Saturday, February 14, 2009

Stating The Obvious

Liberalism. It is called by some a mental disease or disorder. To the rational, it seems so very obvious. This probably poorly written and I'll bet somehow racist piece describes how liberalism always breaks an important law.

In this equally fine piece, that I'm sure can't possibly be well written or lacking in racial undertones, the disease is further illustrated. In addition, it presents a book looking at liberalism from a psychological perspective. I've read exerpts of the book at Amazon and it is now on my suggested reading list, likely to be moved to the top.

But one has no great need for expert analysis to see what objectivity can present so easily. Liberalism, particularly as it is known and expressed today, will never result in anything good for our country, its people and their children, or the world.

75 comments:

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

You're so right, Marshall. A piece that uses a made-up "law" to insist we do nothing while our economy collapses is the height of insight and wisdom.

The second sentence had the word "much" spelled wrong. Not only is the writing bad; so is the editing.

I'm delinking because I cannot take the stupid anymore. Seriously. You all go about pretending that somehow the US is sinking in to oblivion; when jobs open up through the stimulus package, I sincerely hope you stick to principle and remain unemployed. You may lose everything, but you won't lose your dignity, right?

4simpsons said...

Good link, Marshall. Hopefully people will read them carefully before commenting.

The "stimulus" bill is an absolute joke. It is just a liberal free for all that will do more harm than good. The capitalistic model is so superior to all other systems that it is amazingly resilient to stupid political actions, but not 100% so. It is possible that the economy will naturally turn in a year or two and Obama will take credit despite having slowed the recovery.

I just wrote about the law of unintended consequences this week. It isn't that hard to overcome -- provided that you can think a couple steps ahead. Liberals are pretty one dimensional in that sense.

Liberals have had virtual monopolies over inner city schools and politics for over 50 years. Anyone wanna take a field trip there and hang out for a few days? Do they want to even try to convince me that things would be worse there if conservative principles had been in play?

What is most nauseating about the stimulus package is that if the roles were reversed (e.g., Bush proposals, conservative programs) then the Left would be going insane over the secrecy.

And how about the faux bi-partisanship of Obama & Co.? In typical Lefty style they insisted that bi-partisanship was so, so important (even though McCain and Bush had actually demonstrated it, like it or not, and Obama hadn't and still hasn't). But when Obama found that Republicans had the audacity to disagree with the king he decided that bi-partisanship isn't important when the issue at hand is important. Got that?

And then there aren't just the unintended consequences but the gross hypocrisy. Obama, a very rich man, had many years to demonstrate his charitable ideals yet his tax returns prove that he was cheap and greedy. But now that he's giving away taxpayer money he is oh so "generous." People are such suckers. Once again, giving your own money away is charity, but giving away other people's money at the point of a gun is anything but.

Jim said...

It is possible that the economy will naturally turn in a year or two and Obama will take credit despite having slowed the recovery.

Anything contradictory here?

the Left would be going insane over the secrecy.

What effing secrecy. This bill has been in the hands of republicans for at least 3 weeks. Where's the secret?

And your "faux-bi-partisanship" meme is a big joke. Bi-partisanship implies two-way action. It means compromise. It is clear that to republicans, compromise is a non-starter.

Don't try to wow us with your hurt feelings about not participating in the recovery. If you want to participate, participate, don't demand, especially when you are in the minority.

And any article you link to that refers to Obama as "the messiah" pretty much proves itself insignificant, like poorly written and racist.

Marshall Art said...

So Geoffrey is "de-linking". Typical. It's one thing to think what I post and what I say is stupid. It's quite another to assume that others can't decide for themselves. Oh so typical.

And again he speaks about the quality of the writing rather than addressing the points which, despite the quality of writing by Geoffrey's standards, are still quite clearly presented.

The idea of a "law of unintended consequences" is merely another way of saying that the left doesn't think things out properly, relying more on the superficial tone of their touchy-feely measures to sell their crap.

As to "stupid", that would be trying what has been so clearly shown to be a losing proposition and expecting it to somehow work because some inexperienced loser is pushing it.

So go ahead and "de-link", Geoffrey. It's far easier to do that than to defend the indefensible.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

"Anything contradictory here?"

Not at all, Jim. We're saying that the economy will recover one way or the other, whether this bill is passed or not, but that it will recover more slowly if it is passed, as has been shown historically to be the case every time it's been done.

"This bill has been in the hands of republicans for at least 3 weeks."

Only because Republicans have held things up in order to try to read it first. That's why they know it's a crap sandwich and the Dems are just rubber stamping it.

"It is clear that to republicans, compromise is a non-starter."

It's clear to Republicans that less stupid is still stupid and responsible people don't compromise if the result is still stupid. It's helpful to remember that compromise requires hearing out the opposition and measuring the merits of their position against the merits of one's own. Obama has taken the "we won" position, so explain to me where he's seeking compromise.

