re-distributing the wealth

[Capper Al]

The righties around here like to throw out that us liberals want to re-distribute the wealth. The righties seem to laugh between themselves as if this does not need any further explanation and is a flaw in progressive thinking. The righties are okay with re-distribution of wealth as long as it keeps going from the middle-class to the wealthy.

[sammy the sage]

The righties around here like to throw out that us liberals want to re-distribute the wealth. The righties seem to laugh between themselves as if this does not need any further explanation and is a flaw in progressive thinking. The righties are okay with re-distribution of wealth as long as it keeps going from the middle-class to the wealthy.

As I've posted before.....the CURRENT prez. has ACTUALLY allowed THE wealthier to GET much richer than ANY previous prez. in history....it's even MORE outta balance than 1929...

the BIG banks OWN both parties...

Both sides SHOULD really think ABOUT that simple thought just for a minute. :bang:

ok...sorry to interrupt THE two party DANCE...ya'll can go BACK at it now...so useless :faint:

[Mike at A+]

The righties around here like to throw out that us liberals want to re-distribute the wealth. The righties seem to laugh between themselves as if this does not need any further explanation and is a flaw in progressive thinking. The righties are okay with re-distribution of wealth as long as it keeps going from the middle-class to the wealthy.
Which wealthy people are you referring to? The folks in Hollywood who don't create middle class jobs? The brass at Solyndra? The get rich quick folks in Congress and other public sector nouveau riche? The bundlers and politically connected who got ambassadorships? All these folks talk a good game about sharing the wealth, only it isn't THEIR wealth they want to share. It's the ever dwindling middle class, the elderly retired on fixed incomes and the overqualified unemployed and underemployed who pick up the tab for the 0bamaphone welfare food stamp crowd while 0bama's rich friends share nothing but their warped ideas.

[Tom]

The wealth that has somehow flowed to the likes of Reid, Pelosi, Obama and his disgusting wife?

Someone turn on a light - Al is still stumbling around in the dark.

[Clocker]

The righties around here like to throw out that us liberals want to re-distribute the wealth. The righties seem to laugh between themselves as if this does not need any further explanation and is a flaw in progressive thinking. The righties are okay with re-distribution of wealth as long as it keeps going from the middle-class to the wealthy.

I am not a "righty". I make up my own mind on each issue. I agree with some positions advocated by the conservative right, I don't agree with others. I don't agree with the idea of people trying to impose their morality on others, whether it is the right's opposition to gay marriage or the left's deciding when some people have more money than they "need".

The proper role of government taxation is to pay for the services that government should provide. That includes public infrastructure, national defense, etc. It does not include taxation as punishment for violation of an arbitrary, morality-based limit on property ownership. For a full list of appropriate uses of tax revenue, see Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

Redistribution of wealth is an attempt to impose a value system on society. The threshold question is who has the moral authority to do so, and to determine which value system is the "correct" one. This country was founded on the premise that each person has certain rights, and he is free to exercise those rights only to the extent that he does not infringe on the rights of others. Those right include the right to own property, without limit, as long such ownership does not infringe on the rights of others.

Redistribution of wealth infringes on the property rights of other. As long as that property is legally attained, no one has the right to "redistribute" it based on the value judgement that the property owner simply does not need that much property, or that someone else "needs" it more.

Rights and morals aside, redistribution simply does not work. It has been tried many times and it has failed. The most recent attempt used different terminology. The principle was expressed as "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." The results are to be found in the trash heap of history.

[Clocker]

As I've posted before.....the CURRENT prez. has ACTUALLY allowed THE wealthier to GET much richer than ANY previous prez. in history....it's even MORE outta balance than 1929...

And the irony is that he is so inept and so clueless as to how the economy works, so ineffective in implementing policy, that the unintended consequences of his policies have hurt those he tries to help. He would be more effective at his job if he spent even less time in the Oval Office and more time on the golf course. God help us if we ever got an effective socialist in office. The country would be doomed.

Obama came to Washington to drain the swamp, and finds himself up to his butt in alligators.

[Dave Schwartz]

Redistribution of wealth never works the way the lower income people expect or would like. Not ever, not anywhere.

Do you really think the "ruling class" - those at the very top - those who are truly in charge - are ever going to allow THEIR wealth to be redistributed?

When the wealthy-liberal-leaders speak of redistribution, they mean YOURS.

They mean more like: Let the people beneath THEM (the leaders) redistribute THEIR wealth so that the bottom doesn't seem so bad. Of course, the impact is that everyone beneath them shares what they have.

You can rant and rave all you want about the top 1%. They will give up nothing. Ever. They are in charge, remember? Why would they? Altruism?

[rastajenk]

Rights and morals aside, redistribution simply does not work. It has been tried many times and it has failed.
You would think that on a horse-racing forum, of all places, that persons could identify a losing proposition after all those failed past performances.

[Mike at A+]

You would think that on a horse-racing forum, of all places, that persons could identify a losing proposition after all those failed past performances.
:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Clocker]

You would think that on a horse-racing forum, of all places, that persons could identify a losing proposition after all those failed past performances.

One symptom of insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different outcome.

[Robert Goren]

One symptom of insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different outcome. Then all the supply siders are nuts because nothing failed more often in economic practice that attempts by the government to apply it.

[Robert Fischer]

Re-distributing wealth is not natural. It is not natural in our universe, and it is not natural in our species.

[Clocker]

Then all the supply siders are nuts because nothing failed more often in economic practice that attempts by the government to apply it.

You just identified the problem. Government application of supply side economics is oxymoronic. The essence of supply side is that the government get out of the way and let the free market work. Supply side economics has never worked because it has never been tried.

[Clocker]

Re-distributing wealth is not natural. It is not natural in our universe, and it is not natural in our species.

Does that mean that advocates of redistribution are perverts? :eek:

[badcompany]

You would think that on a horse-racing forum, of all places, that persons could identify a losing proposition after all those failed past performances.

Liberal excuse making usually comes in two varieties.

1. We didn't do enough. You heard this one recently with the Stimulus plan: it was big enough. In horseracing, this would be akin to blaming the trainer.

2. It wasn't done right. This excuse is presented for failings of planned economies like the old Soviet Union and North Korea, "It wasn't really Socialism." In horseracing, this would be blaming the loss on the horse's bad trip.

Now, in life and in horseracing there are occasionally legit excuses, but eventually you have to look at the horse.

[incoming]

The righties around here like to throw out that us liberals want to re-distribute the wealth. The righties seem to laugh between themselves as if this does not need any further explanation and is a flaw in progressive thinking. The righties are okay with re-distribution of wealth as long as it keeps going from the middle-class to the wealthy.


How would "re-distribution" work at the race track?

[LottaKash]

the BIG banks OWN both parties...

Both sides SHOULD really think ABOUT that simple thought just for a minute. :bang:


STS, many have finally come to that realization, about the one party thing, still, so many others, remain so blind to the truth such as the rapid failing of the economy, and the continued hammering away at our Contitutional rights, and such UNACCOUTABILITY, as never before.....

It's almost as if the government is akin to their favorite sports team, and they remain so loyal, whether they win or not.....I hear this all the time, with quotes like "we kicked your ass", and "we stomped all over you"....So with so many of the people holding that point of view, I really don't believe that we have much hope for this nation any longer, as the ones who need to open their eyes, at least a wee bit, simply will not....Not one friggin millimeter...Out of loyalty or some other dedication paradigm...

[Tom]

How would "re-distribution" work at the race track?

According to some here, if there were a late scratch, the money would be returned to everyone in equal amounts, no matter how much they bet, and even those who did not bet would get some.

[NJ Stinks]

Redistribution of wealth is an attempt to impose a value system on society. The threshold question is who has the moral authority to do so, and to determine which value system is the "correct" one. This country was founded on the premise that each person has certain rights, and he is free to exercise those rights only to the extent that he does not infringe on the rights of others. Those right include the right to own property, without limit, as long such ownership does not infringe on the rights of others.

Redistribution of wealth infringes on the property rights of other. As long as that property is legally attained, no one has the right to "redistribute" it based on the value judgement that the property owner simply does not need that much property, or that someone else "needs" it more.

Rights and morals aside, redistribution simply does not work. It has been tried many times and it has failed. The most recent attempt used different terminology. The principle was expressed as "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." The results are to be found in the trash heap of history.

Read A Tale Of Two Cities and get back to me.

Or better yet, why did the American colonies decide to start a revolution? Because the colonists felt they were being over-taxed while the English at home were not paying their fair share. If you don't think today's middle class here does not feel overtaxed while the rich here are not paying their fair share, you've been reading too much WSJ. Or you are missed the results of the last two national elections.

[hcap]

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3629




http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/11-28-11pov-f1.jpg

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/11-28-11pov-f2.jpg


The Loss of Shared Prosperity

Census family income data show that from the late 1940s to the early 1970s, incomes across the income distribution grew at nearly the same pace. Figure 1 shows the level of real (inflation-adjusted) income at several points on the distribution relative to its 1973 level. It shows that real family income roughly doubled from the late 1940s to the early 1970s at the 95th percentile (the level of income separating the 5 percent of families with the highest income from the remaining 95 percent), at the median (the level of income separating the richer half of families from the poorer half), and at the 20th percentile (the level of income separating the poorest fifth of families from the remaining 80 percent).

