on a paraphrasing. Emerson would probably not disagree that Eric Cantor’s fiscal conservatism is a hateful example of a foolish consistency, insisted upon by a little mind.

You fume about hate-speech, but why are Democrats calling Republican’s terrorists, or saying they are hostage takers? Because they are putting their political goals ahead of the good of the country, and using the threat of leaving the duties of the the government unmet, simply to extort more of what they wanted out of Obama and the Senate.

The GOP’s judgment on these matters has become practically psychopathic, callous to most measures of human decency.

No matter how heated the rhetoric from the Democrats is, it doesn’t change how awful the Republican’s positions are, and how it makes Cantor and others worthy of an terrible political fate.

I don’t personally hate most Republicans. I befriended plenty of conservatives in my time, many are decent people. The political leadership of the right, and the manner in which they mislead people and help trainwreck the government’s response to this nation’s current problems, though, has earned quite a bit of hatred from me.

Tell that SOB Cantor to take those insane strings off of disaster funding. Did you know that funds are being diverted from repairing and rebuilding Joplin in order to respond to this Hurricane? Has it occured to you that you’re not defeating big government here, but making people nostalgic for a time when our government responded promptly and without argument to the needs of its people?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 29, 2011 12:58 PM
Comment #328387

WR: I have no problem with return to Clinton tax rates, with sufficient cuts in spending to return to Clinton budgets. I suspect you would have to include everyone (all brackets, even under $250k), rather than just the “rich” to have a balanced budget with eventual reduction in deficits. My opinion is that everyone should pay federal taxes, even if a very low rate, so they have a dog in the fight. If we eliminated payroll withholding and made people mail a check to the feds every week, you would then see real interest in fiscal responsibility.

SD: RE: “Your people” - that phrase is tiresome. More correctly “our people” are the problem. The Rs have only recently found solice in balancing the budget. The Ds never have, and don’t appear to have any intention of really doing so. (PS: I happen to be a registered Democrat, although I can’t say that I have had any reason to vote for one in the recent past.)

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at August 29, 2011 1:09 PM
Comment #328388

WR: I have no problem with return to Clinton tax rates, with sufficient cuts in spending to return to Clinton budgets. I suspect you would have to include everyone (all brackets, even under $250k), rather than just the “rich” to have a balanced budget with eventual reduction in deficits. My opinion is that everyone should pay federal taxes, even if a very low rate, so they have a dog in the fight. If we eliminated payroll withholding and made people mail a check to the feds every week, you would then see real interest in fiscal responsibility.

SD: RE: “Your people” - that phrase is tiresome. More correctly “our people” are the problem. The Rs have only recently found solice in balancing the budget. The Ds never have, and don’t appear to have any intention of really doing so. (PS: I happen to be a registered Democrat, although I can’t say that I have had any reason to vote for one in the recent past.)

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at August 29, 2011 1:10 PM
Comment #328389

tdobson-
It’s valued as a measurement, but you can only use it to attain a degree with higher honors and graduation. it’s not a medium of exchange like dollars are.

And that means your analogy is flawed. It’s also flawed because we can think of plenty of example of people who got money who didn’t earn it, and there’s nothing about the nature of the dollar, when applied properly, that counterbalances that.

The money won’t save, won’t accumulate in the hands of the less fortunate, because it’s a medium of exchange, and the poor will exchange just about everything they can get to buy the shelter, the food, the other necessary items they need to get by.

And who will that money filter back to? Well, all the rest of the taxpayers. Most aid to the poor is spent here, and contributes to the economy here.

Royal Flush-
The stimulus added jobs, added points to growth, took points from unemployment, and yielded twice as much GDP as it cost for the stimulus.

The Republican’s efforts have so far helped make the economy less stable, less prosperous, and have helped inch back up unemployment numbers that had been going down under Obama and the Democrats. While you can make vague statements about Obama’s regulations causing job losses, I can point directly to your Party’s literal job-killing activities, and quote people saying that they’re looking to knock down wages.

So throw your cliched rhetoric at your commie/pinko strawman, because your party’s record is no match for my party’s record.

I do believe we must define in law what economic behavior is worthy of reward. Should thieves and con artists prosper? Should abductors and murderers looking to inherit profit? Shouldn’t we have recourse against those who cheat us, or try to trap us in never ending personal debt?

Shouldn’t we discourage those who just create speculative froth in the markets, manipulating supply and demand instead of just simply judging it right?

You act as if I’m the enemy of productive economic behavior, but what I favor, above all other things, is concretely productive behavior.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 29, 2011 1:25 PM
Comment #328390

SD repeats his socialistic comment…”I do believe we must define in law what economic behavior is worthy of reward.”

He then asks, as if supporting his contention, if thieves, con artists abductors and murderers should profit.

He uses the word “WE” (of course that is government) as those who must decide if a currently legal economic behavior is worthy or not of reward.

Now of course, a cabinet level government Department of Business Ethics would be just great for the nation. Just imagine the budget of such a department and the numbers of investigators it could employ.

All decisions would of course, be after the fact. One can not determine, in advance, which economic behavior will succeed and be worthy of having its economic reward confiscated by government.

A legion of lawyers and the addition of hundreds of courts will greatly improve our nations GDP. Their salaries, of course, will be paid for with the profits of business deemed to employ unsavory economic behavior.

WOW…what a deal. The entrepreneurs and risk taking individuals will be encouraged to know that only after they have succeeded will they know if the Department of Ethics will allow them to reap their rewards.

I believe SD has invented a new “ism” slightly different than the old failed “socialism” and “communism”. It’s not even liberalism or progressiveism. We can just call it SADism.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 29, 2011 2:33 PM
Comment #328391

It is truly amazing to me how far union bias and political madness has fallen into the pit of ignorance and tyranny.

From the quotes in the article it would appear than only unions and democrats can represent labor. Unions now represent only a small percentage of our national labor force, yet, they wish to exclude those millions of non-union labor from any representation by their elected political leaders.

I guess this is just another desperate gasp from a failed political philosophy that places membership in a union above being “just” an American.