"If you want to participate, participate, don't demand, especially when you are in the minority."

Numbers don't have anything to do with intelligence. One person is irresponsible not to demand caution and thoughfulness of a body intent on rushing through the lamest of the lame.

"And any article you link to that refers to Obama as "the messiah" pretty much proves itself insignificant,"

Taking your cues from Geoffrey now? Any article I link to is linked because it has shown itself to be insightful and intelligent despite the use of comical jargon. If you can't see that, that's why I'm here, to explain what is clear to most people.

hashfanatic said...

first off, the first piece was, in my opinion, utter extremist looney-tune garbage, put simply

None of what is described there accurately depicts any of what is unfolding on the left or the right; it simply rewrites history to fit a narrow, circumscribed fringe agenda

the second piece has serious elements of truth to it, although they are viewed through a someone less unhinged but thoroughly partisan lens, which is meant to obscure any level of accountability for the sum total of what has brought us to the present situation, namely almost four decades of fiscal irresponsibility

4simpsons, let me just say, except for your over-exuberant little handjob on behalf of capitalism, i'm afraid i must admit i don't see much to disagree with, in your comments

that said, you're ALL wrong, because you are all taking only what you want to see, of two oppositional failed ideologies, thinking you can apply solutions found therein, to attack an entirely new set of economic challenges

forget about the obvious, which is that both camps have failed miserably at oversight and administration, during the same forty-year period, and this was all a long time in coming

forget about the fact that ALL of these "opinion leaders" had a hand in shaping the very corruption and incompetent business models that have led to this financial death spiral in the first place

and normal, everyday americans see this conundrum for exactly what it is, but feel powerless and trapped by the same one-party masquerading as two-parties vortex i've described here, that you choose to remain part of, ever pushing each side into more radical, irreconcilable corners, because that's exactly where both factions need you to be, in order to survive

think about it, and, marshall, remember, i'm not singling you out personally for your participation in this mugging and all the attendant nonsense, if you go to geoffrey's blog, guaranteed you will find similarly harebrained articles from "progressive" sources that'll back up his positions just as logically, from his point of view

until you all realize you have been totally betrayed and misled by worldly, absolutist bills of goods that promise great revelations and cotton-candy solutions that adhere to your preconceived notions of what image you demand america shall be, americans will get nowhere, or, at the very most, nowhere worth getting to, IMHO

4simpsons said...

"And your "faux-bi-partisanship" meme is a big joke. Bi-partisanship implies two-way action. It means compromise. It is clear that to republicans, compromise is a non-starter."

Nice try. Let me know how you reconcile that with Obama's week 1 claim that he "won and he'll trump you" (among other things). Only in liberal-land does bi-partisan mean "you must agree with me or you aren't bi-partisan." Typical self-refuting po-mo (non-)reasoning.

"What effing secrecy."

Oh, just promising to let the bill be out a whole 48 hours (too short to begin with) then reneging on that. And of course sneaking in a radical health care change that has nothing to do with stimulating the economy.

"4simpsons, let me just say, except for your over-exuberant little handjob on behalf of capitalism, i'm afraid i must admit i don't see much to disagree with, in your comments"

Uh, thanks, I guess. Now you've got me blushing over here ;-) . If anyone has a better system than capitalism that has been proved out then they should stop keeping it a secret.

hashfanatic said...

"If anyone has a better system than capitalism that has been proved out then they should stop keeping it a secret."

oh, i agree with you

it's just that you didn't need to cheerlead so vociferously for it

we happen to be in an age, where many blame certain excesses and abuses of capitalism for situations they find themselves in, and blame the system rather than the abusers

my concern is, purveyors of other, competing systems use capitalism's spokespeople as examples of an unsympathetic society, in order to lure them in and soften them up to their own failed ideologies...

i don't believe america could function as sweden does, i'm not sure there are many who even really want that to begin with

4simpsons said...

Hashfanatic,

All my original comment said was, "The capitalistic model is so superior to all other systems that it is amazingly resilient to stupid political actions, but not 100% so," so I don't see how that qualifies as excessive celebration. But since we appear to be pointing the same direction I'll leave it at that.

I'm a firm believer that capitalism and Christianity make a great mix. Great businesses have a long term focus and seek to serve the needs of their customers the most cost effective way.

I'm all for direct (i.e, real) charity as well, where we view all we have as coming from God and joyfully share it with others to advance his kingdom and meet real needs. But that takes thinking and discernment, something the gov't lacks.

Jim said...

but that it will recover more slowly if it is passed, as has been shown historically to be the case every time it's been done.

That's simply BS. Unadulterated BS. The opposite is true.

hashfanatic said...

jim, but how can you maintain that, any more than he can, when we've never been in this particular type of economic death spiral before?

what basis for comparison do you have to work with?

will the solution always be, to print more worthless money, and borrow more and more from the chinese?