As Figure 2 shows, from 1979 to 2007, just before the financial crisis and Great Recession, average income after taxes for the top 1 percent of the distribution quadrupled.[25] The increases in the middle 60 percent and bottom 20 percent of the distribution were much smaller.[26]

Federal Taxes and Transfers Are Progressive But Have Modest Effect on Income Concentration

The chart below shows that U.S. federal taxes and transfers are progressive. In 2005 (a year in between the peak and the trough of the business cycle and therefore likely to be more representative of the next few years than either the pre-recession peak year of 2007 or the recession trough year of 2009), the share of income after federal taxes and transfers received by the top 20 percent of households was somewhat smaller than these households’ share of income before federal taxes and transfers, while the opposite is true for households in the remaining 80 percent of the distribution.
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/11-28-11pov-t1.jpg

The first inauguration of Ronald Reagan as the 40th President of the United States was held on January 20, 1981.

Supply Side (Reaganomics)
Followed shortly.

Notice anything?

Btw,

"...while the bottom 99 percent of incomes grew at a solid pace of 2.7 percent per year from 1993-2000, these incomes grew only 1.3 percent per year from 2002-2007. As a result, in the economic expansion of 2002-2007, the top 1 percent captured two thirds of income growth."

[Tom]

So stinky, hcap,, stop voting for the 1% - which you both clearly support, ie, Soros......YOU guys brought this on us. Repubs want FAIR taxation, where everyone pays their share.

[mostpost]

I am not a "righty". I make up my own mind on each issue. I agree with some positions advocated by the conservative right, I don't agree with others. I don't agree with the idea of people trying to impose their morality on others, whether it is the right's opposition to gay marriage or the left's deciding when some people have more money than they "need".

The proper role of government taxation is to pay for the services that government should provide. That includes public infrastructure, national defense, etc. It does not include taxation as punishment for violation of an arbitrary, morality-based limit on property ownership. For a full list of appropriate uses of tax revenue, see Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: "I am not a righty" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
What a joke. You are one of the biggest righties here. You make up your own mind, but you always make it up on the right.

Article one section eight of the constitution says;

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

That's three things, each very broad, but the broadest of all is the third; "provide for the general Welfare of the United States." This one clause tells Congress that it can collect taxes to pay for education, to fund Social Security, to fund Medicare, to pay unemployment benefits, to build to roads, to regulate commerce, to provide safe working conditions. That is what Article One Section Eight does.

[Robert Fischer]

You can rant and rave all you want about the top 1%. They will give up nothing. Ever. They are in charge, remember? Why would they? Altruism?

I think Dave has a realistic view here.

[Clocker]

Read A Tale Of Two Cities and get back to me.



I've read it. It is a very nice story.

Or better yet, why did the American colonies decide to start a revolution? Because the colonists felt they were being over-taxed while the English at home were not paying their fair share.

That is not correct. American colonists had much more freedom and paid much lower taxes than any other British citizens, in England or elsewhere in the British Empire. This mistaken belief about the role of taxes is the result of superficial teaching of history in our schools, with over-reliance on stories like the Boston Tea Party and Paul Revere's ride.

The revolution was about power, and what the founders like Ben Franklin and John Adams saw as the inevitable trade-off between power and freedom. They did not specifically object to the level of taxes, they objected to any tax being imposed without their input and consent. They objected to taxation without representation. Among other things, the colonists wanted seats in Parliament, and the British refused to discuss it.

Taxes were one symptom of the problem. The problem was what the Americans saw as a power grab by the ruling class in England, at the cost of American freedom.

I'd suggest that "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution" (http://www.amazon.com/Ideological-Origins-American-Revolution/dp/0674443020/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375650151&sr=1-3&keywords=bernard+bailyn)by Bernard Bailyn would be much more relevant reading than Dickens.

[badcompany]

As someone who gets money from the top 1%, I can tell you how to do so in three words:

Sell them something.

[newtothegame]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: "I am not a righty" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
What a joke. You are one of the biggest righties here. You make up your own mind, but you always make it up on the right.

Article one section eight of the constitution says;

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

That's three things, each very broad, but the broadest of all is the third; "provide for the general Welfare of the United States." This one clause tells Congress that it can collect taxes to pay for education, to fund Social Security, to fund Medicare, to pay unemployment benefits, to build to roads, to regulate commerce, to provide safe working conditions. That is what Article One Section Eight does.

Wow, since you are so adept at reading, could you also point to the area in there where it says you can tax some but not others? Or tax some more then others??? :lol:

[JustRalph]

You would think that on a horse-racing forum, of all places, that persons could identify a losing proposition after all those failed past performances.

Sharp post! Cuts like a knife. :ThmbUp:


Redistribution= Theft

[mostpost]

Redistribution of wealth is an attempt to impose a value system on society. The threshold question is who has the moral authority to do so, and to determine which value system is the "correct" one. This country was founded on the premise that each person has certain rights, and he is free to exercise those rights only to the extent that he does not infringe on the rights of others. Those right include the right to own property, without limit, as long such ownership does not infringe on the rights of others.

Redistribution of wealth infringes on the property rights of other. As long as that property is legally attained, no one has the right to "redistribute" it based on the value judgement that the property owner simply does not need that much property, or that someone else "needs" it more.

Rights and morals aside, redistribution simply does not work. It has been tried many times and it has failed. The most recent attempt used different terminology. The principle was expressed as "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." The results are to be found in the trash heap of history.

Your view seems to be if a person has the power to impose his will on another he should do so and too bad for that other person. Legal is what those who have power say is legal. If your mythical businessman chooses to exercise his right to pay his employees unfairly low wages, he is impinging on their rights.

Taxing this mythical businessman at a higher rate is not punishment, it is not redistribution. It is asking him to pay for the benefits society has granted him at a rate commensurate with that largess.

[Clocker]

Article one section eight of the constitution says;

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Wow, talk about selective editing. Article 1, Section 8, consists of 18 items and you decide you don't care about 17 of them.



That's three things, each very broad, but the broadest of all is the third; "provide for the general Welfare of the United States."

It says the "welfare of the United States", which is a country. As Obama himself often complains, nowhere in the Constitution does is there any reference to anything the federal government is obligated to provide the citizens. That responsibility is reserved to the States.

[Clocker]

Repubs want FAIR taxation, where everyone pays their share.

You don't understand. Republicans are clueless about what is fair. The meaning of the word "fair" is part of the secret knowledge, known only to the drinkers of the Holy Kool Aid of Progressivism.

[Clocker]

If your mythical businessman chooses to exercise his right to pay his employees unfairly low wages, he is impinging on their rights.



Please show me the definition of "fairly" or "unfairly" in the US Constitution or in any federal law.

Please show me any reference to a right to any specific wage in the US Constitution.

[mostpost]

Wow, since you are so adept at reading, could you also point to the area in there where it says you can tax some but not others? Or tax some more then others??? :lol:
Can you point me to the area where the Constitution forbids Congress to tax some and not others or where it says Congress can not tax some more than others. Don't strain your eyes looking. It's not there. Article One Section Eight gives Congress the power to tax. It does not limit that power. The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to tax incomes. It does not say how that tax must be calculated or applied.

[JustRalph]

Funny how Mostie whips out that constitution when it favors his argument but forgets about the 2nd Amendment

[mostpost]

Wow, talk about selective editing. Article 1, Section 8, consists of 18 items and you decide you don't care about 17 of them.
I read the whole thing. I understand the whole thing. And I knew that your response would be exactly what it was above.

Here is the whole of Article 1, Section 8:
Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The Congress shall have Power
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

The Congress shall have Power
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

The Congress shall have Power
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

The Congress shall have Power
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

The Congress shall have Power
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

The Congress shall have Power
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

The Congress shall have Power
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

The Congress shall have Power
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

The Congress shall have Power
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

The Congress shall have Power
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

The Congress shall have Power
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

The Congress shall have Power
To provide and maintain a Navy;
The Congress shall have Power
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

The Congress shall have Power
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

The Congress shall have Power
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The Congress shall have Power
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

The Congress shall have Power
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 8 of Article 1 is a listing of the powers which the Constitution grants to Congress. It is not a listing of what Congress can or can not levy taxes for.

For your clarification-God knows you need clarification-I have inserted the words "The Congress shall have Power" in red before each clause of Article 1, Section 8.

If there was another section of Article 1 in which the powers of Congress were enumerated, you might be able to argue that this list was the total and only list of what Congress is permitted to levy taxes for. There is no such other section.

[Clocker]

Section 8 of Article 1 is a listing of the powers which the Constitution grants to Congress. It is not a listing of what Congress can or can not levy taxes for.

Please reread what you just wrote here. You said that Congress cannot do anything that is not listed in Sect. 8, but that Congress can levy taxes for things that are not authorized in Sect. 8.

If there was another section of Article 1 in which the powers of Congress were enumerated, you might be able to argue that this list was the total and only list of what Congress is permitted to levy taxes for. There is no such other section.

So you argue that Congress has the power to levy taxes for things that it is not specifically authorized to do? In case it is not clear here, the Tenth Amendment spells out that anything not authorized in Article 1, Section 8, is reserved to the States or to the people.

Article [X]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Capper Al]

Redistribution of wealth never works the way the lower income people expect or would like. Not ever, not anywhere.

