I have talked to some of my friends who have a union pension besides Social Security. They tell me many pension funds are now owned by Companies like Predential, AIG and a lot of pension money was in the stock market. Many who put their pension money in the stock market lost it. Those are the sad cases. The Pensions in Predential, AIG and other similiar financial instutions were saved by the Obama stimulas that propped up these instutions and kept them out of bankruptsy. That senior pension money, if taken out of circulation, would have dragged the economy down tremendously.I sure appreciate the stimulas because at 77 years,I would be living on Social Security alone, and that is like poverty income.Thank God Bush did not succeed in putting Social Security into the Stock Market. When you vote--Think, don't touch Social Security.
The number of libertarians in the tea party crowd is relatively few, so you're not proving anything (assuming those quotes are even real). For MOST tea partiers, individualism and liberty are fine, as long as gays don't want to get married, people don't want to smoke pot, gamble, or pay one another for sex. Which proves that their supposed commitment to individual rights and liberty is a farce.
The right wing in America today is not doctrinaire fascist, but they do share worrying similarities, like an aggressive, militaristic foreign policy, xenophobia, strident nationalism, and a creeping authoritarianism (witness the lack of outcry when Obama claims he can assassinate American citizens at will based solely on his say-so)
Re: "Tea Partier's bent towards fascism" -- you think you can make any more of an absurd reach there? If we were to take a scientific poll on who is more thuggish, Rand Paul/Joe Miller supporters, or the typical government agents working for the TSA, IRS, DEA, etc., you know as well as I do what the results would be.
And who do you think most of those thuggish agents will be voting for? Surely not the libertarian-leaning candidates who favor more individual freedom! Fascists, by their nature, would rather bully and boss people around than let them do their own thing. That's what makes them fascists.
I'll leave you with a couple quotes:
“Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism, which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts (the) rights of the State.”
— Benito Mussolini
“Individual rights are a lost cause, so there simply is no point in discussing them.”
— Heinrich Himmler
No proof that a Conway supporter actually stomped on anyone. It really could have been anyone and it could have been accidental. Without evidence we'll never know otherwise. Video evidence exists that proves Paul supporters assaulted an American exercising free speech rights. Little else matters on the issue. Paul was ten feet away from the assualt. He waited until this morning to distance himself from the stomper, who happened to be his Bourbon County campaign chair. This is a very close association between the candidate and one of the perpetrators of the assault. Just like Joe Miller's hired miltia goons detaining a reporter at a middle school in Alaska, it is deeply emblematic of Tea Partier's bent towards fascism.
You asked, "How do you call get a job as a journalist with such an obvious bias?"
Two points you should consider:
One: Hunter's columns appear in the news/OPINION section of the CP.
Two: The same question could be asked of almost every "journalist" working in today's media culture.
I think you have confused "news journalist" with "opinion columnist". Whether it's O'Reilly or Schultz, Beck or Olbermann or Hannity or Maddow, these folks are paid to draw an audience using their opinions to construct a narrative. Ratings determine how successful they have been in that enterprise.
If you want the "news", you will need to investigate on your own. There are ample resources for doing so. When you have investigated both sides of an issue, you can then agree or disagree with the opinions professed by the opinion columnists.
How do you call get a job as a journalist with such an obvious bias? It appears that you get to travel with the candidate gathering info to write a book and make no attempt to report news. This is a newspaper website, right? This type of writing does little if anything to help Paul (as I suspect you do) or the political system. I think it's fair to say that most people have serious issues with the status quo. This is just grandstanding and blind support.
Yes, because Paul has mind control capabilities over his supporters (Nice job not mentioning the Conway supporter who stomped on a woman's surgical boot and opened her scars)! When you can't find anything to attack the candidate, just attack their supporters who they have no control over, I guess. Even though no-one ever pays attention to Conway supporters, probably because they're so hard to find.
Everyone participating in that fight was a goddamned idiot, and is no true supporter of Paul if they don't believe in the Non-Aggression Principle. Supporters like that should vote for Conway, because they obviously support his view of forcing people to live the way he wants.
Paul's opponent is Jack Conway. Your brand of disrespect lends nothing to informing the voters; it's pure hackery and incitement. Where you there when Paul's fascist thugs stomped on that dang librul outside Paul's apperance yesterday?
Cf. Ceramico de Cuyo in Argentina. If it fails, it will have been like many "normal" business enterprises--neither better nor worse.
Great one-liner, Charlestoner.
What about your blind faith in conservatism?
"The capitalist utopia of a "market paradise" is a freakin' myth, dude."
And we're done.
"No, we don't run our own country. That's not how it's set up. We are a representative republic, wherein we elect representatives to go to Washington to make laws and decide spending and budget issues on our behalf."
