MY ADDRESS TO AMERICA
Note: Here it is if I was the President
“The State of the Union SUCKS because of our political divide. Well I intend to fix it and here is how I will do so. Call it a return to our basic values as Americans.
The disparity in wealth in America is too high. Fine, go fix it individually. WORK to gain your own wealth and compete with your fellow Americans in doing so. Government will not intervene in that competition other than to define clearly the appropriate boundaries of liberty to prevent anarchy.
If you choose, for whatever reasons to not work, fine. Go to your church or other “caring” institutions for your needs, real or imagined and compete with the others that choose not to work for such benefits.
If you CANNOT work for good reasons, we the people through government will lend a helping but not an all supportive hand to improve your ability to work. But you as an individual must WORK to achieve your own goals and not rely on we the people to provide all the comforts you desire.
You already have public education, good roads and transportation, an abundance of things that will help you along the way. Take advantage of then and WORK to pursue your own happiness.
Now for you very few that in fact cannot work for various reasons beyond your control, including past bad choices. Fine. We the people will provide for you until you die as a matter of compassion. But don’t expect to watch a big screen TV in the process. We only pledge to keep you pain free to the extent allowed by medical science and keep you “comfortable” in terms far better than comfort is viewed in the rest of the world.s
So it is up to you as individual Americans to pursue your own happiness. We would love to help more, as compassionate Americans, which most of us are, but we the people can only do so much. The rest is up to you.”
Anson Burlingame
Presumed President giving the SOTU address and never to be elected again!!!
January 24, 2012 at 11:38 pm |
Well yours is better than what I read from the White House, that’s for certain. While I’ll readily admit that I heard him (or more accurately, read the speech) through a filter of disagreeing with the president on nearly every single ridiculous and quasi-socialist policy his administration has inflicted upon us, I don’t think such filters really colored much of what he said tonight. That said, what I heard can be summed up as follows:
“I killed Osama! Give me more of your money! (Bush’s fault) Together, let’s spend ourselves silly and call it growth! Think how wonderful this would be if we just banned dropouts and you all obeyed me like the military has to!(Bush’s fault) And don’t you dare disobe… uh, I mean ‘obstruct’ me! Spending! Did I mention spending? Government rules, baybee! YEAAAAH! (Oh yeah, and it’s all Bush’s fault)”
In contrast, I absolutely LOVED what Daniels had to say in the rebuttal:
He took all that “spendy spendy, let government lead you” crap in the president’s speech, chewed it up, and spit it in their face. In. Their. Face. I doubt that other blogger even saw Daniels’ destroy Obama’s argument, as he had tons of work to do, first putting out all the incense on his ObamaAlter ®, then changing his undies that he soils every time the messiah speaks, then getting busy typing up his predictable “that was the greatest speech in the history of spoken language!” blog.
January 25, 2012 at 12:24 am |
Point on as always and you’re gonna love tomorrow morning’s Corner post.
January 25, 2012 at 2:24 am |
That’s ObamaAltar, obviously. I love it when technology replaces a word that doesn’t exist with another word that doesn’t exist.
And thanks, Geoff. I’m looking forward to your Corner post.
January 25, 2012 at 12:22 am |
And while we’re on the subject of “compassion”, anyone want to take a bet as to whether our local village idiot, aka the EC aka dwainbwain will point out Obama’s ONE percent charitable giving to income vs Romney’s over 7 million in just two years?
That’s the BIG difference that needs to be hammered home day after day, week after week for the next ten months.
It’s not the TOTAL amount of money you make it’s what you DO with that money.
Obama talks as if the economic pie is static and we must “take” from the wealthy and give the poor their more “fair” larger pieces.
Nice rhetoric but the reality is that with the right policies the pie gets larger and ALL get larger pieces.
Makes sense in the common sense world, makes sense in econ 101, makes sense in pre-Obama American, but cannot even be thought of to the libs on the left as it dilutes their power base.
January 25, 2012 at 9:49 am |
To both,
I have yet to go “over there” to read his explanation of what Obama said last night. As noted on Geoff’s blog, I thought it was DULL and confusing. What did he really ask for other than “fairness” which to him means taking from some and giving to others through the force of government.
Geoff, was your 1% giving to charity by Obama a real FACT? I hope so as I intend to use it “over there”.
Anson
January 25, 2012 at 4:11 pm |
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/candidate-romney-more-generous-obama-biden/334331
Though the article doesn’t mention the $1.4m nobel peace prize that Obama donated straight to charity.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/11/us-obama-donation-idUSTRE62A5EN20100311
January 25, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
I have to agree with you Anson. The people out there need to get off their lazy butts and get a job and quit complaining. They think the government is out to serve THEM? No way. How many of them have had their jobs downsized or shipped to China? How many can’t find another job because there are 13 million others out looking for work too? How many have gone through their savings and 401k’s, and had to give up your health insurance, or got their homes foreclosed? How many are living in their cars, and on food stamps? How many have seen their unemployment benefits run out? Well, it’s all their fault. Of course.
Thye should know by now that this country operates to the benefit of the wealthy. Taxes paid by the middle class go to subsidize the tax breaks for the rich and the big corporations. But then they actually get something in return. See, the rich and powerful donate money to charities. So, when people get into financial trouble, they can just trundle on down to the local Salvation Army or Goodwill, or Church, or any of numerous other privately sponsored charities to get their and thier families needs met.
Of course, the government used to help take care of its citizens who were in trouble, but then they found out (through some study, we think, we’re not exactly sure,) that the vast majority of these folks are actually faking it and feel that they don’t need to work and make a contribution. So now, if the government steps in to help, well, that’s socialism, and we all know what that means. The rich and powerful won’t stand for it. It diverts money that they need to keep our elected officials in line and to help those officials write laws to their benefit and to make sure they get the most lucrative contracts. And as if all that isn’t bad enough, our country is broke so it can’t afford a welfare system anyway.
And that is the state of the nation today. Now go out and get your own damn prosperity.
Herb
January 25, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
Herb,
For about a year, I did volunteer work for the Ascent program in Joplin. It was an in house program for recovering drunks and addicts. Some came in directly from jails and others from 10-20 day treatment programs. None were allowed to come in directly from the streets. All was provided for them in terms of a good, clean home, food, TV, etc.
Two things were required from each man. One they had to follow a very rigerorous program of meetings, counseling, church attendance (any church), etc. And the other was they had to find a job.
Now these guys were real down and outters with mulitiple relapses, some with repeated confinement in both jails and prisons, broken homes, lost children, no work history of any real sort, etc.
YET WITHIN ABOUT A WEEK EVERY MAN FOUND A JOB. They had to do so or not stay in the program. Each moring they HAD to go out and pound the pavement, door to door if needed to find a job. And the Ascent program did NOT tell them where to go or have any “pull” with local businesses to hire them.
Despite all of that against them, EACH MAN FOUND A JOB, period. And each week they had to turn over their paychecks to Ascent who then managed their money for them.
I offer the example of one man with TWO MASTER’S Degrees and a credible history of working in scientific research, until he got drunk or angry and quit his job, etc. etc. He found a job unloading trucks at the local Mall. But he stayed sober and after a year in the program he is now back out there, sober and prospering in his choosen field of study and profession.
My time with that program was as well at the PEAK of the GR. But again, each man, when forced to do so, found a job and managed to pay his own way in a charitble program, supporter primarily by a local church.
OK, if you don’t like an anecdotal story of a good recovery program that FORCES people to improve (or go back to the streets and die),
I suggest you check in with Nonny and listen to HIS story of layoffs, unemployment benefits for a short time, consulting and ultimately “recovery” financailly (not from addiction).
My point is simple. Give people that can work, money to NOT work and look what you get. Much better to MAKE THEM FIND WORK and them provide the support they need to find a better job based on a new a credible work record.
As for people living in cars, I wonder how many curl up with a bottle of “ripple” each night to pass the time? My view is MANY more than you will ever acknowledge.