Do you really think the "ruling class" - those at the very top - those who are truly in charge - are ever going to allow THEIR wealth to be redistributed?

When the wealthy-liberal-leaders speak of redistribution, they mean YOURS.

They mean more like: Let the people beneath THEM (the leaders) redistribute THEIR wealth so that the bottom doesn't seem so bad. Of course, the impact is that everyone beneath them shares what they have.

You can rant and rave all you want about the top 1%. They will give up nothing. Ever. They are in charge, remember? Why would they? Altruism?

I agree with your view on the ruling class. All the ruling class needs is to split the middle-class, and they do that well.

[Clocker]

I agree with your view on the ruling class. All the ruling class needs is to split the middle-class, and they do that well.

http://nathanbickel.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/thomassowellongreed.jpg

[newtothegame]

Can you point me to the area where the Constitution forbids Congress to tax some and not others or where it says Congress can not tax some more than others. Don't strain your eyes looking. It's not there. Article One Section Eight gives Congress the power to tax. It does not limit that power. The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to tax incomes. It does not say how that tax must be calculated or applied.
But, you agree that the constitution provides protections and laws regarding ALL Americans??? If so, then your taxation theory is also for ALL Americans.

[johnhannibalsmith]

http://nathanbickel.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/thomassowellongreed.jpg

Uh oh, a Thomas Sowell insertion.

Prepare for the repercussions.

Whenever I want to stir up a few of my favorite buddies I find one of Sowell's recent articles... works every time. :D

[JustRalph]

Uh oh, a Thomas Sowell insertion.

Prepare for the repercussions.

Whenever I want to stir up a few of my favorite buddies I find one of Sowell's recent articles... works every time. :D

Sowell-Williams 2016 !!!

[Tom]

You don't understand. Republicans are clueless about what is fair. The meaning of the word "fair" is part of the secret knowledge, known only to the drinkers of the Holy Kool Aid of Progressivism.

But I do know the secret wave.....and it doesn't require all 10 fingers.

[Dave Schwartz]

I agree with your view on the ruling class. All the ruling class needs is to split the middle-class, and they do that well.

On the contrary. The left dominates the middle class (at least for the Presidency). That's why we will have another Dem next time.

[Clocker]

Whenever I want to stir up a few of my favorite buddies I find one of Sowell's recent articles... works every time. :D

People that don't agree with Sowell are only doing so because they are racists.


(The next loud sounds you hear will be Liberals' heads exploding.)

[Clocker]

The left dominates the middle class (at least for the Presidency). That's why we will have another Dem next time.

No, the left dominates the low information voters of all classes. And that's why the country will continue to sink into the morass of the stagnant economies of European socialist democracies. Welcome to the new normal.

[NJ Stinks]

No, the left dominates the low information voters of all classes. And that's why the country will continue to sink into the morass of the stagnant economies of European socialist democracies. Welcome to the new normal.

How do you spell S-O-R-E L-O-S-E-R?

CLOCKER

[Clocker]

How do you spell S-O-R-E L-O-S-E-R?



I didn't vote for either party. The loser, sore or otherwise, is the American citizen.

[badcompany]

Uh oh, a Thomas Sowell insertion.

Prepare for the repercussions.

Whenever I want to stir up a few of my favorite buddies I find one of Sowell's recent articles... works every time. :D

Sowell also said that Liberals believe people are like Chess pieces that can be moved around a board. Al's threads and the absurd responses from the Libs, here, provide an excellent example of this. They think they can alter working conditions viz. hours, pay, health bennies, and the employers will not react in any way.

Then again, most of the Libs, here, couldn't operate a hot dog stand. :D

[Capper Al]

On the contrary. The left dominates the middle class (at least for the Presidency). That's why we will have another Dem next time.

People are generally good and want to do the right thing. That's why the dems did well. All the ruling class needs to do is find a significant percentage of people who can be given reasons not to want healthcare, not to want public education, not to want social security. These fools take the bait. They take what appears as reason to substitute over their own and their families security to have a guaranteed safety net.

[Tom]

Al, you just described Obama-Care perfectly!

[Clocker]

People are generally good and want to do the right thing. That's why the dems did well.

And then they all lived happily ever after.

The government is in a state of paralysis and stagnation because the system is run by special interest groups, none of which have any interest in doing the right thing except for themselves.

Just to pick one at random, let's look at ethanol. Even the main stream media has concluded that the government ethanol program is a boondoggle, but there is no effort underway to do the right thing and kill it. Why? Because the average person who is opposed to it is not hurt enough by the program to really care personally or make any effort to stop it, and the average person who is helped by it benefits enormously and will do anything to keep it going.

The ethanol special interest group consists of farmers who grow the corn, suppliers who sell stuff to the farmers, companies that convert the corn into ethanol, government bureaucrats whose jobs depend on the program, lawyers and consultants who advocate for the program, and legislators whose careers are founded on the votes and campaign contributions from those just mentioned. You really think that doing the right thing is on the priority list of any of those people? If you ask any of them if government spending is out of hand and if we need reform, they will all say yes. But not my program, because it is needed.

Multiply that by hundred of special interest groups, all gathered at the federal trough. And they support each other to protect their own self-interests. Congressmen swap votes. You vote for this program that helps my corn growers and I'll vote for that program that helps your defense contractor.

And among the biggest special interests groups are the unions. Nobody can deliver money and votes like the unions. And they do it out of self-interest. And they keep their members pumped up and ignorant. And that's why the Dems do well.

[Valuist]

And then they all lived happily ever after.

The government is in a state of paralysis and stagnation because the system is run by special interest groups, none of which have any interest in doing the right thing except for themselves.

Just to pick one at random, let's look at ethanol. Even the main stream media has concluded that the government ethanol program is a boondoggle, but there is no effort underway to do the right thing and kill it. Why? Because the average person who is opposed to it is not hurt enough by the program to really care personally or make any effort to stop it, and the average person who is helped by it benefits enormously and will do anything to keep it going.

The ethanol special interest group consists of farmers who grow the corn, suppliers who sell stuff to the farmers, companies that convert the corn into ethanol, government bureaucrats whose jobs depend on the program, lawyers and consultants who advocate for the program, and legislators whose careers are founded on the votes and campaign contributions from those just mentioned. You really think that doing the right thing is on the priority list of any of those people? If you ask any of them if government spending is out of hand and if we need reform, they will all say yes. But not my program, because it is needed.

Multiply that by hundred of special interest groups, all gathered at the federal trough. And they support each other to protect their own self-interests. Congressmen swap votes. You vote for this program that helps my corn growers and I'll vote for that program that helps your defense contractor.

And among the biggest special interests groups are the unions. Nobody can deliver money and votes like the unions. And they do it out of self-interest. And they keep their members pumped up and ignorant. And that's why the Dems do well.

Well said. :ThmbUp:

[Capper Al]

Al, you just described Obama-Care perfectly!

The opposition to Obama care.

[Clocker]

Well said. :ThmbUp:

Thanks. Reality trumps moonbat fairy tales about doing the right thing.

Thomas Sowell, mentioned earlier in the thread, wrote a book called "A Conflict of Visions" that addresses this issue about doing the right thing. Sowell says that a big difference between conservatives and liberals is their vision of human nature. It is that vision that drives their politics and policies.

Conservatives have a "constrained" vision, believing that human nature is enduring and self-centered. And that self-interest is best served by cooperation and mutual respect and a social agreement that protects the rights of all. This is the basis for the works of Adam Smith and subsequent advocates of the free market and small government.

Liberals have an "unconstrained" vision. They believe that human nature is malleable and perfectible. Human nature cannot be perfected if people don't know what is good for them, so they have to be taught and led. This leads to the belief that society makes better decisions than the individual, and that the government is more efficient than the free market.

The conflict is obvious from that brief outline. The constrained vision of human nature treats all men as equally qualified to make their own decisions. The unconstrained vision assumes that most men have to be taught what is the right thing to do before they can be trusted to make their own decisions.

[Capper Al]

And then they all lived happily ever after.

The government is in a state of paralysis and stagnation because the system is run by special interest groups, none of which have any interest in doing the right thing except for themselves.

Just to pick one at random, let's look at ethanol. Even the main stream media has concluded that the government ethanol program is a boondoggle, but there is no effort underway to do the right thing and kill it. Why? Because the average person who is opposed to it is not hurt enough by the program to really care personally or make any effort to stop it, and the average person who is helped by it benefits enormously and will do anything to keep it going.

The ethanol special interest group consists of farmers who grow the corn, suppliers who sell stuff to the farmers, companies that convert the corn into ethanol, government bureaucrats whose jobs depend on the program, lawyers and consultants who advocate for the program, and legislators whose careers are founded on the votes and campaign contributions from those just mentioned. You really think that doing the right thing is on the priority list of any of those people? If you ask any of them if government spending is out of hand and if we need reform, they will all say yes. But not my program, because it is needed.

Multiply that by hundred of special interest groups, all gathered at the federal trough. And they support each other to protect their own self-interests. Congressmen swap votes. You vote for this program that helps my corn growers and I'll vote for that program that helps your defense contractor.

And among the biggest special interests groups are the unions. Nobody can deliver money and votes like the unions. And they do it out of self-interest. And they keep their members pumped up and ignorant. And that's why the Dems do well.

