The Good Fight

If only Mr. Baker had been consistent throughout his career. You see, Mr. Baker was given a grade of A from ACORN in 2008 precisely because he is an activist attorney general who spent taxpayer money in pursuit of ACORN's legislative and judicial agenda. Mr. Baker's grade of A is shown on page four of ACORN's report.
http://acorn.org/fileadmin/ACORN_Reports/2…
I wonder how much taxpayer money General Baker spent pursuing ACORN's agenda rather than protecting the Constitution.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/thu…

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

I'm beginning to see the Constitution used the same way the Bible is used: poorly and without context.

In this case, let's wonder why a state AG would be bothered with protecting the Federal constitution.

Then we can get into the larger issues of why so many anti-Federal conservatives are so interested in the Federal constitution.

report 0 of 1 people like this.   like  dislike

If this health care bill is so great then why did the Pres., House and Senate exempt themselves from having to participate? Do as we say, not as we do! Had this health care been in place, Sen. Kennedy would not have been able to have his last surgery to extend his life for a terminal illness. Oh yea, He would have been exempt, but not you.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Mat,

I know this might be a lot for you to digest, so I will try to make it simple.

To answer your question, "In this case, let's wonder why a state AG would be bothered with protecting the Federal constitution."

The state AG's are sworn to uphold state law. To the extent that this new legislation compels state legislatures to tax, spend and prove compliance under the new law, a conflict between state and federal law has arisen.

For example: The governor of Virginia has signed a bill into law (passed by the state legislature) that makes it illegal to compel Virginians to buy health insurance. That conflicts with Obamacare law that mandates individuals must purchase insurance or face civil and or criminal penalty.

This will get sorted out by SCOTUS.

Isn't it amazing that we are debating whether it's a good idea for the federal government to MANDATE that you purchase a product (insurance is a financial product).

If you're down with that, perhaps you think it a good idea for a government mandate that everyone must purchase an alarm system. After all, many people are killed in home invasions, and with high unemployment, crime is up. Think of all the lives that could be saved if we had universal burglar alarms! Of course, we will need to strictly regulate the burglar alarm industry, and the program doesn't really work unless everyone is on it, so compliance is mandatory. You must purchase a burglar alarm.

Yes, I want government to make me buy Cheerios instead of Rice Chex, GM instead of Toyota, Motrin instead of Advil, et al.

Are you really willing to surrender you economic freedom for a promise of security?

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Of course an idiot like Mr. Baker would say that, he's an obama,pelosi,reid ass-kisser. He wishes he had the balls of Henry Dargan McMaster. Georgia if you know what's good for you, keep him as far away from the governorship as you can.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Oh, I get it. Health reform is bad because of the mandates. OK, yea, I can agree with that. But it doesn't sound like the earlier arguments against health care reform.

So, let's see if I have mastered this tricky concept: The health reform law that conservatives hated because it would somehow spell the end of the insurance industry is now law and so now it is hated because it has basically handed that same corrupt industry millions of new people to leech money from?

Did I get that right? Oh, probably not because the Prime Operating Principle of the new Right Wing is to just move the goal posts anytime a new idea is presented. Well, that or you just say "no" an awful lot and get all worked up and pretend that you could secede from the Union.

These lawsuits are going to fail spectacularly, even if they make some excellent points about mandating coverage. I didn't agree with that in the Clinton years and I don't agree with it now. Unless, that is, if the mandated coverage comes in the form of a robust single-payer system paid for by dissolving the insurance industry and actually nationalizing health care.

At least you did explain the whole state AG versus Federal law thing. I thought I was going to have to go read another book about jurisprudence or something. Hate those books. Ponderous.

Now, as to my "economic freedom," well isn't that just a joke?

Economic Freedom would mean not having to work at a job that I don't like all that much just so that I can have access to health insurance, paltry as it is. Could I afford coverage for myself and my family on the "open market"? No. As it is, I can barely afford to pay for the premiums offered through work. And you dare ask me how I feel about surrendering my economic freedom?

I, like millions and millions of Americans, do not have any economic freedom outside of the freedom to suffer, starve, and die under the boot of your so-called market economics.

We are not free to pursue a different job that might pay less, yet be more fulfilling to our minds and bodies. We are not free to start our own businesses. We are under the constraints of a system that forces us to turn over ten, twenty, or even thirty percent of our wages just in case we or a loved one should get sick or injured.

Again, you would dare to ask me if I am willing to surrender my economic freedom?

I'd like to just have a little bit of that freedom, first.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Mat Cat- If the health care was legal why did roosevelt have to try and pass a second bill rights to get it through the first time! FYI there are plenty of democrats that don't like this H/C either, look how many had to be bribed or persuaded.

Anyhow let's make it simple for you; social security and medicare are both failing, shouldn't they learn to get those right before we move on to a fifth of our economy?
What part of we can't afford another 2.5 trillion dollars don't you understand, not to mention the states will have to come up with their matching funds...

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Mat Cat,
Ask yourself some questions. If this health care is so good, why is The Pres.,House and Senate not required to participate?Double Standard? What or Who is really stopping you from pursuing economic freedom? You mention moving the goal post, i agree, but honestly don't you agree that it is done equally on both sides depending on who holds the power. That is what is sickening about politics, it is no longer about right and wrong, just the sophmoric ,yeah but you did too type of argument. When do we stop one-uping each other?

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Mat,

I'm all for the right single payer system. The best (and only) single payer system I would support is one in which I pay for my health care needs and you pay for yours. I can choose which doctors I will see and what procedures I can afford. You may do the same. That system would create competition among doctors, eliminate insurance companies paperwork and profits, and most importantly, would prevent the government from redistributing my wealth to you.

Let me be clear.

I don't much care whether you like your job or find it fulfilling to your mind and body.

I have worked a dozen different jobs in the past thirty years, many of which required hard physical labor and offered no benefits (beyond Workers Comp) in the event of injury or sickness. After fifteen years of working jobs that I "didn't like very much", perseverance and a hard work ethic have allowed me to attain decent compensation in return for highly skilled and intellectually stimulating work. I never felt that society owed me anything. I went out and found it on my own. I doubt I would be where I am today if I had gone around with your attitude of "woe is me, he got his - where's mine, it's not fair, wah wah wah".

You want to be free to start your own business? Let me save you some time and anguish. You will never make it with your attitude of entitlement.