Anson
January 26, 2012 at 7:49 am |
Are you really for real Herb? Americans have been seeing their jobs “downsized” and shifted wherever since the Pony Express rider was laid off to the telegraph, the cotton worker with the cotton gin, the “craftsman” to Henry Ford’s assembly line, the telephone operator to electronic switching and circuit boards.
Only difference between now and the past is that now, the socialists (liberals) demand more and more to “re-distribute” to those who just for what ever reason won’t adapt. No I’m not calling to eliminate ALL unemployment (besides, the basic first few weeks are paid for out of employer fees, a tax yes, but at least it’s a “user” tax that goes for what it’s intended), but for crying out loud, 99 weeks, as Newt said, is an Associates Degree!
As for the middle class subsidizing the rich and the corporations, that’s b.s. The “rich” already pay the overwhelmingly majority of the income taxes in this country. As for the corporations, it’s not the “middle class subsidizing” them as much as it is policy adopted in Washington deemed to benefit the economy as a whole. Now if you want to reform the tax code and close the loopholes so Obama’s lackey, Jeff Immelt and Ge actually pay at least something on the profits, I’m in full agreement.
But to just spout the left’s line of “tax the rich” and the “middle class” is getting rapes is disingenuous and intellectually lazy. Before ANYONE’s taxes are raised the spending and federal government itself must first be reduced and brought under control.
And don’t just tout the “but that’s not politically possible”. The past year with the Tea Party freshman holding their ground showed us that we’re a helluva lot closer to what we need to reign in the government than the media lets on.
And as far as when people get into trouble they have to trickle on down to the Salvation Army, Goodwill or their Church: YOU BET. We should be encouraging MORE donations to organizations that actually WORK and do GOOD and less to government bureaucrats and departments that just take from the producers, add in their overhead, and “re-distribute” as they see fit.
Your quote: “Of course, the government used to help take care of its citizens who were in trouble, ” belies suspension of our nation’s history. Yes, there have been some programs here and there but in terms of a general “government used to help” mentality, THAT has only taken root in the past forty years under liberal domination of the media and convincing far too many Americans they don’t have to do for themselves, because, after all, they are but “victims” and they are “entitled” to “more” of what others have until it reaches a “fair” level.
Such mentality may be fine with you and the left, but the statistics show it has been an abject failure for the nation and just kept those that it was supposed to “help” trapped in poverty from one generation to the next.
If you and the bleeding hearts REALLY want to “help” than start giving, start donating the time, incorporate those foundations. DO something, don’t just whine that the “government” has a “responsibility” to do more.
The only “responsibility” in this mess is not the “government’s”, it’s our own.
We’d be much better off as a society to have a thousand more Romney’s giving to charities who can actually deliver hope and keeping the federal government down to the size intended in the Constitution. But that society takes power for the Democrat base and puts it in the hands of individual citizens and empowers them to forge ahead in their lives rather than languish on government checks.
Yes, this comment is long, yes, it’s “pointed” but damn, this attitude that the “government” owes everybody, everything, at some time has brought us to the brink of financial collapse.
And yet there are still those who want it to do more? Talk about insanity.
January 26, 2012 at 8:31 am |
Look at it this way, Herb,
Which provided more “good” for the needy, Romney’s $3+ Million in taxes or his $4+ Million given to charities?
Anson
January 26, 2012 at 10:52 am |
Little sleep, so another multi-topic ramble. Apologies beforehand.
As far as our taxes “subsidizing” corporations, anyone who buys their products or services already does that. Much the same as with the fictitious “government money”, there is no such thing as a “corporate income tax”. Claiming there is such a thing is just another way the government disguises taxes on you and I. Who do you believe actually ends up paying such a tax? Do you think that corporations just factor that percentage in as a loss, shrug their shoulders, and move on? “Dang, 35% this year. There go the profits!” Or do you think any increase in such a tax is passed on to consumers in the form of price changes and layoffs? “What? Taxes are going to cost us an extra $10 million this year? Time to increase prices to bring in an extra $5 million, and lay off $5 million in salary and benefits.” So any time the government tries to, as they call it, level the playing field by increasing corporate taxes, we’re the ones who take it in the shorts. And by “we’re”, that’s rich, poor, and everyone in between.
As far as subsidizing “the rich”, well they subsidize us in return. Unless, that is, you have a handy list of all the jobs created and paid for by those below the poverty line this year. The economy is based, not on some “zero sum”, “how much total money is there” game, but on how that money moves. It moves best in the hands of private individuals, not the government. If a somewhat unequal amount goes to some individuals, then they just move it more, again unless you can show me the mattresses where they’re keeping all of this stuff, thereby preventing its movement within our economy. Failing that, if you can show me how the “rich” only send that money back and forth between themselves, making certain none of it ever gets to us, that would work too. Yes, some will always have more than others. It’s the nature of capitalism. But the nature of our economy is that it is not a zero sum game, as mentioned above, and anyone who has less now is not prevented from having more, also known as “The American Dream”. And — and this is critical — they can get more without having to take it away from those who already have it. Again, it’s all based on the movement of the money. When people spend, it spurs the economy. The rich shop more. When they don’t shop but keep it in savings, it still moves the economy in the form of loans. What’s the you say? They didn’t shop OR put it into loans, they bought stock with it, the greedy b*stards! More money for that company to improve their business or hire more workers. Again, see, the money movement is what matters. Who has it is far less important than whether or not it moves (provided the “who” is still the private sector and not the government). Higher and higher taxes on those who have the money means they have less and less of it to move around the private sector, ergo, the economy suffers.
Having said that, artificially injecting it into the system doesn’t work either. If the government throws a bunch of money around and calls it a “stimulus”, but doesn’t ease the restrictions on the access to that money, or more importantly, doesn’t remove the concern that they’re going to take it all right back through higher taxes and more regulations, thereby causing those who got the money to hang on to it rather than move it through the economy, it creates no wealth. Imagine someone gives you a $1 million loan. The terms of that loan are great. You have to pay back $1 a year for the next million years, and those terms are not subject to change. Well you’re likely to spend that money like crazy, are you not? Ergo, the economy around you improves. Your local stores have a lot more to play with, they can make capital improvements, hire more people, etc. Now take that same loan, but instead of great terms, you are told “Here, take the money, but while it might be yours for awhile, I may need it all back tomorrow or the next day, plus a lot of interest. Also, I’m thinking I may drastically increase your utilities, your rent, your car payment, and so forth. Maybe. After all, it isn’t fair that you have that $1 million I just gave you.” How much of it are you likely to spend? That’s where we stand now, even with money that wasn’t part of any so-called “stimulus”. Businesses have cash. They want to hire. They cannot do so while practicing any sort of sound business acumen, because with this administration, businesses have no idea whether any of that money will be required to pay new fees, to pay significantly higher costs per employee, or what is going to happen. Take Business X, who would love to add 1000 employees. In the past, if they paid them all $50K, plus another $20K in benefits, unemployment insurance, etc., it was fairly easy to budget for the $70 million it would take to do so. But if you have $70 million, and you’re not sure if after factoring in all the new fees, taxes, regulations, etc. that amount is going to allow you to hire 1000 people, 200 people, or be forced to lay off 500 people, you’re going to sit and wait. In the mean time, lots of skilled workers like me sit on the sidelines, further draining the economy (e.g. we have no money to move through the economy, the business isn’t moving their money through the economy, more money is taken OUT of the economy and given to government in order to pay me, etc.). And still this administration sits on both thumbs, refusing to back away from its socialist policies that punish businesses (which obviously exacerbates the problem). Then, they blame the companies. What a bargain for them! They get to screw the entire thing up, then blame those whom they are bending over. Kind of like raping businesses and the economy, then using the claim that they shouldn’t have dressed that way, as they were just asking for it. AND, perhaps the biggest bonus of all, they then use that as reasoning for why they need to be reelected! And people fall for that crap! This is what happens when you elect utterly and completely incompetent people to office, who then appoint radicals to positions of authority because they’re A) ideologically blinded, and B) just don’t know any better. What we currently have in office are people who either have no idea how the economy works, or DO understand but actively want to destroy it and rebuild it in their utopian image (e.g., where they are in complete control).
