"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of pros

[Trajan]

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits.

Abe Lincoln First State of the Union Address (3 December 1861)

context, hello?

what do you think he would say about oh, Card Check?

 

[rightwinger]

Lincoln took a pro labor view towards slavery... He asked "How can you deny a man the fruits of his labor?" He had an inherent mistrust of big busness all through his presidency and decried the constant manipulation of government contracts.
Lincoln understood the value of a mans work and would have stood up for worker protections

 

[daveman]

'Facts are stupid things.'

--The same Idiot You just quoted

"Facts are stupid things," President Ronald Reagan said in a famous self-parodying moment. (He'd meant to say "facts are stubborn things.")

Fail. If he meant to say something else, it wasn't self-parody-it him making a fool of himself the same way Bush did when with his 'fool me once... shame on... uh... mushroomcloud 9/11 smoking gun iraq bin laden'

If it comforts you to feel that way. I know you find the specter of Reagan frightening.

 

[washamericom]

Lincoln took a pro labor view towards slavery... He asked "How can you deny a man the fruits of his labor?" He had an inherent mistrust of big busness all through his presidency and decried the constant manipulation of government contracts.
Lincoln understood the value of a mans work and would have stood up for worker protections

Lincoln took a pro labor view towards slavery saywah? (i'm kidding, i know what you meant)

there was no big business when lincoln was president, unless you mean the government.

Development of new products. Inventors created, and business leaders produced and sold, a variety of new products. The products included the typewriter (1867), barbed wire (1874), the telephone (1876), the phonograph (1877), the electric light (1879), and the gasoline automobile (1885). Of these, the automobile had the greatest impact on the nation's economy. In the early 1900's, Ransom Eli Olds and Henry Ford began turning out cars by mass production. Automobile prices dropped, and sales soared. The number of automobiles owned by Americans jumped from 8,000 in 1900 to almost 3,500,000 in 1916.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Lincoln took a pro labor view towards slavery... He asked "How can you deny a man the fruits of his labor?" He had an inherent mistrust of big busness all through his presidency and decried the constant manipulation of government contracts.
Lincoln understood the value of a mans work and would have stood up for worker protections

"Worker protections". One the many euphemisms used by the political Left that mean "pro-union".
A president who inherently mistrusts business would demonstrate ineptitude in domestic policy.
Would you agree that a balance between the interests of business and labor would lead to a healthy and prosperous society?

 

[rightwinger]

Lincoln took a pro labor view towards slavery... He asked "How can you deny a man the fruits of his labor?" He had an inherent mistrust of big busness all through his presidency and decried the constant manipulation of government contracts.
Lincoln understood the value of a mans work and would have stood up for worker protections

"Worker protections". One the many euphemisms used by the political Left that mean "pro-union".
A president who inherently mistrusts business would demonstrate ineptitude in domestic policy.
Would you agree that a balance between the interests of business and labor would lead to a healthy and prosperous society?

Worker protections like workplace safety, a 40 hr workweek, anti-discrimination, no child labor.....yea, absolutely pro-union

Teddy Roosevelt had a mistrust for big business....his domestic poliucy was far from inept

 

[thereisnospoon]

Lincoln took a pro labor view towards slavery... He asked "How can you deny a man the fruits of his labor?" He had an inherent mistrust of big busness all through his presidency and decried the constant manipulation of government contracts.
Lincoln understood the value of a mans work and would have stood up for worker protections

"Worker protections". One the many euphemisms used by the political Left that mean "pro-union".
A president who inherently mistrusts business would demonstrate ineptitude in domestic policy.
Would you agree that a balance between the interests of business and labor would lead to a healthy and prosperous society?

Worker protections like workplace safety, a 40 hr workweek, anti-discrimination, no child labor.....yea, absolutely pro-union

Teddy Roosevelt had a mistrust for big business....his domestic poliucy was far from inept

Teddy Roosevelt? He presided over the age of robber barons and his admin had rampant wild speculation going on right under his nose. T. Roosevelt was a foreign policy president. His domestic policies were at best nondescript.
BTW that is "Dis" trust.
Why did you not answer my question? Are you not willing to debate the issue?
BTW what's a "40 hour workweek?" I get overtime for hours worked over 40. Where's the problem?
In fact that new wage and hour law placed many people on hourly where in the past they were salaried and NOT being paid for their overtime.
My wife is an officer at a large bank but is not in a supervisory position. She is paid hourly and does receive OT for over 40 hrs. And rightly so.
Again. Where's the problem?
Unions? Please. They are all but gone. 7%....that's all.
Spare me the "we owe this or that to the unions".
Perhaps you think we should all pay homage to the unions and kneel at the union altar. Go right ahead and kiss their pinky ring.