Jim said...

My point was that he had no evidence to back up his claim. On the other hand the Depression that began in 1929 gives ample demonstration of government spending working to bring the US out of a deep recession.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Spending did nothing to quicken the pace in the FDR years. This has been explained by more than a few economists since that period. FDR's own economist lamented the failure of their plan to achieve the goals set forth. This is the history to which I constantly refer. What books are YOU reading?

Marshall Art said...

Hash,

Rather than Geoffrey me on the articles, why not pick an example or two from the first that you find so lacking, and demonstrate what might be wrong with them? Or perhaps you have an example or two where conservative thought leads to a similar result? Somehow I think you're stronger than Geoffrey and are willing to back up your charges. I would caution you, however, to avoid confusing self-proclaimed conservatives with conservatism, as well as self-proclaimed capitalists with capitalism. The first article deals with liberal policies and proposals and their unintended consequences.

Anonymous said...

somehow if the repubs disagree with the stimulus plan in any way, they are 'not being bipartisan' but if ob only gratuitously choreographs an olive branch to include their input so that there is REAL collaboration and give and take he is a champion of change and fairness. gag.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone heard the new caveat on the stim bill? "this bill will create OR prevent the loss of 3million jobs." How will the latter success criteria be measured and directly linked to the stim bill? Also, can anyone comment on how this pkg will specifically cost the taxpayers, on a per person basis? I'm curious how to rework our families financial plan to coincide with the shortfall.

Ron said...

Marshall, it is apparent that you are not a fan of the liberal philosophy and feel our country is headed toward the s@@@er because liberals are in charge. It is apparent that you are committed to your beliefs and have a base of facts to justify your position.
There are people on the left who also feel they have that same base of facts and are as sincerely committed as you are. They feel the country is already in the s@@@er due to conservative policies. Each side will prove beyond the shadow of a doubt with their own undeniable facts that they are the ones that are correct and blame the other for the sorry state of our nation.

I could have written newts article with the changing of relatively few words to express how I feel about the conservatives. Especially the hypocrisy(my biggest complaint about the rights arguments) they represent on a scarily regular basis. I think those in the right that can't break out of the bubble have a hard time seeing this hypocrisy and take great umbrage when it is mentioned or pointed out. We all like to think of ourselves as entirely consistent. We miss it to their own detriment.

You often speak of your religious and spiritual convictions here so please allow me to share a few of mine with you.

Karma exists and your frustration and anger is karma playing its self out on you and your breathern. The feeling you are having inside you is the same feeling that those you oppose had for the last 7 or 8 years. We watched as the patriot act took civil liberties, a war of choice was started in our name, and on and on. When we tried to express our disgust and disdain we were ignored, belittled or told we were unamerican or terrorist sympathizers. It is inevitable as nature its self that we set ourselves up for the results of our actions. I hope you have the ability to see that the feelings you are having now are the quite similar to the ones we had then. When things are going well we learn little, We sit contentedly by and accept whatever comes our way. When things go bad we have our greatest opportunity for growth, in as many areas as we may choose to grow.

We can keep fighting and dividing our country to each extreme or we can drop the ideology and start speaking more from the heart. When the right wing or left wing win, some of us lose. Strangely when we drop the ideological battles and start asking each other what our goals and beliefs are we actually share much in common. When we quit trying to make one side or the other the winner and try to work with what we have in common instead of what separates us we can make amazing progress.

Unfortunately few of our citizenry are interest in doing anything but forcing their agenda and proving their ideological correctness. I want a good country and a place to prosper and raise my children and a future for them just as desperately as you do. None of us are out to intentionally destroy the country and to infer so is what makes our discussions on making things better worthless. We have completely lost the ability to have respect for each other. I empathize with your concerns but can make no progress on addressing them if I am a designated enemy and am dismissed ideologically before I even speak. How do you get someone to see your point or move to your way of thinking with that kind of intimidation? It's a tactic that is bound to fail because of the nature of the universe. Again, the most important thing here is that we try to focus on what we have in common and not what divides us.

Jim said...

This has been explained by more than a few economists

And refuted by most.

Dan Trabue said...

Neil said:

Liberals have had virtual monopolies over inner city schools and politics for over 50 years. Anyone wanna take a field trip there and hang out for a few days?

Field trip where? Inner cities? Schools? Brother, that's where me and my family live. What of it? Are you implying that inner cities and urban schools are some sort of hellhole? Well, sometimes, perhaps. Just as some suburban settings are hellholes (wouldn't catch me in one too often) and some bucolic rural settings are hellholes.

Every place has problems sometimes. What's your point? That the problems of urban living (crime, drugs, etc) are the fault of liberals? If that is the case, is it also true that the problems of rural living (crime, drugs, etc) are the fault of conservatives?

People are people and places are places. They all have their good and bad and our politicians - liberal and conservative alike - sometimes work to create policies that improve things and sometimes create policies that don't help and sometimes create policies that make things worse.