“WASHINGTON — A group of Wisconsin union officials has voted to ban Republican politicians from a local Labor Day parade, underscoring how partisan the state has become in the wake of this year’s clashes over collective bargaining rights.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/republicans-banned-labor-day-parade-wisconsin_n_939879.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk1%7C90427

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 29, 2011 3:55 PM
Comment #328393

“The Rs have only recently found solice in balancing the budget. The Ds never have, and don’t appear to have any intention of really doing so.”

Mike,

It was Clinton, a Democrat, who proposed the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 cutting federal expenditures over a multi-year period and raising taxes primarily on high income groups. It was a Democratic Congress that passed the Act without one Republican vote. It was a political death sentence for some Democrats that voted for the measure. But it turned out to be the right thing under the circumstances of the time. The Clinton administration was the only administration in modern time to achieve a balanced budget with the exception of the LBJ administration in 1968, another Democrat.

Now, what’s the track record of Republicans on a balanced budget. Reagan? He tripled the national debt and ran record deficits throughout his administration. He never once proposed a balanced budget to Congress. Did Bush I or Bush II run balanced budgets? Nope. Bush II doubled the national debt during his terms. His last budget of fiscal 2008-2009 was the largest deficit in modern history ($1.4 trillion). To be fair, Bush I proposed a deficit reduction act and agreed to raising taxes to control the deficit legacy of Reagan. But, what did that get him? Nothing but scorn from his own party.

I am not suggesting that a balanced budget is desirable in these economic times. When the private sector cannot or will not increase its borrowing to increase the money supply and aggregate demand, then the federal government becomes the borrower of last resort in order to keep the economy functioning. Reagan cut taxes and increased deficit spending to stimulate the economy during a severe recession. He was a fiscal Keynesian in practice.


Posted by: Rich at August 29, 2011 5:47 PM
Comment #328394

Some rely upon the past to blame others and predict the future. That’s a risky strategy when a nations future depends upon being right…as failure is not an option.

It seems that some also can’t, or won’t, face the reality that we have tremendous burdens in the form of entitlements that are looming just ahead

Taxing the rich won’t make a dent in these expected multi-trillion dollar deficits. And, spending more money we don’t have won’t help either.

Free the private sector to pursue their goals without increasing taxes and by reducing regulations. Just releasing our fossil fuel industry would give us a robust economy in a short period of time.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 29, 2011 6:15 PM
Comment #328395
Free the private sector to pursue their goals without increasing taxes and by reducing regulations.

It was just this that got us into financial crisis Royal. Why would you think this “hair of the dog that bit you” would work any better this time around?

Just releasing our fossil fuel industry would give us a robust economy in a short period of time.

They are released Royal, have been, yet no robust economy. If you want to free somebody free those that have had their economic liberty taken away by stagnant wages for years. The chamber of commerce and it minions have damaged the country not the working class.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charlie-cray/40-years-ago-this-week-th_b_935486.html

Posted by: j2t2 at August 29, 2011 6:37 PM
Comment #328396

“It seems that some also can’t, or won’t, face the reality that we have tremendous burdens in the form of entitlements that are looming just ahead.”

Royal Flush,

Oddly, both liberals and conservatives agree on the major driver of the long term entitlement deficit: runaway health cost inflation and its impact on Medicare and Medicaid.

But, there is a difference of opinion on how that problem should be addressed. The conservative approach is exemplified by the Ryan long term budget deficit reduction proposal which targets projected future health cost inflation to reduce the deficit: transfer the inflationary cost above general inflation to individuals, states and local government. It is a great plan for reducing the federal deficit but a lousy plan for seniors, the disabled, states and local government.

Progressives on the other hand recognize that health care is not optional luxury and advocate reformation of the health care financing system and adopting one of the proven strategies implemented in every other developed nation. No other developed nation has this problem. Just take a minute on the attached link and plug in any other advanced nations health care financing system and recognize the degree to which our long term deficit problem is related to health care and how unnecessary it is. http://www.cepr.net/calculators/hc/hc-calculator.html

Posted by: Rich at August 29, 2011 6:49 PM
Comment #328399


Perhaps the Wisconsin GOP and it’s tea party affiliates can stage their own labor day parade with reasonably waged day workers. You could have loudspeakers and floats announcing the superiority of Mexican day laborers over American labor.

Posted by: jlw at August 29, 2011 9:02 PM
Comment #328402
It is truly amazing to me how far union bias and political madness has fallen into the pit of ignorance and tyranny.

Ya know Royal when I read that article in the Huffpo about the parade in Wisconsin I thought it was long overdue. The bias and madness from the repub leaders in Wisconsin towards public service workers is the epitome of ignorance if you ask me. To invite these repubs would be hypocritical. Let the Chamber of Commerce have a parade for the fascist.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 29, 2011 10:14 PM
Comment #328404

Royal Flush-
And I thought I was imaginative.

I don’t need to reinvent the wheel in order to see the market better regulated, better drawn towards productive behavior. Washington has more than enough agencies that deal with the way America does business.

You seem intent on interpreting my comment to mean all kinds of silly crap, but it really boils down to honesty, to consumers, investors, and others who do business get their money’s worth, to the degree the market fails to manage it by itself.

As for Republicans in Wisconsin not getting invited to the Labor Day parade…

Well, damn, mister, it doesn’t occur to you that spending the past year union-busting might not endear you to LABOR?

Your shock and outrage has me on the floor laughing. It’s called Labor Day. Labor. As in Unions and workers. That’s who helped found the holiday, that’s what was meant to be celebrating.

And now you play the victim because the people you spent the last year kicking the crap out of have decided that it would be in poor taste to have your people march in a LABOR day parade. What’s next, are you going to object to Ku Klux Clan members being excluded from Martin Luther King Jr. Day parades?

If you’re going to spend the last year trying to destroy public unions in Wisconsin, don’t be mystified or angry when you get the cold shoulder from Labor, because you earned it.

Some rely upon the past to blame others and predict the future.

Wow. A lot of people do. Perhaps it’s because the past usually contains whatever the hell you’re trying to hold somebody responsible for. Perhaps it’s also because the world has order in it, and many things tend to happen the same way, if you start doing the same things.

There is no strategy without risk for guessing how the world will work when you carry out a plan. But if you actually look at how things work, you can see how they will turn out.