Ask anyone who runs a business about their single greatest impediment to success. A vast majority will answer, "Uncertainty with regard to taxes, regulatory structures and economic cycles."

Are you completely ignorant about basic economics? Taking from the rich to provide for the poor only leads to fewer rich and MORE poor.

How many of you reading this are employed by poor people?

I loved this bit: "We are under the constraints of a system that forces us to turn over ten, twenty, or even thirty percent of our wages just in case we or a loved one should get sick or injured." Wow, what a bummer.

Can you imagine how pissed off you would be if you were under the constraints of a system that forced you to turn over forty percent of your wages (through taxation) just because Mat is a lazy fuck that wants someone else to pay his way? Dude, you're making me sick. I OWE YOU NOTHING!!!!! What gives you the right? Man up, you lazy, ignorant socialist.

It's clear that your definition of economic freedom has been defined by the current generation of whiny spoiled brats who feel that a college degree should lead straight to a corner office, company car, and expense account.

One of your socialist heroes, George Bernard Shaw, said it best, "The government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul."

So, are you Peter, or Paul?

I thought so.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Wow, it must be gang up on the leftist day here in the City Paper! Kind of like every other day, I suppose. Oh, well.

screwdawg: I understand that a lot of people do not like the health care law. I don't support all of it and I don't even pretend to know what most of it does. I didn't think that such a huge effort was the right way to go. I much preferred Congressman Grayson's four-page bill calling for Medicare to be extended down to any citizen of permanent resident who wants to pay the premiums.

What I don't understand is what you are on about Roosevelt for. I also don't understand why you and so many other people feel like we are some awful precipice of debt and destruction. After all, aren't a lot of you New Wave Conservatives more than happy to just let the Federal Government fall apart and be replaced by a happy little Unicorn Land of Tiny Little Nation States? Wouldn't a crippling debt just lead to that so much faster?

Pick one train of thought to get on or your logic gets messy.

truthrus: What health care? We aren't getting any in this bill. We are getting mandates to purchase health care. We are getting an end to pre-existing conditions and arbitrary removal from coverage and while we desperately needed those two things, they are a far cry from actively putting a stop to the health-care for profit industry from imploding.

While I agree that there is some back-and-forth pendulum nonsense in politics, it is usually measured in tiny bits. I think what scares so many people is that this seems to be a huge shift of the pendulum, when it isn't. Remember, my idea would be to nationalize the hospitals. Nationalize the clinics. Make doctors, nurses and other caregivers direct employees of the US government under the direction of Health and Human Services.

Now *that* would be a radical shift. This is just a nudge.

Which brings us to my favorite beer-pissing antagonist. Mr. Yuengling, who is so clearly in the "got mine, fuck you" camp that he practically squeaks. No, I actually don't know what that means, but I liked the sound of it.

I am quite pleased that you did well for yourself. That's great. What I wish is that jerks like you would actually want more people to find that kind of fulfillment. But, you don't. And that is just kind of sad and petty.

Then again, that's the subtext of the conservative mantra. Petty, sad, and morally indefensible.

I won't claim to know anything about economics. It never made a lot of sense to me. I also don't understand how fewer and fewer people acquiring more and more wealth while more and more people suffer and starve with less and less is a moral or just equation or how it somehow equates to everyone doing better.

So, if you pay forty percent in taxes that puts you way above the $250,000 a year mark, right? If that's the case, then I absolutely don't hold any remorse for wanting to drain you further. You simply do not need that much money. Saying that you do is morally bankrupt and, frankly, disgusting. You can't claim that you don't understand why this country is falling apart if there are people like you unwilling to "man up" and put back into this country what they are taking out. And make no mistake, if I manage to get into that tax bracket I will not cry one tear for the taxes that I pay - even the ones that pay for the bombs and bullets, for that is sadly part and parcel of how this system works.

My definition of economic freedom has nothing to do with a corner office. It is about the simple idea that human dignity is not something that should come with a price tag.

You can call me an ignorant, lazy fuck all day long and that's fine. It's you that has a lot to answer for, not me.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Mat, I was just starting to organize my devious socialistic mind to compose a comment here, but now you've gone and preempted me. Thanks. Guess I'll go wade through the pollen and work in our little backyard garden. Pax tibi.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Seems to be another lie from the Conservatives/Tea Partyers/Libertarians about the House and Senate and President exempt from the Health Care law.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/congress-…

It's amazing that the EU and other countries haven't fallen into the abyss with their single payer plans. If the ethnocentric Conservatives/Tea Partyers/Libertarians would just cogitate for a moment, they might ask themselves, "Why is that?" and seek an answer, rather than have "No" as their answer regardless of the question.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Go Mat!!! Great counter.

IP Yuengling, you go into detail about how your hard work has gotten you were you are today, and you owe nothing to your fellow Americans - especially "ignorant socialist(s)" like Mat. If simply working hard was the driver to wealth, wouldn't there be more wealthy people out there? Aren't there other factors that could get in the way of development (differences in quality of schools and education (compare Baptist Hill to Porter Gaud for example) ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE, etc)?

What if you got sick when working one of your labor jobs that didn't provide insurance? What if you couldn't pay your bills, so you lost your house because you couldn't work? By your own logic, I suppose it would be your own fault for getting sick.

Getting back to the topic at hand, McMaster's judicial activism will fail legally, but this is not the intent. He's using all of our tax dollars to rally his base and gain votes for future elections.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Mat,

You wrote, "What I wish is that jerks like you would actually want more people to find that kind of fulfillment. But, you don't."

Where is the evidence that I don't want you to succeed?

Quite to the contrary, I want you to succeed beyond your wildest dreams. I want you to feel good about your productivity and to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

I hope that when you achieve some success you will help others in whatever way you choose, and if you choose to be selfish with what you have, I hope that you are judged accordingly in whatever life follows this one.

I hope you will learn that charity cannot be compelled. I hope you will come to understand that a taxman reaching into your back pocket and extracting money to redistribute to others is not charity, it's theft.

Do you think that material wealth surrendered through coercion gains a rich man entrance to heaven? Perhaps we're doing the evil rich a favor and punching their ticket to the afterlife.

Beyond the spiritual aspects of theft and charity, I hope you will come to understand that our country does better with a growing number of newly minted "rich folks". Those people are my clients. They buy things. The commerce they engage in creates jobs through all economic sectors. When more people are employed, contributions to the treasury go up.