Most business aren't run as "representative republics" either, so I don't see how this addresses my point.
"I own my own business, and run it the way I want to run it. That is my prerogative. If you work for me, you will do as I say, or you will find employment elsewhere."
This is one of the favorite arguments of worshipers of the invisible hand. "well, if they don't like it, they're 'free' to patronize other utility companies/seek employment elsewhere. It's freedom baby! Isn't capitalism great!" It's also BS. Sure, if you're a complete asshole as a boss, they're "free" to quit, if they like going to the soup kitchen and being homeless (remember, you can't collect unemployment if you quit your job, no matter how much of a dick you boss is). With no constraints on capital and especially in an economy like this that's the "freedom to choose" we have. Some freedom.
"Are you advocating for workers to dictate the terms of operation to the owners of either privately held or publicly traded businesses?"
Basically. Although there wouldn't be any publicly traded companies, since companies would be owned wholly by the workers. Thanks for at least getting what I'm saying and not claiming that I want all property collectivized in the hands of the central government.
You're completely wrong about who suffers from mismanagement. No matter how badly they screw up, CEO's never end up in a soup kitchen. Let me give one example that's fresh in my mind.
I had dinner with my mother the other day, and she told me about her work (at a golf course).
The management is entirely corrupt and incompetent. they steal from the company (drinking after-hours and the like), are lazy, selfish, and generally stupid assholes. The golf course is losing many thousands. They're looking for ways to save money. How do they do that? It sure as hell isn't by firing the management (the course is managed by bigger company). It's by cutting hours and jobs for the hourly workers. My mom was almost in tears when she talked about how there's several hard-working people who've been with the company for years who are going to lose their jobs (and have already had their hours cut in half) because of mismanagement. What's going to happen to management? Are they going to end up going to be fired and have to work at Wal-Mart? I'd bet you my bottom dollar that they fail upwards-getting promotions if anything.
This is but one example, but I'd like to see anyone challenge the general applicability of it. Look at Carly Fiorina. Named by Conde Nast as one of the 20 worst CEOs of ALL TIME. Did she end up unemployed? Hell no! But a lot of HP employees sure did. What makes it more galling is that she's at leas partially running on her experience as a "businesswoman".
"Armies have a chain of command for a reason. If every buck private had a say in the battle plan, there would be no plan. With higher rank comes higher pay and greater responsibility for the outcomes of more people's survival. Successful businesses operate in exactly the same way.
Why are you unable to grasp such a simple concept?"
Because companies aren't armies. Simple.
"Do you have any practical experience running a large business or working for one? Do you really think Boeing can make more or better airplanes if assembly line workers start organizing everything? The folks who rivet don't know about accounting, procurement, engineering or materials testing; they know riveting. That's not to say they can't learn all those other things and rise to be company president, but the point is, upper management has a different and unique skill set which places a greater responsibility on their decisions, which will ultimately affect every worker in the plant, and the shareholders to boot."
How fucking stupid do you think people are? Don't you think factory workers KNOW they're not accountants? Obviously if the workers were voting they'd vote to hire people with particular skills they needed, and they'd probably even be willing to vote to give those highly skilled people a higher salary. But what salary everyone gets should be decided democratically, not the people at the top choosing their own salary. That'd be like our legislature electing themselves.
"The socialist utopia of a "worker's paradise" is a freakin' myth, dude."
Worker owned and run businesses are empirically not a myth, they exist in this "real world" conservatives love so much. There's hundreds of them in the US, and thousands around the world.
One more thing that should be made crystal clear:
conservatives often accuse the left of not trusting people to run their own lives and make their own decisions. They say the left wants an elite to dictate things to the great unwashed masses. As IP has amply demonstrated, this is pure projection. I argued that people's lives revolve around their work, and thus if they don't control their workplace (through strong unions or direct ownership), they can't really be said to control/run their lives (a point that was never challenged). I expressed a belief that this great majority who don't currently run their lives could do so. IP believes that most people are too stupid/lazy to run their own lives and that terms should be dictated to them by an elite that knows better than them whats best. The only difference between him and authoritarian leftists is that he wants this elite to be capitalists, not government officials.
Yes, yes. My investments are "recovering" nicely too. I have recovered almost half of what I lost, unlike Goldman Sachs, who have recovered all of their losses and have posted record profits since the spring of 2009. Good thing we bailed them out.
That's like having a pair of speakers STOLEN from you, and then finding one of them in a pawn shop two years later, with a blown tweeter. You still don't have a stereo. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs got a nice line of credit from us and bought a monster home theater. Nice.