Are you suggesting that somehow only "liberal" politicians make bad policies? I would suggest that most reasonable adults can agree that bad policies are created by all of our parties at times and no one party has a lock on bad policy-making.

Marty said...

From the first article:

"Consider: with Obama, Reid and Pelosi screaming for the country to accept a ridiculous stimulus package to create jobs, jobs, jobs -- liberals in Chicago are standing in the way of a Wal-Mart Super Center that would bring in construction and retail jobs to the messiah's hometown. By the way, liberals will also keep the lowest cost provider of food and clothes and home goods from being accessed by hurting Chicagoans."

I'll tell you what Marshall - if you think WalMart is such a good enterprise for our economy why don't you march down to your local WalMart and apply for one of those great jobs they offer. Let me know if your salary and benefits package is enough to support your family and keep it healthy.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

I'll tell you what, Marty. Find me any entry level job that pays enough to support a family. What kind of a goofy challenge is that? Entry level positions pay lower because they assume a lack of experience, and for stores like WalMart, very little specialty ability is required. If anyone can do it, they can get anyone to do it and thus, extremely high pay is not necessary or appropriate.

Furthermore, your comment suggests that I must agree with every little detail of an article to which I link. Nonsense. Though I think the benefits of a WalMart far outweigh the whiney complaints made against it, the reference about that specific company in the article does nothing to change the point of it, but actually supports it in both ways mentioned. For all the complaints, large lines form to apply for work there and tons of people shopt there because they get more for their dough.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

"What's your point? That the problems of urban living (crime, drugs, etc) are the fault of liberals?"

Absolutely. Some of those liberal causes have infected suburban and rural schools and areas as well. It's the fight of which we speak, that liberalism and the decay of our culture are intertwined. That they infect the cities more is due to the greater influence of liberalism within the cities. Almost all of the metropolitan areas are more liberal than their rural counterparts, but, the rural areas are not totally immune, particularly since they share the same problems of the teacher's unions and public school mentality.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

"And refuted by most."

Which poll proves this? When does majority thought equal correct thought?

Marshall Art said...

Ron,

You spelled "s@@@er" wrong. You're missing a "@". Geoffrey would dismiss your whole argument based on that oversight alone.

The difference between what the right thinks and what the left thinks is that are facts line up with reality. There is also a tendency by the left to critique the policies of one who claims to be a conservative with actual conservatism. This is a point I made with Hash and one that I have debated when some point to an action by a Republican or conservative. I could be wrong, but I believe I went through this with Geoffrey not too long ago, where he pointed to a policy of a Republican, perhaps Bush, when the action was not truly a conservative move on Bush's part. His own stimulus and bail outs were not what a true conservative would do.

By comparison, we on the right look at the actual policy and critique that, which is why we can't be labeled as rubber stampers for Bush, willing to agree with everything he says. The recent Democrat majorities in Congress is a result of a rejection of Republicans who acted like Democrats. Had they stuck to the conservative principles upon which they campaigned, they'd still be in office. Indeed, I would wager that this attitude by conservative voters will intensify and Republicans best learn it fast.

Now as to hypocrisy, I won't even entertain such a debate here because it's irrelevant. The point of this thread has more to do with liberalism in general and the harmful policies it generates than charges against individual people.

The argument is not about what either side claims as far as loving America nor the endgame of either, but how each side hopes to achieve the allegedly same goals. The consequences of liberal policy are almost always negative (and I say almost just so I don't have to waste time trying to think of one that wasn't---to spend the time and fail would be a pisser).

As to a few of your points,

You THINK you lost liberties by virtue of the Patriot Act. You didn't. You CLAIM is was a war of choice---but only insofar as one can choose to tolerate attacks instead. The war was already on, we were just jerkin' around with pretending the police were all we needed. So to say that I now experience what you did only goes so far. Mine are reality based on yours were not.

We are not arguing that YOU are out to destry the country. What we are saying is that YOUR leaders on the left are more concerned with controlling and being in power to such an extent that the country WILL be destroyed or is more likely to be. It's not a matter of right and left with us as much as right and wrong, both in terms of morality as well as in what works and what doesn't. Your side fails on both measures and does so with greater consistency.

Here's the deal, and I want all you lefties who come here to understand this clearly. I don't care who is in the White House. I only care about what's best for the country and I'll give kudos to whoever leads us best. I simply don't see Obama being that guy and so far he's proving me right. I'm pissed that my party hasn't come up with a true conservative and have made my feelings known to them and continue to do so.

Here's something to consider: Have you been watching the recent townhall meetings with your messiah? Have you heard the me-me-me whining from the audience? It is liberalism that has brought forth the "Ask what your country can do for you" types that are polar opposites of what JFK encouraged.