You wrote, "I won't claim to know anything about economics. It never made a lot of sense to me."

That certainly puts you at a serious disadvantage with regard to finding success.

Let me explain.

Our country, our economy, and our citizens do better when unemployment is extremely low.

Low unemployment forces employers to pay better wages to attract and keep better, more productive workers.

Few available workers and lots of job openings forces employers to pay higher wages. Got that?

When almost everyone has a job, or is moving from a good paying job to a better paying job, very few people are on the government dole, so expenditures on the welfare state go down, and the increased tax revenues from all those workers can be used to pay down the $14,000,000,000,000 dollar national debt.

So, if everyone is working, government expenditures (to social welfare programs) go down while revenues (income and investment taxes) come up. Got it?

Now if you have a better job with higher compensation, you might be inclined to go out and purchase a new boat, have a deck built on the back of your home, or engage in some other form of commerce which ultimately results in your fellow citizens remaining employed taxpayers. That's a good thing, right?

Now the best part. After years of working hard for higher earnings, you can keep and enjoy the fruits of your labor, because the government needs less as it supports few. Those earnings are yours to keep. You might share them through charitable giving. You may start a new business and employ others, giving fellow citizens the first step on their own path to economic freedom and personal liberty. But, the choice IS and SHOULD BE yours, and yours alone. Freedom of choice is good, right?

The economic system I have just described has been proven to work every time it's tried. But, there's a catch: For the system to work correctly, government power through regulation and bureaucracy must be limited and finite. If you hang onerous regulations and taxation on this marvelous economic engine, it will surely grind to a halt. The results are predictable. High unemployment, increased dependence on the state for food, shelter and services. Stagnation and inflation. Loss of economic freedom and personal liberty.

Now examine where our country is, currently. Unemployment is very high. Our work is being outsourced to other nations because our businesses can't compete globally. They can't compete because taxation, regulation, and economic uncertainty make us less competitive in the global marketplace.

The tragedy is that you have been duped by politicians engaging in class warfare. They want you to hate the rich and to give THEM (politicians) power to mete out retribution via redistribution. In reality, you are surrendering your own freedoms to these modern day plantation masters. Kind of ugly, isn't it?

I hope you will think about this. Maybe you will understand that your success and freedom can't be guaranteed by government bureaucrats. If you surrender your freedom to them for the promise of security, you will likely find that you end up with neither.

I REALLY WANT YOU TO SUCCEED. YOUR SUCCESS HELPS ME.

Who knows, Mat? You might even hire me to do work for you one day.

And I'll be glad to have the work.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Ricky,

You wrote, "IP Yuengling, you go into detail about how your hard work has gotten you were you are today, and you owe nothing to your fellow Americans - especially "ignorant socialist(s)" like Mat. If simply working hard was the driver to wealth, wouldn't there be more wealthy people out there?"

Let me explain.

You're quite right, hard work does not guarantee wealth.

Conversely, idleness does guarantee poverty.

I am simply making the point that most of the wealthy people who employee me have worked very hard, and have sacrificed instant gratification (via a credit card and entitlement attitude) for long term security and economic freedom.

Now, about what I owe to my fellow Americans. I owe them honesty, integrity and fealty. I owe taxes to fund and support those fellow citizens who defend and protect me, educate my children and provide essential infrastructure services. This is reasonable, as I am receiving something in return for the wealth surrendered.

If, however, my wealth is taken from me and given to another person, simply because they have less, I consider that theft. Why should someone who pays nine hundred dollars a year in federal taxes (via payroll deduction) receive a twenty three hundred dollar refund check? Where did the other fourteen hundred dollars come from? Obama's magic money tree?

Like Mat, I can see that you struggle to grasp basic economic principles.

Perhaps this story can help to explain things:

Once upon a time, on a farm in Arkansas, there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered quite a few grains of wheat.

She called all of her neighbors together and said, "If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?"

"Not I," said the cow.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Not I," said the pig.
"Not I," said the goose.

"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen. And so she did; The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.

"Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.

"Not I," said the duck.
"Out of my classification," said the pig.
"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.
"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.

"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen, and so she did.

At last it came time to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake the bread?" asked the little red hen.

"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.
"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.
"I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.
"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.

"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share.

But the little red hen said, "No, I shall eat all five loaves."

"Excess profits!" cried the cow.
"Capitalist leech!" screamed the duck.
"I demand equal rights!" yelled the goose.
The pig just grunted in disdain.
And they all painted "Unfair!" picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.

When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not be so greedy."

"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.

"Exactly," said the agent. "That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle."

And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, for now I truly understand."

But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her, for she never again baked any more bread.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Nice fairy tale. I think it actually matches up to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

No, wait. That's not capitalist. That's communist, isn't it? Oh, wait, no. That's biblical.

Oh, no. It doesn't, does it? Or does it? I'm just not so sure. Fairy tales. Just brilliant.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Mat,

That last post was a little schizophrenic. Did you forget to take your meds again?

Fairy tales are a useful way to explain complicated concepts to simple minds.

The little red hen is a hard working capitalist.

The other barnyard animals are lazy socialists.

The government agent is the government.

When society removes the incentives to produce, production ceases.

The are only two ways to encourage production:

Reward or Punishment

Capitalism provides rewards for production.

Slavery/Totalitarianism punishes those who do not meet quotas or produce.

Redistribution of wealth removes the incentive for productivity; both from those who receive without working, and also from those who work without receiving.

Free societies have millions of salesmen trying to market the excess.

Socialist societies have millions of ration clerks trying to divide up the shortages.

Let's assume that you confiscate all the wealth of the top ten percent of wage earners - it's still not enough to pay for this year's budget. Then what?

Should we raise taxes on the rich until they must choose between becoming poor or moving to another country? Then who will pay?

As Margaret Thatcher said so eloquently, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money to spend."

A question for you, Mat. If you were to work hard and amass material wealth, would your envy transform into guilt?

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

"Capitalism provides rewards for production."

Which is why wages have remained stagnant, while productivity has increased, right? Am I getting that right? The meds haven't kicked in just yet and I am just not sure I am getting all the subtle nuances of the right-wing crazy train.

"Slavery/Totalitarianism punishes those who do not meed quotas or produce."

And no one has ever been fired in this country for failing to meet quota, have they? No, those kind capitalist bosses pat them on the back and say, "That's ok, Bob. Maybe next month you can get up to speed."

