A question for Conservatives

[CrusaderFrank]

For all you wannabe 'conservatives', read what a real one has to say.

We are witnessing the “social and economic evisceration” of the working class, said Rich Lowery (National Review Online). In recent decades, the gap between Americans who complete college and those who don’t has become a chasm ---- economically and socially. Generally speaking, the third of Americans with college degrees ---- the so called elites ---- enjoy rising incomes and low unemployment, and they’ve embraced traditional values and stable families. But among those without a high school degree, the picture is grim: Unemployment has surpassed 15%, and today’s blue-collar workers often earn less than their fathers did.

Worse, “this economic pressure makes it harder to marry,” and family stability in middle America is crumbling. Even among the “moderately educated” ---- those with a high school diploma or even some college ---- out of wedlock births have “exploded” from 13% in 1982. to 44% today. In effect, the creation of a stable family ---- “an institution absolutely critical to children’s prospects” ---- is increasingly tied to a college education. “There is a crisis in the middle,” and the “brain dead populism” of blaming “the elites” won’t save the struggling working classes.

Rich Lowry is editor of National Review. A reprise in The Week, 16 Dec 2010, of an article. mobile.theweek.com/article/search?ext=html&url.

Yes, the Federal Department of "Education" needs to be burned to the ground because we graduate idiots at an alarming rate and that's what keeps Dems in power

[idiotic statement removed]

Surely you know that intelligence and level of formal education are both inversely related to the propensity toward voting Republican... Right?

Surely you realize that government Stimulus and Central Planning of the economy is as big a fail today as it was when Hoover and FDR did it, right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You seem to not understand WHY we have a lack of industry and that anyone with money has left. A large portion of that is directly from the simple COST of producing in this country. That cost is the DIRECT result of liberal ideological policies. Now, that is not to say that those policies need to be completely removed but there needs to be some counterbalance to their never ending growth. What capitalistic policies do you seem to think caused all this to happen as that seems to be what you are eluding to?

Globalism, hands down, is the main reason American companies run their manufacturing factories in third world countries. They do that in order to reap in as much profit as possible while paying the peasants, who work twelve hours a day, only several dimes an hour. Not to mention that it's a way to skirt environmental laws.

Nike and Disney do this often, as well as most other companies. When's the last time computers, clothing, shoes, hats, coffee makers, knives, American flags, yellow ribbon bumper stickers and other items were made in the U.S.A? It's now imported from China and placed on the shelves of wal-mart. That's how they maintain their low, low prices.

Work people to death , pay them peanuts in return for their slave labor, and then watch the moolah roll in. Ingenious evil.

Sure.

Or you can take the UAW route. Pay people double what their competitors earn, drag down the US Auto industry and Detroit in the process and then have the federal government pay you half a billion for your troubles and give you 20+ equity in GM and eventually take over your unfunded pension liability

 

[Cuyo]

Nobody cares what you think. Only what the facts are.
The facts are not on your side.

Hmmm... Really? How do you think you did?

I was under the impression that Reading was in dire straits for the same reason as so many other semi-metropolitan areas, along with the more depressed areas of large metropolitan areas - Lack of industry, and the fact that anyone with any money has left...

But since the facts are not on my side, show me how "liberal policies" has caused any sort of downfall...

I won't hold my breath.

You seem to not understand WHY we have a lack of industry and that anyone with money has left. A large portion of that is directly from the simple COST of producing in this country. That cost is the DIRECT result of liberal ideological policies. Now, that is not to say that those policies need to be completely removed but there needs to be some counterbalance to their never ending growth. What capitalistic policies do you seem to think caused all this to happen as that seems to be what you are eluding to?

Never said they did; All I said is it's a bunch of hooey to blame it on 'liberal policy.' But it has been an unfortunate result of global free trade, that good paying, low-skill jobs (eg factory work) are by in large, no longer available. They've been shipped abroad to the lowest bidder, and the resulting flooded labor pool has been exploited through a phenomenon known as 'Scientific management' or 'Taylorism.'

This has been great for the poor nations that got the jobs mind you, but awful for us.

Since we don't produce anything anymore, our economy has been kept afloat by bubble after bubble - Artificial, unsustainable growth, if you will. Credit cards in the 80s, stocks in the 90s, housing in the 00's. And now, rather than being honest about our problem, ALL politicians just want to focus on how to discover and re-inflate the next bubble.

So you could say it was just the natural progression of a global economy that's causing our SOL to go down and that of others to slowly go up. In short, it wasn't politicians who 'Did this.' It was the private sector that 'Did it.' And, over and over, it's the conservatives who keep swearing the government is still intervening too much, and THAT's caused this problem... A proclamation as laughable as that failure to cut taxes for billionaires will 'kill jobs.'

You've said above, in short, that worker protections and assembly helped caused the problem. I'm saying, in short, that available loopholes to worker protections have helped cause the problem. The two are not terribly different.

 

[FA_Q2]

Hmmm... Really? How do you think you did?

I was under the impression that Reading was in dire straits for the same reason as so many other semi-metropolitan areas, along with the more depressed areas of large metropolitan areas - Lack of industry, and the fact that anyone with any money has left...

But since the facts are not on my side, show me how "liberal policies" has caused any sort of downfall...

I won't hold my breath.

You seem to not understand WHY we have a lack of industry and that anyone with money has left. A large portion of that is directly from the simple COST of producing in this country. That cost is the DIRECT result of liberal ideological policies. Now, that is not to say that those policies need to be completely removed but there needs to be some counterbalance to their never ending growth. What capitalistic policies do you seem to think caused all this to happen as that seems to be what you are eluding to?

