199 replies to this topic

[Chewy Sun]

Todd, you speak of opportunities...... but lemme state in your terms: the opportunities are being reduced and elminated by the ultra-wealthy by every single one of their policies.



While I agree that what America should give to people is "opportunity," I think we are going to disagree about the minimum opportunity. I would like America to provide the opportunity for everyone who gives good effort, a living with stability and security. Unfortunately, not everyone is going to get that solely from their work. The number of actually good jobs, if you haven't noticed, have been reduced and reduced to rarity. While this is a function that government may not be able to fix, what the government can do, is provide so that the person with the mcdonalds job with minimum security and stability by supplementing.

Hell, there are corporations (like Teach for America), that pay people shit wages, and specifically tell these people to go get food stamps to supplement their lack of income.


Chewy...................................................... i agree, not everyone is equal, but there is a minimum that everyone should deserve, and it isn't this mythical "welfare comfort" that you believe is going on.

[Todd Gambrel]

Todd, you speak of opportunities...... but lemme state in your terms: the opportunities are being reduced and elminated by the ultra-wealthy by every single one of their policies.



While I agree that what America should give to people is "opportunity," I think we are going to disagree about the minimum opportunity. I would like America to provide the opportunity for everyone who gives good effort, a living with stability and security. Unfortunately, not everyone is going to get that solely from their work. The number of actually good jobs, if you haven't noticed, have been reduced and reduced to rarity. While this is a function that government may not be able to fix, what the government can do, is provide so that the person with the mcdonalds job with minimum security and stability by supplementing.

Hell, there are corporations (like Teach for America), that pay people shit wages, and specifically tell these people to go get food stamps to supplement their lack of income.


Chewy...................................................... i agree, not everyone is equal, but there is a minimum that everyone should deserve, and it isn't this mythical "welfare comfort" that you believe is going on.

Good post. I do not think that is the case, but I can see where you are coming from. Which is why we have a minimum wage. Are the Republican policies probably a bit too harsh? Sure. Quite possibly. But the Democrat policies swing WAAAAAY too far in the "bit too lenient" category for my tastes.

The goal should be to get those good jobs back, not make it easier to stay off all jobs period. And what this administration has done is made it easier to stay off jobs, rather than focus on bringing the good ones back. They've worked harder at making it more expensive to run a business rather than focus on making it easier for businesses to make more money to create more demand to create more jobs.

I'd much rather too harsh than too lenient. Builds character. And I cannot abide whining.

Edited by Todd Gambrel, 14 August 2012 - 03:09 PM.

[Ogul]

I do want to say one more thing, so let me be clear here: I do not believe in "equal outcomes." I don't think hardly any Democrats actually do. I think equal outcomes would be silly, of course some people are going to have more than others, and some activities are going to reward more than others for the same amount of time, effort, or skill that is put in. What I am in favor of, however, is equitable outcomes. I believe in outcomes in which people who put in the work receive enough reward to justify it, and people who don't put in the effort see very little. I believe in outcomes in which the very most you can earn is much closer to the very least you can earn than it is today.

I think that while there are plenty of people in America that make a fair amount for the work that they do, I also think that there are plenty of people in America who work way too hard to make as little as they do, and I think there are plenty of people that make way way more than they deserve for the amount of work that they do, and that the people who fall into either of these groups are determined far more by circumstances outside their control than they are determined by anything that they did have control over.

If I got everything I wanted as far as socioeconomic policy goes, it wouldn't mean that nobody would be rich, but it would mean that nobody would be poor. There would still be rich people, but they would be less rich than they are today. I don't see any reason why an individual should be making an average of more than ten million per year over the course of their lifetime. That's more money than anyone would ever actually need. I don't believe that anyone should ever go hungry, or cold, or hot, or die of a preventable illness. I believe that society should provide those basic necessities, whether people work for them or not. Beyond that, if you also want TV, and video games, and a nice car, and a nice house, and other more luxury items, then you should have to work for those, but effort should be rewarded at a fair rate. A manager can make more than a line worker, and a CEO more than a manager, but salaries should not rise by magnitudes as they move up the chain, CEOs should not be making hundreds or even thousands of times what their average worker makes. If a worker puts in eight hours of hard work, then he should be fairly compensated for that, even if he is "replaceable," not just the lowest bidder price. Within our lifetimes, we're going to reach the point where probably 95%+ of the people living on this planet will be redundant in the workforce, including you, including your children, so you don't want to be talking about how people are only worth their market value.