 

[washamericom]

Lincoln took a pro labor view towards slavery... He asked "How can you deny a man the fruits of his labor?" He had an inherent mistrust of big busness all through his presidency and decried the constant manipulation of government contracts.
Lincoln understood the value of a mans work and would have stood up for worker protections

"Worker protections". One the many euphemisms used by the political Left that mean "pro-union".
A president who inherently mistrusts business would demonstrate ineptitude in domestic policy.
Would you agree that a balance between the interests of business and labor would lead to a healthy and prosperous society?

Worker protections like workplace safety, a 40 hr workweek, anti-discrimination, no child labor.....yea, absolutely pro-union

Teddy Roosevelt had a mistrust for big business....his domestic poliucy was far from inept

i know... did you know t r really swung to the left after his presidency ? bull moose was progressive, but not enough to beat taft.



it's one of the greatest elections in america's history... they say history repeats itself... well.....

 

[snjmom]

And their counterpart.

Seven National Crimes

I don’t think.
I don’t know.
I don’t care.
I am too busy.
I leave well enough alone.
I have no time to read and find out.
I am not interested.

Off with their heads.

 

[rightwinger]

"Worker protections". One the many euphemisms used by the political Left that mean "pro-union".
A president who inherently mistrusts business would demonstrate ineptitude in domestic policy.
Would you agree that a balance between the interests of business and labor would lead to a healthy and prosperous society?

Worker protections like workplace safety, a 40 hr workweek, anti-discrimination, no child labor.....yea, absolutely pro-union

Teddy Roosevelt had a mistrust for big business....his domestic poliucy was far from inept

Teddy Roosevelt? He presided over the age of robber barons and his admin had rampant wild speculation going on right under his nose. T. Roosevelt was a foreign policy president. His domestic policies were at best nondescript.
BTW that is "Dis" trust.
Why did you not answer my question? Are you not willing to debate the issue?
BTW what's a "40 hour workweek?" I get overtime for hours worked over 40. Where's the problem?
In fact that new wage and hour law placed many people on hourly where in the past they were salaried and NOT being paid for their overtime.
My wife is an officer at a large bank but is not in a supervisory position. She is paid hourly and does receive OT for over 40 hrs. And rightly so.
Again. Where's the problem?
Unions? Please. They are all but gone. 7%....that's all.
Spare me the "we owe this or that to the unions".
Perhaps you think we should all pay homage to the unions and kneel at the union altar. Go right ahead and kiss their pinky ring.

Workers need to maintain the right to collectively bargain. There is more strength in being able to bargain as a group rather than being singled out individually.
Up until unions, when a worker was killed or injured on the job, the remaining workers were told..."if you don't like it, you can be replaced". The 40 hour week is now the norm, prior to that average hours were dawn to dusk six days a week

No, I am not in a union, but I benefit from the threat of unionization and from the work they have done in establishing workplace standards

 

[Bfgrn]

The all or nothing straw man argument is ripped and read straight out of the liberal playbook.
These and other commonly heard phrases heard from libs are their campaign platforms and talking points.

Do you mean all or nothing like in the OP? Trying to make rich people poor rather than just pay your previous tax rate?

Paying taxes for the purpose of funding good government is one thing.
However, the Left looks upon taxation as a way to punish success and achievement. To level the imaginary playing field.
The idea that confiscatory taxation for the purpose of creating socialism out of capitalism is a failed concept.
Not once or never has a modern society been able to tax itself into prosperity.
This idea of "fairness" is modern day liberalism's mantra of "getting even".
It covers the liberal idea of the zero sum game with an excuse to redistribute wealth and use it the way THEY see fit.
If government used our tax dollars wisely, stayed within the parameters of a balanced budget, cut government waste, I'd be all for reasonable and equitable graduated tax rates. Ability to pay.
However, in the halls of the US Capitol we have politicians on both sides of the aisle that have an insatiable desire to spend money without considering the consequences of their actions. The laws of unintended consequences are violated more times than the speed limit on an Atlanta urban interstate. Which is to say A LOT!
Quite frankly we're sick of watching our hard earned money being thrown down a rat hole. We're tired of failed policies being tried anew with the expectation of a different result.
We are about get nailed with the largest tax increase in the history of the nation. A bad idea in light of the staggering economy.
Politicians such as Harry Reid (D-NV) have been quoted as saying "we cannot afford tax cuts right now. we need the additional $700 billion in revenue"...That's a lie.
There is no additional money. That figure comes from an estimate of anticipated revenue should the tax cut be allowed to expire. And what does Sen Reid want all that money for anyway?.
He won't answer THAT question.
If this does not get through your spend and tax bias, so be it.
Our money is NOT your money. Hands off.