The idea that government creates anything is a fallacy. It controls and limits. Some limits are necessary, because there will always be those who try to job any system. Too much in the way of limits, too much centralized control, and you starve the economy. Money paid to the government is sand down a rat hole. Government is terribly inefficient at moving the money through the economy (e.g. for every $1 that comes in, something less than a dollar goes back out), so the more of it they collect, the less of it there is out there (again, remember, it isn’t the amount of money, it’s how it moves in the private sector.)The ability to do all of that and then blame the rich is a great position to be in. The fact people buy into that saddens me.
January 26, 2012 at 11:21 am |
Great post. An addition that came to mind while reading regarding the “some have more than others”: Even in the social and communist left utopias there are those that have more than others. BUT at least in our capitalist system the vast majority of those who have “more” have “earned” it by starting a business, working through the corporate world or inventing the latest greatest gadget or software whereas those who have “more” in the dwainbwain utopias get it through political means and crony, corrupt connection.
And just for the record if there are any village idiots lurking, we have already been down the “millionaires should pay at least 30 percent” road. It is the Alternative Minimum Tax implemented under TEFRA in 82 and as usual with any government wealth confiscation scheme it did not perform as touted as it would and requires “fixes” every year to keep from trapping millions of middle class in its claws.
The “zero sum” argument is point on and should be repeated by every conservative each and every time they appear before a media camera. The great thing about this country is that our wealth is NOT a static pie with just “fair” and “unfair” sized pieces. Just look at all the wealth in the past 30 years created by Gates, Jobs and others. That wasn’t “taken”, “unfairly” from the poor, it was “created” and “earned”. How many billions has the government already gotten from that “earned” wealth?
The class warfare as practiced by Obama and his dwainbwains has nothing to do with actually “helping” the poor and everything to do with ensuring continuation of power by a command government and the socialists who want it.
January 26, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
So much to say, so little time. Interesting responses to my sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek post of yesterday. I can’t possibly address all the issues raised, but I will try to make a few observations.
First as to corporate governance. Tens of millions of lives are effected by those sitting in the mahogany lined board rooms of the major corporations. There are many stakeholders they must consider: employees, suppliers, creditors, consumers, and stockholders. Each of these stakeholders not only has a financial interest in the company, but an interest in the company’s success as well. The company, in turn, has a fiduciary responsibility to all of its stakeholders. Of course it’s the stockholders who receive the top priority.
But corporate management is totally autocratic, some might say even dictatorial, which makes the decision-making unilateral. None of the stakeholders, with the possible exception of the stockholders, have a say. All is well as long as the company can “stay the course.” But then we have the occasional Enron, and WorldCom, and Lehman Brothers. Their bankruptcies were not just financial; they were also moral. But many, instead of standing up to their breach of fiduciary responsibly, took the golden parachutes instead. At the end of the day, it’s the stakeholders who have been betrayed and suffer the consequences of those bad decisions and whose freedoms have been compromised.
But the neo-cons and their ilk seem to like it this way. In fact, they would prefer that the government get rid of the laws and regulations that might help protect the stakeholders. This is commonly known as the “Trust Me” philosophy, which, as we all know, actually means “FU.” And anyone who disagrees with this form of authoritarianism is branded a “socialist.”
Reduce taxes? Well, we know as a matter of history that that doesn’t work. When taxes were raised under President George H.W. Bush in 1991, and again in 1993 under Clinton, there were 11.2 million jobs created thru 2000. But when George W. Bush lowered taxes in 2001, only 1.1 million jobs were created while he was in office. Under Obama, from 2009 thru 2011, and with the Bush tax cuts still in place, there has been a net loss of 3.2 million jobs. Now, one would think that companies would understand that decreasing employment and increasing under-employment reduces income and thereby demand, which for a consumer based economy is anathema.
By the way, maybe I missed it, but were any prices reduced after the Bush tax cuts? As I recall there were record profits reported during the last decade – Exxon and GE come to mind – while prices actually went up! In fact, corporations are accumulating mountains of cash. Any investments they make these days are overseas or buying back their own stock so as to increase the value of the remaining shares. They say they’re taking a “wait and see” attitude.
As a consequence of this state of affairs, there is no longer any risk-taking. Banks were stung by the housing bubble and don’t loan. Manufacturers were stung by the expatriation of plants to China and elsewhere. The rest are too big to fail or have enough cash to wait it our for years to come. All this noise about taxes and regulations is BS. Capitalism doesn’t work without taking a lot of risk which, in turn, if successful, justifies the reward.
Blaming the victims is as shameful as it is bigoted. What we’re witnessing is the black heart of capitalism. And it is aided and abetted by the Neo-Cons.
January 26, 2012 at 3:39 pm |
Herb,
I must ask. Have YOU ever sat in one of those mahogany board rooms and particiated in the decision making process? It certainly is not as you have written above.
Different companies do it different ways just a different CEO’s do it differently. And those differnces cover the whole range of corporate decision making and leadership.
You may think that I ruled autocratically as the CO of a ship but that is not the case at all. Many times we had long discussions with lots of different input, from mess cooks, thru the chief’s to the junior officer and ultimately up to me and the XO to decide what to do next.
Sure when I as the skipper said “right full rudder” the rudder went right full with no discussion. But what preceded that order was wide open for discussion, many times, except real emergencies.
You know what good CEO’s worry about all the time? It is the GROWTH of their company. Grow or die was the edict of a great CEO for whom I worked, directly.
Did he “care” about employees, suppliers, stockholders, etc. Sure he did to a degree. But he cared a LOT MORE for his customers, the people buying the goods and services being sold and the quality of the product deliver. Cross a customer and you did not last very long in that business.
Sure he worried about the bottom line. But he also knew full well that getting a good bottom had to go through his customers, paying the company for a good product. What I ask is wrong with that?
And once a quarter I got on a commercial jet, in the back of the bus with my knees in my ears, traveling to all five major business centers or regions in that company. Did you ever provide a briefing to a CEO like that one. Not much different than briefing a 4 star admiral on the E ring of the Pentagon. Those kind of people could shoot big holes in BS and did so all the time, all for the good of first the customers and then the bottom line.
Your ideas above about how the corporate world works are NOT correct. You have been reading to much liberal BS it seems.
Anson
PS: I forgot to mention the safety briefings each quarter from each region. OSHA statistics, workers comp issues, customer complaints about safety issues, you name it. Woe to the manager that did not control the work place very safely in that very large CONSTRUCTION business. Now do you believe he was a “nut” about safety? He was, an intolerant “nut” to say the least and no excuses for accidents ever flew past him.
Now why would he take such an approach? Two reasons and you take your pick of the most important one. Accidents and injuries cost a lot of money and slowed the work, sometimes to a standstill. Also in some cases good workers were lost to the job because of injuries which again cost a lot of money.
And when accidents happen in that company, people got FIRED, both managers and workers depending on the specific incidents. It is not inconsequential that that company had the BEST safety record in the entire U.S. engineering and construction business at least in the mid 1990′s. It is also of note that the company refused to work anywhere other than “right to work” states and NEVER employed Union workers, some of the most unsafe workers in that dangerous industry.
A manager could walk around a work site in that company and find a man working more than six feet off the ground without wearing a safety harness. He could FIRE that worker on the spot and was expected to do so. Try that at a Union work site!!!
Then we can talk about the worker acting as a “fire watch” when welding was going on. A manager finds the worker asleep on the job and FIRES him right on the spot, again. Try that at a Union work site???
Want more? In my case in the Navy I did not fire my sailors. I just sent them to a “mast” hearing where they received big fines in terms of lossing a couple of ranks (being busted it was called). And is really big instances I simply kicked them out to fhe submarine service and they lost pro-pay, sub – pay, reenlistment bonuses, got lowered a couple of pay grades (ranks) and then were allowed to spend time on the crummiest surface ship that the Navy could send them to. One, only one, positive test for a drug and that is exactly what happened and the poor kids lost 10′s of thousands of dollars, suffered the indignity of their shipmates and went were NO ONE with any sense would EVER want to go. Try that at a Union work site?