So? Not everyone should. Monetary equality is not a goal. OPPORTUNITY is. And everyone HAS an opportunity.

I'm beginning to think that you don't know what the work opportunity means, that you're seeing it as an end goal that someone can put on their mantle and say "I died in poverty, but at least I had opportunity." Opportunity is not a goal, it's a means to an end. A comfortable lifestyle is the goal, and opportunity is meaningless if it doesn't provide that goal.

And claiming Romney does nothing is such a horrible falsehood that it really makes it hard to take anything you say seriously.

No, it's a fact. He literally does nothing, and yet earns millions per year. He's released at least last year's tax returns to prove it. Oh, he does stuff, he's running for president, but that's a hobby, not a job, he earns no income form it. All his income comes from doing jack squat.

because the former is more important and the latter is much more replaceable.

Being replaceable doesn't mean that you don't deserve to live a comfortable life.

He could always work his way up to moderator, the opportunities are there if you work hard.

Lorcan's made that argument, to little success.

[Todd Gross]

I think this conversation may have taken a detour to Yorkshire:

[Todd Gambrel]

No, it's a fact. He literally does nothing, and yet earns millions per year. He's released at least last year's tax returns to prove it. Oh, he does stuff, he's running for president, but that's a hobby, not a job, he earns no income form it. All his income comes from doing jack squat.

But his earnings are not a result of his current "do nothing" situation. He did work in the past that earned him into this spot of where he is right now.

Unless you think someone who works 25 years at a company then retires is getting his retirement check "for doing nothing".

And, to some extent, I would argue that working hard to get to a comfortable point in life so you can make it so your children do not have to work as hard IS admirable, and the child should not suffer for that.

I think that while there are plenty of people in America that make a fair amount for the work that they do, I also think that there are plenty of people in America who work way too hard to make as little as they do, and I think there are plenty of people that make way way more than they deserve for the amount of work that they do, .

I totally agree with this. Half of that is what I have argued for myself. Stop helping those who don't deserve the help. There is hope for you yet.

But the way to get more money to the people who deserve to make more money is not achieved simply by ruining it for people who DO make more money.

Edited by Todd Gambrel, 14 August 2012 - 03:21 PM.

[Arjan Dirkse]

I totally agree with this. Half of that is what I have argued for myself. Stop helping those who don't deserve the help. There is hope for you yet.

So you agree that some people do deserve help.

Can you give a few examples, or say what the criteria are for who is and who is not deserving?

[Rory Abel]

Going back to Ryan, it seems that part of the reason for his pick was his connection to powerful Libertarian donors. So essentially Johnny was right, he was picked because he gives access to Ron Paul territory.

That said, most of the analysis I've been reading seem to agree that he's the wrong choice. He won't win Romney Wisconsin and has too many weaknesses. One interesting analysis I read said that he's the kind of daring choice that's made by a campaign that knows it's in trouble.

[Todd Gambrel]

So you agree that some people do deserve help.

Can you give a few examples, or say what the criteria are for who is and who is not deserving?

I am not smart enough to correctly convey a foolproof outline to express my feelins on the subject without making some type of typo or logical error in tons of paragraphs that will be singled out and pounced upon and used to disprove the entire thing, so I'll abstain.

But I will say that I have NEVER said not to help ANYONE.

Going back to Ryan, it seems that part of the reason for his pick was his connection to powerful Libertarian donors. So essentially Johnny was right, he was picked because he gives access to Ron Paul territory.