Reagan cut taxes, and deficits went up, despite the promises that everything would be made up by the offsets, an the expected economic boom, which didn’t come until long after the President signed a tax hike into law to clean up his own deficit mess.

Clinton raised taxes and reduced spending. Result? within the next decade, we were in surplus.

We already tried everything you’re talking about. You don’t get to talk your way out of this. Your policies fail, and willful amnesia will only bring more harsh lessons. We freed the Private sector, and that private sector nearly destroyed itself.

You’re committed to clinging to the failed and failing economics of the past. The rest of us, thankfully, are not.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 29, 2011 10:55 PM
Comment #328406

Stephen

Unions do not equal labor.

It is an interesting question today WHO is labor?

It used to be easy. Labor consisted of those who did hard physical work. Managers were those who told them what to do and owners reap the rewards and directed investments.

Today it is all mixed up. Workers are often also their own managers and owners work more than many “workers”.

In government it is even worse. Many government workers do the kind of work that managers do. Not many actually do hard physical labor. And the “owners” in the government are the people, which includes the workers.

In the classical formulation (which I know most liberals still believe) workers have to fight owners because owners are trying to capture too much of the workers’ value for themselves. If the owners are the people, is it bad if they get the benefit?

Finally, “workers” usually are thought to create something that yields profits for the “owners”. Few government activities are profit making. In fact, they are almost all costs. So we have a situation where the people are trying to limit their costs and a group of privileged “workers” are trying to get more from the people.

BTW - to the extent that Labor Day parades are public, nobody has the right to exclude Republicans. It is a form of bigotry. Those doing it are retrograde and should be ashamed of themselves. And you should be ashamed to be associated with such trogs.

Posted by: C&J at August 30, 2011 6:24 AM
Comment #328407

SD: “Clinton raised taxes and reduced spending.” More correctly - Clinton (and the House and Senate, forced by election results) raised taxes and reduced spending. I’m all in favor of mixed government. It forces reasonable compromises, in spite of the political gnashing of teeth and cries of doom and gloom.

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at August 30, 2011 8:07 AM
Comment #328409

C&J-
Unions don’t necessarily equal labor, but if you go back and look up the history of the holiday, you will find that it was first celebrated by a labor union, and then was made a national holiday as an olive branch to the labor movement.

As for things being mixed up? Well, of course in the real world, not everything is so clear, but your party recently has been using job titles or the fact that somebody might be supervising somebody as a way to justify treating them like labor, denying them overtime and things like that.

As for your shame tactics, don’t bother. These Republicans chose to deny rights to unions, to break them where they could. Marching in a Labor Day Parade, if it is not publically backed, I think should be a privilege, and one that is not maintained by trying to bust unions.

It’s funny, isn’t it? You want the power to do these things, to knock back unions, but you don’t want to suffer the loss of reputation or popularity that comes with it. Well, I’m sorry, but nobody’s obligated to like what you folks are doing with the country, and nobody in the unions has to give a prominent and praiseworthy position to an enemy, if they don’t have to.

I think Republicans need to realize that their policies are not as popular as they thought, and that they’re paying a price for what they’re doing, and what they’ve done.

You want to march in a Labor Day parade, support the unions, support labor. Otherwise, people might think it a little inappropriate.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 30, 2011 8:09 AM
Comment #328410

Mike in Tampa-
Clinton enacted the tax increases and many of the deficit cutting plans before Republicans took over.

In fact, Republicans used that issue against Democrats. Funny how it works, isn’t it, and predictive of what would happen when they finally got the White House.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 30, 2011 8:35 AM
Comment #328411

“More correctly - Clinton (and the House and Senate, forced by election results) raised taxes and reduced spending.”

Mike in Tampa,

That is not correct. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993, which raised taxes and cut spending, was proposed by Clinton and passed by a Democratic Congress without a single Republican vote. It was not a “mixed government” at the time. Democrats controlled both the executive and Congress. It preceded the Republican gains in 1994. It would never have passed with a Republican Congress due to the intransigence of Republicans on raising taxes.

Posted by: Rich at August 30, 2011 8:41 AM
Comment #328412


Attacking social programs and unions is retrograde and those doing it should be ashamed of themselves.

Troggs? We are all troggs, just because we ran out of cave space and had to make our own, means nothing. Put a fur coat on Rick Perry and you have the epitome of troglodyte.

“Wild Thing” “you make everything groovy” The Troggs.

Is it bigotry when you exclude bigots?

Republicans say they thought all could come together, in a state of harmony, for this celebration of labor. They were willing to curtail their attempts at destroying unions till after the holiday.

Posted by: jlw at August 30, 2011 8:47 AM
Comment #328413
In the classical formulation (which I know most liberals still believe) workers have to fight owners because owners are trying to capture too much of the workers’ value for themselves. If the owners are the people, is it bad if they get the benefit?

Nice spin C&J. The Owners are the people, The owners are “trying” to capture to much of the worker value, Thanks Mr. Orwell. The Owners are the ones sending jobs overseas. The people are the ones without these jobs. Pretty simple to me. The Owners are the ones that have actually benefited from the income inequality of the past 40 years.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 30, 2011 8:47 AM
Comment #328415

When do you know it’s time to stop supporting attempts to force disaster relief to be offset?

When Michael “Heckuva job, Brownie’ Brown endorses it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 30, 2011 1:35 PM
Comment #328416

SD writes; “Your shock and outrage has me on the floor laughing. It’s called Labor Day.”

Get off the floor and start crying…it is called Labor Day, not Union Day.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 30, 2011 2:33 PM
Comment #328417


U.S. Department of Labor:

“Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers.”

‘Some argue that the first person who “suggested a day of honor for American labor” was Peter J. McGuire, general secretary of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and cofounder of the American Federation of Labor. Others believe that Matthew Maguire, secretary of the Central Labor Union was first to suggest the holiday in 1882.’

“The first Labor Day holiday was celebrated on Tuesday, September 5, 1882, in New York City, in accordance with plans of the Central Labor Union.”

“Oregon became the first state to make Labor Day an official holiday, on February 21, 1887.”

Posted by: jlw at August 30, 2011 3:12 PM
Comment #328418

I believe there is something to be learned about liberals when considering SD’s comment suggesting that the national holiday called “Labor Day” is only meant for union workers.