This idea that we need to focus on what we have in common is like the first step to alcoholic recover. The first step ain't enough and our commonalities are already known. We're trying to move on to what best can be done and it is there where we fall apart. We've got the evidence of liberal failure. It is splashed across history. Open your eyes and look at it.

Marty said...

"Find me any entry level job that pays enough to support a family. What kind of a goofy challenge is that?"

OK.

Entry level union plumber apprentices earn $11.78 an hour plus benefits.

Compare that to a WalMart store Department Manager, hardly an entry level position, who earns $11.88 an hour.

After 20 years of employment at WalMart the median income is $14.08 an hour. A second year plumber apprentice makes more than that. In their fifth year they earn $25.00 which is 85% of a journeyman.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall said:

Some of those liberal causes have infected suburban and rural schools and areas as well. It's the fight of which we speak

Well you're most certainly welcome to believe brainless points if you wish, but there is no support for your position and, most people being reasonable, we disagree and we'll keep some of the liberal policies of which you speak as the most intelligent, moral way of dealing with things (albeit far from perfect).

By all means, try to come up with some sort of evidence somewhere to support such your idiotic political agenda and try to convince your fellow citizens. But, based on what I've seen so far, I don't think that's a battle you're going to win.

Sorry.

Ron said...

Marshall
You addressed nothing I expressed serious concern about and moved right to the division and what we have not in common instead of in common. Right to the ideology, don't collect 200 dollars, don't pass go. You guys can't even imagine what I am talking about because you are so wrapped in your little bubble and rigidly conventional thinking.

Your response proves my point about the pointlessness of our method of debate and problem solving in this country and why we are getting nowhere in spades. I have no idea how I can be more civil,openminded and non partisan to new thoughts than I was. That is not what anybody wants to do though.

Hash said on another blog that this is all basically so people can take out there aggressions at the end of the day. Cheap substitutes for beer and foosball. I think that is the most accurate and honest few sentences I have read in years.

Ron said...

Sorry, but one more thought. I said: I empathize with your concerns but can make no progress on addressing them if I am a designated enemy and am dismissed ideologically before I even speak. How do you get someone to see your point or move to your way of thinking with that kind of intimidation?

When you and I were growning up the liberals held sway. About the mid 80s through the rest of our lives the conservatives held sway. Now it may or may not be changing again. Why did it change. Not because of your or my "irrefutable facts or truth" which we are both absolutely convinced we have.. It's karma

Definition: Through the law of karma, the effects of all deeds actively create past, present, and future experiences, thus making one responsible for one's own life, and the pain and joy it brings to him/her and others.

That's why it changes. That's why the republicans/conservatives have been reduced to the base at the present moment. Intimidation will leave you intimidated. Love will leave you loved. And on and on.

Marshall Art said...

My goodness, Ron. How you spend your freetime! I have NOT attacked you personally, or at least not lately. But to speak of liberal shortcomings cannot be done without risk to the sensitive feelings of some liberals. Are you too sensitive to hear our opinions of liberal failure? Man up, dude! Face the charges and rebut! That's what this medium is all about. The first link discusses consequences of liberal policies already enacted. If you have arguments that oppose that opinion, or if you have examples of conservative policy resulting in bad consequences, then we can discuss. Don't just whine about being ill treated and expect anyone to back off when you haven't even shown the band-aid on your boo-boo.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

We can trade accusations of brainlessness all you like. I can take it and I don't much feel slighted when accused of such by one no more intelligent than myself. But the first link indeed shows the negative results of liberal policy. If you cared to read it in the first place, your comment wouldn't seem so...brainless. Perhaps you could check it out and argue against the claims made, instead of doing a Geoffrey and just talking trash.

Or we can discuss liberal policies you consider to be more intelligent and moral and argue the merits of those opinions. I would argue here that simply denying the proofs given is a Monty Python manner of debate. I believe you imply at your blog that you don't approve of this type of debate.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

Are you seriously trying to compare the two fields as somehow being equal in skill level and thus WalMart people deserve to be paid more at the entry level or above? Perhaps you think an entry level surgeon is overpaid or that a WalMart greeter deserves as much? How about a pilot? Wages are determined, even if subjectively, on the skill level or amount of education needed to do the job. I'm sorry, but WalMart personnel do not require much training or skill, thus, their wages are reflective of that. But hey, let's raise their mimimum wage again and see how that affects product prices and the vicious circle will continue.

Marty said...

Marshall, you asked me to find ANY entry level job that could support a family.

I provided you with one.

An eighteen year old fresh out of high school can enter a union plumbing apprentiship program and earn a living wage with benefits from his first day of employment.

I know. My son did it.

Besides, if you earn a living wage you don't have to shop at WalMart, especially if you are a smart shopper and a coupon saver.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

Excuse me, but less than 25K per year is not what is required to adequately support a family. Not where I live. Even if it was just me and the cat it would be difficult.

Ron said...