That said, most of the analysis I've been reading seem to agree that he's the wrong choice. He won't win Romney Wisconsin and has too many weaknesses. One interesting analysis I read said that he's the kind of daring choice that's made by a campaign that knows it's in trouble.

He was the perfect choice. The problem resides in that there was no choice to enable Romney to win. Doesn't mean Ryan wasn't the right choice though.

[Chewy Sun]

Good post. I do not think that is the case, but I can see where you are coming from. Which is why we have a minimum wage. Are the Republican policies probably a bit too harsh? Sure. Quite possibly. But the Democrat policies swing WAAAAAY too far in the "bit too lenient" category for my tastes.

The goal should be to get those good jobs back, not make it easier to stay off all jobs period. And what this administration has done is made it easier to stay off jobs, rather than focus on bringing the good ones back. They've worked harder at making it more expensive to run a business rather than focus on making it easier for businesses to make more money to create more demand to create more jobs.

I'd much rather too harsh than too lenient. Builds character. And I cannot abide whining.

I'm trying not to insult you, but your perception of what is compared to what actually is, is completely wrong.


I have so many unemployed friends, and by no means are they living what you deem easy on unemployment and welfare. These are people with higher degrees and employable skills. I also know many business folk, and the ones that deal with foreign countries will tell you just how easy it is to actually do business in the USA compared to everywhere else.


The bullshit perception that the corporations have put on this economy is devastating. How the top 100 corporations make crazy profits in 2011, yet color stock prices to be a downward trend..... it makes no sense except to link it to the complicated derrivatives that actually make money based on hoping for market losses.


Chewy...................................... but then again, most publicly traded company CEOs are there for the sake of perception, rather than actual function.

[Todd Gambrel]

I'm trying not to insult you, but your perception of what is compared to what actually is, is completely wrong.


I have so many unemployed friends, and by no means are they living what you deem easy on unemployment and welfare. These are people with higher degrees and employable skills. I also know many business folk, and the ones that deal with foreign countries will tell you just how easy it is to actually do business in the USA compared to everywhere else.


The bullshit perception that the corporations have put on this economy is devastating. How the top 100 corporations make crazy profits in 2011, yet color stock prices to be a downward trend..... it makes no sense except to link it to the complicated derrivatives that actually make money based on hoping for market losses.


Chewy...................................... but then again, most publicly traded company CEOs are there for the sake of perception, rather than actual function.

Where did I say that living on welfare and unemployment is living easy? It's not easy. But opportunities still exist to get off of that. Life sucks sometimes. Either do something about it or fall off a cliff. It shouldn't be the government's responsibility to mouth feed you forever. For a while? Sure. But not forever.

What I call bullshit is this jealous greed where people look at insane profits companies are making and feel like they deserve some of it and hate on those coporations for making that money. They found a way to make that money, kudos. Salute them for their achievements, and set out achieve on your own. Just because you can't achieve that LEVEL of success, doesn't mean you can't still achieve success.

Edited by Todd Gambrel, 14 August 2012 - 03:41 PM.

[Will]

Gentlemen, please don't feed the trolls. I get the fascination and draw, but if you ignore them they might go away or at least become a more productive member of the board.

[Todd Gambrel]

Gentlemen, please don't feed the trolls. I get the fascination and draw, but if you ignore them they might go away or at least become a more productive member of the board.

Sorry, I won't feed them anymore.

Seriously though, as I know you mean me, I'm curious as to which post is trollish in nature? (Aside of the 1 lapse in judgement snide at Lorcan). Everything else has been my political, social beliefs that I am arguing for.

[Johnny Henning]

Why does the National Weather Service need 46,000 rounds of hollow point ammunition that can only be used domestically?

http://www.businessi...munition-2012-8

...And that, BI Military & Defense commenter tc84 points out, is before Friday's updated request by DHS, putting the ammunition requested by that group at 750,000 rounds...