Following this logic, only union workers labor, all others, the vast majority, merely show up to collect a paycheck.

The president signed an executive order regarding labor on federally funded projects. In some cases, only union workers may be used under obama’s Project Labor Agreement.

I have commented on PLA’s before and the liberal comments all agreed that there was nothing wrong in discriminating against non-union workers when the federal dollars were doled out.

By this measure, they also see nothing wrong with allowing only democrat politicians to participate in Wisconsin labor day marches. No liberal of any standing would call this discrimination. It is something else they tell us. Just what that something is…well…they can’t really say

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 30, 2011 3:18 PM
Comment #328419

jlw, thanks for the history. I notice you cite the “US Department of Labor”…not, the US Department of Unions.

Interesting. Is there a liberal movement afoot to change the name of this US department?

Christmas is also a national holiday. I can not put my finger on the Christmas parade that banned non-Christians anywhere in these United States.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 30, 2011 3:23 PM
Comment #328420

Royal Flush-
Oh, you poor thing. Can’t find a radical enough opinion from me, so you make one up.

It should be clear that if you’re going to spend all year trying to undermine the labor movement, which this holiday is based on, then expecting a warm welcome at labor events might be asking too much.

You seem to want respect and welcome from people even after you spit in their face. It’s bad enough you use what power you get to undermine these people, now you want them to treat you like supporters, help you make them look better after you’ve harmed them?

Get real.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 30, 2011 3:33 PM
Comment #328421

Royal it seems obvious you didn’t actually read the link to HuffPo you posted. The parade you question is sponsored by 30 local unions. Why would there be anything wrong with them choosing who and why they do or do not invite people. It is just one of the many freedoms we enjoy in this country.

The nonsensical logic you use to make your case is partisan rhetoric at it’s best. Why don’t the Repubs in Wisconsin who feel slighted because both their faces can’t show up at the union labor parade get the nonunion workers to fund a parade of their own?


“The Marathon County Central Labor Council, which sponsors the parade, includes some 30 local unions…”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/republicans-banned-labor-day-parade-wisconsin_n_939879.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec3_lnk1|90427

Posted by: j2t2 at August 30, 2011 3:43 PM
Comment #328422


Royal, yes, I cited the U.S. Department of Labor which cited the labor movement and labor unions as the creators of Labor Day.

While it is true that, over the years, Republicans have tried every tactic they could think of to drive a wedge between union and nonunion labor, the fact is that unions have done much to elevate the working conditions of nonunion workers. The minimum wage, work place safety regulations, and unemployment benefits are just a few of the many pieces of legislation lobbied for by the unions.

By their actions, it is the Republican politicians that have given cause for their exclusion.

In China, the communist party decides who the grand marshal of the Labor Day celebrations will be. This year the party has chosen the CEO of WalMart China. It has been reported that the CEO of GM is upset with the decision.

Posted by: jlw at August 30, 2011 3:47 PM
Comment #328423

Royal Flush

The lobotomies done on liberals was done only part way. They need to be recalled and done totally. lol

I have never heard such claptrap as what is described as a worker from the left point of view. Spin, twist, distort, desecrate, lie, create, and wow a whole lot more comes forth when the left start in with their own ideas of what they want something to be.

Is “labor” now the new word to be kidnapped for selected use by selected elites?

Common Sense people are soon going to have to create a whole list of new words to use to describe what was once something else.

The word “labor” will now be mandated to be used only by union members on union members.

At least it won’t be as complicated as the use of the word man that we were supposed to be PC in our use of.

For all the things the left does in history, their progress to a better world is at the speed of a snail and as wrong as satan.

Posted by: tom humes at August 30, 2011 3:49 PM
Comment #328424
The lobotomies done on liberals was done only part way. They need to be recalled and done totally. lol

Tom just shoot me instead, I don’t want to be a conservative so I don’t want the rest of the lobotomy. lol

Posted by: j2t2 at August 30, 2011 3:54 PM
Comment #328425


Royal, I would not be surprised at all if tea party affiliates were to call for a ban on Muslims attending the Christmas Day parades. Would you?

How about those big corporations waging war on the true intent of Christmas? Have they decided that Christmas is about Santa Clause rather than Jesus, in their unceasing desire for more profits?

Posted by: jlw at August 30, 2011 4:16 PM
Comment #328426


Tom Humes, are you sure that progress is as wrong as Satan or wrong in the eyes of Satan. Satan introduced man to knowledge, not wisdom or progress. Satan’s brand of progress is militaristic in nature.

Contrary to conservative beliefs, the International Brotherhood of Stone Masons had nothing to do with the death of Jesus, nor was it the common Jews, who flocked to Jesus like sheep to the Shepard.

That distinction belongs to another class of Jews, those who had reason to fear the message, namely the priestly class and the moneyed class. Today, the strategy has been to elevate the messenger while distorting the message.

The word lobotomy best fits those working class people who vote Republican.

Capital considers unions enemies and the working class work units.

Progressives are a mutation caused by an environmental change called civilization.

Posted by: jlw at August 30, 2011 5:28 PM
Comment #328427

tom humes-
Oh, so you’re saying somebody should sweep an icepick through our frontal lobes a few times to cut off the neural connections? Well, jeez, I like you too.

Seriously, though, Labor, while also a way to refer to workers in general, has also been a traditional way to refer to unions, who happen to be the folks responsible for the historic origins of Labor Day. So, it’s not twisting or tapdancing or tangoing the truth to suggest that the association should have some meaning when it comes to who participates in a Labor Day parade.

You, by contrast, are attempting to use a bland generalization that does not square with the historic origins, just to support the anti-Democratic Party talking point that Royal Flush and others have used.

This isn’t about PC or anti-PC. This is about avoiding needlessly revisionist historic perspectives. There is a correct way to describe the origins of Labor Day, and it involves unions. Now, you don’t have to stick with that, but the labor in labor day is correctly assumed to be associated with union labor.

In other words, feel free to speak in error. Nobody’s stopping you, just correcting you. If your freedom demands the rest of us shut up, that’s another matter.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 30, 2011 5:40 PM
Comment #328429

A parade organized and funded by labor unions declines to allow anti-union politicians to actively participate in the parade. This is controversial? This is un-American? I am sure that, if they want, they would be welcome to sit on the sidewalks and view the parade. I am guessing that they won’t show up.