Sorry readers, I just realized that Herb got me on a “roll” with his liberal “stuff” about all those POOR people that can’t find a job.
Might I close with a simple OHS. The first letter stands for OH. New standards prevent me from writing H..S…. but that first word is HORSE.
Anson
January 26, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
Anson,
Yes I’ve been in many boardrooms over the years, both as a member and an advisor. I’ve made presentations to Standard and Poor’s in New York, and to the Boards of Williams Companies and Bank of Oklahoma, to the editorial boards of the Tulsa Tribune (now defunct) and the Tulsa World, and served as a founding director of the Metropolitan Environmental Trust here in Tulsa. Based on that, I would say the experience you describe above is atypical and not representative at all. A submarine captain is no captain of industry. Not even close. They don’t have to compete or face angry stockholders.
Yes, the CEO’s and their boards worry about growth. But you don’t have to have experience as a board member of a private corporation to know that “growth” is code for “profit.” And there are many ways they can effectuate growth/profit. One way is to cut costs, which usually means cutting people. There’s no set of regulations I’m aware of that keep them from doing that. Likewise, they can relocate part of their operations overseas where they can and do use slave labor and child labor and prison labor. If you think I’m making that up, well, I’d say you are just naive.
Are all private companies like that? Of course not. But it’s those that try to trim costs a little too much that cause the good guys to be penalized with regulations. The industrialists during the Gilded Age of the post-civil war era – Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, Vanderbilt – were pretty ruthless. They had no compunction about having 10 year old boys work the coal mines and pre-pubescent girls work the textile mills, with all the rest working 12 hour days for bare subsistence wages.
So, along come the unions to speak for the workers and bargain with the company owners. One can only wonder where we’d be if the union-busters were successful. Even Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican and a capitalist, had his “trust-busters” and came up with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The next Roosevelt put in all kinds of laws and regulations to help curb the greed of the next generation capitalists during the depression. Included was the Glass–Steagall Act of 1932, to, among other things, separate banks and investment companies to keep them from using bank deposits as security for risky investments. In 1999, that act was repealed and the consequences came to a head in the fall of 2008, and are still with us.
So, before you start doing away with consumer protection regulations, visit China and Russia to see how that’s working out for them. But as I said, most private sector companies are good citizens and have good hearts when it comes to social responsibilities. But to grow their businesses, they are almost forced to do what the competition does. It’s the few bad apples that spoil the rest.
Now, as to taxes. This Op-Ed by Warren Buffet that appeared in the NYT last August might give you some prespective:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html
That’s enough for now. I’m sure there will be more later.
Herb
January 26, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
To add to your point, Anson, with publicly traded companies, there are boards of directors in the mix. The CEO doesn’t make decisions unilaterally or autonomously. The board controls a lot of that process. And lest we forget, the board is often made up of people from other companies, many of which have an interest in the health of the company on whose board they serve. They’re not going to allow a CEO to behave autonomously (see Fiorina, Carly). Also, the multitude of people who own stock have a stake, and a say. If they do not like the direction a CEO is taking a company, their voices are loud. The idea that there is some little Napoleon sitting in a lavishly decorated office, ruling by edict, smashing underlings, buying Congressmen, and moving pawns around a little board while plotting the takeover of the world is entirely a leftist invention.
And you know the remarkable thing about members of the BOD and the shareholders? The thing that doesn’t fit the liberal narrative, and so those on the far left so desperately want you to forget? The membership of both the BOD and shareholders is made up of real, genuine, every day people. They are the corporation, not some faceless entity that is pure unadulterated evil, out to fleece anyone and everyone for every dime. Not some robotic force out to control every bill that is even considered in Congress. Real people, people who want to get ahead, people who want to see their careers succeed, people who see investing as a worthwhile, win/win way to use their money to make more money, and with any luck, not be poor any more. One of the Republican candidates said this, and was immediately and predictably ridiculed for it from the left (and I’ve emphasized it all along for any far left folks reading along): Corporations are people. Every decision is made by a human being. Every action affects hundreds, thousands, even hundreds of thousands of human beings. This idea that “corporation” is just another way to spell “Satan” is flat out laughably ridiculous. Are there some bad people running some companies? Of course. But that’s because that person is either bad at what they do or has bad motives, not because the company is bad, unless one believes that anyone who works is inherently evil (which I’m starting to believe is the position of the left, actually, unless it’s a union job). There are terrible excuses for human beings running labor unions, too, but union are sainted, benevolent entities with nothing but the best interest of everyone in mind, according to the left, so that’s different. But… but… listen you! Don’t being unions into this! Corporations (and the rich, of course,can’t leave them out of this) are EVIL! End of discussion, and if you don’t get that well obviously you’re one of those stupid ignorant rube Rethuglicans or something.
I guess I’ll never understand this abject hatred of anyone and everyone who has earned more than someone else. I’ll never get this reviling of success that has permeated our culture (any more than I’ll ever understand which of the now 70 billion various definitions of the pejorative “NeoCon” is intended whenever the term is used these days. It was so simple not so very long ago when “NeoCon” was racist leftie code for “The Filthy Jews”. Now it’s more like “thingamajig”, meaning whatever the user wants it to mean). Once the left completes the reeducation of the populace to accept that success is evil, failure is sort of okay but getting dangerously close to accidentally being successful, but failing to even try and instead resorting to living off the backs of others is the height of human achievement, we’re doomed. They’re well on their way, I fear. They already have a lot of people who really should know better repeating the ignorance that anyone who works with a group of people under the same logo is worthy of a stake through the heart simply for being part of a… a…. CORPORATION! (insert dramatic, ominous music here)
January 26, 2012 at 9:01 pm |
Moose (insert dramatic,ominous music here),
You crack me up, but in a fun way. Rave on, Moondog!
January 27, 2012 at 9:19 am |
Herb,
Let me first address your shot at submarine captains as not being….!
During my almost 4 years in command of a nuclear submarine there were about 60 men in the entire world that had command of a U.S. nuclear attack submarine. That is about $60 Billion dollars worth of hardware just for starters and some 8,000 “employees” in that total workforce.
Each ship was powered by a nuclear reactor which could unleash pure hell in the midst of populated areas if not properly operated and maintained. Each ship carried nuclear weapons as well which if not properly handled, guarded, controlled etc. could……..
The lives of the dependents of those employees had to be considered and help provided when long deployments arose. Many of those employees worked, underwater and far away from home or any contact with loved ones for months on end.
Many of those employees had to work 24 hours straight to accomplish the “mission”, get maybe 4 hours of sleep and go back and do it again, time after time
For almost 4 years I had to sleep with “one eye open” all the time, “just in case”. And then we can talk about the 20 years of intense training that I had to endure and excell in enduring to be able to be given the opportunity to hold command of such a ship.
I would stake all 60 of those men, my own “band of brothers” if you will, against darn near any “corporate executive” you could drege us anywhere. So be very careful with such diminishing shots at those men.
You may have “briefed” a few big shots in your day, but command a nuclear submarine, I KNOW you nor anyone else around here have NEVER done so. So again, be careful when you take such shots.
I will also point out that most of such men that completed successfully such a tour of command went on to great success in civilian careers after they left the Navy. Some even became CEOs of very large companies and did quiie well in such capacities.
And I KNOW not a SINGLE one of them that went to levels of high challenge and responsibilities as civilians that EVER actted in that capacity in the manner you describe above, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM.
And for you, McKnight, laugh all you like. But learn a little along the way as well. And get a haircut as well or you’re FIRED!!!
Anson, rather angrily!
January 27, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
First to Anson,
My apologies for causing you such upset over the submarine captain swipe. I was only trying to respond to your comparison of a military leader to a corporate CEO, with which I disagrees. On reflection, I should have used another comparison; something like, say, the difference between a second baseman and a linebacker. In any case, I certainly meant no disrespect. So, how many days will I have to clean the latrines?