The best part is this: The cops who helped recover some of my property are the same ones who allowed the crime to happen in the first place. Lucky me.
Perhaps I should have less faith in the "cops" (Wall Street/SEC) and more faith in that gun safe full of gold (commodities/real property).
If record deficits concern you, how do you propose to eliminate them when social entitlement spending for SSI, Medicare/Medicaid, and Obamacare will crush us in the coming decades?
The kids are not alright, and they will hold us responsible.
The last official act of any government is to loot its own treasury.
And the printing presses churn on...........
Actually, IPY, though you may be right, what I see is my investments recovering nicely from the recession, continued low inflation, and work for the top 90%.
Maybe if I was one of the 10% unemployed I would feel differently.
But I kind of like a slow recovery.
But as a centrist, the record deficits do bother me, and they have since Bush cut taxes for the rich and started two unneeded and very expensive wars.
Pretty obviously, Obama and the Democrats have not done anything to improve the situation, although letting the unwise Bush tax cuts expire should help the situation some.
"Father IP" declares that sustained ten percent unemployment, record foreclosure rates, monetization of our debt, record deficit spending/borrowing, and looming taxpayer and consumer uncertainty will soon remove the label "theoretical" from our coming depression.
Perhaps then we can refer to it as a "pro" (Pelosi/Reid/Obama) depression instead of a "theoretical" one.
Bush left them with a recession. Their "fixes" are turning it into a depression.
Credit where credit is due, eh?
No, we don't run our own country. That's not how it's set up. We are a representative republic, wherein we elect representatives to go to Washington to make laws and decide spending and budget issues on our behalf.
The fundamental issue which animates the Tea Party is the obvious disconnect between what we want our elected representatives to do, and what they actually are doing.
I agree that workers should be able to run their companies however they wish, provided that they own the company.
I own my own business, and run it the way I want to run it. That is my prerogative. If you work for me, you will do as I say, or you will find employment elsewhere.
Are you advocating for workers to dictate the terms of operation to the owners of either privately held or publicly traded businesses?
If I run my business into the ground through poor management, it is I who loses profits, not the worker.
If I keep an inefficient employee on the payroll, it is I who loses profits, not the worker.
If my workers wants to run the business, they are free to purchase it from me, or start one on their own, in direct competition with me. If their model is better, they will flourish and I will perish. That is how a free market works.
Armies have a chain of command for a reason. If every buck private had a say in the battle plan, there would be no plan. With higher rank comes higher pay and greater responsibility for the outcomes of more people's survival. Successful businesses operate in exactly the same way.
Why are you unable to grasp such a simple concept?
Do you have any practical experience running a large business or working for one? Do you really think Boeing can make more or better airplanes if assembly line workers start organizing everything? The folks who rivet don't know about accounting, procurement, engineering or materials testing; they know riveting. That's not to say they can't learn all those other things and rise to be company president, but the point is, upper management has a different and unique skill set which places a greater responsibility on their decisions, which will ultimately affect every worker in the plant, and the shareholders to boot.
The socialist utopia of a "worker's paradise" is a freakin' myth, dude.
If it were a utopia, they wouldn't call it "work". If it was "paradise", there would be no need to do work.
Ask any worker for their definition of the ultimate workers paradise, and they will tell you it is getting paid a lot of money for not doing ANY work at all, or even showing up.
How about those Chrysler guys, members of a union shop no less, whose worker's paradise consists of a few tall boys and a spliff during lunch? That is how your workers would run the shop, unless they owned it. In that case, they would have fired themselves for mucking up safety and productivity.
Are you misguided or misinformed?
Sometimes, it is hard to tell.
And you're a market fundamentalist Jack, a worshiper at the Church of the Invisible Hand. So around we go.
I'm not so much of a 'government fundamentalist' as I am a 'democracy fundamentalist'. While most people seem to think that workplaces should be run as a dictatorship, I believe workers are capable of running their own lives/companies, without some ivy league 'elite' dictating to them-in the same way that most people (claim) to believe that Americans are capable of running their own country. I'm just more consistent than most.
Of course, if the stimulus (798 Billion over 10 years) had not passed and the theoretical depression was now taking place Sister Jack would be first in line to blame President Obama for it.
also, please explain how the stimulus grows government. isn't the stimulus money used for contracts to private companies to do various work in local communities throughout the country? I think that assuming that Democrats' goal is to expand government rather than spur economic activity is exactly what you're arguing against - an unfounded belief.
I do however give you credit for being seemingly principled in a libertarian respect by being opposed to interventionism and the counterproductive war on drugs.
um, "Brother Obama?" way to coin a new entry on the list of condescending racially-tinged presidential nicknames
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper