Fantastic: Most succint destruction of standard conservative bromides all in one place.

[Zebo]

New post-
Partisan Squad,

First of all, I want to congratulate you on what is perhaps the most succinct short list of standard conservative bromides I have seen in one place. Yes, these ten statements -- not really questions are they, but why quibble -- are the "standard issue" crap you will run into, usually very shortly after encountering a right-winger.

That's why it took so long to respond. These questions were a feast. I haven't this much fun in a month.

But enough babble, let's get to it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.) It's my hard earned money! What gives you the right to take it away from me to give to others? It's no better than outright theft!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Taxation is no more "theft," than imprisonment is "kidnapping," killing enemy soldiers in war is "murder," or other laws compelling compliance on pain of fine or imprisonment are "extortion." If you catch someone breaking the law, you have no individual right to lock him in your basement for some period of time, or to form a "necktie party." Such rights are exclusive to the government -- proving that the government has rights, you don't.

As for the federal government's specific power to tax, it is found in Article I Section 8, where the Congress is given the right to "lay and collect taxes . . . to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." The government provides a vast array of services and infrastructure such as roads, schools, the banking system, port facilities, air traffic control, hydroelectric dams, communications satellites, R&D into a vast array of technologies such as radar and semiconductors -- not to mention the most basic functions of establishing and vindicating your basic commercial rights in property and contracts.

In other words, your "hard earned money" wasn't earned in a vacuum. You aren't Robinson Crusoe -- as proven by the fact that you don't live like he did. The commercial enterprise where you work -- or that you own, as the case may be -- operates within a society that has a vast public infrastructure that someone has to pay for. But of course, that vast public infrastructure also creates vast opportunities such that the taxes you pay reap you tremendous returns. The proof of that is the fact that the twenty wealthiest nations on earth -- as measured by per capita GDP -- all have an extensive public sector. Every one of them.

"Minimalist government" countries, with low taxes and little public investment in infrastructure and government services, are impoverished cesspools -- except for a handful of wealthy elites.

Or this that the true goal of conservatives?

As for the specific justification for our "safety net," Congress and the states have made a judgment that very substantial numbers of homeless, jobless, destitute and desperate people pose a potential threat of "domestic distubances" -- you know, food riots and such. Preventing such "domestic disturbance" is deemed to be a legitimate matter related to providing for both the "common defense and general welfare."

And I have frequently said that such "public assistance" is good for one thing, preventing starvation. Actual prosperity requires full employment at decent wages. As for whether preventing starvation is a legitimate action to "promote the general welfare" by preventing "domestic disturbances" -- in addition to promoting, in a very limited way, the particular welfare of individuals -- I think that it is.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.) You're just lazy. You can't compete in the real world so you want 'society' to support you. Where I come from everyone is supposed to carry their own weight. If you can't cut it, don't go about blaming others for your faults.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The question is who is carrying whom, and who "society" supports. Or do you suggest that a Wall Street investor is deriving his dividends from his own "hard work," -- as opposed to the hard work of the people who work in the factories and shops he invests in. In fact, he doesn't produce anything at all. Everything that you see in the room you're sitting in was produced by a wage earner. The investor's income is only possible if there is a work force organized to produce useful products and services. Furthermore, his opportunity to invest in such organizations is the result of a vast web of legal, social and economic conventions that allow him to organize a workforce to produce a useful product or service, and derive a living -- if not a fortune -- from what that workforce produces.

So if you want to talk about people "carrying their own weight," I say we start at the top. Otherwise, let me suggest an alternative. If we can create infrastructure and organizations the benefit one group of people who are not directly productive, we can create other infrastructure and organizations the benefit other groups. And we can damn sure create infrastructure and organziations that benefit people who are directly productive -- meaning wage earners.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.) Leftism doesn't work. Man is inherently greedy and the only motivation that gets anything done is profit. Take that away and society collapses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Man is inherently greedy? What about Woman? I assume that you mean that "people are inherently greedy."

Most progressives would argue with this basic assumption about human nature. They would point out the many and varied examples of cooperative effort -- including examples of self-sacrifice. Even, conservatives are typically at the head of the line to honor the sacrifice of soldiers in war "making our freedom possible." Fair enough, but I'm have to tell you that I just don't see the "profit" in getting your ass shot off. In fact, conservatives will -- with great sanctimony and self-righteousness -- tell you about the "debt" you owe to our military for "keeping you safe," "protecting your freedom," and presumably also the fortunes made by some. This means that someone SACRAFICED HIS VERY LIFE to make your opportunity to prosper in a free society possible. That's according to their own rhetoric. And they're bitching about spending a few pennies out of every tax dollar to give some brown kid a bowl of gruell and send him to a decent school? Fuk 'em!

Was that a little harsh? Well, okay, let's go the other way then, and acknowledge that, yes indeed, greed or more accurately "self-interest" is indeed the great motivator to "get anything done." We still win.

The assertion is "people are inherently greedy." By its terms, this means that "greed" is a fundamental of human nature. We're all that way -- every one of us. Including guys working on the shop floor for an hourly wage. So naturally, conservatives recognize that "making a profit" is what motivates the hourly wage earner -- say the working mother who works for Walmart. By this logic, the best way to motivate that low wage employee is to pay her a wage sufficient to give her a "profit" over her cost of living -- requiring a wage substantially above our current miniumum wage. That's what conservative believe, right?

Well, not quite. It seems that decent wages -- allowing the accumulation of savings and property -- leads to "laziness." The working man won't take advantage of the opportunity to actually get ahead. He will get complacent and "lazy." So are people inherently greedy? Or are they inherently lazy? Or are they both greedy and lazy -- wanting to live off the labor of other people? And what does that say about the capitalist? More to the point, how does anything ever "get done" with people motivated by a combination of greed and sloth?

Ouch! Something has to give here. Either people aren't "inherently lazy" -- which means that they will seize the chance offered by profitable wages to provide for their own economic security, or there is serious flaw in your model of human nature.

If you are a conservative, I will now save your bacon on this issue -- at a cost. If people are "inherently greedy," and thus not especially motivated to bust their ass in someone else's business enterprise, where they don't earn any "profit," what can we predict about "low wage" economies? Doesn't this suggest that "low wage" economies will wind up being stagnant, underdeveloped cess pools? And isn't that just what we find when we look around the third world?

Now look at the list of the twenty richest countries, as measured by per capita Gross Domestic Product.