Never said they did; All I said is it's a bunch of hooey to blame it on 'liberal policy.' But it has been an unfortunate result of global free trade, that good paying, low-skill jobs (eg factory work) are by in large, no longer available. They've been shipped abroad to the lowest bidder, and the resulting flooded labor pool has been exploited through a phenomenon known as 'Scientific management' or 'Taylorism.'

This has been great for the poor nations that got the jobs mind you, but awful for us.

Since we don't produce anything anymore, our economy has been kept afloat by bubble after bubble - Artificial, unsustainable growth, if you will. Credit cards in the 80s, stocks in the 90s, housing in the 00's. And now, rather than being honest about our problem, ALL politicians just want to focus on how to discover and re-inflate the next bubble.

So you could say it was just the natural progression of a global economy that's causing our SOL to go down and that of others to slowly go up. In short, it wasn't politicians who 'Did this.' It was the private sector that 'Did it.' And, over and over, it's the conservatives who keep swearing the government is still intervening too much, and THAT's caused this problem... A proclamation as laughable as that failure to cut taxes for billionaires will 'kill jobs.'

You've said above, in short, that worker protections and assembly helped caused the problem. I'm saying, in short, that available loopholes to worker protections have helped cause the problem. The two are not terribly different.

No, they are not terribly different but BOTH were directly caused by government intervention. Government has a place in protecting the people but it has become a shill for the companies instead. A TRUE conservative wants government out entirely (minus the few protections that must be in place). The true liberal believes that government needs to be intimately involved. The problem is that ANY entity - be it corporations, unions or the government - given sufficient power and scope becomes inherently corrupt. This country was founded on ideals that set up a LIMITED government to prevent exactly that problem. The even split it up into 3 components to keep that power limited and divided. Today, more and more power flows to the government, is returned to fewer and fewer corporations and ultimately leads to the corruption that we have now. I see the root as in the liberal policies that are being pushed not just by the democrats mind you. The republicans are almost as far from a conservative as a democrat is. Almost.

Again, I see railing against the tax rate on the rich and I have to chuckle to myself. The actual tax rate on the rich is rather meaningless and the fact of the matter is they pay little taxes anyway. They pay little taxes not because of republican shills but because of LIBERAL social engineering (that IS what all the tax loopholes are after all). Once again it is the inefficiency and misdirection of the government in places that it has no business being in. Protect the people from that which they cannot protect themselves and beyond that, GET THE **** OUT OF THE WAY. Government as it should be in a nutshell.

I can't wait for an actual conservative voice to be in the government. The problem is I may die before I see it happen.

 

[Cuyo]

You seem to not understand WHY we have a lack of industry and that anyone with money has left. A large portion of that is directly from the simple COST of producing in this country. That cost is the DIRECT result of liberal ideological policies. Now, that is not to say that those policies need to be completely removed but there needs to be some counterbalance to their never ending growth. What capitalistic policies do you seem to think caused all this to happen as that seems to be what you are eluding to?

Never said they did; All I said is it's a bunch of hooey to blame it on 'liberal policy.' But it has been an unfortunate result of global free trade, that good paying, low-skill jobs (eg factory work) are by in large, no longer available. They've been shipped abroad to the lowest bidder, and the resulting flooded labor pool has been exploited through a phenomenon known as 'Scientific management' or 'Taylorism.'

This has been great for the poor nations that got the jobs mind you, but awful for us.

Since we don't produce anything anymore, our economy has been kept afloat by bubble after bubble - Artificial, unsustainable growth, if you will. Credit cards in the 80s, stocks in the 90s, housing in the 00's. And now, rather than being honest about our problem, ALL politicians just want to focus on how to discover and re-inflate the next bubble.

So you could say it was just the natural progression of a global economy that's causing our SOL to go down and that of others to slowly go up. In short, it wasn't politicians who 'Did this.' It was the private sector that 'Did it.' And, over and over, it's the conservatives who keep swearing the government is still intervening too much, and THAT's caused this problem... A proclamation as laughable as that failure to cut taxes for billionaires will 'kill jobs.'

You've said above, in short, that worker protections and assembly helped caused the problem. I'm saying, in short, that available loopholes to worker protections have helped cause the problem. The two are not terribly different.

No, they are not terribly different but BOTH were directly caused by government intervention. Government has a place in protecting the people but it has become a shill for the companies instead. A TRUE conservative wants government out entirely (minus the few protections that must be in place). The true liberal believes that government needs to be intimately involved. The problem is that ANY entity - be it corporations, unions or the government - given sufficient power and scope becomes inherently corrupt. This country was founded on ideals that set up a LIMITED government to prevent exactly that problem. The even split it up into 3 components to keep that power limited and divided. Today, more and more power flows to the government, is returned to fewer and fewer corporations and ultimately leads to the corruption that we have now. I see the root as in the liberal policies that are being pushed not just by the democrats mind you. The republicans are almost as far from a conservative as a democrat is. Almost.

Again, I see railing against the tax rate on the rich and I have to chuckle to myself. The actual tax rate on the rich is rather meaningless and the fact of the matter is they pay little taxes anyway. They pay little taxes not because of republican shills but because of LIBERAL social engineering (that IS what all the tax loopholes are after all). Once again it is the inefficiency and misdirection of the government in places that it has no business being in. Protect the people from that which they cannot protect themselves and beyond that, GET THE **** OUT OF THE WAY. Government as it should be in a nutshell.