To all,
There have been many posts here about the unemployed being lazy, the morality of corporate leadership, and the basing of “liberals,” I address each of those herein.
First, if there is a study or survey showing that the unemployed are lazy, please direct me to it. I don’t mean at the Joplin unemployment office, I mean nationally. Unless you can do that, then your claim of unemployed people being lazy is not only specious, but it is a rhetorical non sequitur.
As to the presumed innocence of corporate executives of doing anything nefarious, I would say that’s wishful thinking. All you have to do is look around. From the housing bubble debacle, there’s Bank of America, AIG, Goldman Sacks, Freddie and Fanny, and too many others to name. Then there are the pharmaceutical companies, the tobacco companies, the oil cartel, the automobile companies, the electronics industry, and many others. We also have such organizations as AT&T, Bank of America, JP Morgan, IBM, Cigna, General Motors, GM, Comcast, UPS and the NFL, that have taken money from their employee pension funds to pay bonuses and to finance downsizings and sell the assets in merger deals. Trouble is, most of this is legal. As for the transactions that aren’t legal, well, lets just say the regulators were either asleep, like the SEC, or were well compensated for looking the other way.
To add insult to injury, we the taxpayers have provided bail-out money for the perpetrators of some of this mischief. Out of the 700 billion in TARP funds, taxpayers are still on the hook for 300 billion. (Just a reminder, TARP was planned by the Bush administration and administered by Henry Paulson prior to Obama and crew taking it over.)
So you guys still want to cut regulations??? If so then you can use your own taxes to pay these guys for their misbehavior. Leave me out of it.
Now we get to the name calling. As I take it, you folks, along with millions of other new age conservatives, believe liberals are the scourge of Western Civilization. You associate liberalism with socialism, which is just a stone’s throw away from communism. And you hate Obama because he’s the “party” leader. But the reality is that you’ve only created a bogeyman for yourselves.
This is the power of negative thinking that the new wave of conservatives have adopted. They define themselves by what they oppose, which is anything they perceive to be liberal. Sidney Blumenthal wrote in the Washington Post way back in 1980, “Conservatism requires liberalism for its meaning, for without the enemy (of liberalism) to serve as a nemesis and model, conservative politics would lack an organizing principle.”
In his 2006 book “Conservatives Without Conscience,” John Dean writes in the preface, “Frankly, when I started writing this book, I had a difficult time accounting for what had become of conservatism or, for that matter, the Republican party. I went down a number of dead-end streets looking for answers before finally discovering a true explanation. My finding, simply stated, is the growing presence of conservative authoritarianism. Conservatism has noticeably evolved from its so-called modern phase (1950-1994) into what might be called a postmodern period (1994 to present,) and in doing so it has regressed to its earliest authoritarian roots. Authoritarianism is not well understood and seldom discussed in the context of government and politics, yet it now constitutes the prevailing thinking and behavior among conservatives. Regrettably, empirical studies reveal that authoritarians are frequently enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, antiequality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian and amoral. They are also often conservatives without conscience who are capable of plunging this nation into disasters the like of which we have never known.”
That underscores and amplifies what I felt for a long time about my old Republican party. It seems to be regressing to the McCarthyism of the 50′s. That’s why I’m now an independent. But apparently to some, I’m a liberal.
Herb
p.s., Dean was set to co-author this book with Barry Goldwater. However, Goldwater died before they could get together. In any case, I believe Goldwater would have thought the book to be a true reflection of his conservative philosophy.
January 28, 2012 at 9:39 am |
Herb,
There you go again.
First a second baseman and a linebacker (at least at the professional level) have great similarities. First they had to work very hard to achieve that status, catching a “hot ground” or tackling a 250 fullback. Guts, courage, endurance, hard work, etc., etc.
Few can achieve that level to even make the team or get on a single playing field and the “inside” of good second basemen and linebackers, I say is very similar. Values, deep within that cause them to pursue excellence, along with some “natural talent” as well. But all the “natural talent in the world” is of no use without the “values” within, for a pro!
Sure there are some “pro” athelets that are “slugs” just like there are CEOs that are the same. Look at Micheal Vick for example, to name just one. Call him the Bernie Madoff of pro quarter backs.
For sure not ALL the unemployed are “lazy” which includes a whole host of undesirable characteristics, like dishonesty, addiction, self=centerness in the extreme, and the list goes on. But a lot of them are exactly such and sometimes they are not even unemployed. They are “protected” by a whole host of things like crazy laws, union contracts, etc. etc.
I do NOT oppose regulations either. But I HATE it when regulators fail to do their jobs (call them “lazy” regulators) and the solution called for is MORE REGULATIONS. That is crazy.
If my reactor scrammed due to personnel error you can bet you life that I NEVER asked Rickover to rewrite the Reactor Plant Manual, or give me and my crew a better procedure. Heck no, I identified the problem and fixed the personnel one by retraining them or even “firing them” in some extreme cases.
Put it this way. In 23 years of operating various reactors I NEVER saw a reactor scram that was NOT caused by simple personnel error, NEVER.
It was not BAD regulations that caused the housing bubble to burst. It was personnel error on the part of lenders, borrowers and regulators, all rolled up into a huge mess. The signs were there for years yet we all ignored them. And now we are trying to rewrite the rule book???? Are you kidding me.
Jeez, we better keep this on blog comments the next time you come to Joplin. I would hate to have to firebomb Sara’s house!!!
Anson
January 28, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
1. Warren Buffet is showing himself to be more a tool of the left and a man regretting his life. Yes he does good research, he picks good companies but that has not a whit to do with misleading the masses into thinking that his “secretary” pays a higher percentage in taxes than he does AND ignoring the fact that his and Romney’s income is mostly from capital gains that we WANT to be low!!!
2. The seeds of the housing collapse started not with greed, not with regulators, they were planted by friggin liberals in government forcing banks to make more loans to “low income” and “minorities” in order to avoid audits and fines.
So much type Herb and yet so little said. Sad really.
January 28, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
Geoff:
1. “Warren Buffet is showing himself to be more a tool of the left . . .” Seriously? You’re going to go with that? Buffet is somebody’s TOOL? And then you say Buffet is “misleading the masses into thinking that his “secretary” pays a higher percentage in taxes” than he does. Absolutely true, my friend. Look it up.
2. Most people in the know attribute the housing fiasco to the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act in 1999, when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. That then let the banks establish their own investment groups. The geniuses in the investment groups (I don’t know if they were “liberals” or conservatives) came up with the idea of a sub-prime mortgage which lowered the qualifications so families that couldn’t otherwise afford a house could buy one. This was a boon to the real estate brokers who couldn’t get low income (and not very well educated) buyers to sign up fast enough. The sub-primes were then insured by the nice folks at AIG and other insurers and sold to Freddy and Fannie at a nice profit. But when the balloon payments came due (the mortgages were usually interest-only for 5 or 7 years, with a balloon payment for the principal due at the end of those periods), the borrowers couldn’t come up with the cash. (Well, Duh!) So, the dominos started to fall and here we are today. If you want to assign blame, the last I saw it was 20% on the borrowers and 80% on the lenders. The idea that all this was “planted by friggin liberals in government forcing banks to make more loans to “low income” and “minorities” in order to avoid audits and fines” is purely a figment of your imagination. Really Geoff, you ought to do a little research before you start your rants.
So, you’re 0 for 2 here. Got any other false accusations I can help you with?
Herb
January 28, 2012 at 9:32 pm
This link should sum up the Buffett Rule, and why he’s a complete tool for suggesting it.
As for the “fact” his secretary pays more in taxes than he does, Forbes Magazine has come to the conclusion that Buffett pays his secretary more than he “makes”, which accounts for the difference. His income is mostly in the form of capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate (15%, I believe) to encourage investment. His payroll income is reported to be a relatively minuscule $100K. It’s quite likely, per Forbes, that he pays his secretary enough that she is paying more in payroll taxes, and therefore a higher percentage, which allows him — a crass political tools are wont to do — to both tell the truth and lie at the same time. Yes, she pays more of a percentage in overall taxes than he does, yet he’s the very person who set it up this way. And now he wants to change the rules in exactly the way that will have the least amount of impact on him, while making the leftist politicians who fall for it appear to be heroes to those sad people who absolutely hate the idea of anyone being successful and who feel that any success must be punished harshly enough to make certain that it never happens again.