Seriously, IPY, I feel sorry for people who have your mindset.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Mat,

You misspelled "meet" as meed. (Just being consistent, dude.)

You're such a dope. This is too easy.

You wrote:
"Which is why wages have remained stagnant, while productivity has increased, right?"

Fact: In September 2007 the federally mandated minimum wage was $5.15 per hour. The current federally mandated minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. Now, I know from your previous posts that you suck on economic theory, but are really good with math.

7.25/5.15=1.4077669

Oh my gosh, that looks like a forty percent increase in wages for entry level workers in just the past three years. Huh? I thought Mat said that "wages have remained stagnant".

And this gem:

"And no one has ever been fired in this country for failing to meet quota, have they? No, those kind capitalist bosses pat them on the back and say, "That's ok, Bob. Maybe next month you can get up to speed."

So you believe that a private business owner should keep paying a worker who does not produce enough to justify his continued employment? I thought that practice was exclusive to government bureaucracies.

And finally:
"Seriously, IPY, I feel sorry for people who have your mindset."

Thanks, Mat. I get that a lot from socialists, since I'm one of those pitiful people who thinks that government should be limited in power and scope.

Perhaps one day you will post something brilliant that explains how redistribution of wealth helps our country in the long run. Hopefully, you can also explain how you're entitled to take my stuff, and then prove that it's not theft.

I feel sorry for you too, Mat. It must be hard to get up every morning believing you are powerless to improve your lot in life, and that the only way for you to get ahead is to take things from others. I guess if you can get the government to take it for you, then you can rationalize that it's not really you that is doing the stealing.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Why don't you first rationalize how profit is not morally unjustifiable theft?

And don't wave minimum wage around like some kind of Flag of Awesome that shows just how well off people in this country are. That is, unless that forty percent increase for those ten million people making minimum wage somehow makes you feel a whole lot better about yourself.

Does it?

The simple fact of the economy that has propelled you to whatever wonderful heights you have attained is that it has also managed to keep millions of people living at the barest minimums of human decency. For that matter, it has also choked out the American Dream of a powerful working class or even a middle class. More and more of what people have is debt because they had to take to credit lines in order to live. This is not the country that was built up through the first half of the twentieth century, is it?

Maybe it is a nation you are comfortable with. After all, you have made plain that you have "got yours" and that everyone else can just pretty much waffle off.

Oh, no. Wait. That's not fair. You have said that you want people like me to succeed. That's generous of you, really. I actually have plans to succeed and do well. And I will get there for myself and my family someday. But I hope that I do not have to do it at the expense of my soul and my humanity.

Another simple - and really inconvenient - flaw in this logic of yours is that you seem to believe that everyone can just rise up out of their situation and do better. You ask me to explain how redistribution of wealth helps the country, then I challenge you to explain how it is possible for everyone to have an equal shot at success, when the economic system is set up around the concept of winners and losers. There cannot be an infinite number of winners, there simply is not that much room at the top of heap.

I don't know why you are taking my comment on non-productive workers out of context, so I really don't have anything to say about that.

What I will say, again, is that you are spewing an old party line about "lazy socialists" and "theft" and "redistribtution of wealth" and that none of it can stand up to any sort of objective scrutiny. You simply are content to watch the rest of this nation remain confined to the peripheral of your vision, while you wish us all the best and collect your dividend checks (money you have not, in reality, earned at all).

That's not even the supposed rational self-interest that Ayn Rand was on about. It's pure American greed and avarice.

It's tired, it's old and hopefully it will putter out and expire before I do.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

"Why don't you first rationalize how profit is not morally unjustifiable theft?"

OK. That's simple.

Webster's defines profit as: - the compensation accruing to entrepreneurs for the assumption of risk in business enterprise as distinguished from wages or rent

And theft as: a: the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

So here's my rational: Profit is something which a free person seeks to EARN through risk, and I don't have a problem with that. Theft is the unlawful taking of property, and I do have a problem with that. It doesn't matter to me how much property someone has, theft is theft. If someone breaks into your pad and steals your shit, I have a problem with that. Now if someone breaks into my pad and steals my shit, would you extend the same courtesy to me? And don't give me any crap about the differences between monetary wealth and material wealth. Yours is yours, and mine is mine. Any other way, and we don't enjoy the same rights and protections as spelled out in the constitution.

Another lesson, Mat?

Dividend checks are earned through risk of capital invested in a stock. What sort of dividend checks are the stockholders of Enron earning? How about the folks who owned Circuit City or Lehman Bros.? How about the 40% hit that was taken by everyone's 401k's in '08/'09?

Again, your lack of economic understanding has led you astray.

If one invests in a stock, they risk losing part or all of their investment should the issuer of the stock fail to make a profit, or fail altogether. In return for that risk, the issuer of the stock attempts to entice investors with the potential for higher earnings than could be realized through a traditional savings account or government bond. Savings accounts and bonds are protected by the government, either directly or indirectly. THAT IS WHY I HAVE OBJECTED TO ANY BAILOUT OF A PUBLICLY TRADED BUSINESS WITH TAXPAYER MONEY! Government meddling has perverted the market forces which could have prevented our current mess in the first place.

The stock market is a form of legalized gambling. Some games are higher in risk/reward, and there is nothing new about this system. The early exploration and colonization of our country three hundred years ago was funded largely through joint stock companies. Ever heard of the East India Company? Investors in England were gambling on the possibility of fantastic returns from developing resources and trade in the New World of America. Tea, indigo, rice and tobacco were valuable commodities three hundred years ago, and the colonies and (later) plantations which could produce those items in quantity were considered a risky investment with potentially great returns.

You go on:

"Another simple - and really inconvenient - flaw in this logic of yours is that you seem to believe that everyone can just rise up out of their situation and do better. You ask me to explain how redistribution of wealth helps the country, then I challenge you to explain how it is possible for everyone to have an equal shot at success, when the economic system is set up around the concept of winners and losers."

More explanation?

It's not possible for everyone to achieve the same level of success. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. I wish I could write music like Neil Young or play golf like Phil Mickelson, but I can't. Those guys have earned more than I ever will, but I'm not bitter, because they earned it on their own merits. Hence the old saying, "Life isn't fair."