I can't wait for an actual conservative voice to be in the government. The problem is I may die before I see it happen.

There's some truth in there, to be sure. It's aggravating to see you keep reverting back to government intervention as the root of all problems, though.

When GM shut down in Michigan and moved to Mexico (desecrating the area, by the way, which still hasn't really recovered), was that due to government intervention? Sure, you could take the traditional 'Conservative' way out and blame the unions, but the UAW is a private entity. In short, it's the workers organizing and telling the bosses "You can't do this without us." Capitalism in its purest form. The government had nothing to do with it.

And GM was not forced out. They were the richest and most profitable company in the world at the time; They shut down in Flint and moved to Mexico simply to become still more profitable, consequences be damned.

This sort of thing happens every year across a wide range of industries. The truth is we can't compete with other countries for wages for a number of reasons, among them cost of living, currency exchange rates, and downright desperation for work. Companies find the cheapest labor they can, jobs go off, unions and government get the blame - It's a dog and pony show. My own business would likely be no more, if not for the fact that shipping live pets was so expensive (Can't pack them to survive a month long trip on a boat, they are strictly air which is much more expensive).

I do understand the argument for a purer form of capitalism, honest I do - If we could do something to alleviate the inflexibility of wages and stickyness of COL commodities, I could see the tides of labor and industry waning and waxing until it found a sustainable rhythm. Chances are, were I so inclined, I could make a better argument for conservatism than most of the dunderheaded 'conservatives' here. But if we were to do a comparably laissez-faire system on a worldwide basis, #1 it would take several generations if not centuries before a rhythm was struck, and I don't think I could abide the human suffering that would occur in the mean time, and #2, when it was all said and done, the QOL in our country would be considerably lower than it is today. Right now, in spite of all our problems, we're still number 1 by a long shot (In GDP per capita, although the EU is closing in on us). At least in theory, all global citizens would ultimately move toward the mean, which is much worse than what we're accustomed to.

That's where all our big guns and hackneyed justifications for using them come in... I could go on for hours...

By the way I got Greg Graffin's new book for Xmas and I do look forward to reading it. Still working on one by Carl Sagan at the moment, I may have to bench it for awhile.

 

[mdn2000]

Hmmm... Really? How do you think you did?

I was under the impression that Reading was in dire straits for the same reason as so many other semi-metropolitan areas, along with the more depressed areas of large metropolitan areas - Lack of industry, and the fact that anyone with any money has left...

But since the facts are not on my side, show me how "liberal policies" has caused any sort of downfall...

I won't hold my breath.

You seem to not understand WHY we have a lack of industry and that anyone with money has left. A large portion of that is directly from the simple COST of producing in this country. That cost is the DIRECT result of liberal ideological policies. Now, that is not to say that those policies need to be completely removed but there needs to be some counterbalance to their never ending growth. What capitalistic policies do you seem to think caused all this to happen as that seems to be what you are eluding to?

Never said they did; All I said is it's a bunch of hooey to blame it on 'liberal policy.' But it has been an unfortunate result of global free trade, that good paying, low-skill jobs (eg factory work) are by in large, no longer available. They've been shipped abroad to the lowest bidder, and the resulting flooded labor pool has been exploited through a phenomenon known as 'Scientific management' or 'Taylorism.'

This has been great for the poor nations that got the jobs mind you, but awful for us.

Since we don't produce anything anymore, our economy has been kept afloat by bubble after bubble - Artificial, unsustainable growth, if you will. Credit cards in the 80s, stocks in the 90s, housing in the 00's. And now, rather than being honest about our problem, ALL politicians just want to focus on how to discover and re-inflate the next bubble.

So you could say it was just the natural progression of a global economy that's causing our SOL to go down and that of others to slowly go up. In short, it wasn't politicians who 'Did this.' It was the private sector that 'Did it.' And, over and over, it's the conservatives who keep swearing the government is still intervening too much, and THAT's caused this problem... A proclamation as laughable as that failure to cut taxes for billionaires will 'kill jobs.'

You've said above, in short, that worker protections and assembly helped caused the problem. I'm saying, in short, that available loopholes to worker protections have helped cause the problem. The two are not terribly different.

Your post reads well until you single out one political party, politicians and the private sector, how do you possibly separate the two? They go hand in hand, Democrat and Republican, some switch labels to accommodate the voters mood of the day, they go hand in hand with the media, all working together to keep us trying to blame one party over the next, never realizing its the banks that own us, thirty year mortgages and credit card to by christmas presents for the kids.

The only problem I see is the government is able to tax and collect money at will, we have never had a tax break, not a real one, a minor tax on income that is ate up paying more for gas, food, and electricity, which is taxed again and again until the government makes up what it lost by giving the peasants a few crumbs from our labor.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Never said they did; All I said is it's a bunch of hooey to blame it on 'liberal policy.' But it has been an unfortunate result of global free trade, that good paying, low-skill jobs (eg factory work) are by in large, no longer available. They've been shipped abroad to the lowest bidder, and the resulting flooded labor pool has been exploited through a phenomenon known as 'Scientific management' or 'Taylorism.'

This has been great for the poor nations that got the jobs mind you, but awful for us.

Since we don't produce anything anymore, our economy has been kept afloat by bubble after bubble - Artificial, unsustainable growth, if you will. Credit cards in the 80s, stocks in the 90s, housing in the 00's. And now, rather than being honest about our problem, ALL politicians just want to focus on how to discover and re-inflate the next bubble.