In short, Buffett is a complete political tool.
As for the housing bust, you mention Glass-Steagall. That’s part of the story… the part the left wants people to hear about. Where, though, is the mention of CRA? The mention of the Barney Frank vehement pushback when Bush wanted to investigate Freddie and Fannie? The HUD requirements that Freddie and Fannie have over half of their loans from people with below median income in their area? There’s a whole lot to that story that you’re not telling. Yes, while it’s true that private banks played a role, the usual suspects on the left have, since day one, grabbed any available microphone and repeatedly screamed “GOVERNMENT DIDN’T CAUSE THIS! DID NOT! DID NOT! CAN’T HEEEAR YOU LA LA LA!”, and you seem to have fallen sway to their siren song, Herb. By the way ,(SNARK ALERT!) the best evidence that government played a large role in the housing collapse is that Paul Krugman claims it did not. (this concludes the snark alert. Thank you)
So to sum it up, Buffett is a leftist tool, and a shrewd businessman (wait, I thought all evil businessmen were conservatives? Oh wait, that’s right, he’s the GOOD rich because he pretends to feel bad about it, like Hollywood), and there’s lots of blame to go around for the housing bubble, including the sainted government.
January 29, 2012 at 10:08 am
I see Nonny pretty much took my 0 – 2 and turned it back to the rightly 2 – 0. (Thanks Nonny, I’m pretty busy this weekend and to have to take time away to continue to correct what the left refuses to see is becoming more than a full time job, it is getting down right irritating.)
You write well and in very long detail Herb but then we get to the end and all to many times find ourselves shaking our heads and going “huh”? What’d he just say? He did’t REALLY say that did he? Isn’t he supposed to be intelligent and all and he’s defending the farcity that is the “Buffet rule” and ignoring the Community Reinvestment Act as the seed that grew the tree from which all the other corruption branched out from?
Hmmmmmmmm
January 28, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
Herb and Geoff,
I do not go as far as Geoff in saying the housing collapse, which is still colapsing as far as I can tell, was only the fault government.
Instead I belive it was poor judgment on the part of lenders, borrowers and regulators (that failed to regulate the laws already there to be enforced) I refuse to argue which group did more or less to cause our GR, which the bursting of the housing bubble was the primary cause and still is the cause of our lack of recovery.,
Housing was the MOSt important source of long term wealth of the middle class. And that is NO longer the case. For over thirty years my primary source of wealth was buying and selling my primary residence each time I moved, as a military officer or civilian. Now though I have tried, I cannot sell my home for less money, by a long shot, than I have invested in it, buying price, improvements, etc.
But I DO agree with Geoff, that the call for MORE regulations on housing, counsumer protection, etc. is BS. PEOPLE made mistakes, not bad regulations or laws, unless you take the position that the Community Reinvestment Act was the SOLE cause of the housing bubble.
I disagree with that as the sole or even primary cause. It is more complicated than that simple view, in my opinion. So what next. NOT more government regulations for sure. And I have to just wait and see what happens next, before moving to a warmer climate, which is NOT life threatening by any means.
And if I was still working and moving a lot, I would choose to RENT, not buy a new home. See that is a personal choice that most can make.
Anson.
January 28, 2012 at 11:27 pm |
Hmmm… I see my last comment is “awaiting moderation”. Are they insisting you moderate your blog now, Anson?
January 29, 2012 at 9:34 am |
Nonny,
I found your last two comments “pending” the AM. They are now “approved” and posted. Not sure what happened but I have not set up any screening process, nor has anyone told me or even suggested that I do so.
Sometimes wordpress does “funny” things but I am not moderating anything on my own except some crazy stuff, even in foreign languages that wordpress puts in my “spam folder”. But even for those I read before deleting each and every one.
I don’t think my readers need links to “penile enhancement” web sites, etc!! (Except maybe some liberals!!)
Anson
Anson
January 29, 2012 at 9:49 am |
Heh! After the fiasco with the spinelessness of that other blogger, I didn’t think you’d voluntarily gone the way of a “he might hurt my widdle feewings” self-appointed web censor. But I thought perhaps you were getting pressure from above. Good to know it was just a technology thing!
January 29, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
I’ll keep this brief, I promise. We’ve probably gone on too long as it is.
As to Warren Buffet, I now see your position and understand why you think him a “tool.” He’s a Democrat, and Democrats are Leftists, and Leftists are Liberals, and Liberal are Socialists, and Socialists are Communists; the arch enemy of capitalism. So, it follows that Buffet would take his marching orders from the “party”. (Never mind that he is the personification of Capitalism.) Ah, nothing like the smell of Red Herring in the morning.
Moose brings up Barny Frank and the Democrats/Communists role in the housing bubble fiasco. Frank and his Comrades definitely played a role, no doubt about it. Anyway, I don’t want to beat this horse anymore. We could all benefit from this overview of the housing crisis at http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/ Lots of blame to go around.
I would just close by saying how disappointed I am that many of the opinions expressed here are so closed-mined. The mere mention of the LEFT results in a fusillade of rants bordering on hate speech. I’m guessing it has been influenced by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Ann Coulter, among other fire breathers, who ruthlessly lambast the Democrats/Communists with fear-mongering and hate-mongering. Well, politics is a blood sport. I get that. But I share the concern of John Dean about this current crop of “conservatives without conscience who are capable of plunging this nation into disasters the like of which we have never known.”
But, hey! If we vote for the right guy, maybe we can make the moon our 51st state!
January 29, 2012 at 4:31 pm |
I sense you’ve taken personal offense somewhere along the line, Herb. Otherwise your first paragraph wouldn’t seem quite as bitter as it does, nor make the Evel Kneivel type leaps of logic that it contains. You’re better than that.
Buffett is no communist, nor can I see by reading back through this thread that it was ever implied that he was. He’s not a tool because he’s a leftist. I’m sure you know that, so I’m not sure why you’d try to steer the conversation that direction. Rather, he is a tool because he is being blatantly dishonest here, and he wants to play politician without actually becoming one. He is doing exactly what the left accuses corporations of doing (when they use the term “Corporation” as a blanket epithet), which is using his money to influence political positions. It seems that it’s perfectly okay to them when he does it, however. That’s why I pointed out the hypocrisy of the left to champion him while vilifying corporations and “the rich”. He’s doing what he’s doing for strictly personal reasons, as well, which I would gather should strike someone as worse than someone who does so for ideological reasons. In other words, he wants to change the rules for everyone so that he can personally get even richer. Isn’t that the very evil the catch-all term “Wall Street fat cat” is intended to define? And aren’t all of them supposed to be the bad guys? He’s playing fast and loose with the facts for personal gain. He is behaving exactly in the way the left stereotypes as “right wing”, but it’s okay to the left because he pretends to feel bad about having so much money (much like the Hollywood multimillionaires, as mentioned above), and he supports their side. He is, in fact, behaving in precisely the way the modern vernacular defines “tool”. Shoe, fits, wear, that sort of thing. I’m sorry that you chose him to make your point, but we all get fooled from time to time.
And please, with the “closed-minded” stuff. Failure to agree with you doesn’t make one closed minded. It means they have differing opinions, ones they feel just as strongly about as do you toward yours, strongly enough that you aren’t capable of changing their mind. If we (if I can dare to speak for Geoff and Anson here for a moment) were truly closed-minded, we wouldn’t even deign to listen to your arguments to formulate a rebuttal. We’d just dismiss them out of hand. We’re not immune to that from time to time, obviously, as we are human (yes, conservatives are human too), but believe me when I say I see that sort of thing happen far more often here locally from the other side of the ideological fence. It seems endemic to that ideology.