Some people are smarter than others. Some people are more creative than others. Some people work harder than others. And generally, those people are more successful and earn more money. If you were to drop a hundred random persons into the jungle of central America, not all of them would survive. But I'll bet the characteristics of the ones that make it out would be: smarter, more creative, and harder workers.

Now, as to the "millions of people living at the barest minimums of human decency." Huh?

Those living in "poverty" in America still enjoy indoor plumbing, potable water, modern electrical appliances, air conditioning, color televisions, and frequently, at least one car. We're not exactly living in Calcutta here, are we? (I would argue the reason for that is BECAUSE of capitalism.) I worked here as a cable technician fifteen years ago. On that job, I would go from a ten million dollar house in Wild Dunes to a decrepit trailer in Awendaw in the same morning. The difference between the owners was easy to discern, and it almost always came down to education, sacrifice and work ethic. One day, one of those customers moved out of her trailer and into a nice new home. It turned out that her son went to college on a football scholarship, and when he made it to the NFL, he bought momma and his siblings a new house. He was ten years younger than me and making more money than I ever would, and I was happy for him and his family. Driving away from their new home, I thought to myself, "Damn, is this a great country, or what?"

What's tired and old is Socialism, Marxism, and Communism. And I'll bet you they "putter out and expire" long before capitalism.

Sheesh! You really didn't pay attention in economics did you?

I'm still waiting for you to disprove this statement:

"Redistribution of wealth removes the incentive for productivity; both from those who receive without working, and also from those who work without receiving."

Or, put another way, why should Mat work when the government will take from IP and give to Mat; and why should IP work when the government will take from IP and give to Mat? In the end, there is no incentive for EITHER Mat or IP to work. That is why redistribution of wealth hurts everyone.

Run that by your Marxist professors and friends, and explain that for me, would you?

PS Mat - The reason I'm still here engaging is that I want you to succeed, and your outlook on life is your biggest obstacle. I was once there myself. Providence compels me to help others in any way that I can. An open mind is a necessary requirement for education.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

There are good point on both sides of the argument if you can sit back and look at each argument objectively. My hunch is that all of us on this board are likely considered somewhere in the low, middle or high middle economic class. It seems that we do a lot of fighting between ourselves and don't really point out some real problems with our system. I am not for a socialistic, controlling government, nor do I honestly believe that we can have a true free market. We do need a government to help regulate businesses that dominate the US economic system. This is the real problem. We have a hand full of companies or so that control and own a large portion of the wealth of this country. This is incomprehensible amounts of money. This is where the injustice is to those of us who do work hard to earn a living.

When a top executive in a company earns as a bonus more money than the average employee of that same company will earn over the lifetime of their employment, the government should step in and say, "guys this isn't fair to anyone". The company should either reduce the price of their product or service or more fairly distribute the proceeds of that business. Sure this thought is a bit simplistic because i'm not taking in account stock holders and sort, but in concept you get my point.

Does Bill Gates deserve everything he has...YES, because he is the reason for the PC. Does the CEO of Bank of America deserve his ungodly total compensation...NO because BAC is not due solely to his efforts. Does he deserve to earn a good living, yes because his job is difficult and take skill and hard work to do. But so does the jobs of all of the other BAC workers and that money should be more fairly distributed or not be bilked from the consumer in the first place.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

I P Yuengling, I believe you have covered it pretty well. Somehow we must get the Communist, Marxist, Maoist, Socialist and Progressives (there is a lot of overlap in these categories) out of our schools and government at all levels. Anyone who wants to live under Socialism can move to France or somewhere else where they already have it. Our founding fathers never intended this.

I am tired of my tax money being used to support people who think having illegitimate children is a good career field.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Craig D,

You wrote, "This is the real problem. We have a hand full of companies or so that control and own a large portion of the wealth of this country. This is incomprehensible amounts of money. This is where the injustice is to those of us who do work hard to earn a living."

Any company that "controls or owns a large portion of wealth in this country" is going to be a publicly traded company. Let's look at one of those companies that is frequently demonized by the media. Walmart.

Walmart is a publicly traded company whose shares are available for purchase by investors from all over the world. Shares of Walmart are owned by individual investors, mutual fund portfolios, and company employees. For 2009, the average share price of WMT was between 52 and 57 dollars per share, and the dividend payout per share was .2725 cents, quarterly. So, if you owned a hundred shares of WMT, your dividend was $109. The same $5,500 invested in a risk free CD at BOA would have yielded a dividend of $22.
(Note to Mat - Investors must pay income taxes on the dividends, and the investments themselves were made with money "left over" after taxes to begin with.)

Now, if WMT was consistently losing money, it could not pay a dividend, and investors (shareholders) would leave the company in droves. So Walmart is truly beholden to and governed by its shareholders, because it is the investment of shareholders that allows for expansion and capital improvements.

Some fast facts from '09: WMT sales:401 billion, Cost of goods sold: 306 billion, Operating expenses (Salaries, capital improvements, etc..): 76 billion, Interest payments: 1.9 billion, Net profits: 13 billion (subject to tax), Taxes paid: 6.5 billion

Read it all right here:
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/…

Now, if you were running a successful company with nearly half a trillion dollars in gross receipts, and your continued success meant that you needed the best accountant in the world to keep things in balance, would you put all your receipts in a box and head down to H&R Block, or would you spend ten million dollars a year to find the most gifted accountant on the planet to run your accounting division and safeguard your shareholder's investments?

If a publicly traded corporation is willing to pay a top executive millions a year in compensation, they must answer to the shareholders. If a company is a private venture, then salary amounts are "nunya" business.

Stop worrying about private sector guys and their millions. It's a ruse to keep you from watching what 535 members of congress are doing with 2.5 trillion dollars of our tax money every year.

If you want to go after craven weasels who engage in profligate spending and waste, back room deals and outright theft, then I suggest you look to Washington, DC.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

You used the fifth definition of "profit" from Mr. Webster. I prefer the beginning of number two:

"the excess of returns over expenditure..."

Excess. Your excess is wealth is, by definition, does not belong to someone else and unless you are spending yourself back down to zero you are, by definition, withholding wealth from someone else.

I suppose it is more legal than just outright theft, but it is no less immoral. Don't bother answering to that, because I know for a fact that you will never understand that point or agree with it. I think very few people, even among the more "progressive" elements of the spectrum will agree with that concept.