So you could say it was just the natural progression of a global economy that's causing our SOL to go down and that of others to slowly go up. In short, it wasn't politicians who 'Did this.' It was the private sector that 'Did it.' And, over and over, it's the conservatives who keep swearing the government is still intervening too much, and THAT's caused this problem... A proclamation as laughable as that failure to cut taxes for billionaires will 'kill jobs.'

You've said above, in short, that worker protections and assembly helped caused the problem. I'm saying, in short, that available loopholes to worker protections have helped cause the problem. The two are not terribly different.

No, they are not terribly different but BOTH were directly caused by government intervention. Government has a place in protecting the people but it has become a shill for the companies instead. A TRUE conservative wants government out entirely (minus the few protections that must be in place). The true liberal believes that government needs to be intimately involved. The problem is that ANY entity - be it corporations, unions or the government - given sufficient power and scope becomes inherently corrupt. This country was founded on ideals that set up a LIMITED government to prevent exactly that problem. The even split it up into 3 components to keep that power limited and divided. Today, more and more power flows to the government, is returned to fewer and fewer corporations and ultimately leads to the corruption that we have now. I see the root as in the liberal policies that are being pushed not just by the democrats mind you. The republicans are almost as far from a conservative as a democrat is. Almost.

Again, I see railing against the tax rate on the rich and I have to chuckle to myself. The actual tax rate on the rich is rather meaningless and the fact of the matter is they pay little taxes anyway. They pay little taxes not because of republican shills but because of LIBERAL social engineering (that IS what all the tax loopholes are after all). Once again it is the inefficiency and misdirection of the government in places that it has no business being in. Protect the people from that which they cannot protect themselves and beyond that, GET THE **** OUT OF THE WAY. Government as it should be in a nutshell.

I can't wait for an actual conservative voice to be in the government. The problem is I may die before I see it happen.

There's some truth in there, to be sure. It's aggravating to see you keep reverting back to government intervention as the root of all problems, though.

When GM shut down in Michigan and moved to Mexico (desecrating the area, by the way, which still hasn't really recovered), was that due to government intervention? Sure, you could take the traditional 'Conservative' way out and blame the unions, but the UAW is a private entity. In short, it's the workers organizing and telling the bosses "You can't do this without us." Capitalism in its purest form. The government had nothing to do with it.

And GM was not forced out. They were the richest and most profitable company in the world at the time; They shut down in Flint and moved to Mexico simply to become still more profitable, consequences be damned.

This sort of thing happens every year across a wide range of industries. The truth is we can't compete with other countries for wages for a number of reasons, among them cost of living, currency exchange rates, and downright desperation for work. Companies find the cheapest labor they can, jobs go off, unions and government get the blame - It's a dog and pony show. My own business would likely be no more, if not for the fact that shipping live pets was so expensive (Can't pack them to survive a month long trip on a boat, they are strictly air which is much more expensive).

I do understand the argument for a purer form of capitalism, honest I do - If we could do something to alleviate the inflexibility of wages and stickyness of COL commodities, I could see the tides of labor and industry waning and waxing until it found a sustainable rhythm. Chances are, were I so inclined, I could make a better argument for conservatism than most of the dunderheaded 'conservatives' here. But if we were to do a comparably laissez-faire system on a worldwide basis, #1 it would take several generations if not centuries before a rhythm was struck, and I don't think I could abide the human suffering that would occur in the mean time, and #2, when it was all said and done, the QOL in our country would be considerably lower than it is today. Right now, in spite of all our problems, we're still number 1 by a long shot (In GDP per capita, although the EU is closing in on us). At least in theory, all global citizens would ultimately move toward the mean, which is much worse than what we're accustomed to.

That's where all our big guns and hackneyed justifications for using them come in... I could go on for hours...

By the way I got Greg Graffin's new book for Xmas and I do look forward to reading it. Still working on one by Carl Sagan at the moment, I may have to bench it for awhile.

Yes. Government policy. High taxes. Disproportionately restrictive environmental polices, government rules and regulations crafted with the insistence of labor unions which prevented modernization and automation of manufacturing are among the issues that have helped chase manufacturing out of the US.
BTW to state "we don't make anything anymore" is disingenuous. In fact, that's a lie. There is plenty of manufacturing, research and development. Those focused on "manufacturing" invariably include older smokestack industries which used to employ......union labor. and THAT is the argument the Left makes when they mention manufacturing in the US. Those on the political Left are incensed over the loss of union jobs.
It is entirely accurate to state that the high cost of employing union labor has had a great deal to do with the reduction of manufacturing in the US.
The Michigan based auto manufacturing is used as a measuring stick by the Left to make it's point while ignoring the fact that there are hundreds of auto manufacturing and auto related( parts) plants across the US. The Left argues these plants are non-union. They say the companies have deliberately built in non -union or right to work states in order to reduce wages. Well, they are partly correct. The truth is the COST of labor is lower due to the absence of unions but the workers earn wages on par or even greater than their union counterparts.

 

[editec]

Speaking of Marxists?

Mark Rudd (cofounder of the Students for a Democratic Society -SDS) once faulted Abbey Hoffman (cofounder of the Youth International Party --aka the Yippies) for not having read Marx's tome DAS KAPITAL.

"I refuse to read it until it's put into CLASSIC COMIC form," was his retort.​

I don't think I knew anybody who waded through DAS KAPITAL.

What's the point?

It is the musings of a man whose POV was based on a world that not only no longer exists, but one that never really existed to begin with.

Marx was as mad as Ayn Rand.

Both totally missed the mark because both don't get human nature OR social psycology.