Edited by Johnny Henning, 14 August 2012 - 03:54 PM.

[Todd Gross]

And to throw to gas on the fire:
Factory owners: Federal prisoners stealing our business

Gov't-run enterprise employs over 13,000 inmates

Just hearing the word Unicor is enough to make Kurt Wilson see red.

Unicor is a government-run enterprise that employs over 13,000 inmates -- at wages as low as 23 cents an hour -- to make goods for the Pentagon and other federal agencies.

With some exceptions, Unicor gets first dibs on federal contracts over private companies as long as its bid is comparable in price, quantity and delivery. In other words: If Unicor wants a contract, it gets it.

And that makes Wilson and other small business owners angry.

Wilson has been competing with Unicor for 20 years. He's an executive at American Apparel Inc., an Alabama company that makes military uniforms. (It is not affiliated with the international retailer of the same name.) He has gone head-to-head with Unicor on just about every product his company makes -- and said he has laid off 150 people over the years as a result.

"We pay employees $9 on average," Wilson said. "They get full medical insurance, 401(k) plans and paid vacation. Yet we're competing against a federal program that doesn't pay any of that."

Unicor, also known as Federal Prison Industries, is part of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. It has been preparing inmates for jobs after they get out since 1934.

The program has 83 factories and makes goods in seven industries -- apparel being the biggest ticket. Unicor made over $900 million in revenue last year and faces more heat from businesses and lawmakers as the economy takes a toll on small manufacturers.

In Olive Hill, Ky., apparel factory Ashland Sales and Service, Co. has been making windbreakers for the Air Force for 14 years, says Michael Mansh, who runs the factory. Last February, when he learned that Unicor was eyeing the contract, he reached out to Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell.

McConnell, one of the top Republicans on Capitol Hill, issued a public statement urging Unicor to back off. The next day, it did.

With 100 employees, Mansh said Ashland is Olive Hill's largest employer. And he said losing the Air Force contract would have shut the factory down.

"That's 100 people buying groceries. We use trucking companies in the town, buy parts and light bulbs there every day," he said. "That's all lost when prisons take away contracts."

Unicor is not required to pay its workers minimum wage and instead pays inmates 23 cents to $1.15 an hour. It doesn't have health insurance costs. It also doesn't shell out federal, state or local taxes.

Advocates for private sector companies are loudly campaigning for reform of Unicor's preferential status.

Unemployment has been over 8% for nearly four years "and there's a federal program tanking our industry," said Kurt Courtney, director of government relations at the American Apparel and Footwear Association. "The only way for workers to get jobs back is to go to prison. There's got to be a better way to do this."

In 2008, Congress amended the law to limit Unicor's advantage for certain kinds of Pentagon contracts. Now a bill in the House supported by 28 lawmakers from both parties would go further and require Unicor to compete across the board. The bill also provides alternative ways for training inmates, who would instead work for charities, religious organizations, local governments or school districts.

"We know that in the recovery, many new jobs are coming out of small businesses," said Rep. Bill Huizenga, a Michigan Republican who introduced the bill. "It makes no sense to strangle them in the cradle."

Huizenga expects a similar bill to be introduced in the Senate in the coming months.

Unicor doesn't agree with the criticism. According to spokeswoman Julie Rozier, inmates working for Unicor are 24% less likely to reoffend and 14% more likely to be employed long-term upon release. She also noted that over 40% of Unicor's supplies were purchased from small businesses in 2011.

She cited the unique costs associated with operating within a prison. For example, Unicor employs more supervisors than a private sector firm would, and security lockdowns disrupt production.

Businesses aren't buying it. John Palatiello, president of the Business Coalition for Fair Competition, said his organization of businesses and taxpayer groups is sympathetic to Unicor's goals. But they shouldn't be accomplished at the expense of small businesses.

"Who is being punished here?" he said. "The inmates who have committed a crime against society, or the employees of private companies who play by the rules?"

Maybe these small businesses just need to try harder?