1 Luxembourg $ 44,000 2002 est.
2 United States $ 37,600 2002 est.
3 San Marino $ 34,600 2001 est.
4 Norway $ 31,800 2002 est.
5 Switzerland $ 31,700 2002 est.
6 Ireland $ 30,500 2002 est.
7 Canada $ 29,400 2002 est.
8 Belgium $ 29,000 2002 est.
9 Denmark $ 29,000 2002 est.
10 Japan $ 28,000 2002 est.
11 Austria $ 27,700 2002 est.
12 Australia $ 27,000 2002 est.
13 Monaco $ 27,000 1999 est.
14 Netherlands $ 26,900 2002 est.
15 Germany $ 26,600 2002 est.
16 Finland $ 26,200 2002 est.
17 Hong Kong $ 26,000 2002 est.
18 France $ 25,700 2002 est.
19 Sweden $ 25,400 2002 est.
20 United Kingdom $ 25,300 2002 est.

That's right. They're all "high wage" economies. Blow me down. THE CONSERVATIVES ARE RIGHT!!! Self-interest does create prosperous economies, and one sure way to create a prosperous economy is WITH A DECENT WAGE SCALE furnishing just such a motivation to the work force.

In the movies, this is the part where you get a long shot of planet earth, with the sound of conservatives howling in pain heard all the way into outer space. I just love skewering those mother fukers with their own logic. You see, cheap-labor conservatives aren't interested in a high wage economy. And they don't think "greed is good" for everybody. It's just good for them.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.) Capitalism has been proven to be the only system that works. Look at the Soviet Union, it was a miserable failure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And along the same lines there is also this.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.) Liberalism, socialism, communism; it's all the same. You just want to rob from the productive elements of society and give it to the unproductive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



We've already dealt with the "productive/unproductive" question. Since my position is that wage earners have a superior right to profit from their own labor, than any investor has to profit from the labor of those same wage earners, I agree 100% that we should end the robbery of productive elements of society by unproductive elements. But that isn't what you meant, is it?

Meanwhile there is this assertion that "liberalism, socialism, and communism are all the same." You'd just be amazed at how many conservatives make this absurd claim -- accusing supporters of our social democratic mixed economy of supporting Soviet style communism. But I have a way to shut them up, and shut them up good.

As a matter of fact, one of the points I would try to force them to make -- in order to use it against them -- is the first point, "Capitalism has been proven to be the only system that works." Really. You mean "capitalism" the way we practice it in the US and in Western Europe? Or did you have in mind some other place, where they practice pure unregulated capitalism?

If your conservative interlocutor is really ignorant, he might say the latter, which presents the challenge, "show me one place that practices 'minimalist government' unregulated capitalism that is more prosperous than the mixed economies of the US and Western Europe." And of course, he can't.

But wait, there's more.

"Liberalism, socialism and communism are all the same." In other words liberalism EQUALS communism. I could argue with that, but why do I want to? You're absolutely right. Liberalism equals communism. You said it, I didn't -- but here in just a minute you're going to take it back. Bet me. You'll be back pedalling off of this very shortly -- even after I said that you would. Your tit is such a wringer over this assertion, that you will hedge away from it and suffer embarrassment rather than stick to your guns. Don't think your tit's in a wringer? Just watch.

Because we've been practicing "liberalism" in the United States for the last seventy years. All of the stuff I argue about on a regular basis -- social security, medicare, the minimum wage, unions, rural electrification, socialized medicine [in every other western democracy], FHA mortgages, grants and loans to college students, and of course "welfare" -- those are the initiatives of New Deal liberalism and other social democratic mixed economies.

Every bit of it is "communism." Remember? Liberalism is communism. You have said so. Social security is communism. You have said so. Medicare is communism. You have said so. The minimum wage is communism. You have said so. FHA mortgages? More communism. You have said so. [Trial lawyer's trick. Get a cadence going.] We're not living in a capitalist country. We're living in a communist country. You have said so. And what about those countries of western Europe? They're more communist than we are. You have said so.

According to your own statement -- liberalism, socialism and communism are all the same -- our New Deal mixed economy is a communist system. AND JUST LOOK AT HOW WELL IT WORKS!!!!

Here's that list again of the twenty richest nations on earth.

1 Luxembourg $ 44,000 2002 est.
2 United States $ 37,600 2002 est.
3 San Marino $ 34,600 2001 est.
4 Norway $ 31,800 2002 est.
5 Switzerland $ 31,700 2002 est.
6 Ireland $ 30,500 2002 est.
7 Canada $ 29,400 2002 est.
8 Belgium $ 29,000 2002 est.
9 Denmark $ 29,000 2002 est.
10 Japan $ 28,000 2002 est.
11 Austria $ 27,700 2002 est.
12 Australia $ 27,000 2002 est.
13 Monaco $ 27,000 1999 est.
14 Netherlands $ 26,900 2002 est.
15 Germany $ 26,600 2002 est.
16 Finland $ 26,200 2002 est.
17 Hong Kong $ 26,000 2002 est.
18 France $ 25,700 2002 est.
19 Sweden $ 25,400 2002 est.
20 United Kingdom $ 25,300 2002 est.

Every one of them is a social democratic mixed economy -- and by your own definition is a "communist" country. EVERY GOD DAMNED ONE OF THEM.
I'd say "communism" works pretty good, and your statement that "capitalism is the only proven system" is just dead wrong.

ROTFLMAO!!!

It gets worse. You can't show me one, not one, society that enjoys our level of prosperity that also practices "minimalist government" unregulated capitalism. There is no nation on earth that does things the conservative way that enjoys the prosperity of the social democratic mixed economies. Not one. Not anywhere. Not ever in history.

And of course, you say that "liberalism and communism are the same," so that means you can't show one "capitalist" country that enjoys more prosperity than "communist" countries -- since we live in a "communist" country by your own definition.

Now, watch the conservative back pedal from his claim that "liberalism" is the same as "communism." To which my response is, "thank you very much. I've only been telling you assholes that for thirty fuking years."

But the conservative's problem isn't over. Because now that you acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, there are some key differences between "liberalism" and "communism," you still have to account for the fact that the "liberal" and "socialist" economies of the US and Western Europe are also the most prosperous nations on earth.

In fact, minimalist government unregulated capitalism doesn't work, and a simple look at which kinds of economies perform well, and which don't, proves it. Or maybe that's why conservatives call liberalism "communism," and then take credit for the prosperity of "liberal" economies -- trying to make us proponents of Soviet communism. They have to steal our achievements. They have none of their own. Remember the Great Depression? What about the unregulated "minimalist government" cess pools all over the third world? Unregulated capitalism is damn near as big a disaster as Soviet communism -- maybe bigger.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.) Stop being a loser! Get positive and things will bound to get better. Be negative and they never will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well, I have to agree with this one. But then, conservatives are the "pessimists." They're the one's that say that humans are greedy, lazy bums -- some of whom are only motivated by "profit," but others of whom must be motivated by the threat of starvation. Conservatives are the one's who say that poverty is an insoluable problem, that democratic governments "can't do anything right" -- notwithstanding the experience of the "liberal" economies of the twenty richest nations on earth. [Do I have to put "the list" up again, or have you seen it enough.]