They both blinded themselves with their ideologically theories.

 

[FA_Q2]

Never said they did; All I said is it's a bunch of hooey to blame it on 'liberal policy.' But it has been an unfortunate result of global free trade, that good paying, low-skill jobs (eg factory work) are by in large, no longer available. They've been shipped abroad to the lowest bidder, and the resulting flooded labor pool has been exploited through a phenomenon known as 'Scientific management' or 'Taylorism.'

This has been great for the poor nations that got the jobs mind you, but awful for us.

Since we don't produce anything anymore, our economy has been kept afloat by bubble after bubble - Artificial, unsustainable growth, if you will. Credit cards in the 80s, stocks in the 90s, housing in the 00's. And now, rather than being honest about our problem, ALL politicians just want to focus on how to discover and re-inflate the next bubble.

So you could say it was just the natural progression of a global economy that's causing our SOL to go down and that of others to slowly go up. In short, it wasn't politicians who 'Did this.' It was the private sector that 'Did it.' And, over and over, it's the conservatives who keep swearing the government is still intervening too much, and THAT's caused this problem... A proclamation as laughable as that failure to cut taxes for billionaires will 'kill jobs.'

You've said above, in short, that worker protections and assembly helped caused the problem. I'm saying, in short, that available loopholes to worker protections have helped cause the problem. The two are not terribly different.

No, they are not terribly different but BOTH were directly caused by government intervention. Government has a place in protecting the people but it has become a shill for the companies instead. A TRUE conservative wants government out entirely (minus the few protections that must be in place). The true liberal believes that government needs to be intimately involved. The problem is that ANY entity - be it corporations, unions or the government - given sufficient power and scope becomes inherently corrupt. This country was founded on ideals that set up a LIMITED government to prevent exactly that problem. The even split it up into 3 components to keep that power limited and divided. Today, more and more power flows to the government, is returned to fewer and fewer corporations and ultimately leads to the corruption that we have now. I see the root as in the liberal policies that are being pushed not just by the democrats mind you. The republicans are almost as far from a conservative as a democrat is. Almost.

Again, I see railing against the tax rate on the rich and I have to chuckle to myself. The actual tax rate on the rich is rather meaningless and the fact of the matter is they pay little taxes anyway. They pay little taxes not because of republican shills but because of LIBERAL social engineering (that IS what all the tax loopholes are after all). Once again it is the inefficiency and misdirection of the government in places that it has no business being in. Protect the people from that which they cannot protect themselves and beyond that, GET THE **** OUT OF THE WAY. Government as it should be in a nutshell.

I can't wait for an actual conservative voice to be in the government. The problem is I may die before I see it happen.

There's some truth in there, to be sure. It's aggravating to see you keep reverting back to government intervention as the root of all problems, though.

When GM shut down in Michigan and moved to Mexico (desecrating the area, by the way, which still hasn't really recovered), was that due to government intervention? Sure, you could take the traditional 'Conservative' way out and blame the unions, but the UAW is a private entity. In short, it's the workers organizing and telling the bosses "You can't do this without us." Capitalism in its purest form. The government had nothing to do with it.

And GM was not forced out. They were the richest and most profitable company in the world at the time; They shut down in Flint and moved to Mexico simply to become still more profitable, consequences be damned.

This sort of thing happens every year across a wide range of industries. The truth is we can't compete with other countries for wages for a number of reasons, among them cost of living, currency exchange rates, and downright desperation for work. Companies find the cheapest labor they can, jobs go off, unions and government get the blame - It's a dog and pony show. My own business would likely be no more, if not for the fact that shipping live pets was so expensive (Can't pack them to survive a month long trip on a boat, they are strictly air which is much more expensive).

I do understand the argument for a purer form of capitalism, honest I do - If we could do something to alleviate the inflexibility of wages and stickyness of COL commodities, I could see the tides of labor and industry waning and waxing until it found a sustainable rhythm. Chances are, were I so inclined, I could make a better argument for conservatism than most of the dunderheaded 'conservatives' here. But if we were to do a comparably laissez-faire system on a worldwide basis, #1 it would take several generations if not centuries before a rhythm was struck, and I don't think I could abide the human suffering that would occur in the mean time, and #2, when it was all said and done, the QOL in our country would be considerably lower than it is today. Right now, in spite of all our problems, we're still number 1 by a long shot (In GDP per capita, although the EU is closing in on us). At least in theory, all global citizens would ultimately move toward the mean, which is much worse than what we're accustomed to.

That's where all our big guns and hackneyed justifications for using them come in... I could go on for hours...

By the way I got Greg Graffin's new book for Xmas and I do look forward to reading it. Still working on one by Carl Sagan at the moment, I may have to bench it for awhile.