I agree ethanol didn't work. But unions are gone for the most part. There is little resistance to the mega funds and the corporate will. The voters now need to do what the unions used to do for them, negotiate a better life as the opportunities araise. As long as the money keeps influencing some voters that we don't need to progress, we're lost.

[Clocker]

I agree ethanol didn't work.

That was just an easy example to show how the system works. The government is bloated with special interest group programs as bad or worse. And it is bipartisan. Both sides do it.

But unions are gone for the most part.

No, the unions have evolved, they haven't gone extinct. A lot of the trade unions have lost members and power, although obviously exceptions exist, such as the UAW and the Teamsters. But their place has been taken by exceptionally powerful unions like SEIU, AFSCME, and the NEA.

And the Dems affinity with those groups doesn't prevent them from being strongly influenced by big banks and big business. Note that Obama's big jobs adviser wasn't anyone interested in the working man, it was the CEO of GE.

The voters now need to do what the unions used to do for them, negotiate a better life as the opportunities araise.

How, by voting for Democrats who sell out to the unions and to big business? ObamaCare is a perfect example. The drafting of bill was heavily influenced by big insurance lobbyists (including AARP, which is an insurance company masquerading as an advocacy group) and by big drug lobbyists. And the Dems bought off the unions to get their support by promising them special treatment that never materialized.

Obama and friends talk a good game, but they have done nothing to help the working man. They are killing good blue collar jobs with ObamaCare and with rules and regulations that choke off the energy business and with tax subsidies to dead end projects like Solyndra or the Chevy Volt. And they are eliminating the middle class with programs and regulations that make new business formation and small business growth difficult if not impossible. These are the people who want to do the right thing?

[thaskalos]

Then again, most of the Libs, here, couldn't operate a hot dog stand. :D

Whereas most of the conservatives here can be found leading successful businesses worldwide...

[Robert Fischer]

I used to think that the ultimate utopian economy would be that of a Surplus Sharing Network.

The fruits of men (labor, knowledge, etc..) would be shared, as would the fruits of the earth.
A surplus would be created, shared and traded.

The earth would flourish, poverty and war would would be nonexistent, and we could dance a lot.

Now I think that if that theoretical utopia were reality, it would quickly degenerate into corruption and inequality, and if it didn't, that people would be incredibly bored and depressed and repressed.

Reality has to fit with nature, and by definition it usually already does.

[thaskalos]

That was just an easy example to show how the system works. The government is bloated with special interest group programs as bad or worse. And it is bipartisan. Both sides do it.



No, the unions have evolved, they haven't gone extinct. A lot of the trade unions have lost members and power, although obviously exceptions exist, such as the UAW and the Teamsters. But their place has been taken by exceptionally powerful unions like SEIU, AFSCME, and the NEA.

And the Dems affinity with those groups doesn't prevent them from being strongly influenced by big banks and big business. Note that Obama's big jobs adviser wasn't anyone interested in the working man, it was the CEO of GE.



How, by voting for Democrats who sell out to the unions and to big business? ObamaCare is a perfect example. The drafting of bill was heavily influenced by big insurance lobbyists (including AARP, which is an insurance company masquerading as an advocacy group) and by big drug lobbyists. And the Dems bought off the unions to get their support by promising them special treatment that never materialized.

Obama and friends talk a good game, but they have done nothing to help the working man. They are killing good blue collar jobs with ObamaCare and with rules and regulations that choke off the energy business and with tax subsidies to dead end projects like Solyndra or the Chevy Volt. And they are eliminating the middle class with programs and regulations that make new business formation and small business growth difficult if not impossible. These are the people who want to do the right thing?

Yes. And the Secretary of the Treasury -- and later the Chief of Staff -- for Ronald Reagan was Donald Regan...the CEO of Merrill Lynch. And there was talk about adding Reagan's head on Mount Rushmore. :)

NO ONE is doing anything for the working man...we have seen this time and again.

If the republicans cared so much about the working man...then they would still be in power.

There is enough blame to go around.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I used to think that the ultimate utopian economy would be that of a Surplus Sharing Network.

The fruits of men (labor, knowledge, etc..) would be shared, as would the fruits of the earth.
A surplus would be created, shared and traded.

The earth would flourish, poverty and war would would be nonexistent, and we could dance a lot.

Now I think that if that theoretical utopia were reality, it would quickly degenerate into corruption and inequality, and if it didn't, that people would be incredibly bored and depressed and repressed.

Reality has to fit with nature, and by definition it usually already does.

Though this post will probably go ignored given the context around it, you probably sum up why I "evolved" (hate that use of the word) from being pretty liberal all the way around to being very liberal socially and very conservative in terms of the role of government.

Essentially, what you describe, and what history has often shown to be the case, is that eventually no matter how hard man tries to accomplish your Utopia, there will always be a ruling class that appears and grows, generally in the form of perceived government (even if said government is essentially a straw man front for other interests), that promises one thing while basically just ****ing up the Utopian underpinning over time. It only takes a tiny fraction to ruin it all and that tiny fraction will always be there. So, the less power and influence they have, the better. Less chance to **** up the best approximation to a Utopia that we can maintain. They get it right, conceptually at least, quite a bit, but implementation usually doesn't deliver as billed. At a minimum you have to be able to put the stop sign up more often than not and only let the very best of those concepts threaten the fairly decent Utopia we have to count on.

[Clocker]

If the republicans cared so much about the working man...then they would still be in power.

There is enough blame to go around.

We have a two party system, the evil party and the stupid party. All either of them care about is being in charge. The Democrats claim to care more about the working man, but they lack the competence to do anything effective, and usually end up hurting the lower and middle classes through unintended consequences.

The Republicans claim to care more about a free market and less regulation to promote job growth, but they lack the competence to do anything effective, and usually end up just increasing government spending and the growth of the bureaucracy at slower rates than the Democrats would.

[thaskalos]

We have a two party system, the evil party and the stupid party. All either of them care about is being in charge. The Democrats claim to care more about the working man, but they lack the competence to do anything effective, and usually end up hurting the lower and middle classes through unintended consequences.

The Republicans claim to care more about a free market and less regulation to promote job growth, but they lack the competence to do anything effective, and usually end up just increasing government spending and the growth of the bureaucracy at slower rates than the Democrats would.

I always say that the elections in this country always boil down to choosing the best of two evils. You expect this in a small country like Greece...but in a country like ours? Unbelievable.

[Valuist]

:)

NO ONE is doing anything for the working man...we have seen this time and again.

If the republicans cared so much about the working man...then they would still be in power.



Not when there's millions of uninformed voters.

BTW, I don't recall you answering the "north suburban Chicago OTB" question.

I'm guessing its Prospect Heights.

[Clocker]

Yes. And the Secretary of the Treasury -- and later the Chief of Staff -- for Ronald Reagan was Donald Regan...the CEO of Merrill Lynch. And there was talk about adding Reagan's head on Mount Rushmore. :)



Reagan's failure to implement his economic reforms is well documented in "The Triumph of Politics" by David Stockman. Stockman was Reagan's budget director and charged with coordinating Reagan's promised spending cuts. Any and all attempts to cut spending hit a solid stone wall within the administration, with every Cabinet Secretary and program director expressing full support for the need for major spending cuts, except in my program or my department. Even informal talks with Republican members of Congress about spending cuts hit the same stone wall. Cuts, yes, unless they affect my special interests. Those programs are good and needed.

The book is a text book on how bureaucracy and special interests strangle any attempts to end business as usual in Washington. It appears that even if he believed his own campaign promises, Obama quickly learned that lesson once in office.

[Mike at A+]

If the republicans cared so much about the working man...then they would still be in power.
On the surface that sounds valid but it's also very true that much of the Democrat base has no desire to work.

[Clocker]

On the surface that sounds valid but it's also very true that much of the Democrat base has no desire to work.

Business Management 101: People do what they are rewarded for.

[Mike at A+]

Business Management 101: People do what they are rewarded for.
As the saying goes, some people work for a living. Others vote for a living. If Republicans announced a platform of doubling the minimum wage, doubling welfare payments and allowing people to buy booze with food stamps, they might have a chance of winning over some of the low information voters. But they'd probably lose a lot more of their own voters in the process. The bottom line is that the stupid people now outnumber the rest of us. The end game will be ugly.

[thaskalos]

The bottom line is that the stupid people now outnumber the rest of us.


I hadn't realized that this was a recent development...

[Clocker]

I hadn't realized that this was a recent development...

Half the people in the world are below average.

And average ain't that much to brag about.;)

[Mike at A+]

I hadn't realized that this was a recent development...
They've been multiplying at a much faster rate.

[mostpost]

http://nathanbickel.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/thomassowellongreed.jpg
Before we can decide if it is greed or not, Mr Sowell, we need to find out if you really did earn all the money you have allotted to yourself. Or was some of that money supposed to go to someone else. Anytime a business owner or a corporation determines salary or benefits without engaging in negotiation with an adversary of equal power, you can be certain that business owner or corporation will overcompensate himself or itself.

It is never greed to seek that which you have been unfairly denied. The problem with Mr Sowell and with you Mr. Clocker is that you think the profit from a business should belong to that business's owner to distribute as he sees fit.
However, that profit came about primarily as a result of the labor of others. Those others should have a hand in formulating the blueprint for that distribution.