Marshall, I consider you a smart guy which is why I am even trying to discuss this with you. It appears that this is not even piercing a pin hole in your box. I'm not complaining at all about being treated poorly or being called names or any of that. Hell, I was a talk show host(liberal) in an area near Texas that voted around 70% bush/cheney..twice. My skin is thick as rawhide and I can fire the insults and facts and figures as well as anybody. ...The fact is I am tired and disgusted with sitting here getting nowhere.

You can show me all your liberal is terrible and failed and I can show you all my conservative is terrible and failed and where did it get us? Are you getting dizzy yet? NOWHERE, after years of debate nobody has become convinced of anything. Someday I am going to find a person or two who actually gets it and I will be done with all this non productive quibbling.

Ron said...

By the way I am a nearly 14 year member of AA and you might want to check step one again. As a matter of fact you might want to check all 12..nope nothin...yes it is talked about but is not one of the steps. Go ahead argue how wrong I am about that.

Marty said...

"Excuse me, but less than 25K per year is not what is required to adequately support a family. Not where I live. Even if it was just me and the cat it would be difficult."

It would require both spouses to be employed. Which is normal this day and time. Hey - the wife can work at WalMart! They'll get by.

Those figures I gave you may have been old news anyway. I asked my son what his union pays first year apprentices and he said about $15.00 an hour to start plus benefits. And then there's overtime.

If you can find a better entry level wage for an 18 year old then I'll buy you dinner.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

If one needs a spouse to work, then the income isn't sufficient to support a family, is it? I'm well aware that for most both spouses must work. That wasn't the challenge though. In my case, it is likely that I'll have to accept a job that pays substantially less than the low paying job I had. My wife does work though, so that allows me the "luxury" of taking such a position. But if she didn't or couldn't work, I'd be bustin' my hump for well over eight hours a day plus weekends to make ends meet on the wages you've offered in your comments. Even 15/hr would be tough in my neck of the woods.

But again, WalMart and wages ain't the point of this thread.

Marshall Art said...

Ron,

"Marshall, I consider you a smart guy which is why I am even trying to discuss this with you."

I'm not even sure I know what the hell you think we're discussing! If you want to discuss the futility of blog discussions, you're not likely to get any argument from me. I've spoken of that within the first few months of my doing this.

But if you want to discuss liberal policy vs conservative policy, and which has hurt or helped more, I'm more than game because I have history on my side. I can easily distinguish between liberal policy and liberal politicians doing something conservative, so that won't be a problem for me either. By that I offer this example: in New York, when Mario Cuomo was running things, he insituted conservative tax policies to attract business. Do you get that? He's a liberal, but he used conservative tax policy. So if someone was to point to that policy and call it liberal because of who instituted it, they'd be mistaken. More to the point, that policy worked in attracting business and helping the New York economy improve. If he was to institute a liberal tax policy, like raising taxes on existing business, it would have worsened the situation as existing businesses would have folded or moved out of New York.

Now perhaps you have a different definition of what constitutes liberal or conservative policy or philosophy, but that'll require an articulated explanation from you. As to what makes me dizzy in these discussions, it is the poor understandings of either. I'm guessing I won't have that problem with you.

BTW, it's been years since I've perused the 12 steps. Why not just get to the point instead of making me look stuff up, or provide a link?

Mark said...

Ron says, "We can keep fighting and dividing our country to each extreme or we can drop the ideology and start speaking more from the heart."

Speaking from the heart is a Liberal premise, and it is illogical. That's the difference between the two ideologies. Liberals feel. Conservatives think. Rather than speaking from the heart, we need to start thinking from the brain.

And Karma. Don't get me started on Karma. Karma is the evilest joke Satan ever played on mankind. Karma is he idea that everything, good or bad, that ever happens to us is predestined according to whatever good or bad we did in our previous life.

That's why you see such misery on the streets of Calcutta and New Delhi, in India. Children begging for food in the streets as the wealthy people walk by and ignore them. Because of Karma. The wealthy say, "Well, that's their Karma". They must have been bad in their past life, and that's why they have to beg in this life.

That's also why poor parents in India sometimes break the legs of their children, or cut off a hand or an arm. So they can look more pathetic. So they can be better beggars.

Why is there so much poverty and suffering in India? Because of Karma.



The truth is everything that happens to us is the result of our own choices. If we choose to be irresponsible and allow the government to take care of us, we will find ourselves dependent on the government, even if it means living below the poverty level in public housing. If we choose to be responsible, and work for our living rather than let the government take care of us, we will eventually be rewarded with the fruits of our labors.

The problem with Liberal ideology is that Liberals are of the mindset that the ordinary people (That's anyone other than the Liberal elites) are too stupid to fend for themselves and need the Liberal intelligentsia to take care of them. In short, they think they know better what's best for us then we do.

Marty said...

"Even 15/hr would be tough in my neck of the woods"

It would be tough in Texas too, but it could be done...on one salary.