Well, As I said I do not think anyone wants a pure form of capitalism as that has seen its days and proved that it is not a good way of doing things. You seemed confused as to why I place the blame on government intrusion but I would ask then WHO shall I place that blame on? Corporations and business? Unions? No, corporations are not to blame and here is why: they act only and forever in their self interest. The concept of a 'moral' corporation or even business ethics is asinine to a large degree and to expect such from those entities is closer to fairytale than real life. I expect and demand that a corporation act in that matter and expect that the government come up with the other end of that deal. That is what government is there to do in the first place. Had it done its job correctly we would not see the problems that we are having. Whenever government gets involved in the inner workings of the free market it inevitably pushes larger and larger businesses making it almost impossible for the smaller entities to compete. It causes companies to grow in power and in scope destroying the very nature that makes capitalism work. At this juncture today we find that starting a business is damn near impossible and it is NOT the cheap price of foreign labor that is the root of that problem but bureaucracies that prevents a small business from being profitable. From business licenses to tax forms to inane legal requirements that must be fulfilled, the small business loses its edge. If much of that were removed the small business would be able to compete with the lack of huge bureaucracies that major corporations are tied bureaucratic to. Those major businesses would be tied down by their own weight. Where government has a place is in the protection of the people. Simple concepts like minimum wage, import taxes and basic labor laws are a good thing but have become bloated to the point that they are destroying this nation.
Why so I place the blame squarely on government? Because it is solely their power that created this monster and only with their power that it continues to grow. Each individual company and process is meaningless within its own right. Each new plant moved for profit is miniscule. It is the overall driving force, the creator of the sleeping giant that is the problem and it is here that the ONLY solution can e derived.

 

[code1211]

Speaking of Marxists?

Mark Rudd (cofounder of the Students for a Democratic Society -SDS) once faulted Abbey Hoffman (cofounder of the Youth International Party --aka the Yippies) for not having read Marx's tome DAS KAPITAL.

"I refuse to read it until it's put into CLASSIC COMIC form," was his retort.​

I don't think I knew anybody who waded through DAS KAPITAL.

What's the point?

It is the musings of a man whose POV was based on a world that not only no longer exists, but one that never really existed to begin with.

Marx was as mad as Ayn Rand.

Both totally missed the mark because both don't get human nature OR social psycology.

They both blinded themselves with their ideologically theories.

I assume that the social psychology part refers to Marx.

Rand credits some individuals with being very smart, inspired and motivated as well as others being driven by averice, greed and sloth and still others who are gripped by the propaganda of the time.

In what way does she miss the mark in her estimate of men? It's hard to imagine a human being delivering a monologue off the cuff that lasts for 5 or 6 pages, but that's just "the author speaking".

What parts of Rand's work support your conclusion?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Oh, like I can't criticize crack smokers because I've never smoked crack? Well I don't have to because I've seen how it destroys people.

I don't need a degree in Communism to see how it's never worked in any place it's tried and destroyed millions of lives.

I know people who actually lived in actual repressive countries (Like Iran, China, Vietnam) so I don't need you spoiled, pointy headed intellectuals trying to lecture me.

Besides, you have a bigger problem: Islam is taking over your country. Enjoy your Sharia Law ******.

Exactly.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Have you ever read a complete text by Marx?

Have you ever studied Marx in a university context, where you unpacked his terms inside their historical context?

Blah blah blah

Yeah, we haven't seen Marx IN PRACTICE for A HUNDRED FREAKING YEARS to make any judgement of Marx.

Okay, I've run against this one a million times before. IT'S A TALKING POINT.

It's a play off the old canard that "communism hasn't failed, because real communism hasn't been tried blah blah blah."

What they mean is, the communism as written STRICTLY BY MARX, has never been practiced, so, it can't have failed.

What these morons don't get is, THE REASON, communism as prescribed STRICTLY BY MARX has never been tried is because communism has prescribed STRICTLY BY MARX, exists ONLY AS A FANTASY.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to practice communism as set down by Marx, for the same reason it is impossible to practice politics as set down in the Lord of the Rings.

THAT BEING, IT ONLY EXISTS IN FANTASY. It is impossible to practice it in reality, it only exists on fiction bound paper.

Every time communism has been tried, it takes the same deviations from Marx, BECAUSE IT SMACKS UP AGAINST REALITY, AND REALITY ALWAYS TAKES THE SAME COURSE TO DESTRUCTION.

So, please don't bother us with, "WELL, THIS IS WHAT MARX SAID!"

It's irrelevant what that malcontent little kook said. He had no more idea how to regulate real life, than Barack Obama has.

What is important is, WHAT HAPPENS TO MARX WHEN IT IS PRACTICED IN REAL LIFE.

And we have had ONE HUNDRED YEARS of real life examples by Marx with which to judge by.

So stop wasting our time with this stupid talking point.

I bet some dumb teacher at school hit you with this. And I bet he and you thought that was just brilliant!

Why no one has EVER thought this talking piont up before!

Yeah, new one on me . . . . NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Talismen]

Have you ever read a complete text by Marx?

Have you ever studied Marx in a university context, where you unpacked his terms inside their historical context?

Here is why I ask.

I notice that Conservatives make constant references to Marx, but I never get the sense that they've studied his work in depth. I get the sense that they've been exposed to Marx mostly by interested 3rd parties (Talk Radio, partisan literature, the echo chamber) who provide only cherry picked quotes.

I have a friend who has been referring to Marx for years. I finally found out he had never read anything by Marx and it scared me.

When I tried to investigate why he would do such a thing, I discovered something horrific.

First, I should mention, I understand that Conservatives have created a universe which circulates talking points to their members. [This is what all political parties do] These talking points, which contain references to Marx, are pumped through a vast media network and repeated endlessly until they are experienced as "facts". I get this, and I realize that these talking points are designed for lemmings who can't think for themselves. Both parties have this regrettable element.

The horrific part is that so many people do not experience any cognitive dissonance when they use a reference that they've never fully investigated.

Here is my question, again. Why do Conservatives use terms that they've never studied? Is there anything about their personalities that would explain this? Does the movement attract a certain type of person? Is it a quasi-religious thing whereby they trust "higher powers" for their information? Is it really enough that William F Buckley read some Marx at Yale, which lead to an industry of secondary criticism (twice removed from the source), which criticism has produced fully formed opinions in people who've never consulted the source?