What does Reid want the money for? Let's start with paying for the 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq that has burdened this nation with enough 'unintended consequences' to fill the ocean with money and fill the graveyards here and in Iraq. How about money to pay for that bloated government fiasco; fatherland security.

President Obama gave tax cuts to the people who need them, the middle class. Trickle down has had 30 years to create jobs for Americans. It has created jobs for China, India and 3rd world countries with slave wages. It is time for the elite who were given the privilege of tax cuts to pay us back.

 

[MikeK]

"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Adrian Rogers, 1931

Wonderful quote! Have to add that to my list of favorites.

The quote is intended to appeal to those who are sufficiently narrow-minded and mean as to believe that everyone who is poor is lazy and everyone who is rich has a history of enduring back-breaking labor. In fact neither circumstance is true.

The truth is there is no way to become super-rich through "hard work" in the widely accepted sense of the term. Hard work gets one blisters, a bad back and, maybe, a small pension. Exceptional wealth is achieved in one of two ways; through criminal enterprise, as in the Enron example, or by exploiting the hard work of others.

The point to be made here is there is nothing wrong with wealth but there is a big problem with excessive wealth at one end of a democratic society while there is increasing poverty at the other end. The way to solve that problem is to reduce excessive wealth to the level of ordinary wealth and effecting balance by methodical redistribution.

In order to fully understand the justice in what the foregoing implies it is important to first understand the difference between earning and exploitive maneuvering. There is no way to "earn" the kind of excessive wealth which has elevated the super-rich to the level of a neo-aristocracy.

 

[Trajan]

Lincoln took a pro labor view towards slavery... He asked "How can you deny a man the fruits of his labor?" He had an inherent mistrust of big busness all through his presidency and decried the constant manipulation of government contracts.
Lincoln understood the value of a mans work and would have stood up for worker protections

was that an answer to my question?

 

[Trajan]

Worker protections like workplace safety, a 40 hr workweek, anti-discrimination, no child labor.....yea, absolutely pro-union

Teddy Roosevelt had a mistrust for big business....his domestic poliucy was far from inept

Teddy Roosevelt? He presided over the age of robber barons and his admin had rampant wild speculation going on right under his nose. T. Roosevelt was a foreign policy president. His domestic policies were at best nondescript.
BTW that is "Dis" trust.
Why did you not answer my question? Are you not willing to debate the issue?
BTW what's a "40 hour workweek?" I get overtime for hours worked over 40. Where's the problem?
In fact that new wage and hour law placed many people on hourly where in the past they were salaried and NOT being paid for their overtime.
My wife is an officer at a large bank but is not in a supervisory position. She is paid hourly and does receive OT for over 40 hrs. And rightly so.
Again. Where's the problem?
Unions? Please. They are all but gone. 7%....that's all.
Spare me the "we owe this or that to the unions".
Perhaps you think we should all pay homage to the unions and kneel at the union altar. Go right ahead and kiss their pinky ring.

Workers need to maintain the right to collectively bargain. There is more strength in being able to bargain as a group rather than being singled out individually.
Up until unions, when a worker was killed or injured on the job, the remaining workers were told..."if you don't like it, you can be replaced". The 40 hour week is now the norm, prior to that average hours were dawn to dusk six days a week

No, I am not in a union, but I benefit from the threat of unionization and from the work they have done in establishing workplace standards

you do realize that sheer number of alphabet soup gov. and state orgs., OHSA, NLRB etc. have to a large extent rendered unions superfluous regards many of these issues. I agree wholeheartedly they were required and necessary then.... ....but time imho has passed them by.

 

[Trajan]

"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Adrian Rogers, 1931

Wonderful quote! Have to add that to my list of favorites.

[quote
The point to be made here is there is nothing wrong with wealth but there is a big problem with excessive wealth at one end of a democratic society while there is increasing poverty at the other end. The way to solve that problem is to reduce excessive wealth to the level of ordinary wealth and effecting balance by methodical redistribution.

I agreed until you hit the part I added emphasis too, "methodical redistribution"?

how would you see that happening? In execution I mean.

In order to fully understand the justice in what the foregoing implies it is important to first understand the difference between earning and [/i]exploitive maneuvering. There is no way to "earn" the kind of excessive wealth which has elevated the super-rich to the level of a neo-aristocracy.

really? and why not?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Worker protections like workplace safety, a 40 hr workweek, anti-discrimination, no child labor.....yea, absolutely pro-union

Teddy Roosevelt had a mistrust for big business....his domestic poliucy was far from inept

Teddy Roosevelt? He presided over the age of robber barons and his admin had rampant wild speculation going on right under his nose. T. Roosevelt was a foreign policy president. His domestic policies were at best nondescript.
BTW that is "Dis" trust.
Why did you not answer my question? Are you not willing to debate the issue?
BTW what's a "40 hour workweek?" I get overtime for hours worked over 40. Where's the problem?
In fact that new wage and hour law placed many people on hourly where in the past they were salaried and NOT being paid for their overtime.
My wife is an officer at a large bank but is not in a supervisory position. She is paid hourly and does receive OT for over 40 hrs. And rightly so.
Again. Where's the problem?
Unions? Please. They are all but gone. 7%....that's all.
Spare me the "we owe this or that to the unions".
Perhaps you think we should all pay homage to the unions and kneel at the union altar. Go right ahead and kiss their pinky ring.