[Saratoga_Mike]

It is never greed to seek that which you have been unfairly denied. The problem with Mr Sowell and with you Mr. Clocker is that you think the profit from a business should belong to that business's owner to distribute as he sees fit.
However, that profit came about primarily as a result of the labor of others. Those others should have a hand in formulating the blueprint for that distribution.

Start a business, then tell us what you think

[Capper Al]

Start a business, then tell us what you think

Of course most of us would naturally play our edge over tbe employees because we can. How many of only drive 70 mph on an expressway marked limit 70. You just know that you can get away with it. All that most centrist dems usually want to guarantee is the floor; the security net for health, education, and welfare.

[mostpost]

Start a business, then tell us what you think
Why don't you tell me specifically what you disagree with in my posting, instead of just making a stupid comment.

I don't have to start a business to know what is fair and I never said that every business owner deliberately short changes his employees. But a fair number do and the larger and more complex a business is the more likely it is to happen.

In Post 53 of this thread, Clocker wrote, Conservatives have a "constrained" vision, believing that human nature is enduring and self-centered.
If we accept that vision, it proves what I am saying. A person given the opportunity to make a unilateral decision will always make the one that benefits him to the greatest degree. Paying less and taking more is very beneficial to the individual. Paying more and taking less is beneficial to Society.

ETA: In the quote I posted from Clocker, he was apparently quoting or paraphrasing Thomas Sowell.

[Mike at A+]

The problem with Mr Sowell and with you Mr. Clocker is that you think the profit from a business should belong to that business's owner to distribute as he sees fit.
Compensation agreements are made at the time of employment. Raises are usually granted on merit. Profit sharing is not necessarily a mandatory stipulation of an employment agreement. That is how the real world operates and no politician should have a say in any of it other than having a vote in establishing a minimum wage.

[Mike at A+]

A person given the opportunity to make a unilateral decision will always make the one that benefits him to the greatest degree. Paying less and taking more is very beneficial to the individual. Paying more and taking less is beneficial to Society.
Really? EVERY person? I recall some pretty good merit increases I've gotten during my career in the corporate world. My bosses could have easily screwed me out of what I deserved but I don't recall that ever happening except once and there were "extenuating circumstances". And that one time it happened I made a few phone calls and left for greener pastures.

As far as what is "beneficial to society", surely you must understand that society is composed of people possessing varying degrees of education, experience, work ethic and a plethora of qualities that all contribute to one's success or failure.

And in America, there is nothing preventing a business owner from paying himself whatever he wants. Once that ceases to be true, it will no longer be America.

[Clocker]

Compensation agreements are made at the time of employment.

Between consenting adults.

[Clocker]

Before we can decide if it is greed or not, Mr Sowell, we need to find out if you really did earn all the money you have allotted to yourself. Or was some of that money supposed to go to someone else.

Is there a court somewhere where we can sue for damages if things don't happen the way they were supposed to? My horse was supposed to win the 9th race at Saratoga last Saturday, and he didn't. So do I sue the track or the DRF or the owner of the winner? This is all so confusing.

Or maybe I am just not privy to the source of cosmic truth about what is supposed to happen and how things are supposed to be. I feel so left out. Maybe I should drink some Kool Aid. The Kool Aid drinkers always seem to know how things are supposed to be.

[Clocker]

I don't have to start a business to know what is fair according to my personal, subjective values

Edited to reflect reality.

The problem with Mr Sowell and with you Mr. Clocker is that you think the profit from a business should belong to that business's owner to distribute as he sees fit.

That's what the law says. That may not fit in with your version of morality (or reality), but you can't legislate morality.


However, that profit came about primarily as a result of the labor of others. Those others should have a hand in formulating the blueprint for that distribution.

They had a hand in that formulation when they accepted a job at an agreed upon wage and under agreed upon conditions of employment.

And since your response is predictable, I will answer it in advance. If in fact the employer had a bargaining advantage, i.e., market power, in setting or negotiating that wage, that is a fact of life. One party has an edge in virtually every negotiation. Some times it is a buyers market, some times it is a sellers market. You do the best you can or you get out of the market and find one where you have the edge. Every attempt in history, in this country and elsewhere, at government control of wages and prices has been an abject failure. Much as you hate the free market, it works better, and "fairer", than anything else that has been tried.

[NJ Stinks]

Liberals have an "unconstrained" vision. They believe that human nature is malleable and perfectible. Human nature cannot be perfected if people don't know what is good for them, so they have to be taught and led. This leads to the belief that society makes better decisions than the individual, and that the government is more efficient than the free market.

The conflict is obvious from that brief outline. The constrained vision of human nature treats all men as equally qualified to make their own decisions. The unconstrained vision assumes that most men have to be taught what is the right thing to do before they can be trusted to make their own decisions.

An 80 year old widow can make her own decisions but if she doesn't get her Social Security, chances are good that she will be looking for a place to live. (Not to mention food.) That's her decision - where do I go from here! And if she gets really sick, she needs her Medicare to see her through. Otherwise, her only decision is to decide where her ashes will be tossed!

If companies don't want to pay pension benefits anymore - and they don't, seniors need help from somewhere. Thankfully, the Democratic Party pushed for SS and Medicare. You guys can say both parties are the same but it's simply not true. One side pushed hard to do something to increase the quality of life for all and the other party did nothing.

Same deal with Obamacare.

[thaskalos]

BTW, I don't recall you answering the "north suburban Chicago OTB" question.

I'm guessing its Prospect Heights.

I don't know if I can answer the question without creating problems for someone...

[TJDave]

If in fact the employer had a bargaining advantage, i.e., market power, in setting or negotiating that wage, that is a fact of life. One party has an edge in virtually every negotiation. Some times it is a buyers market, some times it is a sellers market. You do the best you can or you get out of the market and find one where you have the edge.

The issue is unfair advantage. That was the reasoning behind labor law.

Today, it is rare that any employee would have a bargaining advantage. Global markets and monopolized industry have seen to that. Even the concept of minimum wage has been turned upside down.

As I don't see a another Teddy Roosevelt on the horizon the inequities are bound to get worse.

BTW, I'm a business owner.

[Clocker]

An 80 year old widow can make her own decisions but if she doesn't get her Social Security, chances are good that she will be looking for a place to live.

Oh no! He played the 80 y.o. woman card. :eek:

That trumps everything except the race card. Even though it is irrelevant to the topic.

And I can't play the race card, because racism is the only reason I oppose ObamaCare.

[NJ Stinks]

Oh no! He played the 80 y.o. woman card. :eek:

That trumps everything except the race card. Even though it is irrelevant to the topic.

And I can't play the race card, because racism is the only reason I oppose ObamaCare.

When there is no good response, see above.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...

Same deal with Obamacare.

Obamacare is hard to compare to SS, Medicare, Medicaid. I mean, yeah, in the abstract "trying to help people" sense. But in terms of actual nature of the beast, I don't see many similarities.

Besides which, you guys are always quick to point out that it's actually a Republican idea, so........ maybe there's a better example to punctuate all the great ideas that Dems propose and Repubs reject. ;)

[mostpost]

You just identified the problem. Government application of supply side economics is oxymoronic. The essence of supply side is that the government get out of the way and let the free market work. Supply side economics has never worked because it has never been tried.
It has been tried and it has failed miserably. If you really taught economics you should have read Naomi Klein's book "The Shock Doctrine." Or do you just read what agrees with your preconceptions.

In Chapter three of her book Klein talks about Chile under Pinochet. Under Pinochet's predecessor, Salvador Allende, the Chilean economy was in no great shape. After August Pinochet took power in a brutal coup, it soon became obvious that neither he nor any of his advisers had a clue what to do about the economy. For advice they called on what had become known as the "Chicago Boys".

The "Chicago Boys" had studied under Milton Friedman and his disciples at the University of Chicago. They were primarily Chileans who had been brought to the United States in the fifties and sixties to be indoctrinated into Friedman's theories on free markets and government non interference. A few were Americans who oversaw the dismantling of the Chilean economy and the installation of an uber laissez faire economy. I bet those two terms have never been used in conjunction before.

The "Chicago Boys" proposed an economic trinity based on Milton Friedman's book "Capitalism and Freedom." One, the privatization of all state owned industries. Two, Deregulation of all industries and financial services and the end of protectionist tariffs. Three, the dismantling of the Social safety net.

"Pinochet adopted these measures with relish. He privatized some all though not all state owned companies (including several banks); he allowed cutting edge new forms of speculative finance; he flung open the borders to foreign imports tearing down the barriers that had long protected Chilean manufacturers; and he cut government spending by 10%. He also eliminated price controls."
This last paragraph was copied almost verbatim from pages 96 and 97 of Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine."

The "Chicago Boys" waited in triumphant anticipation for the success of their experiment in economics. What they got was quite different. Inflation soared to 375%. Foreign imports flooded the market causing many Chilean businesses to shut down. Foreign speculators swooped in, made fortunes and left the carcass of the Chilean economy to rot in the South American sun. Unemployment, which had been around three percent during part of Allende's presidency, soared.