"But again, WalMart and wages ain't the point of this thread."

Perhaps not, but the article did make it sound like WalMart was doing an oh so wonderful service to the economy.

I disagree.

If everyone had a living wage perhaps the economy would not be in the mess it's in.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

Here, Marty, this one's for you.

Marty said...

LOL!!!

Boy that was rich!

The good friend, good neighbor, economy saving WalMart, encouraging it's full time employees who can't afford to pay for their health insurance premiums to get on medicaid.

I hope WalMart gives those employees paid time off to hassle through hours and hours of government redtape to get those much needed benefits.

Good try Marshall. But you're gonna have to do better than that to convince me.

Marty said...

Marshall perhaps it would help for you to understand where I'm coming from.

People I love and care about have been affected by WalMart.

The Story of Hearne Texas

Mark said...

"If everyone had a living wage perhaps the economy would not be in the mess it's in."

Ok, Marty.

You are wrong, and I'll tell you why.

Suppose everyone of working age in this country were paid at least what you call "a living wage". Let's just say a minimum of $25.00 an hour, for the sake of argument, because the amount is really not important.

Because everyone gets a living wage, companies that sell goods and services would raise their prices because more people can afford the higher prices.

Now, that "living wage" is inadequate for those on the bottom of the wage scale.

What would Liberals do about that? Why, same as they always do. Raise the minimum wage again. Then, the cycle starts all over again. Raise wages, and prices go up. Lower wages and the prices, out of necessity, go down or companies go out of business.

The market will charge what the market will bear. If the Liberals start to monkey with the profit margins of those companies, they will be cutting their own throats.

It's really just plain ol' common sense.

Marty said...

Mark, if you lift people up out of poverty everyone benefits. A living wage enables people to EARN a living rather than take a government handout. That's just plain ol' common sense.

More and more cities across the nation are implementing living wage ordinances and seeing success.

Let Justice Roll

Mark said...

Marty, you've missed the point entirely.

If wages are increased, prices will go up to the point that those whose wages were raised will still not be able to afford to make a living.

It is an endless cycle.

Increasing wages wouldn't change anything.

As I said, the market will only charge what the market will bear. If a company can't make a profit because wages are too low, the company must make adjustments. Either they will lower their prices to accommodate low wage earners or they will raise prices to cater to higher wage earners, and the low wage earners can go to other sources. If they set their prices high enough, and market the increases right, they can cover the loss of customers who can no longer afford them. And, if the companies can make a profit either way, it is good for everyone.

This is part of what is called capitalism, and it has worked quite well since America was founded.

Now, Obama and company want to dismantle the free enterprise system in favor of a state owned system, which has never worked anywhere it has ever been tried.

Mark said...

I'm sorry. I should have added, if the company that lowers it's prices to accommodate lower wage earners can still make a profit by doing so, we Conservatives applaud them for their ingenuity.

Wal*mart is one of those few companies that have managed to turn a profit while keeping their prices relatively low. And the Liberals want to regulate them out of business.

How do you explain this apparent hypocrisy of ideology?

Mark said...

Geoffrey says he has de-linked us. Somehow that news fails to disquiet me.

Mark said...

I don't stupidity is the reason Geoffrey has given up. I think it's because he knows we are right but is too pig-headed to admit he was wrong.

Mark said...

Let me explain one other consequence of raising the minimum wage. Try to follow:

The whole minimum wage increase debate leaves out one very important factor: Employers will not take a loss.

The bottom line in all businesses is to make money. If that isn't the goal, they will not last long.

If minimum wages are increased, Companies will raise prices to compensate for the loss of profits caused by being forced to raise wages.

It is important to understand, usually, the biggest operating expense in a business is payroll.

This is what happens when companies are forced to increase wages:

Suppose a company makes a 15% profit over their operating expenses, and their payroll is 70% of their total operating expenses. If the government forces the company to raise their payroll expense to 80%, the company will raise their goods or services prices by 10% so they can continue to realize a 15% profit margin.

The biggest mistake advocates of minimum wage increases makes is in thinking the companies will continue to sell at the same price as they did before the payroll increase.

This is misguided thinking.

No company is going to sacrifice profit to make a few Liberals happy. They aren't in business to appease Liberals. They are in business to make money.

Is that right? Is it fair? Perhaps not, but it's a fact.

Now, look at things this way:

If a company does well, if it makes a substantial profit as a result of loyal, hard working employees who understand that only those who do a fair days work deserve a fair days wage, the company will (usually) reward that good work and loyalty with raises and bonuses.

In short, if an employee wants better wages he has one of several choices:

He can work harder.

He can brown-nose, and hope his employer appreciates his groveling.

He can look for a better paying job, either within his present company or with another company.

He can train to increase his chances for a better paying position.

He can ask for a raise.

He can quit and apply for welfare and hope Obama pays him better than his former company did.