Workers need to maintain the right to collectively bargain. There is more strength in being able to bargain as a group rather than being singled out individually.
Up until unions, when a worker was killed or injured on the job, the remaining workers were told..."if you don't like it, you can be replaced". The 40 hour week is now the norm, prior to that average hours were dawn to dusk six days a week

No, I am not in a union, but I benefit from the threat of unionization and from the work they have done in establishing workplace standards

Just what do you think would happen to productivity and merit increases for exemplary individual workers if your place of employment would vote in a union?
Answer: GONE. Plus you'd be placing at risk the very existence of your employer's business.
Example. Wal-Mart veto falls(libs win against evil Wal-marts, who needs jobs anyway?).
shortly after this ,Walmart elected to scuttle the planned distribution center.
Why, because government in deference to organized labor decided to interlope into the affairs of private enterprise.
Here's another example of how union people do not wisely pick their battles.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0511-03.ht
The above story involves a Walmart store in Canada.

 

[rightwinger]

Teddy Roosevelt? He presided over the age of robber barons and his admin had rampant wild speculation going on right under his nose. T. Roosevelt was a foreign policy president. His domestic policies were at best nondescript.
BTW that is "Dis" trust.
Why did you not answer my question? Are you not willing to debate the issue?
BTW what's a "40 hour workweek?" I get overtime for hours worked over 40. Where's the problem?
In fact that new wage and hour law placed many people on hourly where in the past they were salaried and NOT being paid for their overtime.
My wife is an officer at a large bank but is not in a supervisory position. She is paid hourly and does receive OT for over 40 hrs. And rightly so.
Again. Where's the problem?
Unions? Please. They are all but gone. 7%....that's all.
Spare me the "we owe this or that to the unions".
Perhaps you think we should all pay homage to the unions and kneel at the union altar. Go right ahead and kiss their pinky ring.

Workers need to maintain the right to collectively bargain. There is more strength in being able to bargain as a group rather than being singled out individually.
Up until unions, when a worker was killed or injured on the job, the remaining workers were told..."if you don't like it, you can be replaced". The 40 hour week is now the norm, prior to that average hours were dawn to dusk six days a week

No, I am not in a union, but I benefit from the threat of unionization and from the work they have done in establishing workplace standards

you do realize that sheer number of alphabet soup gov. and state orgs., OHSA, NLRB etc. have to a large extent rendered unions superfluous regards many of these issues. I agree wholeheartedly they were required and necessary then.... ....but time imho has passed them by.

Maybe the mega unions are no longer relevant. Workers still need to be able to band together to negotiate working conditions, wages, benefits. In a tough economy...workers need every break they can get

 

[daveman]

I agreed until you hit the part I added emphasis too, "methodical redistribution"?

how would you see that happening? In execution I mean.

Historically, leftists use execution as the means of execution.

 

[asterism]

They certainly aren't Starving as they gobble up junk food while watching their big screen TVs.

There are serious issues with the status of the poor in our society - lack of food is not one of them.

This is one of my favorite right wing tactics. Take attention away from the rich by blaming the poor. Its the old "Poor people drive Escalades" myth. Selling the mistruth that the poor are living high off the hog.

I personally,am more concerned with the working poor. Those Americans who work 40-50 hours a week and have less and less to show for it. People who would lose everything if they become sick, people who must assume tens of thousands in debt to send their kids to college, people who wonder if they should pay the doctor bill or the rent.

Used to be, you could support a family on a high school education and one spouse working. That American dream has vanished as the wealthy have become richer and the standard of living has declined

You reference that time a lot. I grew up then and we never ever had a new car, much less borrowed money for one. My parents never bought "as much house as we could afford" and we didn't upgrade based on Dad getting a raise. It was a small house, below average size and we had a big family. "Work hard and get a scholarship" was the college plan. We had a boat, one that Dad got when he bet the guy he could get it running - "if you can fix it, you can have it." 1 TV, no cable, none of the new gadgets. All this is possible on one income today with a typical family.

 

[JBeukema]

BTW what's a "40 hour workweek?" I get overtime for hours worked over 40. Where's the problem?