At any rate, I still have not said in any way that people should just sit back and collect money from the work other people do. That's pretty much the same decrepit system that exists now, only in reverse. I know it wouldn't work and you know I know it wouldn't work but I also know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you don't really want to talk about (any more than I do) any of this. We just want to push our respective talking points.

Still, you operate from a perspective that says that someone who gets paid to just do nothing will continue to just do nothing. I don't think that's the case. See, I was once a cable technician to and I took a long time off due to a back injury. For a time, the concept of staying at the house and collecting a check was great. That time lasted about two weeks after I was able to actually walk around again after the surgery. Then I got stir crazy.

I like to believe that, given the chance, people who are freed from the constraints of having to struggle just to maintain the "minimums" of housing, clothing, food, and health would have more time and energy to devote to building a positive world, starting in each home, each neighborhood and community, each town and so on and so forth.

Holy crap, that sounds so hippie I just want to shower.

Anyways, at least I can now drive around town and think to myself, "Wow, I bet Yuengling hung that drop! Looks terrible."

:P

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Mat,

Beginning of number two works for me, too.

"the excess of returns over expenditure..."

Who made the expenditure?

The investor.

By your twisted logic, I would risk my own capital in a risk/reward venture, and if I lose, I take the hit, but if I win, I give it to you. Is that about right?

Look dude, you've entered a battle of wits, and you're unarmed. I get that. Can you be honest with yourself for a moment?

Where are we going to get the money to build this socialist utopia you fantasize about? And where is the concrete proof that socialism can deliver on your promises of "free(d) from the constraints of having to struggle just to maintain the "minimums" of housing, clothing, food, and health would have more time and energy to devote to building a positive world, starting in each home, each neighborhood and community, each town and so on and so forth."

And yes, you should probably shower.

PS- My drops were strand and trunk line. Service tech, not installer.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Mat,

Perhaps the most honest thing you have said so far:

"For a time, the concept of staying at the house and collecting a check was great."

Yes, we need more like that.............

: )

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

If the government can force everyone to pay into a retirement system, social security, why aren't people up in arms about that, and never have been?! Only those who don't work don't have to pay into it. How is making everyone buy health insurance different? Only those with money will have to buy it.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

I.P., you live in a fantasy world. Either you are one of the super rich (which i doubt), or you have been brainwashed so much that you think that the current market is a free market and is fair to everyone. All you have to do is work hard and it will come right? Wrong.

Your Walmart is example, though well documented, misses the big picture. A company of that size and with that type of power does need it's finances and executive compensation to be regulated by a government entity. "If a publicly traded corporation is willing to pay a top executive millions a year in compensation, they must answer to the shareholders."...you say. WRONG. They answer to a board which is made up of other fat cats consisting of friends, favors, and other folks who's interest is make as much money as possible for yourself and those you know. It is your right to think that it is fair and just for 5% of the people to control 75% of the wealth. If you think that this is equitable and a fair and honest way for a country to be, well, you are a selfish minded, pie in the sky idiot.

You have all types of facts and figures to back up your argument, but what you are missing is that the premise of your argument is not made of your own free thoughts. You have been programmed to think that the free market will fix everything, all gov't is bad, and the American dream just takes a bit of hard work. A portion of this can ring true, but we need better regulation to ensure that the wealth of this country is not being horded through unscrupulous means by a small minority of the people and/or foreign interests.

What's yours is yours and mine is mine is great in a perfect world. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world and regulations are the only thing that can stop selfish and greedy human nature from prevailing.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Craig D,

You wrote;

"A company of that size and with that type of power does need it's finances and executive compensation to be regulated by a government entity. "If a publicly traded corporation is willing to pay a top executive millions a year in compensation, they must answer to the shareholders."...you say. WRONG. They answer to a board which is made up of other fat cats consisting of friends, favors, and other folks who's interest is make as much money as possible for yourself and those you know."

Oh good, another Marxist to joust with!!

Keep talking, you're making my job easier.

The board of directors are the representatives of the shareholders, and vote in accordance with the interests of the shareholders. The shareholder's first concern is maintaining the value of their investment, if one has spent 55 dollars a share for a stock, it is important for the stock to hold that value, or hopefully increase in face value and pay a dividend.

What is wrong with an individual investor trying to make money?

A publicly traded corporation is simply an arrangement between shareholders (individual investors) of a business and the business itself.

Are investors not free to sell their interest (stock) in a business if they don't like some particular aspect of how the business is run?

You have been brainwashed into engaging in class warfare. Envy was the tool used to get the job done.

I will grant you that there are "fat cats consisting of friends, favors, and other folks who's interest is make as much money as possible" in our society at present.

Those people are in Washington, DC. They are bailing out car companies (GM), insurance companies (AIG), quasi "private" mortgage lenders (Fanny/Freddie), and Wall Street banking entities (Goldman Sachs).

These bailouts with taxpayer money equate to socialism, and it is the first step to communism. Who benefited from the bailouts? Average citizens, or fat cats who were well connected to the government via influence purchased through lobbyists? Is it a coincidence that the President's cabinet is full of former Goldman Sachs executives, or that his most frequent guest at the White House has been Andy Stern, who runs SEIU?

Check it out here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con…

Websters defines socialism as:
"a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done"

Capitalism ---> Socialism ---> Communism

Fundamental ---> Transformation ---> To What?

Websters defines communism as:
"1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably"

Check your history about how goods and services were distributed "evenly" in the old Soviet Bloc countries. My recollection is that the ruling class had nice apartments, private "party members only" stores, and preferential treatment with regard to education and family health care.

So, in Socialist America, you can expect that the ruling class will be made up of Congress (politburo) and the corporations that do the bidding of Congress. The workers of those corporations will be us, the proletariat.

Websters defines proletariat as:
1 : the laboring class; especially : the class of industrial workers who lack their own means of production and hence sell their labor to live
2 : the lowest social or economic class of a community

In the old Soviet Union, the only way to get ahead was to be a member of the party and to tow the party line. Speaking out against the party would land you in a work camp doing hard labor. Have you ever met or spoken to someone who has ESCAPED from one of these regimes? Why would someone want to escape the "workers paradise"?

If the communist model is so great, why did the USSR fail? And now that they have failed, why have they embraced capitalism and a flat tax? Have you heard that the New Jersey Net's NBA team has sold a controlling interest to Russian billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov? That would have been impossible twenty years ago.