Please help me understand.

[Please don't say "liberals do it too". We already know this. The question is not "why do commie liberals act stupidly or unethically?". We know why? -they're commie liberals. The questions is: "why do good conservative americans act stupidly or unethically?"]

Is it possible that huge portions of the Right have never studied a word that use daily? Is it really possible that the party of Lincoln has been taken over by morons?

(Lie to me. Tell me you've studied Marx. Stretch the truth. Invent some rationalization about how you don't need to read an author to understand him -- and how you can trust news personalities to educate you and your children. Anything. Just don't tell me that you've never directly studied one of your key terms)

(Conservatives rely on the term "Marx" more than anything in their lexicon -- it is their lynchpin to criticize the Left. What if most of them have never read Marx and don't even understand his theories?)

(Is the most powerful political movement in my lifetime -- the Reagan Revolution -- kept afloat by an army of useful idiots?)

Well, the same could be said for MANY on the left side of the political spectrum.


Although you bring up a valid point, the answer is quite simple:


Those who've never studied marx, but have studied the results of marxist policies, are fully capable and quite right to speak against him, and his policies.

You know, the "road to hell" kinda thing?
His policies may have shown great intent, but, RESULTS are what count....For ANY political figure. Granted, results may differ here and there, but, the overall "proof" is in the "pudding".

 

[editec]

Speaking of Marxists?

Mark Rudd (cofounder of the Students for a Democratic Society -SDS) once faulted Abbey Hoffman (cofounder of the Youth International Party --aka the Yippies) for not having read Marx's tome DAS KAPITAL.

"I refuse to read it until it's put into CLASSIC COMIC form," was his retort.​

I don't think I knew anybody who waded through DAS KAPITAL.

What's the point?

It is the musings of a man whose POV was based on a world that not only no longer exists, but one that never really existed to begin with.

Marx was as mad as Ayn Rand.

Both totally missed the mark because both don't get human nature OR social psycology.

They both blinded themselves with their ideologically theories.

I assume that the social psychology part refers to Marx.

No, both

Rand credits some individuals with being very smart, inspired and motivated as well as others being driven by averice, greed and sloth and still others who are gripped by the propaganda of the time.

True dat.

In what way does she miss the mark in her estimate of men?

By imagining that the LOSERS are going to go away quietly and die for the continued pleasure of the capitalist winners.

That assumption is as goofy as Marx's notion that people are going to become good communists and all learn to live in workers paradise

It's hard to imagine a human being delivering a monologue off the cuff that lasts for 5 or 6 pages, but that's just "the author speaking".

Well that complaint I didn't lodge because I wasn't faulting her prose style, but you are 100% on the mark there.

What parts of Rand's work support your conclusion?

Her unspoken but obvious presuppositions about Libertopia, amigo

The presumption that capitalism can exist outside the framework of a functional society.

The presumption that greed is good and inevitably leads to good outcomes.

The presumption that cream inevitably rises to the top.

The presumption that capitalism is a kind of meritocracy.

These are some of her assumptions that I can recall just off the top of my head, of course, since I haven't bothered to read that crazy lady's musings in 40 years or so.

But her goofy notions about how to create a utopian society certainly impressed me when I was 14 and didn't really know jackshit about the real human condition or how men operate in society.

So I guess you could say that I was a Randian objectivist libertopian when I was a child, but then I grew up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, they are not terribly different but BOTH were directly caused by government intervention. Government has a place in protecting the people but it has become a shill for the companies instead. A TRUE conservative wants government out entirely (minus the few protections that must be in place). The true liberal believes that government needs to be intimately involved. The problem is that ANY entity - be it corporations, unions or the government - given sufficient power and scope becomes inherently corrupt. This country was founded on ideals that set up a LIMITED government to prevent exactly that problem. The even split it up into 3 components to keep that power limited and divided. Today, more and more power flows to the government, is returned to fewer and fewer corporations and ultimately leads to the corruption that we have now. I see the root as in the liberal policies that are being pushed not just by the democrats mind you. The republicans are almost as far from a conservative as a democrat is. Almost.

Again, I see railing against the tax rate on the rich and I have to chuckle to myself. The actual tax rate on the rich is rather meaningless and the fact of the matter is they pay little taxes anyway. They pay little taxes not because of republican shills but because of LIBERAL social engineering (that IS what all the tax loopholes are after all). Once again it is the inefficiency and misdirection of the government in places that it has no business being in. Protect the people from that which they cannot protect themselves and beyond that, GET THE **** OUT OF THE WAY. Government as it should be in a nutshell.

I can't wait for an actual conservative voice to be in the government. The problem is I may die before I see it happen.

There's some truth in there, to be sure. It's aggravating to see you keep reverting back to government intervention as the root of all problems, though.

When GM shut down in Michigan and moved to Mexico (desecrating the area, by the way, which still hasn't really recovered), was that due to government intervention? Sure, you could take the traditional 'Conservative' way out and blame the unions, but the UAW is a private entity. In short, it's the workers organizing and telling the bosses "You can't do this without us." Capitalism in its purest form. The government had nothing to do with it.

And GM was not forced out. They were the richest and most profitable company in the world at the time; They shut down in Flint and moved to Mexico simply to become still more profitable, consequences be damned.

This sort of thing happens every year across a wide range of industries. The truth is we can't compete with other countries for wages for a number of reasons, among them cost of living, currency exchange rates, and downright desperation for work. Companies find the cheapest labor they can, jobs go off, unions and government get the blame - It's a dog and pony show. My own business would likely be no more, if not for the fact that shipping live pets was so expensive (Can't pack them to survive a month long trip on a boat, they are strictly air which is much more expensive).