Face with this debacle, the "Chicago Boys" did not come to the logical conclusion that their economic theories were a farce. They decided that even more draconian measures were required. Milton Friedman himself came to Chile to urge Pinochet to follow the plan more closely.

He did so. More than five hundred state owned companies were privatized. More trade barriers were eliminated. Public spending was cut 27% in one blow and cut in half by 1980.

By 1982 Chile's economy crashed, its debt soared; hyperinflation returned; unemployment reached 30%. By 1988 when recovery finally took hold, 45% of Chile's population was living below the poverty level and Chile ranked as the eighth most unequal country in the world.

Supply side economics. What a great idea. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Tom]

mostie, your comment is absurd.
If all the union boys went on strike, guess what?
They would be replaced with real workers in a minute and the business would go on.

If the OWNER closes the door, what do the union boys do? Look for some else to leech off from?

[Clocker]

If you really taught economics
Given your demonstrated lack of knowledge about economics, you have no rational basis for questioning that.

I also find it rude and insulting that someone would use the anonymity of the net to question the personal veracity of a stranger without cause. I mistakenly let slip an item of personal information in public, and I now know better than to ever do it again.

you should have read Naomi Klein's book "The Shock Doctrine."

No economist would read that book for its economic content. It is yellow journalism. The title is apt, because it is designed to sell based on its shock value.

The "Chicago Boys" proposed an economic trinity based on Milton Friedman's book "Capitalism and Freedom." One, the privatization of all state owned industries. Two, Deregulation of all industries and financial services and the end of protectionist tariffs. Three, the dismantling of the Social safety net.

The Friedman book cited does say that centralized control of economic activity was always accompanied with political repression. A warning for our time. Perhaps you should be reading books like that instead of sensationalized claptrap like "The Shock Doctrine." The excerpts here and on Amazon clearly demonstrate the author's ignorance of economics.

Chile had a centralized control economy at the time. Friedman would argue that none of those existing systems should have been done in the first place, but he would never advocate dismantling them. In fact, Friedman was vocally critical of what was happening in Chile at the time.

I don't know where the Chilean "Chicago Boys" got their reform policies, but they didn't get them from Friedman. And they didn't get them from supply side economists either, which is an entirely different thing. Friedman is not a supply side economist.

"Pinochet adopted these measures with relish. He privatized some all though not all state owned companies (including several banks); he allowed cutting edge new forms of speculative finance; he flung open the borders to foreign imports tearing down the barriers that had long protected Chilean manufacturers; and he cut government spending by 10%. He also eliminated price controls."

This last paragraph was copied almost verbatim from pages 96 and 97 of Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine."

So? Some of those things need to be phased in to open markets to free trade and to international commerce, which was a big problem for Chile. No rational economist would recommend a wholesale, short-term transition on such a massive scale.

[NJ Stinks]

I also find it rude and insulting that someone would use the anonymity of the net to question the personal veracity of a stranger without cause. I mistakenly let slip an item of personal information in public, and I now know better than to ever do it again.


Here's a news flash for you. Mostpost mentioned that he worked for the post office here awhile back. The guy got tattooed here by righties who absolutely despise the U.S. Post Office. Stuff that was so insulting, PA had to call off the dogs a few times. Go figure.

Anyway, what Mostpost wrote "If you really taught economics...." is not exactly a slap in the face with a glove. Really isn't - at least not IMO.

[mostpost]

Given your demonstrated lack of knowledge about economics, you have no rational basis for questioning that.

I also find it rude and insulting that someone would use the anonymity of the net to question the personal veracity of a stranger without cause. I mistakenly let slip an item of personal information in public, and I now know better than to ever do it again.
Everyone here knows my hometown-North Riverside, IL. just outside of Chicago. They know that I attended Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, IL. majoring in political science and history. They know I was drafted into the army, where I took basic training in Newtothegame's backyard and received many awards as most inept trainee. They know that I worked a number of jobs in private industry before joining the United States Postal Service where I worked until I retired eight years ago. If they can subtract 1941 from 2013, they know I am (almost) 72 years old. They know that I am a proud member of the American Postal Workers Union.

They know all these things because I revealed them. I revealed them because I felt it was important that they know what I am about when they read my views.

Posting in anonymity is the cowards way.



No economist would read that book for its economic content. It is yellow journalism. The title is apt, because it is designed to sell based on its shock value.
You never read the book and yet you know all about it. :bang:



The Friedman book cited does say that centralized control of economic activity was always accompanied with political repression.
And yet the decentralization of the Chilean economy was accompanied by brutal political repression; thousands killed; tens of thousands tortured and imprisoned; additional tens of thousands forced to flee the country; basic freedoms denied; fair and free elections abandoned.


A warning for our time. Perhaps you should be reading books like that instead of sensationalized claptrap like "The Shock Doctrine." The excerpts here and on Amazon clearly demonstrate the author's ignorance of economics.
What the excerpts demonstrate is the author's disdain for your brand of economics. She does not think supply side works and neither do I. I have shown you one place where it did not work, you admit yourself that it has never worked in the real world. I think the ignorance lies in your blind adherence to a failed policy.


Chile had a centralized control economy at the time. Friedman would argue that none of those existing systems should have been done in the first place, but he would never advocate dismantling them. In fact, Friedman was vocally critical of what was happening in Chile at the time.
Are you saying that the University of Chicago School of Economics never brought hundreds of Chilean students to the University to study in the 50's and 60's? That many of those same students did not return to Chile when Pinochet took power?

Do you claim that Friedman never traveled to Chile in March of 1975; that he did not make a series of public statements, lectures and speeches praising what the Chileans had done but insisting that they go further. Do you think that he never met personally with Pinochet and urged him strongly not to go back, but to forge ahead.



I don't know where the Chilean "Chicago Boys" got their reform policies, but they didn't get them from Friedman. And they didn't get them from supply side economists either, which is an entirely different thing. Friedman is not a supply side economist.



So? Some of those things need to be phased in to open markets to free trade and to international commerce, which was a big problem for Chile. No rational economist would recommend a wholesale, short-term transition on such a massive scale.
It certainly seems like supply side to me.

[mostpost]

Here's a news flash for you. Mostpost mentioned that he worked for the post office here awhile back. The guy got tattooed here by righties who absolutely despise the U.S. Post Office. Stuff that was so insulting, PA had to call off the dogs a few times. Go figure.

Anyway, what Mostpost wrote "If you really taught economics...." is not exactly a slap in the face with a glove. Really isn't - at least not IMO.
I gave clocker my bio in the post right after yours. Wait until he finds out what you did, you evil tax collector you. Don't worry, I won't tell.

[cj's dad]

"By 1982 Chile's economy crashed, its debt soared; hyperinflation returned; unemployment reached 30%. By 1988 when recovery finally took hold, 45% of Chile's population was living below the poverty level and Chile ranked as the eighth most unequal country in the world."

If memory serves me, the existing Chilean gov't was overthrown and Salvador Allende became president. The new dictator seized the assets of Kennecott Copper which was the largest exporter of copper in SA, if not the world. Once the assets from the seizure dried up, Chile was doomed. So much for upheaval and unrest. BTW, Kennecott Copper is no longer in business and with the shutdown, many lost their jobs including me.

[Clocker]

Here's a news flash for you. Mostpost mentioned that he worked for the post office here awhile back. The guy got tattooed here by righties who absolutely despise the U.S. Post Office. Stuff that was so insulting, PA had to call off the dogs a few times. Go figure.


I fail to see the relevance.

Anyway, what Mostpost wrote "If you really taught economics...." is not exactly a slap in the face with a glove. Really isn't - at least not IMO.

But it was gratuitous and without foundation or provocation. I respond to others courteously. I expect the same in return.

[NJ Stinks]

But it was gratuitous and without foundation or provocation. I respond to others courteously. I expect the same in return.

So did I when I first came here.

Hopefully, things posted down here won't put you off from sticking around. Because the truth is that it does more often than not. The bottom line for me is I enjoy the discussion. The back and forth. And I believe if I met a lot of the guys here that bust my chops, we'd enjoy having a few brews together.

Hope you wind up feeling the same way.

[johnhannibalsmith]

So did I when I first came here.

Hopefully, things posted down here won't put you off from sticking around. Because the truth is that it does more often than not. The bottom line for me is I enjoy the discussion. The back and forth. And I believe if I met a lot of the guys here that bust my chops, we'd enjoy having a few brews together.

Hope you wind up feeling the same way.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

You're pick of the litter material even if we disagree more often than not, despite probably agreeing on more things than we don't.

I think it's just the fact that you never make any sense at all that I feel the need to bust your balls. :D

[mostpost]

"By 1982 Chile's economy crashed, its debt soared; hyperinflation returned; unemployment reached 30%. By 1988 when recovery finally took hold, 45% of Chile's population was living below the poverty level and Chile ranked as the eighth most unequal country in the world."

If memory serves me, the existing Chilean gov't was overthrown and Salvador Allende became president. The new dictator seized the assets of Kennecott Copper which was the largest exporter of copper in SA, if not the world. Once the assets from the seizure dried up, Chile was doomed. So much for upheaval and unrest. BTW, Kennecott Copper is no longer in business and with the shutdown, many lost their jobs including me.
Your timeline is wrong; along with a few other facts. Allende did nationalize Chile's copper industry, but that was in 1971 before Pinochet became the ruler of Chile.

Allende was democratically elected while Pinochet took power in a coup. So who is the dictator?

As far as Chile being doomed once the assets from the seizure dried up, they never dried up. In "The Shock Doctrine" Klein reports that Codelco (Chile's national copper company) was the one thing that saved Chile from total economic collapse. Pinochet had never privatized that Codelco and over the period of the early 1980's it generated 85% of Chile's export revenues.

Look up Codelco on Wikipedia and you will find that the company is still going strong today. It is currently the largest copper producing company in the world and produced 1.66 million tonnes of the metal in 2007, 11% of the world total. It owns the world's largest known copper reserves and resources.

A study by Goldman Sachs of January 2006 estimated the current value of the company between US $24.5 and $27.5 billion.[citation needed]

All excess profits go to the government, including a 10% tax on foreign currency sales (Law 13,196). In 2007 Codelco paid US$7.394 billion to the Chilean Treasury.

Wikipedia also tells us that revenues in Chile in 2011 amounted to $57.6B. Which means that this government run, failed company provided 13% of Chile's total revenues. Yes I know the figures are from two different years but I think you will find the ratios are about the same.

[delayjf]

Before we can decide if it is greed or not, Mr Sowell, we need to find out if you really did earn all the money you have allotted to yourself. Or was some of that money supposed to go to someone else. Anytime a business owner or a corporation determines salary or benefits without engaging in negotiation with an adversary of equal power, you can be certain that business owner or corporation will overcompensate himself or itself.

It is never greed to seek that which you have been unfairly denied. The problem with Mr Sowell and with you Mr. Clocker is that you think the profit from a business should belong to that business's owner to distribute as he sees fit.
However, that profit came about primarily as a result of the labor of others. Those others should have a hand in formulating the blueprint for that distribution.

How much investment or how much risk are the labors contributing or taking. If the business fails, how much money would the labors lose. When one of his labor's F's up and the company gets sued, are the labors going to ante up their fair share out of their wages.

So a business owner invests his hard earned money, blood, sweat, and tears working long hours, and finally builds his business to where it's successful and
NOW you feel the workers are entitled to a share of the profits beyond their previously agreed upon wages? I would tell them if they want profits they can invest and take on the same risk I do or start their own business.

Also, Your premise that business owners pay their employees "as he sees fit" is flat wrong, he pays his employees the wages they agreed upon when they were hired.

I too await your definition of a "fair wage" and exactly how that should be calculated.

[mostpost]

How much investment or how much risk are the laborers contributing or taking. If the business fails, how much money would the laborers lose. When one of his laborers F's up and the company gets sued, are the laborers going to ante up their fair share out of their wages.
They are investing their labor and they are risking their jobs. If the business fails, the workers (a much better word than labors) lose their livelihood.

The failure of a business is more likely to be from the incompetence of an owner then from anything a worker does or does not do. Bad workers can be terminated. Bad owners can't.

[mostpost]

So a business owner invests his hard earned money, blood, sweat, and tears working long hours, and finally builds his business to where it's successful and
NOW you feel the workers are entitled to a share of the profits beyond their previously agreed upon wages? I would tell them if they want profits they can invest and take on the same risk I do or start their own business.
Profits are what an owner receives AFTER he has paid his legitimate expenses. Those include his rent or mortgage, his suppliers, his utilities and his employees. An owner can not arbitrarily decide that his rent is too high and only pay 80% of it. He can't decide that his electricity costs to much and only pay half. Yet you think that he can set wages without input from his employees.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Profits are what an owner receives AFTER he has paid his legitimate expenses. Those include his rent or mortgage, his suppliers, his utilities and his employees. An owner can not arbitrarily decide that his rent is too high and only pay 80% of it. He can't decide that his electricity costs to much and only pay half. Yet you think that he can set wages without input from his employees.

So then why can't he demand to negotiate the rent and the electric rate?

[mostpost]

Also, Your premise that business owners pay their employees "as he sees fit" is flat wrong, he pays his employees the wages they agreed upon when they were hired.
He pays them "as he sees fit." An experienced worker goes to company seeking a job. He has an idea of what the job is worth in terms of salary. The person hiring is constrained to offer the job at a certain rate. After negotiation the offered salary is still below what the worker feels is fair. He leaves to seek employment elsewhere.

A second worker comes in who accepts the company's original offer. The company has filled the position at the salary it deems proper, even though the value of the job may have been what the original applicant thought it was.

An owner can always dictate salary because there will always be a next guy who will accept whatever salary he can get.

[mostpost]

I too await your definition of a "fair wage" and exactly how that should be calculated.
We've had this discussion before and I think I have answered it. Nevertheless let me answer in two words, "Collective Bargaining." One person negotiating against a corporation has no power. A union bargaining in that person's behalf has a great deal of power.

[mostpost]

So then why can't he demand to negotiate the rent and the electric rate?
For the same reasons that the worker can't successfully negotiate his salary. All the power is in the hands of the other side.

[TJDave]

So then why can't he demand to negotiate the rent and the electric rate?

Companies can and do.

[johnhannibalsmith]

For the same reasons that the worker can't successfully negotiate his salary. All the power is in the hands of the other side.

Let me rephrase: Do you think that the "employer" ought to be able to negotiate the value of what is being provided? Should everything be negotiated directly in lieu of market forces finding the balance? Or is it just workers vs. employers? Obviously being able to negotiate everything and never having anyone (market) with the power to dictate cost/value would make it much easier for employees to negotiate a superior rate... unless they worked at the electric company I suppose...

I'm not an anti-labor, anti-union, unconstrained free market loving sonofabitch by any stretch - but I'm always confused by where the lines are drawn and how these concepts actually play out when applied in the broad sense that you project. I try to imagine a world where all employees are somehow essentially dictating their own salaries through "negotiation" without getting to the next step of negotiation that involves the overhead for that specific business or industry. I guess if you believe that profits are supposed to be limited to some specified value then it works better and more smoothly, but again, we're off into some abstract re-tooling of an entire system that probably damages those "middle classers" that invest for retirement and whatnot.

I don't know. I'd like to believe that what you are always pimping for as a solution would actually work the way you and others like to believe it would. I'm pretty skeptical, but I tend to think that economic theory in general is nothing more than just that and whether or not one theory works better than another has more to do with every loosely influential external force and current condition as much as or more than the theory itself.

[Clocker]

Also, Your premise that business owners pay their employees "as he sees fit" is flat wrong, he pays his employees the wages they agreed upon when they were hired.



Haven't you ever had your boss call you in and tell you he is cutting your wages because there are people willing to do your job for less? Happens to me all the time. :rolleyes:

That's why we need to legislate equal bargaining power for all parties to a negotiation. That is the only way to make things fair. Otherwise a worker has to demonstrate a greater level of competence and contribution to the company to get greater bargaining power, and that results in unequal outcomes.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Companies can and do.

Yeah, I didn't pose what I was really digging at very well there. I was more just trying to dig at Mostpost for more insight as to his vision of what the market is allowed to dictate in terms of value and what value is to be decided upon based on components reaching agreements. And to what extent it all plays out when everything related to the value of what is being compromised on is affected. Not that I'm much clearer there.

[TJDave]

I was more just trying to dig at Mostpost for more insight as to his vision of what the market is allowed to dictate in terms of value and what value is to be decided upon based on components reaching agreements.

I don't think you can have an honest discussion about market value unless you acknowledge that markets are rigged.

[Robert Fischer]

Re-posting my power laws illustration.

Note that I am not saying that this is unfair.

here's how power laws work

http://www.shespeaks.com/pages/img/review/112879EA-EFD1-9975-742114B383DA8D0A.jpg

1 Large Pizza (10 Slices)
and 10 People

2 People will get 8 of the Slices (avg. of 4 Slices each).

The remaining 8 People split the remaining 2 Slices (avg. of 1/4 Slice each)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Long_tail.svg/800px-Long_tail.svg.png

[johnhannibalsmith]

I don't think you can have an honest discussion about market value unless you acknowledge that markets are rigged.

I more or less did make that acknowledgement in my reply to mostpost during the disclaimer portion.

[HUSKER55]

IF THEY PAID FOR THE PIZZA THEN THEY GET THE EXTRA SLICE. WHEN I WAS IN COLLEGE IF YOU DIDN'T CONTRIBUTE THEN YOU DIDN'T GET ANY.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I don't think you can have an honest discussion about market value unless you acknowledge that markets are rigged.

Who is rigging the markets in your opinion?

[TJDave]

Who is rigging the markets in your opinion?

Governments, mainly. For both good and bad. Multi-nationals as well. Any entity able, through force or financial clout, to unfairly manipulate a market, really.

[mostpost]

Let me rephrase: Do you think that the "employer" ought to be able to negotiate the value of what is being provided? Should everything be negotiated directly in lieu of market forces finding the balance? Or is it just workers vs. employers? Obviously being able to negotiate everything and never having anyone (market) with the power to dictate cost/value would make it much easier for employees to negotiate a superior rate... unless they worked at the electric company I suppose...
I tried several times to answer the entire post the above was taken from and always felt I had failed. Perhaps I will have better success taking it one paragraph at a time.

The first thing we need to realize is that the market is never truly free. There are no magical forces that determine the exact right price to charge for an item or a service. Having the government dictate prices is a recipe for disaster. On the other hand if one or a group of companies corners the market they can dictate prices and force smaller companies to shut down.
As TJDave put it the market can be rigged. And it is most likely to be rigged by someone inside the market. BP and Chevron and Shell can keep prices within a certain range and no one can do anything about it.

So the question becomes, how does this effect a salary negotiation. First of all I don't think a prospective employee should concern himself at all with how his demands will effect the bottom line of the employer. The employer can worry about that.

When there comes a point in the negotiation where the employee says I can't work for less than this or the employer says I can't pay you more than this then a decision must be made to accept the other side's offer or to move on.

I still don't know if I got this right, but.........

[newtothegame]

So did I when I first came here.

Hopefully, things posted down here won't put you off from sticking around. Because the truth is that it does more often than not. The bottom line for me is I enjoy the discussion. The back and forth. And I believe if I met a lot of the guys here that bust my chops, we'd enjoy having a few brews together.

Hope you wind up feeling the same way.
I can say this with all honesty,,,,,,I would enjoy having a beer or two with you and a few others.

[mostpost]

I'm not an anti-labor, anti-union, unconstrained free market loving sonofabitch by any stretch - but I'm always confused by where the lines are drawn and how these concepts actually play out when applied in the broad sense that you project. I try to imagine a world where all employees are somehow essentially dictating their own salaries through "negotiation" without getting to the next step of negotiation that involves the overhead for that specific business or industry. I guess if you believe that profits are supposed to be limited to some specified value then it works better and more smoothly, but again, we're off into some abstract re-tooling of an entire system that probably damages those "middle classers" that invest for retirement and whatnot.
I am not suggesting that employees should be able to dictate salaries anymore than employers should be able to dictate pay. You say "negotiation" as if that is some sort of code word for intimidation. I mean real negotiation with back and forth; give and take.

Which is why I am in favor of unions. Unions have the power of all their members combined and unions have negotiators who understand the economy and the industry the are involved in. Unions also have a benefit for employers in that the can negotiate salary for large groups, rather than the employer having to spend time negotiating individually.

[mostpost]

I don't know. I'd like to believe that what you are always pimping for as a solution would actually work the way you and others like to believe it would. I'm pretty skeptical, but I tend to think that economic theory in general is nothing more than just that and whether or not one theory works better than another has more to do with every loosely influential external force and current condition as much as or more than the theory itself.
I think you are right and I think that the free market folks are the ones who tend to believe most strongly that their theory is the be all and the end all. Them and the Communists.

[mostpost]

Haven't you ever had your boss call you in and tell you he is cutting your wages because there are people willing to do your job for less? Happens to me all the time. :rolleyes:

That's why we need to legislate equal bargaining power for all parties to a negotiation. That is the only way to make things fair. Otherwise a worker has to demonstrate a greater level of competence and contribution to the company to get greater bargaining power, and that results in unequal outcomes.

Are you messing with me here? :confused:

[johnhannibalsmith]

I am not suggesting that employees should be able to dictate salaries anymore than employers should be able to dictate pay. You say "negotiation" as if that is some sort of code word for intimidation. I mean real negotiation with back and forth; give and take.

Which is why I am in favor of unions. Unions have the power of all their members combined and unions have negotiators who understand the economy and the industry the are involved in. Unions also have a benefit for employers in that the can negotiate salary for large groups, rather than the employer having to spend time negotiating individually.

The only reason that I used that tone, which probably implied more than it intended, is that a lot of the surviving major unions do a pretty good job of dictation in negotiation.

Not to get you off on a tangent, but do you see at all that union interests can be damaging long term to all workers? Have you ever seen any evidence of union activity that made you pause and say, "you know, these guys in the here and now may be happy here and now, but they probably won't be in the future and the guys that might be in line behind them won't be either."?

In other words, if we are going to point out the potential shortcomings of employers and the abuses of exploiting the free market motif and fix this thing, can you possibly concede that unions don't exactly always operate as a charity with economically sound principles and incorporate into these mandated negotiations some kind of constraints on their ability to cut their own noses to fill pockets at the present moment to achieve some better sustainability for everyone?

[mostpost]

I can say this with all honesty,,,,,,I would enjoy having a beer or two with you and a few others.
If I drank beer, I would too.
At the two Arlington Park outings, I met Capper Al, a liberal Democrat like me and Wisconsin and ArlJim78, two died in the wool conservatives-along with several others. I liked them all.

[mostpost]

The only reason that I used that tone, which probably implied more than it intended, is that a lot of the surviving major unions do a pretty good job of dictation in negotiation.

Not to get you off on a tangent, but do you see at all that union interests can be damaging long term to all workers? Have you ever seen any evidence of union activity that made you pause and say, "you know, these guys in the here and now may be happy here and now, but they probably won't be in the future and the guys that might be in line behind them won't be either."?

In other words, if we are going to point out the potential shortcomings of employers and the abuses of exploiting the free market motif and fix this thing, can you possibly concede that unions don't exactly always operate as a charity with economically sound principles and incorporate into these mandated negotiations some kind of constraints on their ability to cut their own noses to fill pockets at the present moment to achieve some better sustainability for everyone?
Yes, there are abuses by union leaders. They do not always look out for the best interests of their members. But that does not mean we should get rid of the unions. We should get rid of the bad leaders.

Maybe I was in a unique situation where I worked. It was a small office (around thirty-five employees). Management didn't mess with us and we didn't insist that they follow every letter of the National Agreement or the local agreement.

For example, management is not supposed to do bargaining unit work-a supervisor should not sit down at one of the sorting cases and sort mail. That is a job for the clerks. But suppose two clerks call in sick on a particular day. That would be forty to fifty percent of a normal crew.

As long as management makes an effort to call in another clerk on his day off, we had no problem with someone from management sitting down and lending a hand. We even had our Postmaster on the street carrying parts of routes several times. Did we ever get a lot of complaints about misdelivered mail on those days!!

[Mike at A+]

If I drank beer, I would too.
At the two Arlington Park outings, I met Capper Al, a liberal Democrat like me and Wisconsin and ArlJim78, two died in the wool conservatives-along with several others. I liked them all.
I sense a group hug coming ...

[mostpost]

I went on strike at the Post Office once and they told me they would give me a $25 a day raise..........................if I stayed on strike. :mad:

[johnhannibalsmith]

... But that does not mean we should get rid of the unions. We should get rid of the bad leaders.

...

I wouldn't promote that and don't think I even implied it. If so, it wasn't intended.

What I was thinking is something more along the lines of - if we are going to "negotiate" out a policy that facilitates the ability of workers to negotiate wages collectively - then can we also "negotiate" as part of the policy a prescribed method that attempts to limit the abuses of union interests that have a damaging impact on business and also future workers?

It's a bit metaphoric, I suppose. I'm just asking you to concede that organized labor, not merely some rogue leaders, can be detrimental because of the same greedy human nature that makes free market loving fat cats detrimental. I just want to make sure that while we're putting the handcuffs on one variety of the same brand of greed that we go ahead and try to shackle it all.

[Steve 'StatMan']

The righties around here like to throw out that us liberals want to re-distribute the wealth. The righties seem to laugh between themselves as if this does not need any further explanation and is a flaw in progressive thinking. The righties are okay with re-distribution of wealth as long as it keeps going from the middle-class to the wealthy.

The righties are for everyone to earn their own wealth, and helping them find ways to better themselves so that the can earn more.

The righties don't agree with taking it by force by higher taxes as if people who earn money by work or investment (which provides work for others) somehow don't deserve it.

Overpaid CEOs & corporate execs, esp. of failing companies, and ball players, that's something different.

[Clocker]

The righties don't agree with taking it by force by higher taxes as if people who earn money by work or investment (which provides work for others) somehow don't deserve it.


Obama never said that rich people didn't earn their wealth, he said, "I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money."

Once you reach that point, which only he and his minions are smart enough to determine, then "I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

See, it is good for everybody. And if you don't agree, then you just don't know what is good for you.

We don't even have to make these complicated decisions now. The president will tell us when we have made enough money and his wife will tell us when we have had enough food and we can all live happily ever after.

[TJDave]

Obama never said that rich people didn't earn their wealth, he said, "I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money."

Once you reach that point, which only he and his minions are smart enough to determine, then "I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."


The 'minions' have always decided how much is enough.

In the 1950's Ike and his 'minions' thought if you made $400,000 the government could take 91%.

[Steve 'StatMan']

The 'minions' have always decided how much is enough.

In the 1950's Ike and his 'minions' thought if you made $400,000 the government could take 91%.

Hopefully you're not foolish enough to think that many people actually paid the 91% tax rate. Anyone powerful enough to earn $400,000, in the 1950's, (probably like $10million or more per year now) would find ways, esp if they owned or managed the company, to have all their family members and ghosts added to the payroll and spread that money around to various smaller-tax-rate individuals.

[Clocker]

In the 1950's Ike and his 'minions' thought if you made $400,000 the government could take 91%.

That rate was established by the Individual Income Tax Act of 1944. The Act was passed by a heavily Democratic Senate and House and was signed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who, if memory serves, was also a Democrat.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Capper Al
The righties around here like to throw out that us liberals want to re-distribute the wealth.

We would be happy to discuss the possibilities of re-distributing the WORK.