So, after the communist experiment in Russia failed miserably for eighty years, y'all think that we can get it right here?

You can dabble in insanity if you like, but don't expect the rest of us to go along for the ride. If you really want to live under a totalitarian regime, wouldn't it be easier to just move? Americans are generous. We could take up a collection for you, comrade.

The inequities you and Mat complain about are a result of the continued "fundamental transformation of the United States of America" that was promised to us five days before the last Presidential election. This transformation has been underway for decades. It started with taking over the institutions of education. The next step was to destroy man's relationship with God, and to destroy individual charity and replace it with a state run welfare system. The next step is to use the products of the corrupted education system to staff the media outlets, in order to further disseminate Marxist ideology. The final step is to infiltrate government at all levels, and use government power to assume control of the means of production via regulation and taxation.

Worker's Paradise, indeed.

The Tea Party movement may be our last, best hope.

Step number one is to destroy the existing ruling class (Congress) who are implementing "fundamental change". Number two is to re-establish our relationship with God, and to re-assume stewardship of our education and media systems. The rest will follow naturally.

We can start doing this at the ballot box in November.

THROW THE BUMS OUT. EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Wow. Just. Wow.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

I.P.Y. is off his meds again.
Tell us, how do you propose to deal with those who don't want a relationship with some imaginary god?
Forced bussing to church? Mandatory tithing?

And by the way, last election we did "throw the bums out".

The ones thrown out now comprise the "Tea Party".

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

I wonder if IPY is aware that suicide rates and poverty grew almost exponentially in the years following the breakup of the Soviet Union and Russia's subsequent entry into "free-market" economics?

No, probably not.

Also, they weren't proper communists. Marx never intended for any nation to go from agricultural to post-industrial in such a short period of time.

Oh, nevermind. I forgot. I'm a lazy, uneducated hick of a socialist.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

IPY, in your stock market blatherings, you seem to be under the impression that it is individuals like you and I that hold the majority stake in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc... Wrong yet again. It is corporations who hold the majority stake in much of the stock market. These greedy SOB's are as much of the problem as the corporate executives who earn extravagant incomes on the backs of hard workers.

I, as others on this board, are far from Marxists or socialists, but I am fortunately not blinded by propaganda that spews from either political affiliation and see the real problems that we face and that they try to simply cover up by diverting attention to what they want us to focus on.

As enlightened as you feel that you may be, you are unfortunately stuck in an archaic paradigm and likely will not be able to come around to see the forest through the trees.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Mat,

You wrote,

"I wonder if IPY is aware that suicide rates and poverty grew almost exponentially in the years following the breakup of the Soviet Union and Russia's subsequent entry into "free-market" economics?"

I would counter with, "I wonder if Mat was aware that the apparatus for reporting his "facts" regarding suicide and poverty would have been under the control of "the Party" DURING the heyday of Communism in USSR, and that "the party" would never accurately report those facts out of fear of exposing "the truth" about the workers paradise." Could it be that after the era of "perestroika" and "glasnost" the Russian media was more free to report about reality in the old Soviet Union? And why did/does Russia enjoy such high rates of alcoholism? Surely, the happy members of the workers paradise weren't using a half litre of state supplied vodka every night to celebrate the glorious triumph of the state over greed and inequality!


FCB, you asked:

"Tell us, how do you propose to deal with those who don't want a relationship with some imaginary god?"

There's only one way that I condone in "dealing with you".

Prayer. And please don't be offended that someone might pray for you.

Any other way of "dealing with you" leads to the sort of societies that exist under Sharia law, and I'm not down with that.

And on to Craig D with this gem:

"IPY, in your stock market blatherings, you seem to be under the impression that it is individuals like you and I that hold the majority stake in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc... Wrong yet again. It is corporations who hold the majority stake in much of the stock market. These greedy SOB's are as much of the problem as the corporate executives who earn extravagant incomes on the backs of hard workers."

What is a corporation but a group of investors? You might have made a point if you could have provided some data to support your argument. Since you did not, I will.

The largest individual shareholder of WMT is Jim Walton with about 10.5 million shares. The top ten institutional holders of WMT stock account for 466 million shares, and the top ten mutual fund holders of WMT stock control 133 million shares. So, the son of the guy who started the company is the single largest individual shareholder, and he owns owns about 1.7% of the shares. Most 401k retirement accounts are heavily invested in these institutions (Like T Rowe Price or Berkshire Hathaway) and mutual funds (Vanguard 500, Fidelity Growth).

Read it all right here:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=wmt

And Craig, I really want you to "see the real problems that we face and that they try to simply cover up by diverting attention to what they want us to focus on."

The real problem that we face is a soaring national debt that will soon crush our economy.

It doesn't do us any good to get in a pissing contest over whether this party or that party were the biggest spenders. What both parties want to divert our attention from is the fact that we (our government) will spend thirty percent more than we take in this year. Now, I don't know about your home, but in mine, when income goes down, we spend less.

Why is it that when the government hits financial hard times, the answer is always to raise taxes and fees and never to spend less money? Shouldn't we be cutting spending in a recession instead of borrowing more money?

And I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to disprove this:

"Redistribution of wealth removes the incentive for productivity; both from those who receive without working, and also from those who work without receiving."

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Ok, I.P.Y., how do you propose to pay down the national debt without raising taxes? And don't give me the pat "cut spending", tell us exactly what should be cut and how much each cut will save, annually.
Since you don't propose forcing your religion on anybody I consider that subject closed for now.
To each his own on that.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

IPY, you have finally started to make some sense. Your latest rebuttal is pretty spot on.

To provide you with a fact about the who owns the stock market, I will use Citigroup as an example. Their largest single stock holder is State Street Corporation. They are a financial company who's money does consist of individual investors like you and I. But that does not mean that you and I have the power or a say so in what Citigroup pays its executives. They own over $2B in Citigroup stock meaning that State Street Corp. as a company has a pretty big say so in how Citigroup handles its finances...and for the purposes of my point, State Street Corp. has an influence over how much income Citigroup's executives earn (sorry, earn is the wrong word...take is more appropriate).

Another fun fact for you is that a gentleman by the name of Vakram Pandit happens to be the CEO of Citi. He also happens to be the 5th largest direct stock holder (approx. current value of $10,533,052). He also happens to sit on the board of directors for Citigroup. Is it me, or does anyone else see a slight conflict of interest here?