So yes, be optimistic. Don't let the conservatives tell you that you, as a citizen acting with other citizens, can't solve your own problems. Don't let them tell you that capitalism just "can't afford" for you to profit from your own efforts, and that the "free market" is such a feeble system that only a few can prosper, only a few can have decent health care, only a few can get decent educations, and only a few can enjoy the prosperity all around us.

Now, we're going to have to make some changes in the way we currently do business. But don't you worry. You have the power to make those changes -- and history shows that the people can indeed "institute new government, laying its foundations upon such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.) Immigrants come to this country with nothing and get rich pretty quick. If you can't do the same, it's because you don't want to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Did all of the immigrants get rich? Are there no middle class immigrants? No poor immigrants? Here's the real question, can everybody get rich? Who will that leave to do the work of society? If anybody can get rich, surely everybody can't. What happens to those who don't?

This leads to the ultimate question which is not "can everybody get rich," but can everybody prosper, and enjoy a measure of the tremendous wealth in this country? Can we impose one simple and easy requirement to get a "piece of the pie," that requirement being that you get a job do something productive. The question is fundamental. Can capitalism -- you know, the only system that "works" [see "the list"] -- provide a "profit" to the lowest paid wage earner? But wait, you've answered this question.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.) The free market determines a person's value. If they aren't making much it's because they aren't that productive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Here is the operative fact that disembowels this assertion about the "natural market price" of low skilled labor. If you are a low-skilled, low wage working person, somebody is profiting from your labor, even if you aren't. How is it that your labor produces a product or service that investors profit from, but wage earners don't?

Consider "the example" -- the one everybody uses as the paradigm for low wage employment. Consider McDonald's. Now when you walk into a McDonalds and order a Big Mac, McDonald's stock holders aren't back there behind the grill. Your Big Mac, fries and soda pop are prepared by some joker working twenty feet away from you. You are paying for what he produces. But at $5.15 an hour, he isn't making a profit, since $5.15 an hour doesn't cover his cost of living. But McDonald's stock holders are making a profit, and the proof of that is all of the new Mickey D's popping up like mushrooms across the countryside.

The conservatives will tell you how McDonald's is "creating jobs." They sure are. They're creating jobs that don't generate any profit for the people who work in them, but indeed require those people to subsidize their cost of living from other sources -- like say their parents, spouses or roommates. Which raises a rather elementary question. If I made Big Macs and french fries in my own hamburger stand, and sold them for the same price McDonald's charges, would I be offering a profitable product? Would I enjoy the profits of the product I am producing in my own hamburger stand?

The answer to this question puts the defender of capitalism in a "sticky wicket." Because if I can't profit producing in my own business, what McDonald's profits by selling, where is their profit coming from? The answer is me. Meanwhile, the product isn't really profitable, is it? You see, the "natural market value" of what I produce --as a McDonald's fry cook -- is the value of that product or service to you, the purchaser. If that natural market value -- what YOU are willing to pay, won't pay the guy producing the service a profit over his "cost of doing business," which is the same as his cost of living, the product isn't really profitable. Is it?

Now let's talk about Nike tennis shoes -- the one's that sell for $100 a pair. Nike's Indonesian contractors were paying their employees 24 cents an hour to assemble a pair of tennis shoes. The market value of the shoes is $100, and you can take it to the bank it doen't take 400 hours [that's ten weeks] to produce a pair. I mean, if I make one pair of tennis shoes A DAY, we're talking about a labor cost of $2.00 a pair.

In other words, there's plenty of "margin" to pay that 24 cent an hour employee much more. We know that because Nike was previously paying $11 an hour to its US employees to make the same shoes -- a labor cost still paid by Nike's competitors who didn't move to the third world. All of which proves one thing, namely that low wage workers produce goods and services that command a market price that is plenty sufficient to spread the profits around.

The proof of this is the fact that companies unionize from time to time -- seeing large increases in the earnings of their workforce, and lo and behold, they don't go broke. Oh, they bellyache to high heaven about how they "just can't compete" if their workforce has to make a profit for its time and energy. But they can compete, and they do.

Oh, and if they can't. If capitalist businesses just can't turn a profit, unless labor makes less than a living wage, how is that proof of the "superiority" of capitalism? If capitalist business "can't afford" for their workforce to earn a profit -- more than their base cost of living -- how exactly is capitalism "successful?" Because it makes some people rich, while others labor in poverty? Medieval feudalism managed to provide prosperity for some people. Hell, at the end, Soviet communism furnished a decent standard of living for a few people. Isn't the measure of system how well it treats the people on the bottom? Every social system treats the people on top just fine.

Right here is the stake through the heart of unregulated corporate capitalism. You produce a product that is profitable for the business investor, but not profitable for you -- and the spokesmen for capitalism says the business investor "can't afford" for you to profit from your own labor. Only he can profit from your labor. The system won't allow anything more. That sounds like a weak system, if you ask me, not a strong one.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.) Privatization is the key to improving public services. Look at the Post Office, it's a complete mess.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Everyday I go out to my mailbox, and there in it is all kinds of stuff sent to me by all kinds of people. Every year, my mother sends me birthday card with a twenty in it to go play golf. In 25 years since I left home, my birthday card has never failed to arrive. Something else that never fails to arrive are bills from my creditors, bank statements, magazine's, and enough junk mail over the years to sink a battleship. I occasionally use "Express Mail" -- which sends to PO boxes, unlike FedEx -- and costs less. I've never had a item sent by "Express Mail" fail to arrive, the next day, just like it was supposed to.

So I don't know what you're talking about. I've heard conservatives complain about the post office, I've never had any bad experience with it. Hell, I wish they'd lose some of the sh!t that they can reliably be counted on to deliver. Listen up. "The check is in the mail" is a lie. So is "I never got it."

Meanwhile, I regularly hear stories out of the third world, where electric utilities, drinking water and other publically owned utilities were privatized. The price went up -- sometimes by factors of three and four. Look what happened when electric power was deregulated in California. Electric bills went up by a factor of three, and rolling blackouts resulted. Here's a challenge for you. Show me a successful example of "privatization." I've never heard of one -- and I notice you didn't furnish one.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.) Socialized medicine doesn't work! People come from all over the world to use our health services. If you don't have health care, tough, not my problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Health care is part of your "cost of doing business." For a wage earner, his physical body is part of his "equipment" -- and every business owner understands that "equipment maintenance" is part of your overhead. I don't really care where the working person gets this item in his cost of living covered. His employer can pay him a sufficient wage to cover it, can offer it as a 'benefit' package, or we can socialize it. You decide, with one caveat. Since it's part of the cost of living of the wage earner, not providing it is not an option.