I do understand the argument for a purer form of capitalism, honest I do - If we could do something to alleviate the inflexibility of wages and stickyness of COL commodities, I could see the tides of labor and industry waning and waxing until it found a sustainable rhythm. Chances are, were I so inclined, I could make a better argument for conservatism than most of the dunderheaded 'conservatives' here. But if we were to do a comparably laissez-faire system on a worldwide basis, #1 it would take several generations if not centuries before a rhythm was struck, and I don't think I could abide the human suffering that would occur in the mean time, and #2, when it was all said and done, the QOL in our country would be considerably lower than it is today. Right now, in spite of all our problems, we're still number 1 by a long shot (In GDP per capita, although the EU is closing in on us). At least in theory, all global citizens would ultimately move toward the mean, which is much worse than what we're accustomed to.

That's where all our big guns and hackneyed justifications for using them come in... I could go on for hours...

By the way I got Greg Graffin's new book for Xmas and I do look forward to reading it. Still working on one by Carl Sagan at the moment, I may have to bench it for awhile.

Yes. Government policy. High taxes. Disproportionately restrictive environmental polices, government rules and regulations crafted with the insistence of labor unions which prevented modernization and automation of manufacturing are among the issues that have helped chase manufacturing out of the US.
BTW to state "we don't make anything anymore" is disingenuous. In fact, that's a lie. There is plenty of manufacturing, research and development. Those focused on "manufacturing" invariably include older smokestack industries which used to employ......union labor. and THAT is the argument the Left makes when they mention manufacturing in the US. Those on the political Left are incensed over the loss of union jobs.
It is entirely accurate to state that the high cost of employing union labor has had a great deal to do with the reduction of manufacturing in the US.
The Michigan based auto manufacturing is used as a measuring stick by the Left to make it's point while ignoring the fact that there are hundreds of auto manufacturing and auto related( parts) plants across the US. The Left argues these plants are non-union. They say the companies have deliberately built in non -union or right to work states in order to reduce wages. Well, they are partly correct. The truth is the COST of labor is lower due to the absence of unions but the workers earn wages on par or even greater than their union counterparts.

Links, please, for credible sources. If they support your conclusion, you have a great point.

 

[Jack Fate]

Have you ever read a complete text by Marx?

Have you ever studied Marx in a university context, where you unpacked his terms inside their historical context?

Here is why I ask.

I notice that Conservatives make constant references to Marx, but I never get the sense that they've studied his work in depth. I get the sense that they've been exposed to Marx mostly by interested 3rd parties (Talk Radio, partisan literature, the echo chamber) who provide only cherry picked quotes.

I have a friend who has been referring to Marx for years. I finally found out he had never read anything by Marx and it scared me.

When I tried to investigate why he would do such a thing, I discovered something horrific.

First, I should mention, I understand that Conservatives have created a universe which circulates talking points to their members. [This is what all political parties do] These talking points, which contain references to Marx, are pumped through a vast media network and repeated endlessly until they are experienced as "facts". I get this, and I realize that these talking points are designed for lemmings who can't think for themselves. Both parties have this regrettable element.

The horrific part is that so many people do not experience any cognitive dissonance when they use a reference that they've never fully investigated.

Here is my question, again. Why do Conservatives use terms that they've never studied? Is there anything about their personalities that would explain this? Does the movement attract a certain type of person? Is it a quasi-religious thing whereby they trust "higher powers" for their information? Is it really enough that William F Buckley read some Marx at Yale, which lead to an industry of secondary criticism (twice removed from the source), which criticism has produced fully formed opinions in people who've never consulted the source?

Please help me understand.

[Please don't say "liberals do it too". We already know this. The question is not "why do commie liberals act stupidly or unethically?". We know why? -they're commie liberals. The questions is: "why do good conservative americans act stupidly or unethically?"]

Is it possible that huge portions of the Right have never studied a word that use daily? Is it really possible that the party of Lincoln has been taken over by morons?

(Lie to me. Tell me you've studied Marx. Stretch the truth. Invent some rationalization about how you don't need to read an author to understand him -- and how you can trust news personalities to educate you and your children. Anything. Just don't tell me that you've never directly studied one of your key terms)

(Conservatives rely on the term "Marx" more than anything in their lexicon -- it is their lynchpin to criticize the Left. What if most of them have never read Marx and don't even understand his theories?)

(Is the most powerful political movement in my lifetime -- the Reagan Revolution -- kept afloat by an army of useful idiots?)

I've never studied cancer. I know it kills. Idiot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

False logic, Jack Fate. A person can say I never studied logic and still truthfully state that Jake Fate has no logic to his argument. Next.

 

[Jack Fate]

False logic, Jack Fate. A person can say I never studied logic and still truthfully state that Jake Fate has no logic to his argument. Next.

I'm not the topic, dick nose. Anyone who would support Karl Marx hates America and what it stands for. You don't need to study very much of Marx to understand that.

 

[daveman]

If you don't know why you're against socialism or communism or marxism and you don't even know what it is, either do the research or shut the **** up. You're just embarrassing yourself further by typing up baseless assumptions of what you think it is rather than what it actually is.

There is no one here who doesn't know why they're against socialism or communism or marxism. They are anathema to individual liberty.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Jake Starkey, representing the Obama Fluffing, Marxist supporting wing of the Republican Party