In the end, a better paying job is really in each individuals hands, and not the responsibility of the Government.

Marty said...

"Wal*mart is one of those few companies that have managed to turn a profit while keeping their prices relatively low."

They've done it by drastically reducing their prices in order to put competitors out of business. Once that has happened their prices go back to normal. In the case of Hearne, Texas WalMart wiped out all competitors then got the hell out of Dodge leaving a once thriving town in shambles. It's despicable and shameful what that company does for the almighty dollar.

Mark said...

Yes, Marty, I watched the viedeo you linked to. There is something from the video I can't quite understand:

One of the "victims" of WalMart was, according to the graphic, a Western Auto store owner.

Western Auto is a full service auto parts store, meaning it sells everything related to auto repairs. Belts, hoses, tires,and other things WalMart also sells, but Western Auto also sells things that WalMart doesn't sell. Expensive things like engines, transmissions, radiators, catalytic converters, mufflers, brakes, etc.

How could WalMart drive that kind of store out of business? In fact, apparently WalMart didn't drive Western Auto out of business. The guy was interviewed standing in his store.

Obviously, the town of Hearne isn't completely dead. People still live there, and apparently some businesses are still there.

Two other interviewees were a former, probably disgruntled Walmart employee, and a reporter. Most reporters are Liberal and so have an agenda that leans heaviliy in favor of those who don't like WalMart's opposition to union labor.

Former employees are usually former employees because either they or Walmart decided they should no longer be working there. I wonder which was the case here? And why?

The attack on WalMart is severely slanted in this video.

WalMart is usually good for other businesses. Competition is good for all businesses.

I have worked for WalMart. I didn't like working there for several different reasons, but I don't have a problem with people who want to work and/or shop there. It is a matter, as I said, of choice. If you don't like WalMart, don't shop there. Don't work there. Problem solved.

Marshall Art said...

No time to watch Marty's video just yet. I think she missed the part of my link that says WalMart was increasing health benefits. It's helpful to remember that jobs like WalMart should never be viewed as careers so much as opportunities for those with no skills to get a start somewhere, opportunities for second jobs for those looking for extra money, opportunities for students who are studying hopefully for something better after graduation, opportunities for older people who haven't planned their lives properly and still need work, etc, etc,. For those who want careers, there are indeed opportunities for that, but, to expect that all careers should garner one massive incomes is a bit naive.

Marty said...

"How could WalMart drive that kind of store out of business? In fact, apparently WalMart didn't drive Western Auto out of business. The guy was interviewed standing in his store."

Well, since WalMart closed it's store in 1990, Hearne has had time to somewhat recover. But I doubt it will ever be the town it was before WalMart arrived.

Here's a little history.

"Most reporters are Liberal and so have an agenda that leans heaviliy in favor of those who don't like WalMart's opposition to union labor."

Union labor in Hearne??? LOL

You'd be really hard pressed to find a "liberal" in Hearne, Texas. You'd need to drive down the road a little ways to Austin to find those creatures and they ain't swarmin' around everywhere there.

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshall Art said...

Feodor,

Why do you ask?

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshall Art said...

Feodor,

Don't be a dope. Unemployment compensation has been around for awhile. I've been contributing for the last thirty years or more. Thus, it's my money to begin with. Nice try.

No, wait a minute. That was a lame try.

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshall Art said...

Feodor,

Did I tell you you've convinced me you're an idiot? I was collecting unemployment before the bill was signed. But maybe you can try to tell me how I've dropped my principles in this matter. I'm sure your perspective will elicit both laughs and groans for it's stupidity.

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshall Art said...

Fe-idiot,

First of all, I won't be on unemployment that long.

Second of all, there was no surplus at the end of the Clinton admin. It was a mere accounting trick, but not a true surplus.

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshall Art said...

"You really don't live in reality do you?"

If I didn't, I'd likely think like you.

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshall Art said...

If it makes you feel better to believe so. In the meantime, perhaps you can show an example of clear thinking from yourself. Thus far, all you've rendered amounts to passing gas.

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshall Art said...

I don't care how you mislabel the table, just so long as you finally realize you must concede. That shows potential.

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshall Art said...

Who's "we"? You and your imaginary friends? And BTW, do you intend to ever say something clever?

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshall Art said...

You're not clever enough to know a clever post when it is presented. What's more, that was a lame defense for your less than clever emissions.

As I stated in the American Descent post, I'm not going to waste anymore time with your crap. If you wish to try and submit comments that are, at least for you, thoughtful and serious, you're welcome to do so. Your snark is lame and far too easy to counter.

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshall Art said...

"Perhaps you unconsciously fear something else is happening (slipping away)."

Perhaps it's because you're such a great straight man. Should that slip away, I'll have to struggle on somehow. Please let me test myself in that manner. If not, I'll just have to struggle with not taking the easy road and mocking your easily mockable barbs.