Posted by: Rich at August 30, 2011 5:51 PM
Comment #328430

Oh, it gets better.

In the absence of Republican Legislators being asked to march, the Mayor’s going to charge the organizers of the parade more for holding it.

If Republicans object to the politics of this, if they really were so big on being part of a Labor Day Parade, then they ought to have been less radical, and not done so much to take away the rights of union workers. Trying to extort re-admittance will only make a bigger stink of it all.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 30, 2011 9:51 PM
Comment #328431

Only $2300 or so? I’ll pitch so they don’t have to let the extremist politicians march with the unions they sought to destroy.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 30, 2011 10:28 PM
Comment #328432

Oh, I don’t know. I think I’d let the Republicans march in the parade, and then arrange for every union member in the state to line the street and boo them as they pass. It would be a wonderful exercise in free speech and freedom to peaceably assemble.

Posted by: phx8 at August 30, 2011 11:48 PM
Comment #328433

What I’d wager is that for all these years, most Republicans were content to leave well enough alone, and as such, nobody had a problem with them. Then they decided a mandate to bring back jobs meant trying to force through measures to end collective bargaining.

That represented a breaking point.

It’s easy to talk your way into office when somebody’s dissatisfied with the other guy, especially when you’ve hamstrung the other guy. What the Republicans are running into here is the extent of their overreach. It’s one thing to gain political capital, it’s another way to use it in a manner that in and of itself maintains that mandate.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2011 12:35 AM
Comment #328437

I find it disgusting to read liberal comments that attempt to do even more to separate Americans for political reasons.

Parades always have a sponsor, they never happen sporadically.

Are national holidays enacted to be celebrated by just some of the people. Do we now have to watch a Union Labor Day parade and a non-union Labor Day parade?

The fourth of July is a national holiday and I have attended parades in celebration many times in many cities and states. The liberal special interest groups may wish to exercise some political correctness with this holiday as well. Perhaps they could find a sponsor for a parade who wishes to exclude Republicans, or rich people, or business people or…

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2011 12:10 PM
Comment #328438
The fourth of July is a national holiday and…

and a red herring Royal.

Let the repubs watch from the street. If they get the privilege of participating in the parade the repubs will then demand the unions charge admittance for access to the repubs anyway.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/16/paul-ryan-charges-admission-to-town-halls-blocks-angry-constituents/

Posted by: j2t2 at August 31, 2011 1:04 PM
Comment #328439

Royal Flush-
The Parade is private, organized by thirty labor unions. The Holiday is arguably, on historical grounds, a celebration of the labor movement by labor unions. The original holiday was organized by a labor union, and then it was made a national holiday in order to please other labor unions as well.

The Republican politicians in question helped to shred collective bargaining and other labor rights.

Arguably, marching in the Labor Day parade is symbolic of both support from the organizers, and support of the organizers goals.

Arguably, the organizers do not want to show their support for those who have not been mutually supportive, nor do they think that those who want to march in this case support the organizers goals. On those grounds, they see those politicians marching in their parade as inappropriate.

You call it discrimination, and perhaps in a sense it is. But it’s not discrimination based on prejudice. It’s like denying security clearance to somebody who’s been involved in a leak of information, or who has compromising circumstances in their life. It’s like denying a job to somebody who’s handicapped because their disability prevents them from carrying out job duties.

There are legitimate reasons to say that Republican Politicians who fought against the labor cause should not have the privilege in marching in a private parade that celebrates that cause.

You want to force that on them, to deny them their right to protest the policy position that those politicians took.

So, let me ask a question of you: if Jane Fonda wanted to march in a privately organized Veteran’s Day parade, and the organizers rejected her, by your current argument, would you then advocate that they be forced to include her?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2011 1:34 PM
Comment #328440


Royal, the organizers aren’t shunning non-union workers, only Republican politicians, which they should rightfully do. If conservatives feel they need a holiday here are some suggestions, Capital Day, Individualist Day, No Taxes For Social Spending Day, Anti-Collective Bargaining Day, Our Way Or No Way Day, Newscorp Day.

“do more to separate Americans” Do you mean on top of everything conservatives have done to divide Americans? Your side produced the earthquake, the other side is producing the after shocks.

Posted by: jlw at August 31, 2011 1:34 PM
Comment #328441

SD asks…”So, let me ask a question of you: if Jane Fonda wanted to march in a privately organized Veteran’s Day parade…”

Hmmm, I didn’t know that Hanoi Jane was a veteran of a US military organization.

What the libs on this post seem to be saying is this. Only politicians who favor, by laws and regulations, organized labor over unorganized labor are welcome.

The US department of Labor on its website give the reason for the holiday.

“The vital force of labor added materially to the highest standard of living and the greatest production the world has ever known and has brought us closer to the realization of our traditional ideals of economic and political democracy. It is appropriate, therefore, that the nation pay tribute on Labor Day to the creator of so much of the nation’s strength, freedom, and leadership — the American worker.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2011 2:02 PM
Comment #328442

I would ask SD and those like-minded libs with regard to labor being the sole purvue of unions…Does the DOL only address issues, and write regulations important and applying to union workers, or do they address all laborers in the US?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2011 2:06 PM
Comment #328443


J2t2, Ryan will have to charge more than 15 bucks to keep the socialist disruptors out. That is another thing brought back to popularity by the tea party, disrupting politicians town hall meetings. They have even showed up armed on occasion, threatening violence. Now it is their turn to be on the receiving end.

The conservatives remind me of bullies who seem surprised that some people will fight back.

Posted by: jlw at August 31, 2011 2:12 PM
Comment #328444


“I would ask SD and those like-minded libs with regards to labor being the sole purvue of unions…”

Royal, that is a false accusation. The left is not claiming that unions are the sole purview of labor, only that Labor Day is a celebration of the achievements of labor, sponsored by unions.

I know that politicians are supposed to be labor, servants of the people and all that, but they are not. They are management and poor management at that.

Truth be known, there are a, not insignificant, number of Democratic politicians that should be considered for exclusion from Labor Day events.

The only thing Republicans do for non-union labor is propagandize them and use them. Wage stagnation is a Republican party plank.

Posted by: jlw at August 31, 2011 2:42 PM
Comment #328445


This is an example of Republican party support for labor.

(Reuters) “Twenty five of the 100 highest paid U.S. CEOs earned more last year than their companies paid in federal income tax”

Posted by: jlw at August 31, 2011 2:55 PM
Comment #328446

It doesn’t matter now, the organizers had to rethink their position when they were brought to task about being ‘privately funded.’ Apparently, the city puts in enough money to influence their decision. Update

The president of the union organization talks a good game, but for some reason isn’t willing to put out the extra money required if the city pulls out. Must not be as big of a problem as they thought…

P.S. Royal’s quote from the department of labor (in terms of how you democrats what to believe it reads):

“The vital force of UNION labor added materially to the highest standard of living and the greatest production the world has ever known and has brought us closer to the realization of our traditional ideals of economic and political democracy. It is appropriate, therefore, that the nation pay tribute on Labor Day to the creator of so much of the nation’s strength, freedom, and leadership — the American UNION worker.”

Its just too bad for them (the union leadership and the democrats on here supporting them), that the Department of Labor doesn’t include the language in bold…

Posted by: adam at August 31, 2011 3:15 PM
Comment #328447

Royal Flush-
The Cub Scouts can march in a Veteran’s day parade, and they’re not veterans, not even old enough to serve.

The spouses of veterans are also welcome, it seems. So, what if she was the spouse of a veteran?

To the extent that organizers would allow civilians to march, would you oppose Jane Fonda marching?

And even if your argument does exclude Jane Fonda on the grounds she’s not a Veteran, doesn’t the selective nature of that argument mean that you’re conceding that organizers of events like these can be selective about who qualifies to march?

If so, then the historically union-oriented Labor Day parades can fairly exclude those who oppose union labor.

Labor Day is about the Labor movement. It’s Republican-Style political correctness to suggest otherwise. What a person marching in a Labor Day parade is marching in support of is the interests of the average worker as a priority. Now you would prefer that this be the watered down, non-union version.

You and others would strike down many of the protections and privileges workers enjoy. Nonetheless, you want to advertise yourself to them and others as friends of Labor.

But your political cohorts are only friends to a narrow, not a general spectrum of workers, and only if they don’t unionize. If they unionize, you declare them thugs and do your best to strip them of legitimacy and power.

Wisconsin Republicans, so far as I know, didn’t have this problem until they started stripping unions of power and influence in such a radical and contemptuous fashion.

Why is it that when Right Wing commentators and politicians show contempt and callous disregard for people nowadays, they’re shocked when they get negative reactions?

Before you say that Unions are discriminating against those who aren’t organized labor members, remember that nobody is saying that regular workers can’t march. They’re only excluding those people who bashed and legally stripped unions of rights all that previous year. They’re not dishonoring non-union workers, only politicians who did their best to oppose the labor movement in America and Wisconsin all that previous year.

Its a sign of Republican weakness that they’re whining about being excluded. They wouldn’t be if they weren’t trying to bask in the glow of the labor movement, and get labor-oriented voters. Ah, but here they don’t get the opportunity to look like Labor’s friend.

So sorry, that your harsh words and radical positions come back to haunt you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2011 3:16 PM
Comment #328449

It appears that some now recognize that union members are not the only laborers in the nation. That’s Good…that’s progress.

Let’s see if I can get some more agreement. Elected politicians of any party represent those who elected them. I don’t believe anyone can argue with that.

Republican politicians represent those who voted for them. I don’t believe anyone can argue with that.

Republican politicians wishing to march in Labor Day parades do so as representatives of those who labor and who also voted for them.

Republican politicians denied the opportunity to march in a Labor Day parade suggests to me that unions do not wish to recognize, as labor, those non-union members who vote for Republicans and as such, their representatives are not welcome.

This is discrimination…clear and simple.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2011 3:25 PM
Comment #328450

SD writes; “You and others would strike down many of the protections and privileges workers enjoy.”

Really, you now claim to know my position on unions? Hardly!
By the way, what privileges do union members enjoy, who gave them to them, and are they privileges that non-union workers are denied? Is there discrimination at work (pun intended) here?

Regarding Hanoi Jane marching in a Veteran’s Day parade…as a member of the American Legion, I would vote to allow her to march. To see this traitor carrying an American Flag proudly now, and honoring Veterans, might just provide a little redemption for this unsavory person.

As a veteran, my service protected her American rights. Perhaps she now understands that.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2011 3:36 PM
Comment #328451

What a difference an administration makes.

Personally, I think trying to crack down on deficit spending by threatening funds for disaster relief is politically cracked.

First, there’s the obvious Katrina effect. Nobody should seek to look like they’re being cheap or tardy on getting help to those who need it. Second, it’s one of the times when such action and such debt financing are most legitimately justified, since the cost of remaining dysfunctional after a big disaster is typically greater than aiding in a quick recovery. Even if there’s not much profit in disaster mitigation, there’s much loss to be had in failing to deal with things.

Finally, and this should be obvious, but people are suffering after a disaster, and running a government in such an appallingly callous way doesn’t demonstrate the virtues but the failings of a relentless small government philosophy. It’s a test to destruction of people’s desire for government’s absence, and as Katrina demonstrated, the consequences for a party or a candidate who lets such things happen can be dire.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2011 3:50 PM
Comment #328452

I find it incredible that Americans calling for responsible government, a government that lives within its means, are called horrible names.

We hear calls for more spending every waking moment from some dems and nearly all libs. Never mind that we owe nearly $15 trillion. The libs would have us believe that just a few more trillion spent will do the trick and cause our economy to change course.

I would ask, if $15 trillion hasn’t done the trick yet, why would any sane person believe that just a few trillion more in spending will?

As I write, obama and his advisers are working on his expected speech about getting America back to work. I am confident it will be punctuated with words like…”investment”, “saved jobs”, “compassion”, and such.