You make good points, and you make them well. Failure to convince me (or anyone else, for that matter, although I am back to speaking only for myself) isn’t an indictment of you. It means only that I don’t see enough in the argument to make me change my point of view. And continuing to disagree with a point certainly does not mean that I’m not better for having read it. I’d rather be challenged by reading the views of those who see things differently than I do, anyway, whether it be a 180 degree opposite view or one that agrees with my own but from a different “angle”. It causes me to rethink my position, and either changes my mind, or helps me clarify and solidify my argument.
So maybe you’re just having a bad Sunday, and that’s why I get the “there’s no reasoning with you people” tone from this latest reply. Geoff can be pretty forceful with his arguments, and I know I tend to speak my mind with little room for niceties. Anson is much more polite that Geoff or myself.
So it can be frustrating when we disagree with you. Whatever the reason for the frustration and bitter tone, I would hope you’d remember that when I respond, I’m not attacking you personally, regardless how it may read from time to time. I’m responding to your point, and occasionally to the way it was presented. Any comments are directed at the argument and not at the person making it (unless I make it very clear that I mean otherwise, which almost always is tit for tat).
January 29, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
Moose, thanks for the civility of your tone. Please understand that my frustration comes from you and the others here, who very often simply dismiss my comments out of hand without providing any support, facts, references, etc., other than your opinions. The “lazy unemployed” being a case in point. I do try to do some research before making a response, not to mention apply a little common sense.
Perhaps you don’t mean it that way, but what I’m hearing from you guys is some of the right wing nut garbage that comes from Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and their ilk, who, in my opinion are traitors and ought to be taken out and shot. And I’m certainly not the only “conservative” who feels that way.
Anyway, when I try to make a cogent case for my position and you folks disagree with it, I’m suddenly branded a “Liberal.” I’m sorry, but yes, that is being “closed-minded,” your denial to the contrary notwithstanding. Opinions are fine and we can sure disagree about them. But when they are contradicted by the facts, or when there are other aspects of the question to be considered but are omitted out of hand, well, that’s another matter. I had about all the “Obama is the Anti-Christ” nonsense I can take. You guys can sing to your own choir. I don’t need any more frustration.
January 29, 2012 at 11:36 pm |
There is a difference between actually being a liberal and merely using a liberal slant or a liberal’s preferred selection of facts to support a point. When one does the latter, I and others will point out that they are missing some information from the right that either balances or counteracts what they have presented. When one is the former, there’s no helping them, as they are typically beyond listening to any hick conservative who isn’t nearly as smart as they are. Just ask most of those who frequent that other blog.
I don’t think you are a liberal, Herb. I think you’re a centrist. By definition, however, that means you’re going to take some liberal stances, and those are ones I’m much more likely to disagree with. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself. I have some rather non-conservative social attitudes, myself (I’ve always considered myself fiscally conservative and socially libertarian). But one cannot be surprised when one presents arguments from what one knows to be the other side of the political spectrum of those he is conversing with and gets pushback.
The idea that opinions are being contradicted by the “facts” always depends upon who is being contradicted and who is presenting said “facts”. The Buffett conversation showed that, I think. Is it a “fact” he pays a higher percentage in taxes than his secretary? On the face of it, perhaps. But the quick dive into the context, the “why” that is changes the significance of those facts, again as we saw with the Buffett thing. For example, I could prove with “facts” that 10 + 15 = 41, and you could prove with “facts” that I’m completely wrong. Without the knowledge that I was presenting the problem in Base 10, yet I was presenting my answer in a Base 6 equivalent instead of Base 10, the “facts” mean nothing (no, I ‘m no mathematician, and that’s just meant as an example. Even if it’s wrong, you get my point). Context is everything, and that’s where “facts” and opinions diverge. You operate from a different context than do I or anyone else. So simply stating facts means nothing. That’s why we have so many different laws regarding causing the death of another, after all. The “facts” say Bob killed Sven. Those are indisputable! FRY HIM! Oh, but wait.. context. Was it murder? Manslaughter? Self defense? Making matters worse, in many cases, trace the “facts” back far enough, and you will almost always have an opinion used to form the original one. Why did “D” happen? Because “C” happened. And why did “C” happen? Because “B” happened a long time ago. Oh, well why did “B” happen? Because “A” happened. Ah, and why did “A” happen? Because Billy Bob was a jerk. DING DING DING! That’s how we get facts like “the Civil War was fought over nothing but slavery, PERIOD END OF STORY!” Someone held the opinion that was so, convinced someone else that was so, and soon that opinion became fact. So you can see that even when you present “facts” in your arguments, they can still be rebutted, depending on where they come from, the context, etc.
So yes, I understand it gets frustrating when you hold a belief and cannot get others to see the wisdom of your position. Try being a conservative and talking to a know-it-all, seen-it-all college kid. There’s practice in the art of futility for ya. You can’t personalize it, however. I used to. Now I take what I learn from opposing opinions, use it to “strength test” my conclusions, and either reinforce weak areas or change them if warranted. When it’s all said and done, I hold my beliefs more strongly than before, whether the same or changed, because I have more information. Am I always correct? Obviously not. But I have little choice but to believe I am until I see some fact AND context that causes me to believe otherwise.
January 30, 2012 at 1:25 am
Moose,
I had no idea that you were combining Base Six conservatism with Taoist philosophy. I think I get it: You dream that you’re a George Foreman Grill and after waking you wonder if the George Foreman Grill is real and dreaming of being Moose. And if you drink ten pots of coffee it could actually be two if Sven is sitting four feet across from Billy Bob; but only if Billy Bob has both feet on the stool. Then again, perhaps the opposite is true. Since “facts” are meaningless, I wonder if you could verge around in a red bathrobe when the H&R Block man is explaining what is and what isn’t a valid charitable deduction; maybe hold up an appropriate Tarot card or chant “Ding! Ding! Ding!” during an awkward pause, etc.
“If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss bank.”
Woody Allen
January 30, 2012 at 10:03 am |
Actually, John, your reply goes a long way toward proving my point. It is a “fact” I said “facts are meaningless…”. But what is it that is missing? Ah, yes, the part about “without context”, which entirely changes things. By showing how you can use a “fact” of what I said to completely change what was meant, you’ve reinforced precisely what I was saying. Thank you.
January 30, 2012 at 10:35 am |
Herb,
In some ways you express the frustration writing comments in this blog to how I feel in writing mulitple comments on “that blot” “over there”, the EC, polemical and decidedly “liberal” points of view. Since 2008 I have choosen to engage “over there” and will continue to do so, even though I get “trashed” a LOT, “over there”.
See that is the point of blogs and political debate in general, in my view. I will NEVER change Duane’s mind or the minds of most of his commenters. But I HOPE that every now and then I can get in a point or two to at least give them “pause for consideration”. Said another way, I hope it makes some people THINK and at least reconsider the basis for their positions.
You have tried to do so herein, and in return Geoff, Nonny and I have rebutted your efforts. You call us “close minded” for doing so and then repeat the “liberal” mantra of regurgitating Limbauch, Fox, etc.
Well Herb I NEVER, repeat NEVER tune into Limbauch. So in that regard I am vomiting with an empty stomach. As for “links” or references, I could fill my blog with nothing else, given the wealth of “facts” on the internet. What most people do, you included is “link facts” formed by others and inevitably they support your premise.
I call that cherry picking “facts” and Duane does it all the time. Such “facts” are NOT FACTS as I understand them. That is why lawyers argue in court and we engage in blogs and comments thereto, in an attempt to find (but rarely do so) ground TRUTH.
If I wrote comments expressing self-pity for not being “listened to” or accepting of my views “over there” they would be standing in the aisles clapping loudly. “Got’em” would be their chant.
You are welcome here, of course anytime, but most of my readers are indeed conservative. If you push your own agenda upon them, or me for that matter, well buckle up buddy and join us in the ride, a rough one seeking some semblance of what is really best in the future for OUR country.
Anson
PS: John, pardon me, but I have no idea what you were trying to say in your last comment!!!! But I am sure it was meant as a “shot” of some sort. It simply went right over my head, but Nonny seems to have “gotten it”.
February 1, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
I do have one more comment on the “lazy unemployed” comments made here. If you go to http://www.numbernomics.com/nomicsnotes/?p=583, you’ll see a couple of charts that were developed from BLS data. They show the history from October 2011 back to 2007 of the number of job seekers relative to the number of job openings. Among other things, they say,
“The Labor Department reported that there were 3.3 million job openings in October which is about the same as it has been every month since the middle of the year. Unfortunately, there were 13.8 million people unemployed in that month.”
“As we have pointed out on numerous occasions in the past, most of these unemployed workers are hardworking individuals who have gotten caught up in the aftermath of the worst recession since the Great Depression in the 1930’s. As shown in the chart below, there are currently 4.2 unemployed workers for every available job. These people simply cannot take a job that does not exist. The only good news is that at the height of the recession there were 7.0 workers looking for each available job.”
I don’t really need to add any more. I just ask that you get yourselves better informed before making a blanket condemnation of the unemployed.
Herb
February 2, 2012 at 7:45 am |
How is it a “blanket” condemnation? There are the unemployed who simply can’t due to the recession and there are the “lazy” unemployed who simply “won’t” and there are the many in between who just can’t accept the reality that the world they knew may never come back.
Since you like studies so much, how about the studies that show the longer you offer unemployment insurance the less likely the “unemployed” are to go to work.
I’m not a big Newt fan but even he brought up the fact that 99 weeks is basically an Associates Degree for crying out loud.
As one who has personally worked some of the crappiest jobs in the country when I was “unemployed” I have absolutely no sympathy for those who still sit around after a year on unemployment collecting a “check” rather than “demean” themselves by taking a job “beneath” them.
There is nothing more “beneath” the dignity of man than to sit an wait for others to change his plight.
And btw, two of those “crappy” jobs turned into pretty good stints as I showed up early, did whatever was required and as the work ethic was noticed moved on up. With each and every day of that alarm going off at 0500 during those times I hated it, it was nowhere in my “life plan” from the college years, but it WAS my life at that moment and given the choice of working or drawing a check because it was there, I worked.
And I left my blanket at home.
February 2, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Geoff,
Geoff,
Perhaps “blanket condemnation” is a bad choice of words. But your emphasis over and over again has been on those who are gaming the system and who have no pride, no dignity, and no interest in improving their lot in life, all of which the government helped create through ever expanding entitlement programs. I simply believe that in this particular economic climate there are a far greater number of unemployed who are working their butts off to find work. They should go into a different box, a much, much larger one, and not be counted in with the freeloaders. In any case, hiring 13 million fry cooks is not going to help the economy.
We don’t know about 2011 yet, but 2010 was a record year for corporate profits, exceeding even the 2009 record, which exceeded to 2008 record. Corporations are sitting on an estimated 3 trillion in cash. But they won’t build factories or expand their business here in the good ‘ol US of A because they don’t have to; the money just keeps on rolling in. If they do any hiring it’s in China or Mexico or anywhere they can use near-slave labor. Seems to me it’s the corporations that are gaming the system and that they are the ones who need to get off their lazy butts and trade in some greed for a little patriotism. Company executives make the big bucks because they are supposed to take big risks. But money is power. Why take risks when you can buy a Congressman.
Now, I suppose you are going to remind me of all those greedy labor unions and that if they hadn’t “demanded” so much in compensation and benefits all would be well. I agree almost totally with that assessment. The problem is what to do with “at will” employees who can be “separated” in a heartbeat. They are encouraged to climb the ladder of success, but when they get about half way up they’re told that the ladder has been moved to China – Lucy with Charlie Brown’s football. Besides being a shity thing to do, I believe it is inherently immoral as well; not to mention unpatriotic, not to mention that.
Further, I believe that we the people, in our votes for our representatives who helped to create and expand entitlement programs and corporate welfare bear some responsibility. Bad decisions often come with a high price. Preferring profit over people may well prove to be our undoing.
Herb
February 1, 2012 at 7:30 pm |
Herb, I’m with you on that, by the way. While I do think there are many, many unemployed who simply enjoy the fact they’re getting paid to do nothing but eat Oreos and watch Judge Judy all day, I know for a fact there are those skilled workers who simply cannot find work in their field, and somewhat reluctantly draw unemployment because A) it’s insurance rather than government money while at the state level (e.g. the company paid in on that employee, money that could have gone to wages, so in effect it comes out of the employee’s own paycheck), and B) it’s better than starving (and since it’s based on previous wages, often pays better than working the fry machine, too). I know because I’ve been one of them in the past, and thanks to only having contract labor available in my field in this economy, am again.
On the other side of that coin, I also see too many job openings where the listings are worded to ensure the opening is only filled internally. They’re written so a few of the requirements are things such as “must be extremely proficient with (insert name of proprietary software package which only that company uses), for example. That inflates the number of jobs available a bit, as there is no way anyone not already working there is getting that job. HR departments have learned how to write descriptions in just such a way as to make certain that only the person they’ve pre-selected for the position actually qualifies. So it’s technically an opening, but it’s not really open, if that makes sense. They’re one step away from just going ahead and having “Must be Bob Smith, Social Security Number 999-888-7777, currently residing at 123 Sesame Street” as a job requirement. All legal, and absolutely not at all unethical. Just frustrating.
Perhaps I didn’t read what was said earlier the same way you did, but I didn’t get the feeling there was a blanket “all the unemployed are lazy” condemnation, or I would have spoken up about it too. I read it as just what I myself said above, that many of them are, but certainly not all. I guess that’s why I was and still am having a hard time determining where your indignation stems from. Different interpretations, I guess. I’ve seen the laziness, so I know it absolutely exists. I’ve also seen enough of my friends who are highly educated, highly skilled, and highly motivated to get another job in their career field go through unemployment (some, especially in my career field, multiple times) to know that description doesn’t apply to everyone.
February 2, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
To all,
Throughout the entire GR, I have NOT KNOWN, personally, anyone that was unemployed other than by their own choice, not a single soul. I have read Nonny’s story, so in the sense that I “know” him, that is the one exception.
Now of course I am older now and would not expected to know a lot of people still working. But I do attend “gatherings” on a frequent basis each week with MANY people attending as well. ALL of them are employed. Maybe not in the jobs they want, but all have work and are working.
So I am unsure of this “7 people looking” for every single job available in the U.S. Does that include “farm labor” in terms of job openings, only as an example?
Our cleaning lady’s son works as a fireman in Iraq and makes $11,000 A MONTH (and only pays taxes on a small part of that). I hear the crops are going unpicked in Alabama because all the illegals are fleeing the state as a result of new immigration laws.
I see many contractors falling behind in commitments here in Joplin because they cannot FIND THE WORKERS to do the construction jobs. I could go on for sure.
So Herb, I view your statistics with a somewhat jaundice eye. Such statistics do not met the reality test when I look around my world right now.
But certainly I do not condemn ALL unemployed, or call ALL of them “lazy”. But I do not believe as well that people that WANT to work cannot find work, to live on their own. If nothing else, tying unemployment benefits to actually doing work, sounds like something to investigate very carefully. Call it the WPA using unemployment insurance to pay for the projects?
Anson
February 2, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
Sorry, that should be “not evidence of absence.” Damn keyboard.
February 2, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
Anson, believe it or not there is a great big world out there that exists outside of your sphere . . way outside. As some wise-ass once said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.
Herb
February 2, 2012 at 8:01 pm |
Herb,
I have lived in that very wide world, worked in it, defended against some of it, travelled to a lot of it and believe I have a “grasp” of what it entails.
I hate f…. statistics, even when they support my own views. And I am always at least skeptical when one uses them in a political exchange to prove a point. Statistics prove nothing. At best they suggest probabilities of events. And when a politician tries to use them you can bet you butt they already know the event they want to “prove”.
Let me put it this way. i believe there are more jobs out there for ALL Americans to fill. No all are advertised, not all pay a lot, but they are there for the taking to get one’s foot on the first rung of the ladder. Where they go from there is up to them and their performance.
Anson