As for people coming from "all over the world," does that include places in the third world where they practice unregulated capitalism? And if the US healthcare system is so much superior, perhaps that's because we spend a higher percentage of Gross Domestic Product on healthcare than any other nation. And we still can't manage to provide universal care -- compared to other countries who do provide universal care, for a smaller percentage of their annual GDP.

So when you say that "socialized medicine doesn't work" what do you mean? Doesn't provide universal coverage? It does. You mean "socialized medicine" is more expensive? Sorry, our system is more expensive. You mean our more expensive system delivers a better product? I sure hope so, since it costs more. But a fat lot of good "better quality at a higher price" does you, if you're one of the 40 million Americans who don't have access to the system. If my choice is drive a Rolls Royce or walk, I have to tell you, I'd like getting into a Volkswagen as a third option.


Again, thanks for the opportunity, Partisan Squad. Hell, I might clean this up and post it at the main site.

Text

 

[Zebo]

Oh and before you ask:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. What is a progressive?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A "progressive" is a hard assed liberal, who doesn't apologize for being a liberal. As an example, you may consider Ralph Nader. Perhaps you think Ralph Nader is a "socialist" or some other such epithet. But the truth is, if you look at the Green Party agenda, it's just New Deal liberalism circa the late 1940's with environmentalism added.

As for our basis in "fact," we show the world the unquestionable track record of New Deal liberalism. Wnat some facts? Here's some.

Since 1933, no Democratic administration has left office with higher unemployment that it came in with. That includes Jimmy Carter, whose unemployment numbers were unchanged between January 1977 and January 1981. This includes, Truman who left office with 2.5% unemployment, LBU who left office with 3.5% unemployment, and Bill Clinton who left office with 4.5% unemployment. By contrast, every Republican administration has left office higher unemployment -- except Reagan. His low unemployment number -- 5.3% -- sucked compared to Truman's, LBJ's and Clinton's.

Those are facts, my friend. Go to the Bureau of labor statistics and look them up.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What do they believe in?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Equality, democracy. social justice and environmental sustainability.

Equality doesn't mean mathematical equality. It simply means that every human being has a basic right to being treated with dignity and respect. No human being may have his weakness exploited for profit, and there is certainly no "fundamental right" to do so.

Democracy doesn't mean "direct democracy" in the context of continental states. What it means is the basic right of the people -- including primarily the working people who are the majority of society -- to arrange their government and their public business any way they want.

As for wealthy elites, they enjoy their wealth and privilege at the suffrance of the majority of the people. Wealthy elites -- and their 'dittohead' wannabe spear carriers -- don't like that. That's tough sh1t. They need to behave themselves, and exercise their wealth and power with wisdom and restraint.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'd read all that, but I probably already know.

 

[daclayman]

I went off my fellow workers at the pizza shop tonight about how the current administration sucks BBQ CornNuts. Here are a couple of responses:

waitress that votes: I just like Prez bush. I don't like how the Demcrats give people money and a place to live yet they drive around Lincoln Navigators. (said waitress lives in the same subsidized housing) I work 2 jobs and I have to drive around a 1992 Buick.

me: neither dems nor repubs are going to change this situation. Some people are going to cheat the system. This is a state issue. (blah blah explanation)

waitress that votes: Well, I just like bush.

-----------------------

I explained to a cook (that listens to NPR) that small gov't was supposed to be a key part of the repub agenda and that this administration is going in the opposite direction and she looked at me with a blank stare. I think more than half of the US is dead stupid and likes shiny things. If we're gonna remove the current regime, we're gonna need to appeal to these 'folks' cuz they just don't get it. They like to see towelheads get killed, they think taxcuts apply to them and they just don't like them <put racist word for ethnic group of your choice here>. I'm fed up. We need more money and smarter spin artists to grab the average repub idiot's vote.

 

[Bowfinger]

Great stuff Zebo. Ties quite nicely with recent discussions.

 

[LunarRay]

Zebo,
You can lead a horse to water but, a pencil must be lead!

Most folks quote and accept what they support without really knowing the underlying and supporting data. "There really is only one reality" a professor once screamed at me in a heated debate.. his face red from frustration and spittle about his chin and in his face a calm post grad student daring to challenge his pedestaled theory of the Conservative right to wealth off the sweat of the common wage earner: "Whomever creates the jobs gets the profits - only the creater of wealth earns the right to possess the wealth" Such a strong statement from the weakest element of a society.

I like that site, Zebo... even Art Laffer might yield that - like the tree the sustenance comes from the ground up.. it flows up against gravity - if he would bother to read it. Trickle down is a joke... give the worker, the greedy worker the bucks and he'll gladly allow the fruits of his labors to flow up..

 

[DealMonkey]

Zebo, your top 10 list sounds a lot like DragonMasterAlex, Genesys, Cad and Heartsurgeon all rolled into one! Amazing. Simply amazing. Is there a chip they stick in their brains or something? V-Chip? C-Chip maybe?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Zebo, your top 10 list sounds a lot like DragonMasterAlex, Genesys, Cad and Heartsurgeon all rolled into one! Amazing. Simply amazing. Is there a chip they stick in their brains or something? V-Chip? C-Chip maybe?

hehe
I truly don't know. I've heard various thoeries from they were abused as children, not loved, to they are wannabe plebs for the elite, IE Wannabe millionaires. Who knows..moonie would be good here.

 

[Dari]

That rich list is old. Norway is up to $48,000 and we are just behind them. Update it. That is one of many false assessments in your responses.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Dari
That rich list is old. Norway is up to $48,000 and we are just behind them. Update it. That is one of many false assessments in your responses.

Dari,
Zebo's post has '2002' shown as the year. Was this not the case in 2002? It is just a listing of the top 20 any how. The order is sorta irrelevant. What are some false assessments you refer to? Frankly, I don't follow the part which includes 'in your responses' in your statement quoted. I think it (the thread start) is well put together and since I feel this way I'd be very interested in what is false in the post and the link as it relates to the quoted passages.

 

[zephyrprime]

That rich list is old. Norway is up to $48,000 and we are just behind them. Update it. That is one of many false assessments in your responses.

That's totally wrong. How could they climb 50% higher in one year? According to the cia factbook, Norway only had 1% growth in 2003 over 2002. And the figures for per captita GDP at the worldbank agree.

cia factbook
worldbank

(but I don't want you to get the impression that I agree with a lot of what zebo said because I didn't.)

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Dari
That rich list is old. Norway is up to $48,000 and we are just behind them. Update it. That is one of many false assessments in your responses.

Dari,
Zebo's post has '2002' shown as the year. Was this not the case in 2002? What are some false assessments you refer to? Frankly, I don't follow the part which includes 'in your responses' in your statement quoted. I think it (the thread start) is well put together and since I feel this way I'd be very interested in what is false in the post and the link as it relates to the quoted passages.

Norway's GDP didn't jump $11,000 in one year alone. There is something inherently wrong with that table (unless he's using purchasing power parity).

As for his responses, they were derived from asinine and simple statements/questions. Therefore they are easy to answer. It's more or less like picking on a 5-year old. If Zebo really wants to prove himself, he should stop countering such statements and propose limits to the ideologies he so cherishes.

For example, unlike the vast majority of Republicans, I believe in progressive taxation, an idea originally derived in Das Kapital. But my question for him would be what limits would he set? Is today's 40% adequate or should it be higher/lower. Furthermore, what role does/should responsibility play in modern society?

Answer those two questions.

 

[LunarRay]

RICHARD BLOOM
Monday, October 6, 2003

Canada's lagging productivity is the main driver behind the substantial income gap between Canada and the United States, the Conference Board of Canada writes in a report provided exclusively to The Globe and Mail.

And although the gap has shrunk in recent years, a series of sweeping reforms -- including ones that promote competition, increased investment in machinery and equipment, innovation, education and openness to international trade -- need to be implemented by policy makers and business leaders if they want to eliminate the chasm altogether, it argues.

Canada's income gap -- the difference between the country's real gross domestic product per capita and that of the United States --was $4,779 in 2002. With per capita GDP of $28,344, Canada placed fifth among Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations.

The United States sat in the No. 1 spot with $33,123, followed by Ireland ($30,910), Norway ($30,127) and Switzerland ($28,684).

The GDP per capita figure is calculated by multiplying five components: labour productivity, hours worked per employee, the unemployment rate, the labour force participation rate and the demographic structure (working-age population divided by total population).


link

This seems reasonable..

There are other ways to calculate per capita GDP of course, but, the list is illustrative of another point. Should the nations listed not be listed and replaced by what might make the point fail? edited to make sense.. I think..

 

[Zebo]

. It's more or less like picking on a 5-year old.

No kidding. Those cheap slogans only work on the simple minded.

But my question for him would be what limits would he set? Is today's 40% adequate or should it be higher/lower. Furthermore, what role does/should responsibility play in modern society?

I've answered this a thousand times. The more money you put in the middle/lower classes hands the more the economy will improve cause they spend like drunken sailors. And since we all know demand , spending, creates a boom it's just sound economic policy for all.

Simple. Minimum wage $20, No taxes till you hit 100K, then a very progressive tax of 25% 100K-250K, 50% 250K-500K, 90% above that. No capital is allowed to flow out of the country to third world dictarships, no imports from third world dictarorships, and no such thing as "capital gains" which is simply a bogus tool those smart enough or lucky enough can pay miniscule taxes. Enpower people.

Furthermore, what role does/should responsibility play in modern society?

Could you ask a more open ended question? What do you mean by responsiblity? IMO responsibility (law abiding, productive member, bettering yourself, caring for your fellow man) is learned behavior and if you learn from a early age society cares for you, your well being, your sucess you're much more likley to care about the society in which you live, natually. Inclusion, education, real oportunity for all insures this. Or you could travel to one of our blighted cities or some third world dump and just see the the lack of responsiblity the dog-eat-dog society in which they live breeds .

 

[Genesys]

survival of the fittest.

and Zebo, if those are your words following the quotes, then your socialist side is showing.

We've already dealt with the "productive/unproductive" question. Since my position is that wage earners have a superior right to profit from their own labor, than any investor has to profit from the labor of those same wage earners, I agree 100% that we should end the robbery of productive elements of society by unproductive elements. But that isn't what you meant, is it?

the wage earners [blue collar folk] get their incentives for more money by meeting and exceeding their production quotas [a bonus, if you will]. it is my belief that you need to prove your worth [productivity] to be rewarded, therefore, those who are unproductive get no bonus. while this may be 'unfair' and 'discriminitory' hopefully it inspires the unproductive to be more productive in the future.

Man is inherently greedy? What about Woman? I assume that you mean that "people are inherently greedy."

get off your politically correct high horse. man as in mankind. dolt.

The question is who is carrying whom, and who "society" supports. Or do you suggest that a Wall Street investor is deriving his dividends from his own "hard work," -- as opposed to the hard work of the people who work in the factories and shops he invests in. In fact, he doesn't produce anything at all. Everything that you see in the room you're sitting in was produced by a wage earner. The investor's income is only possible if there is a work force organized to produce useful products and services. Furthermore, his opportunity to invest in such organizations is the result of a vast web of legal, social and economic conventions that allow him to organize a workforce to produce a useful product or service, and derive a living -- if not a fortune -- from what that workforce produces.

are you presuming that all people who invest in the market live off their dividends, and that they have no real job of 'value' [a blue collar job]? perhaps youve forgotten why it is a company decides to 'go public' and list their stock on the open market. a company lists stocks on the market in hopes that someone will invest in them [the company] and therefore provide that company with extra cash [so the company can make further investments and expand and ultimately achieve higher profitability] so, yes, dividends are well deserved by the investor because they took a risk [by investing in the first place] and now they are being 'rewarded'.

damn those economic classes, damn them for teaching such heresy.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.) Liberalism, socialism, communism; it's all the same. You just want to rob from the productive elements of society and give it to the unproductive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

now, i have heard some conservative idiots make this claim, but let me tweak it a bit for you. socialism is the middleground between capitalism and communism, and liberalism is quite close to socialism. not only that, but liberals in todays America are democratic socialists. they dont want to move wholly to socialism [at least not that im aware of], they just want to lean more closely towords a socialist govt. look at all the entitlements and handouts for proof. they WANT people to be dependant of the government for day to day survival.

and before you say it, yes, im aware of that crap medicare bill the Pres just signed, and yes im aware of its implications and how it goes against a tratiditional conservative ideology. but, make sure you keep in mind all the past grieviences of the liberals [in terms of handouts and entitlements]

But then, conservatives are the "pessimists." They're the one's that say that humans are greedy, lazy bums -- some of whom are only motivated by "profit," but others of whom must be motivated by the threat of starvation.

i would call it realism, not pessimism. just like you like to be called 'progressive' instead of democratic socialist [or liberal for short]

Did all of the immigrants get rich? Are there no middle class immigrants? No poor immigrants? Here's the real question, can everybody get rich? Who will that leave to do the work of society? If anybody can get rich, surely everybody can't. What happens to those who don't?

you make it sound as though when one gets rich they forget all about manual labor. thats not true. i know plenty of millionaires [theyre rich, right?] who still work at home depot because thats what they love doing [work]. they drive their Corvettes and classic muscle cars to work, work a whole shift [8-10 hrs a day] and go home to relax in their huge ass house.

or in the case of immigrants [ill use mexicans as my example since there are plenty of them around here], they are rich too, yet they still do the real hardwork around here. they build houses, highways, landscapeing, and many more jobs that pious white people wouldnt touch with a 10ft pole. yet these mexicans have HUGE wads of cash in their pockets, own a brand new truck, a brand new house, and support a family of 6 [in most cases, sometimes a larger family, sometimes smaller], and then send some cash back to their family that still lives in mexico. in fact, some of these mexicans have so much money on them at any given time, ive thought of switching my career path from internetworking technologies to mexican mugger.

1. What is a progressive?

definately not todays liberals. they [being the libs] stole that namesake from the pages of history to make themselves more appealing/presentable to the masses since the word 'liberal' has started to take on a negative connotation.

 

[Zebo]

and Zebo, if those are yur words following the quotes, then your socialist side is showing.

Gen You give me way to much credit. If I had half the brain of this dude I'd quit my work and run for office cause I'm damn goodlooking

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Zebo

New post-
Partisan Squad,

First of all, I want to congratulate you on what is perhaps the most succinct short list of standard conservative bromides I have seen in one place. Yes, these ten statements -- not really questions are they, but why quibble -- are the "standard issue" crap you will run into, usually very shortly after encountering a right-winger.

That's why it took so long to respond. These questions were a feast. I haven't this much fun in a month.

But enough babble, let's get to it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.) It's my hard earned money! What gives you the right to take it away from me to give to others? It's no better than outright theft!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(snip)

Nothing like beating a dead horse, eh? No sane person can think taxing is theft. Excess taxing and duplication of work is. As is the stupidity of it, like working out ways to help pay for prescriptions instead of regulating them so that prices are reasonable.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.) You're just lazy. You can't compete in the real world so you want 'society' to support you. Where I come from everyone is supposed to carry their own weight. If you can't cut it, don't go about blaming others for your faults.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(snip)

Great job. Next time at least try to make a counterpoint, instead of going off somewhere else.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.) Leftism doesn't work. Man is inherently greedy and the only motivation that gets anything done is profit. Take that away and society collapses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Man is inherently strange.

Man is inherently greedy? What about Woman? I assume that you mean that "people are inherently greedy."

Yes, random PC moron, last time I saw anyone use the word "Man" as a proper noun, they meant homo sapien.

Most progressives would argue with this basic assumption about human nature. They would point out the many and varied examples of cooperative effort -- including examples of self-sacrifice. Even, conservatives are typically at the head of the line to honor the sacrifice of soldiers in war "making our freedom possible." Fair enough, but I'm have to tell you that I just don't see the "profit" in getting your ass shot off. In fact, conservatives will -- with great sanctimony and self-righteousness -- tell you about the "debt" you owe to our military for "keeping you safe," "protecting your freedom," and presumably also the fortunes made by some. This means that someone SACRAFICED HIS VERY LIFE to make your opportunity to prosper in a free society possible. That's according to their own rhetoric. And they're bitching about spending a few pennies out of every tax dollar to give some brown kid a bowl of gruell and send him to a decent school? Fuk 'em!

So leftism is just about making everyone even as far as their wealth? That isn't much to align yourself with.

Was that a little harsh? Well, okay, let's go the other way then, and acknowledge that, yes indeed, greed or more accurately "self-interest" is indeed the great motivator to "get anything done." We still win.

No you don't. You mention "anything." There are many motivations for many tasks. Greed is an intrinsic motivation for money and power. Lefties are no better, they just want the government to do more of it.

The assertion is "people are inherently greedy." By its terms, this means that "greed" is a fundamental of human nature. We're all that way -- every one of us. Including guys working on the shop floor for an hourly wage. So naturally, conservatives recognize that "making a profit" is what motivates the hourly wage earner -- say the working mother who works for Walmart. By this logic, the best way to motivate that low wage employee is to pay her a wage sufficient to give her a "profit" over her cost of living -- requiring a wage substantially above our current miniumum wage. That's what conservative believe, right?

Yes, but the argument can't be used that way. If you want to go that far, corporations exist solely to feed children. Nothing is quite that simple. Each level of employment is different, and each person has their own reasons for trying to reach the level they are at, and possibly the next few up.

Well, not quite. It seems that decent wages -- allowing the accumulation of savings and property -- leads to "laziness." The working man won't take advantage of the opportunity to actually get ahead. He will get complacent and "lazy." So are people inherently greedy? Or are they inherently lazy? Or are they both greedy and lazy -- wanting to live off the labor of other people? And what does that say about the capitalist? More to the point, how does anything ever "get done" with people motivated by a combination of greed and sloth?

Easy, the greedy and lazy tell the rest what to do. Wonderful world, isn't it?

Ouch! Something has to give here. Either people aren't "inherently lazy" -- which means that they will seize the chance offered by profitable wages to provide for their own economic security, or there is serious flaw in your model of human nature.

No, just those few humans. They obviously need to find a career or hobby they enjoy, since they obviously don't like the one they are in.

If you are a conservative, I will now save your bacon on this issue -- at a cost. If people are "inherently greedy," and thus not especially motivated to bust their ass in someone else's business enterprise, where they don't earn any "profit," what can we predict about "low wage" economies? Doesn't this suggest that "low wage" economies will wind up being stagnant, underdeveloped cess pools? And isn't that just what we find when we look around the third world?

Now look at the list of the twenty richest countries, as measured by per capita Gross Domestic Product.

1 Luxembourg $ 44,000 2002 est.
2 United States $ 37,600 2002 est.
3 San Marino $ 34,600 2001 est.
4 Norway $ 31,800 2002 est.
5 Switzerland $ 31,700 2002 est.
6 Ireland $ 30,500 2002 est.
7 Canada $ 29,400 2002 est.
8 Belgium $ 29,000 2002 est.
9 Denmark $ 29,000 2002 est.
10 Japan $ 28,000 2002 est.
11 Austria $ 27,700 2002 est.
12 Australia $ 27,000 2002 est.
13 Monaco $ 27,000 1999 est.
14 Netherlands $ 26,900 2002 est.
15 Germany $ 26,600 2002 est.
16 Finland $ 26,200 2002 est.
17 Hong Kong $ 26,000 2002 est.
18 France $ 25,700 2002 est.
19 Sweden $ 25,400 2002 est.
20 United Kingdom $ 25,300 2002 est.

That's right. They're all "high wage" economies. Blow me down. THE CONSERVATIVES ARE RIGHT!!! Self-interest does create prosperous economies, and one sure way to create a prosperous economy is WITH A DECENT WAGE SCALE furnishing just such a motivation to the work force.

In the movies, this is the part where you get a long shot of planet earth, with the sound of conservatives howling in pain heard all the way into outer space. I just love skewering those mother fukers with their own logic. You see, cheap-labor conservatives aren't interested in a high wage economy. And they don't think "greed is good" for everybody. It's just good for them.

I actually figured this guy would make a real point here.
Looks like he needs some clue pills. If greed is the biggest motivator, wages should be higher than in other countries, since there is incentive to pay the workers more (because otherwise the workers will wuit working and go elsewhere).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.) Capitalism has been proven to be the only system that works. Look at the Soviet Union, it was a miserable failure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

yup.

And along the same lines there is also this.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.) Liberalism, socialism, communism; it's all the same. You just want to rob from the productive elements of society and give it to the unproductive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We've already dealt with the "productive/unproductive" question. Since my position is that wage earners have a superior right to profit from their own labor, than any investor has to profit from the labor of those same wage earners, I agree 100% that we should end the robbery of productive elements of society by unproductive elements. But that isn't what you meant, is it?

Meanwhile there is this assertion that "liberalism, socialism, and communism are all the same." You'd just be amazed at how many conservatives make this absurd claim -- accusing supporters of our social democratic mixed economy of supporting Soviet style communism. But I have a way to shut them up, and shut them up good.

This is almost funny. So, how many of them have YOU seen running off in search of a country with no slight touches of socialism?

(snip forum-posted mental circle jerking)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.) Stop being a loser! Get positive and things will bound to get better. Be negative and they never will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I have to agree with this one. But then, conservatives are the "pessimists." They're the one's that say that humans are greedy, lazy bums -- some of whom are only motivated by "profit," but others of whom must be motivated by the threat of starvation. Conservatives are the one's who say that poverty is an insoluable problem, that democratic governments "can't do anything right" -- notwithstanding the experience of the "liberal" economies of the twenty richest nations on earth. [Do I have to put "the list" up again, or have you seen it enough.]

insoluable...so, what does that word mean? I guess anything you want, but I'll assume it was just a typo and means that it is a problem that cannot be solved.
Poverty is a permanent problem--assuming it is indeed a problem. Always has been, always will be. Income has only proven to increase happiness up to the point of a decent living. As soon as people get discretionary(sp) income, it levels off.

So yes, be optimistic. Don't let the conservatives tell you that you, as a citizen acting with other citizens, can't solve your own problems. Don't let them tell you that capitalism just "can't afford" for you to profit from your own efforts, and that the "free market" is such a feeble system that only a few can prosper, only a few can have decent health care, only a few can get decent educations, and only a few can enjoy the prosperity all around us.

Now, we're going to have to make some changes in the way we currently do business. But don't you worry. You have the power to make those changes -- and history shows that the people can indeed "institute new government, laying its foundations upon such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Yeah, as soon as lobbyists become illiegal...and it's the people who get money and gifts from them that make those laws 99.9% of the time. It's possible, but will require some great social upheavel(sp).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.) Immigrants come to this country with nothing and get rich pretty quick. If you can't do the same, it's because you don't want to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Did all of the immigrants get rich?

Ah, just put words into someone else's mouth. ALL is not what is stated. Fact is, these immigrants go from nothing to a hell of a lot because they want it. If they don't really want it, they won't work to get it. It's pretty simple: begin linking positive emotions with more money and power at an early age.

Are there no middle class immigrants? No poor immigrants? Here's the real question, can everybody get rich? Who will that leave to do the work of society? If anybody can get rich, surely everybody can't. What happens to those who don't?
(snip BS)

They live lives without a ton of money, that's what. If there weren't at least 20 or so people willing to be followers for every 1 leader, we'd be in chaos. As long as I can do my work the way I want to, judged based on results and attitude, I'll be perfectly happy to be a middle class guy working under a boss, not telling anybody else what to do. I'm all about doing work that will get the CEO a few more millions, as long as he doesn't give himself a raise when the company tanks.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.) The free market determines a person's value. If they aren't making much it's because they aren't that productive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the operative fact that disembowels this assertion about the "natural market price" of low skilled labor. If you are a low-skilled, low wage working person, somebody is profiting from your labor, even if you aren't. How is it that your labor produces a product or service that investors profit from, but wage earners don't?

Simple: you get no raises, even if the product is selling for high margin and getting in lots of money. It usually works itself out, since most people get the picture and demand rasies, and/or become skilled workers. Or the company gets into really bad press and starts a dive.

Consider "the example" -- the one everybody uses as the paradigm for low wage employment. Consider McDonald's. Now when you walk into a McDonalds and order a Big Mac, McDonald's stock holders aren't back there behind the grill. Your Big Mac, fries and soda pop are prepared by some joker working twenty feet away from you. You are paying for what he produces. But at $5.15 an hour, he isn't making a profit, since $5.15 an hour doesn't cover his cost of living. But McDonald's stock holders are making a profit, and the proof of that is all of the new Mickey D's popping up like mushrooms across the countryside.

Really? I seem to recall that last qaurter or the one before, they finally lost money (thank god). Also note that they care nothing about service and and keep actual costs under 30%. I've seen a McDonalds close here, and haven't seen a new one in awhile. Waffle Houses pop up like mad, but then again, they have higher food costs (not by much, but significantly higher than McD), decent service for a fast food place, and serve good food 24/7. A bit more $ than McDonalds, but they're at every exit down here and only a very small few are bad.

The conservatives will tell you how McDonald's is "creating jobs." They sure are. They're creating jobs that don't generate any profit for the people who work in them, but indeed require those people to subsidize their cost of living from other sources -- like say their parents, spouses or roommates. Which raises a rather elementary question. If I made Big Macs and french fries in my own hamburger stand, and sold them for the same price McDonald's charges, would I be offering a profitable product? Would I enjoy the profits of the product I am producing in my own hamburger stand?

No, because you couldn't make it for the same price. A slightly higher-quality version in a good location, however, would likely do it. Especially if you can offer some unique product--or at least unique to the location.

The answer to this question puts the defender of capitalism in a "sticky wicket." Because if I can't profit producing in my own business, what McDonald's profits by selling, where is their profit coming from? The answer is me. Meanwhile, the product isn't really profitable, is it? You see, the "natural market value" of what I produce --as a McDonald's fry cook -- is the value of that product or service to you, the purchaser. If that natural market value -- what YOU are willing to pay, won't pay the guy producing the service a profit over his "cost of doing business," which is the same as his cost of living, the product isn't really profitable. Is it?

The product is profitable. It costs, IIRC, around 28% of what you pay.
You pay for a crappy burger. And not that much of a value at that.
Their profit is not coming from the fry cook. It's coming from people who are willing to settle for crappy food at the price of decent food. The cook only has to EXIST.
Note that I have nothing more than drinks from a McDonalds, Burger King, or any other fast food place save Chick-Fil-A, Krystal, Waffle House and Nu-Way in more than four years.