[Christian U]

Seriously though, as I know you mean me, I'm curious as to which post is trollish in nature? (Aside of the 1 lapse in judgement snide at Lorcan). Everything else has been my political, social beliefs that I am arguing for.

You've actually been quite measured in your responses currently, but you have at least in the part exaggerated - deliberately, I think - quite often.

I think there's two points worth further discussing, either way, though. You represent the view - mainstream among Republicans - that less control and restrictions on business lead to more employment. It seems, however, that all evidence indicates that this is not the case (and actually the opposite is probably true).

One other thing I would like to emphasise, because this discussion has been a lot about the comforts or lack thereof of being unemployed: There is hardly anyone who likes being unemployed. Most of us like to work, or at least we waste away when we have nothing to do 24/7, and none of the validation that works gives us. Yes, there are people who don't want to work, but the truth is that their numbers are so small that they are statistically practically irrelevant. When there is enough work, there will be enough people to do the work, is the simple fact. Which is why you could strike every unemployment benefit there is, and the result wouldn't be more working people. What will do that, however, is employing more people on the public level.

And to throw to gas on the fire:
Factory owners: Federal prisoners stealing our business



Maybe these small businesses just need to try harder?

Yeah, that prison thing is just beyond insane. The whole system. Somethind needs to happen about that on a very basic level.

[Johnny Henning]

Yes, that is the primary difficulty here. I agree that we should not expect things to be easy, but we are facing a very obvious petrification of opportunity and siphoning away of wealth in the United States and our government - even now - is complicit in that development. Stresses and risks in our economy are necessary for its health, but currently its incurred extreme damage from unwise application of risks followed by targeted relief that focuses on saving the most egregious risk-takers while allowing the majority of the most exposed in the middle class to basically face the consequences of choices and behavior that occurred in the very heights of the financial sector.

And nothing has changed to prevent this behavior from still taking place.

[Rory Abel]

He was the perfect choice. The problem resides in that there was no choice to enable Romney to win. Doesn't mean Ryan wasn't the right choice though.

What exactly makes Ryan the perfect choice?

He doesn't get Romney a swing state, his doesn't bring in the independents Romney needs, he has no leadership experience and he takes the attention off the weak economy and let's Obama focus on social security/medicaid cuts instead.

[Arjan Dirkse]

Where did I say that living on welfare and unemployment is living easy? It's not easy. But opportunities still exist to get off of that. Life sucks sometimes. Either do something about it or fall off a cliff. It shouldn't be the government's responsibility to mouth feed you forever. For a while? Sure. But not forever.

The problem is that there simply are not enough jobs. Some people with inadequate skills or some other disadvantage will always fall through the cracks, in every society. At least there hasn't been any society yet that could employ everybody. You can choose to either support those people, or let them go to hell. It's really as simple as that I think. Thankfully most people see that it's better to have a safety net.

[Todd Gross]

Yes, that is the primary difficulty here. I agree that we should not expect things to be easy, but we are facing a very obvious petrification of opportunity and siphoning away of wealth in the United States and our government - even now - is complicit in that development. Stresses and risks in our economy are necessary for its health, but currently its incurred extreme damage from unwise application of risks followed by targeted relief that focuses on saving the most egregious risk-takers while allowing the majority of the most exposed in the middle class to basically face the consequences of choices and behavior that occurred in the very heights of the financial sector.

And nothing has changed to prevent this behavior from still taking place.

Add that money is not being infused back into economies around the world: Trillions hidden in tax havens - report

That pretty much shows that trickle-down economics is bullshit.

[Johnny Henning]

On another note, I've been reading a bit lately on cult leaders and tyrants, and, oddly, amphetamine and wide drug abuse seems pretty common among megalomaniacs. I'm sure nearly everyone here has seen how prescription drugs targeting things like ADD and depression can have serious side effects especially in regard to a person's ability to manage severe stress.

Instead of tax returns, maybe we should demand to see what our elected officials and candidates are being prescribed.