The bottom line in the speech will be, of course, we need more government spending. He will most likely blame Bush, and many other individuals and events for the lackluster results of all the spending already done in the name of jump-starting the economy.

obama will ask Americans to believe that this time, unlike the last time, those shovel ready jobs will really…really…really, exist. And, I hope he will assure the nation that these government financed jobs won’t cost an average of $300,000 each. Somehow, this just seems to piss off most Americans.

With his race for a second term looking more and more like Carter running for a second term, what is this poor guy to do? If he is as smart as some believe, he should begin campaigning on conservative issues. Those would be, less regulation, no tax increases, encourage more development of our fossil fuels, and praise for individual initiative and responsibility. He could tell the nations workers and business folks that government is going to get its hairy and crooked nose out of their business and allow the private sector to lead the way to recovery.

It won’t happen of course, and his expected big spending jobs plan will go nowhere…much like his reelection attempt.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2011 5:36 PM
Comment #328453

Royal Flush-
Except such non-union members would be welcome to march, if that were their inclination. Yours is a fallacy of composition, as we have no evidence that Republican voters are being given the same treatment as their leaders.

You tripped up trying to equate the treatment of the politician with their constituents, when there was no evidence that the constituents were being treated in that manner. And no, disdain for the leader doesn’t automatically mean the same for the voters.

As for “Hanoi Jane?” Well, perhaps you would be pleased as punch to see here become a patriot, but what if she insisted on marching without modifying her views, or apologizing for them?

Would that be such a glorious outcome? Surely, by your logic, as you would expect Jane Fonda to renounce those views that made her offensive to veterans if she would wish to march, wouldn’t you ask Wisconsin Republicans who attacked unions to change their views before marching in a Labor Day parade sponsored by a group of thirty unions?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2011 5:37 PM
Comment #328454

SD writes; “And no, disdain for the leader doesn’t automatically mean the same for the voters.”

I guess I write to fast for you to comprehend. Let’s us supposed that one half of the folks watching the parade voted for dems and one half voted for reps. Are the one half voting rep to be denied the right to see their elected politician participating and representing their views?

As for Hanoi Jane participating in a Veterans Day parade as a protester…that makes no sense. What war would she be protesting? Vietnam ended decades ago. Do you honestly believe that Hanoi Jane would march in a parade for, and by, veterans just to be ridiculed and booed by everyone along the parade route? Or, do you expect and anticipate other anti-veterans to show up along with Jane.

SD seems to forget that the commies like Jane always say they don’t hate our military people, just those who order war. I hear liberals write frequently that they love our people in the military, they just hate war. Is that not true any more?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2011 5:58 PM
Comment #328456

Sorry for the double entry. I continue to have problems posting even though I have cleared the cache as the WB editor suggested.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2011 6:01 PM
Comment #328457

Royal Flush,

You just don’t get it. It is not rocket science. The American consumer is tapped out. They are underwater and trying to save, not borrow and spend. The credit (debt) splurge in the 2000s and the equity supporting that credit (debt) collapsed in 2008. Its called debt-deflation.

Corporations have plenty of cash to spend but they have no customers. How else do you explain the output gap between potential output and actual demand? Corporations can produce more goods and services than can be purchased by consumers. Blaming Obama for regulatory problems, etc. misses the big picture. Where is the consumer going to get the money necessary to purchase the potential output of corporations? The debt financing route is closed off. Wages and salaries have been stagnant for 30 years. So, what’s the conservative answer to the demand side of the equation?

Posted by: Rich at August 31, 2011 6:09 PM
Comment #328458

Rich says…”You just don’t get it.”

OH, Yes, I do get it. Just fly the helicopter over America dropping one hundred dollar bills and our economy will flourish. Is that what I don’t get?

The walls of the debt hole we have dug ourselves are collapsing and you suggest that we dig deeper.

There are trillions of private sector dollars sitting idle on the sidelines. There is no confidence to invest in new technology, new equipment, or training new employees. Many businesses are flush with cash who are fearful of investing it. Given the incentive, they will put those dollars to work. Done properly, those new dollars will put Americans to work and bring jobs back to our shores.

Removing many of the hurdles facing the fossil fuel industry would create tens of thousands of jobs almost immediately. A commitment to utilize our fossil resources would most certainly lower the cost of energy. Those billions of dollars released by lower energy costs would be spent.

Removing the subsidy for ethanol would almost immediately lower the cost of many foods putting more money in the consumers pocket. Providing incentives for small business to start up would almost immediately create new jobs.

There are many more examples.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2011 6:30 PM
Comment #328459

Royal Flush-
Don’t worry about the double post, I deleted that one with the touch of a button.

It’s a great power to have around, especially when some people get out of hand with their commentary.

I can read 100 pages in an hour, so don’t worry about my reading speed. I got what you wrote just fine.

I find it interesting that your hypothetical has half and half Democrats and Republicans showing up for what’s basically a labor event. That aside, the question would be, would Republican voters among union members or non-union workers be denied the chance to march, and as far as I can see, in real life, nobody would.

Those politicians aren’t showing up because their constituents need them to show up. They’re showing up because they want to look good to constituents. They’re showing up for political reasons.

Except these people used what political power they had to oppose what the organizers of the parade support.

You would force them to lend support and political prestige to the politicians who just spent the last year beating up on them.

As for Hanoi Jane coming as a protester, I don’t seem to recal arguing her being a protestor, just unapologetic for her over-the-line anti-war antics during Vietnam. If you read what I wrote too fast to spot that distinction, let me make it plain for you: the question is, would you let her march, having not apologized for her views and turned into the flag-waving patriot she so conveniently became for your example? Would you simply let her ride in a car, waving along side her husband?

Hell, let’s make this richer. Would you have let her do this just two or three years after Vietnam, having not apologized?

See, what you’re missing is that I’m trying to line up the analogy here better than you have it. So far, none of these Republicans have apologized for their behavior this last year, so full convert Jane Fonda wouldn’t be a true analogy.

I substitute, instead, a quiet, but still unapologetic Jane Fonda, to square with the quiet, but still unapologetic Republican Union busters.

The Veteran’s day parade would not let just anybody march. Bill Ayers, I would suspect, would be right out. John Lennon probably wouldn’t have gotten a slot, or any number of artists and activists who vilified soldiers. This is permissable, of course, because there’s both a certain definining theme to the holiday, which requires a certain level of respect for what it stands for. If an event is private, there’s the added matter of the parade being a representation of the speech of the organizers. You’re basically saying they should be forced to feature Republican politicians who they believe work against their cause. How very authoritarian a requirement: include those who contradict your parade’s message, or be called prejudiced and accused of insulting the constituents of those politicians.

Last, but not least, You’re failing to perceive how fresh a wound this is. Fonda might get cut some slack by some if she made a conversion, but even then there would be those who saw her in those North Vietnam propanda videos sitting on top of an anti-aircraft gun who would still not forgive her. Imagine if that perceived and likely real betrayal was done just a year, or a few years ago?

The GOP, in its arrogance, expects people to forgive and forget the current anti-labor position of the Wisconsin GOP, as if nothing had happen, and expected to be treated with all the respect they failed to show those people.

Get real. You reap what you sow.

There are trillions of private sector dollars sitting idle on the sidelines.

Because nobody can afford to spend the way they did. If nobody spends, businesses don’t profit. If they don’t profit, they don’t expand, don’t hire, don’t try to sell more products that are just going to linger on shelves.

As for removing hurdles for the fossil fuel industry? You already tried that. You used your authority with Congress to push that, in the form of Cheney’s energy reforms.

Odd that energy prices went up instead.

Keep on preaching the gospel of CO2. You’re making a lot of energy executives quite comfortable.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2011 8:16 PM
Comment #328460

This is an example of Republican party support for labor.

(Reuters) “Twenty five of the 100 highest paid U.S. CEOs earned more last year than their companies paid in federal income tax”
Posted by: jlw at August 31, 2011 2:55 PM

Jeffery Immelt of GE probably led the way. Oops, he’s a democrat. Well, then how many other democrats are on that list. Don’t choke. I want you around when I ship the bacon to go with that egg on your face.

Posted by: tom humes at August 31, 2011 9:34 PM
Comment #328461

Royal Flush,

You still don’t get it. Corporations are not going to invest in new production or service expansion if there is no consumer demand for their products. They may have a lot of idle cash, but their market does not.

Henry Ford got it. He understood that increased productivity and efficiency is meaningless if there is no purchasing power at the consumer level. He gave his workers a generous wage and deferred some of the benefits of increased productivity because he knew that without that increased wage, they would not be able to purchase his products, no matter how efficiently he produced them. He understood the workings of a mass production, consumer driven economy. It was not just supply side driven.

Conservatives think that recent government spending and the actions of the, conservative led, Federal Reserve Board to increase the money supply will lead to hyper-inflation. However, that has not occurred. Bond prices remain low. Indeed, disturbingly so. The Federal Reserve would be dancing in the street if there was a significant increase in borrowing and inflation. In a debt based monetary system, debt=money.

You say regulation inhibits the fossil fuel industry. Yet, oil and gas production in the US in 2010 set new records despite a depressed economy and a moratorium on new Gulf deep well drilling.

You criticize government spending. But, it wasn’t government spending that caused this recession. It was private sector debt that exceeded 350% of GDP in 2008, a level not seen since 1929 and the collapse of the housing bubble that supported it. It is that debt that is strangling the economy and world governments that have socialized the debt.

Posted by: Rich at August 31, 2011 9:42 PM
Comment #328462

tom humes-
He’s given about ten thousand more to Republicans, and donated to the 2004 Bush campaign.

But thanks for playing your politics by association game again.

But tell me something else, and be honest here: who is the most dedicated to making sure these people don’t pay more in taxes, even if it means holding the tax cuts of the average people, that is most voters, hostage to that priority?

Yes, Democrats aren’t clean. But the fact that all are sinners here doesn’t mean everybody’s sins are equal, does it?

Me, I think you pick the best you find, and if better than them come along, you pick them. Even if the choice is crap, you take the best of the two choices. Vacillating in the name of purity is not my style, but chosing with a mind to improve things is.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2011 10:26 PM
Comment #328463
Republican politicians represent those who voted for them. I don’t believe anyone can argue with that.

Since when Royal. they represent those who paid for their election campaign, corporate America.

Republican politicians wishing to march in Labor Day parades do so as representatives of those who labor and who also voted for them.

SO what they have no right to march in a parade organized by those they wish to destroy.

Republican politicians denied the opportunity to march in a Labor Day parade suggests to me that unions do not wish to recognize, as labor, those non-union members who vote for Republicans and as such, their representatives are not welcome.

I wish you were right Royal. It would show some common sense amongst the union officials. Why should they show support for those that don’t support their cause? The non-union workers have every right to hold their own parade and to support who they chose but not on the backs of the union workers that largely financed this parade.

This is discrimination…clear and simple.

This is extremist politicians whining about not be included in a parade for by those they have just screwed. Nothing more.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 31, 2011 11:20 PM
Comment #328470


Tom humes, egg on my face? Did you read the statement where I said that many Democratic politicians should be banned from participation in Labor Day celebrations as well.

I am aware that it isn’t only Republican and tea party politicians that have been bought by money is free speech.

All you did was provide additional evidence suggesting that our country is being ruled by a wealthy oligarchy. The Republicans needed help from Democrats to achieve this outcome.

I don’t care much for the Green Party or the Libertarian Party, but they are who I voted for in the last two elections. The alternative was to vote for Democrats and or Republicans, and that is a vote for corruption.

Isn’t it great how politicians can convince voters to avoid the primary issues of corruption and mismanagement with other issues of less importance but divisive.

A politician can pig out on the green swill at the lobbyist feeding trough as long as he is on the correct side of the abortion issue, the gay rights issue, the social programs issue, etc.

Posted by: jlw at September 1, 2011 3:01 PM
Comment #330446


Website truly interesting. Congratulations!

Posted by: Colegios bilingües en México at October 12, 2011 12:21 PM
Comment #330873

kids.these supra shoes are usually fashionable supra tk societyand lively,suiting children`s characteristicsTK Society ,giving positive emotions to your children.at the same time,these supra shoes are very comfortable and care your children`s growing feet.they are made very despite the favorable price.welcome to our online shop,and we promise
supra muska skytopyou high quality and the best service.

Posted by: rty at October 22, 2011 3:58 AM
Post a comment