Now let's talk about Nike tennis shoes -- the one's that sell for $100 a pair. Nike's Indonesian contractors were paying their employees 24 cents an hour to assemble a pair of tennis shoes. The market value of the shoes is $100, and you can take it to the bank it doen't take 400 hours [that's ten weeks] to produce a pair. I mean, if I make one pair of tennis shoes A DAY, we're talking about a labor cost of $2.00 a pair. (snip)
Oh, and if they can't. If capitalist businesses just can't turn a profit, unless labor makes less than a living wage, how is that proof of the "superiority" of capitalism? If capitalist business "can't afford" for their workforce to earn a profit -- more than their base cost of living -- how exactly is capitalism "successful?" Because it makes some people rich, while others labor in poverty? Medieval feudalism managed to provide prosperity for some people. Hell, at the end, Soviet communism furnished a decent standard of living for a few people. Isn't the measure of system how well it treats the people on the bottom? Every social system treats the people on top just fine.

They can turn a profit--they can just turn more of it by using workers in poorer countries.

Right here is the stake through the heart of unregulated corporate capitalism. You produce a product that is profitable for the business investor, but not profitable for you -- and the spokesmen for capitalism says the business investor "can't afford" for you to profit from your own labor. Only he can profit from your labor. The system won't allow anything more. That sounds like a weak system, if you ask me, not a strong one.

Well you know, if I were in a poor country, and $.25/hr could actually get me by, I wouldn't worry about it. If I were in a rich country like the U.S., where 30 times that is barely cutting it...the situation changes.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.) Privatization is the key to improving public services. Look at the Post Office, it's a complete mess.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Everyday I go out to my mailbox, and there in it is all kinds of stuff sent to me by all kinds of people. Every year, my mother sends me birthday card with a twenty in it to go play golf. In 25 years since I left home, my birthday card has never failed to arrive. Something else that never fails to arrive are bills from my creditors, bank statements, magazine's, and enough junk mail over the years to sink a battleship. I occasionally use "Express Mail" -- which sends to PO boxes, unlike FedEx -- and costs less. I've never had a item sent by "Express Mail" fail to arrive, the next day, just like it was supposed to.

So I don't know what you're talking about. I've heard conservatives complain about the post office, I've never had any bad experience with it. Hell, I wish they'd lose some of the sh!t that they can reliably be counted on to deliver. Listen up. "The check is in the mail" is a lie. So is "I never got it."

Meanwhile, I regularly hear stories out of the third world, where electric utilities, drinking water and other publically owned utilities were privatized. The price went up -- sometimes by factors of three and four. Look what happened when electric power was deregulated in California. Electric bills went up by a factor of three, and rolling blackouts resulted. Here's a challenge for you. Show me a successful example of "privatization." I've never heard of one -- and I notice you didn't furnish one.

Gas was deregulated a few years ago here. One company (at least) ended up starting and then dying, but the price went down.
There are two counties in texas that got social security privatized in time, and the workers there are getting well over 3x what social security offers for their money. No, I don't feel like researching it, BTW. I *think* it's linked from Noortz' site.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.) Socialized medicine doesn't work! People come from all over the world to use our health services. If you don't have health care, tough, not my problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Health care is part of your "cost of doing business." For a wage earner, his physical body is part of his "equipment" -- and every business owner understands that "equipment maintenance" is part of your overhead. I don't really care where the working person gets this item in his cost of living covered. His employer can pay him a sufficient wage to cover it, can offer it as a 'benefit' package, or we can socialize it. You decide, with one caveat. Since it's part of the cost of living of the wage earner, not providing it is not an option.

And people WILL take jobs that offer less money but more benefits. It works out.

As for people coming from "all over the world," does that include places in the third world where they practice unregulated capitalism? And if the US healthcare system is so much superior, perhaps that's because we spend a higher percentage of Gross Domestic Product on healthcare than any other nation. And we still can't manage to provide universal care -- compared to other countries who do provide universal care, for a smaller percentage of their annual GDP.

So when you say that "socialized medicine doesn't work" what do you mean?

Fully government run, government regulated medicine, in which the free market plays very little of a role.

Doesn't provide universal coverage? It does. You mean "socialized medicine" is more expensive? Sorry, our system is more expensive. You mean our more expensive system delivers a better product? I sure hope so, since it costs more. But a fat lot of good "better quality at a higher price" does you, if you're one of the 40 million Americans who don't have access to the system. If my choice is drive a Rolls Royce or walk, I have to tell you, I'd like getting into a Volkswagen as a third option.

But that's where capitolism comes in...somebody, by God, will MAKE a third options, because enough people demand it.

Again, thanks for the opportunity, Partisan Squad. Hell, I might clean this up and post it at the main site.

Text

That guy needs to stop looking at the world through smog-colored glasses

-Ernie the grouchy-this-morining

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Zebo

. It's more or less like picking on a 5-year old.

No kidding. Those cheap slogans only work on the simple minded.

But my question for him would be what limits would he set? Is today's 40% adequate or should it be higher/lower. Furthermore, what role does/should responsibility play in modern society?

I've answered this a thousand times. The more money you put in the middle/lower classes hands the more the economy will improve cause they spend like drunken sailors. And since we all know demand , spending, creates a boom it's just sound economic policy for all.

Simple. Minimum wage $20, No taxes till you hit 100K, then a very progressive tax of 25% 100K-250K, 50% 250K-500K, 90% above that. No capital is allowed to flow out of the country to third world dictarships, no imports from third world dictarorships, and no such thing as "capital gains" which is simply a bogus tool those smart enough or lucky enough can pay miniscule taxes. Enpower people.

Furthermore, what role does/should responsibility play in modern society?

Could you ask a more open ended question? What do you mean by responsiblity? IMO responsibility (law abiding, productive member, bettering yourself, caring for your fellow man) is learned behavior and if you learn from a early age society cares for you, your well being, your sucess you're much more likley to care about the society in which you live, natually. Inclusion, education, real oportunity for all insures this. Or you could travel to one of our blighted cities or some third world dump and just see the the lack of responsiblity the dog-eat-dog society in which they live breeds .

My God, those numbers will kill this country. You'll drive everyone to Canada. Is that your secret plan?

 

[Jmman]

There is so much misinformation here I do not even know where to start.......

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Zebo
and Zebo, if those are yur words following the quotes, then your socialist side is showing.

Gen You give me way to much credit. If I had half the brain of this dude I'd quit my work and run for office cause I'm damn goodlooking

Pix??

 

[DamnDirtyApe]

Originally posted by: Dari<br

My God, those numbers will kill this country. You'll drive everyone to Canada. Is that your secret plan?

Speaking as a Canadian, I would love it if my income of < $100K was completely tax-free. I would also suspect that there is likely not a single person on this board who would be worse off under that system (i.e., earning more than $250,000 per year).