Generally, i think most of us are all fighting for the same things...just going about it differently. Mat seems to be a bit more on the socialist side of things, but he still has some very valid points and concerns about life being too much so "what's mine is mine and yours is yours". And rightfully so, because we don't all have the same opportunity and we don't all play by the same rules, therefore, the gov't should look out for all of us by enacting certain rules and regs. You are absolutely correct in seeing that the national debt and our gov'ts overspending is going to sink us if we can't get some congressmen and women in there to act rationally.

Until we get corporate money out of politics, our politicians will continue to act in a manner not in our best interest.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Craig D.

I think you can make a distinction between free market capitalism and crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is, in my opinion, socialism. I'm much more concerned with a cozy relationship between mega corporations and politicians than I am with a CEO's pay.

Quick question for you Craig:

Would you rather have a CEO running your business who has a considerable holding of stock in your company (skin in the game, as it were) as a part of his compensation package, or would you be better off with someone who makes the same salary whether the company shows a profit or not? If the salary is tied to the performance of the stock, wouldn't that executive's decisions be looking out for the companies' (and in turn his own) best interests?

FCB, here are my cuts:

1.Eliminate the estimated 20% of waste and fraud in Medicare/Medicaid and save an estimated 90 billion per year.

2. Enforce immigration policy. When ten million illegals return home and are no longer sucking at the public teat we can cut spending on welfare, education and food stamps, not to mention the reduced strain on emergency rooms. Savings Unknown, but substantial.

3. Freeze all government wages and pensions.

4. Cut defense spending by 20%. And yes, finish the damn wars and bring our men home now. Stop nation building. $142 Billion saved.

5. Change the minimum retirement age for SSI up to 70 and then 75 years. Allow people under fifty the option to opt out (this would affect me), and in return for surrendering any future benefits, let us invest in an alternative retirement program without penalty or taxes.
Look, we all know that SSI is broken beyond repair. It's an inter-generational Ponzi scheme, and it is the largest debt item looming on the near horizon. It's time for real patriots to man up and fix it. That means someone is going to have to take the hit; it can't be those folks who are 5-10 years from retiring, and haven't got time to prepare. Savings unknown, but substantial.

Look, spending less is the way to go.

Can we all at least agree on that?

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Except that less spending is less money moving which is less money going to fewer people which is the same as economic starvation, isn't it?

I have a better idea: Let's hurry up and get over the concept of money. I mean, only religion has been mucking about longer and I'm pretty damn tired of it, too.

In the meantime, let's enact maximum wage laws. That's right. I said it. Maximum wage laws. Let's end the abhorrent practice of worshiping profit margins. Nationalize the banks. Nationalize the energy reserves. Hell, even Sarah Palin's a socialist in that respect.

Let's have a thirty-hour work week. Let's have humane family, medical, and maternity leave. The US ranks dead last in the amount of paid maternity leave offered to mothers. And then you wonder why generations of children have grown up miscreants, while wrapping yourselves up in the flag, the fetus, and family values? Abominable.

Let's stop pretending that national politics is where we can make all this happen. Let's elect progressives to city councils and county boards. Don't like progress? Move to Somalia. Don't want to be in Africa? Move to Saipan. It's technically American, but with pretty much zero restraint on the machination of the market. The closest thing to slavery you can find in the modern world exists there.

You want to talk about a Ponzi scheme? How many millions of American workers now pay out up to four or five percent of their paychecks each year into "retirement plans," which are - in their very own literature - a "risk" that might keep you comfortable in your old age and then again it might very well keep you eating Alpo out of the can as you freeze to death in a tenement. Sure, it's voluntary...for now. If the market people had their way, it would be law. It props up an untenable and unsustainable economy based more on venture capital and virtual money than real capital and hard currency.

Cut costs? Cut spending? No. Cut profit margins. Cut out of control wage earners. End the worship of markets.

Obama looks like a pretty good option now, doesn't he?

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Not bad IPY, but nowhere near the trillion dollars that needs to be cut to balance the budget now.
Even more if we want to resume paying down the national debt.
Even a stupid liberal like Bill Clinton was able to do this, so it should be easy for you.
Also I would like to see where you get this 20% waste number for medicare, and also at least someone's educated guess about how much running off the illegals (I'm all for this by the way) would save.
If social security gets shut down do you propose paying back the money people have put into it? With interest? Because if all of the money that I had put in there (and my employers) had compounded with interest, or better yet been placed in a stock index fund, I would be retired now and living off of interest from it.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

FCB,

Is it your argument that, "unless we cut enough, we shouldn't cut any?" The medicare fraud number has been bandied about DC for the past six months, and a google search will find sites that either support or minimize the claim. (which is true on both sides of almost every issue)

Here's a link to an AP report about organized crime turning to medicare fraud scams because they are easy to set up, and have smaller penalties than narcotics trafficking.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9…

And yes, I mean that all those of us that have paid into SSI must do the right thing and surrender our claim to benefits and refunds of our contributions into the system. (With the stipulations that I laid out in my earlier post.) The SSI fund is full of IOUs, and to have your existing contributions refunded, or to receive a benefit in the future, would require more borrowing and interest on the backs of our children and grand children, and the system will only become more insolvent as we DEMAND our fair share. We were duped by the politicians. It is they who should be made to pay, not our offspring.

It's rare when "doing the right thing" and "doing the easy thing" coincide. This will be a true test for patriots of all political stripes. The sad truth is that our current ruling class has neither the inclination nor the stomach for doing what's required and necessary to right our ship. That is why ending incumbency is so important to the Tea Party, whose members mostly endorse candidates with no experience in "running Washington".

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Of course we shouild cut what can be cut.
But my challange to you was to balance the budget through cuts, and you couldn't do it.
This is my last post on this subject, since this has nothing to do with McMaster.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

So long, FCB.

You challenged me with:

"Of course we should cut what can be cut. But my challenge to you was to balance the budget through cuts, and you couldn't do it."

My response is:

"Shouldn't Congress be balancing the budget with spending cuts, instead of waiting for I P Yuengling to figure it out for them?"

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Mat,

I apologize for calling you a "lazy socialist".

By doing so, I offended you, and your hardworking communist friends, and I also unfairly grouped the "lazy socialists" with the "unhinged communists".

Very sorry to all the socialists and communists on the blog for the unfortunate mix-up.

Kind Regards,

IP

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike