Rush tells NY to DROP DEAD...

[AllieBaba]

Which is why when you're applying for assistance, any wages you pay (if you are self employed, or if you have someone to help you because you're unable to care for yourself) are DEDUCTED.

 

[Yurt]

alliebaba,

disagree, workers are an asset

you're thinking in terms of white and black, paper. accounting principles. but ask many CEO's who take good EE's with them and they will tell you that good EE's are assets, not liabilities, despite what your paper says. my dad never calls good EE's liabilities, always assets and they are...then again, he has little time for paper, he always sees big picture

 

[edthecynic]

ROFLMNAO...

'The workers' have never made anyone rich... The premise is absurd... If you want to see the wealth production which 'the workers' are capable of producing, take a peek at the Somalia... nothing BUT workers there. If "the workers' were capable of creating wealth, Somalia wouldn't look like this>>>

Well, to use the same illogic, a dollar bill never lifted a brick. You have to pay a worker to lift the brick.

So what? Who suggested otherwise?

In reality, it takes BOTH Capital AND Labor working together to produce wealth.

Workers do not produce wealth, they produce products... and unlike that product, workers are a liability, not an asset.

That's right WORKERS produce MORE valuable products from less valuable resources, so Capital can buy the resources and the machinery, but it STILL takes hands to serve the machines. So the ADDED value that exists in the products that create wealth STILL requires Labor in the formula.

You are a typical ELITIST.

 

[HideTheRum]

Well, to use the same illogic, a dollar bill never lifted a brick. You have to pay a worker to lift the brick.

So what? Who suggested otherwise?

In reality, it takes BOTH Capital AND Labor working together to produce wealth.

Workers do not produce wealth, they produce products... and unlike that product, workers are a liability, not an asset.

That's right WORKERS produce MORE valuable products from less valuable resources, so Capital can buy the resources and the machinery, but it STILL takes hands to serve the machines. So the ADDED value that exists in the products that create wealth STILL requires Labor in the formula.

You are a typical ELITIST.

So do 'workers' invent products? Do they invest in their creation? Do they cover the start up costs? Do they pay all the overhead involved with the production of those products? Do they provide the raw materials?

Fuck me. I'm a 'worker' in my field, and I know that my company provides a lot of shit that I would not want to deal with. Just the health insurance benefits and regulations alone are enough to drive a person into the bottom of a bottle. Do the ppl that own and run the company I work for make more money than me? Hell Yes! But I still own a house and do okay, but I'm not jealous of them. They did all the work to get the company going. They took a lot of risks, and still do considering all the frivolous lawsuits that take place today from sissies that are just looking for a free ride from people like them. So therfore, they deserve to make more than me.

You friggin people need to let go of your jealousy and hatred and grow up.

 

[edthecynic]

So what? Who suggested otherwise?



Workers do not produce wealth, they produce products... and unlike that product, workers are a liability, not an asset.

That's right WORKERS produce MORE valuable products from less valuable resources, so Capital can buy the resources and the machinery, but it STILL takes hands to serve the machines. So the ADDED value that exists in the products that create wealth STILL requires Labor in the formula.

You are a typical ELITIST.

So do 'workers' invent products? Do they invest in their creation? Do they cover the start up costs? Do they pay all the overhead involved with the production of those products? Do they provide the raw materials?

Does capital assemble the resources? And workers do invent the products, capital can't invent anything. Like CON$, capital can't think. Capital without Labor produces nothing, and Labor without Capital also produces nothing. Both are essential. Only elitists consider one more important than the other.

 

[Agnapostate]

The problem is that you're arguing with individuals who can't be expected to know the first thing about economics, such as Pubicus and AllieBabble. For instance, they derive nothing from my repeated observation that the economic framework of capitalism necessitates a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation. Perhaps a visual representation would be more suitable?

 

[editec]

Trying to discuss political and economic theory with people who don't understand poltical and economic theory is pointless.

All one can do is lead these folks to the truth and then expect to be pummeled with insults as they become enraged that they cannot understand it.

In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is not king, he is mocked and if the people get their idiotic way, he is blinded as soon as possible, too.

 

[sealybobo]

So what? Who suggested otherwise?



Workers do not produce wealth, they produce products... and unlike that product, workers are a liability, not an asset.

That's right WORKERS produce MORE valuable products from less valuable resources, so Capital can buy the resources and the machinery, but it STILL takes hands to serve the machines. So the ADDED value that exists in the products that create wealth STILL requires Labor in the formula.

You are a typical ELITIST.

So do 'workers' invent products? Do they invest in their creation? Do they cover the start up costs? Do they pay all the overhead involved with the production of those products? Do they provide the raw materials?

Fuck me. I'm a 'worker' in my field, and I know that my company provides a lot of shit that I would not want to deal with. Just the health insurance benefits and regulations alone are enough to drive a person into the bottom of a bottle. Do the ppl that own and run the company I work for make more money than me? Hell Yes! But I still own a house and do okay, but I'm not jealous of them. They did all the work to get the company going. They took a lot of risks, and still do considering all the frivolous lawsuits that take place today from sissies that are just looking for a free ride from people like them. So therfore, they deserve to make more than me.

You friggin people need to let go of your jealousy and hatred and grow up.

So you make enough to own a house? That's great. That's all we are asking for.

Are you ever going to be able to retire?

And you do realize your generation is the first generation expected NOT to do as well as your parents did, right?

When will you wake up and realize that the corporations are unfairly taking from the labor force? Remember the years when Unions were winning pay increases and pensions for their members? Those members deserved those raises. Do you realize that or do you think those workers ripped off the company?

What if the company you work for took $1 away from your hourly wages? How about $2? At what point would you get mad? What if they cut your wages in half and you saw the CEO of your company got a $1 million dollar raise? Would that be fine by you?

Or would you be jealous and hateful?

And yes, some employees do invent products. Only at Union companies do those employees reap the rewards.

PS. The part about the frivilous lawsuits tells me you are a right winger who swallows everything the GOP says. When you say frivilous do you mean like Exxon Valdez?

 

[DiveCon]

Trying to discuss political and economic theory with people who don't understand poltical and economic theory is pointless.

All one can do is lead these folks to the truth and then expect to be pummeled with insults as they become enraged that they cannot understand it.

In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is not king, he is mocked and if the people get their idiotic way, he is blinded as soon as possible, too.

way to show how little you actually know

 

[Toro]

Workers do not produce wealth, they produce products... and unlike that product, workers are a liability, not an asset.

You have got to be kidding.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The problem is that you're arguing with individuals who can't be expected to know the first thing about economics, such as Pubicus and AllieBabble. For instance, they derive nothing from my repeated observation that the economic framework of capitalism necessitates a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation. Perhaps a visual representation would be more suitable?

Cute little cartoon Agna....but it doesn't tell the whole story....how about the guy that slaves and saves enough money to start his own business....a guy who hires other guys who need jobs....a guy who works super hard in order to make more money than just a lowly paycheck....that is the real story of America.....we have the liberty and freedom and opportunity to create our own business and bigger profits....which is the total antithesis of marxist liberal socialist communists who target capitalism because they can't stand real Americans who strive for more out of life.....Americans are winners and anti-capitalists are whiny losers...

 

[raceright]

The problem is that you're arguing with individuals who can't be expected to know the first thing about economics, such as Pubicus and AllieBabble. For instance, they derive nothing from my repeated observation that the economic framework of capitalism necessitates a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation. Perhaps a visual representation would be more suitable?

Cute little cartoon Agna....but it doesn't tell the whole story....how about the guy that slaves and saves enough money to start his own business....a guy who hires other guys who need jobs....a guy who works super hard in order to make more money than just a lowly paycheck....that is the real story of America.....we have the liberty and freedom and opportunity to create our own business and bigger profits....which is the total antithesis of marxist liberal socialist communists who target capitalism because they can't stand real Americans who strive for more out of life.....Americans are winners and anti-capitalists are whiny losers...

Should the player on the bench get the same pay as the franchise player,should the rodies be paid the same as the rock stars,should
Woopies hair dresser be paid the same as Woopie. Should the chef
at the white house be paid the same as the Pres. and why not..

 

[DiveCon]

The problem is that you're arguing with individuals who can't be expected to know the first thing about economics, such as Pubicus and AllieBabble. For instance, they derive nothing from my repeated observation that the economic framework of capitalism necessitates a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation. Perhaps a visual representation would be more suitable?

Cute little cartoon Agna....but it doesn't tell the whole story....how about the guy that slaves and saves enough money to start his own business....a guy who hires other guys who need jobs....a guy who works super hard in order to make more money than just a lowly paycheck....that is the real story of America.....we have the liberty and freedom and opportunity to create our own business and bigger profits....which is the total antithesis of marxist liberal socialist communists who target capitalism because they can't stand real Americans who strive for more out of life.....Americans are winners and anti-capitalists are whiny losers...

Should the player on the bench get the same pay as the franchise player,should the rodies be paid the same as the rock stars,should
Woopies hair dresser be paid the same as Woopie. Should the chef
at the white house be paid the same as the Pres. and why not..

good points

 

[mash107]

Workers do not produce wealth, they produce products... and unlike that product, workers are a liability, not an asset.

Production is wealth, PI. That's economics 101.

But our policies are favoring temporary consumption over production, and as CBO collaborates, we're going to in a world of hurt if we don't radically change policies.

 

[ItsFairmont]

Rush Limbaugh is my hero, ever since he came back from the Dominican Republica (a place known for underage gay prostitution) with half a bottle of Viagra at a time when he wasn't married.

What a great gay.....er....guy.

 

[Ravi]

ROFLMNAO...

'The workers' have never made anyone rich... The premise is absurd... If you want to see the wealth production which 'the workers' are capable of producing, take a peek at the Somalia... nothing BUT workers there. If "the workers' were capable of creating wealth, Somalia wouldn't look like this>>>

Well, to use the same illogic, a dollar bill never lifted a brick. You have to pay a worker to lift the brick.

So what? Who suggested otherwise?

In reality, it takes BOTH Capital AND Labor working together to produce wealth.

ROFL... Hey you tell yourself whatever ya need to in order to feel better about your inadequacies.

Workers do not produce wealth, they produce products... and unlike that product, workers are a liability, not an asset.

Seriously? Pubic, is this a common belief held among Republicans?

 

[Agnapostate]

Cute little cartoon Agna....but it doesn't tell the whole story....how about the guy that slaves and saves enough money to start his own business....a guy who hires other guys who need jobs....a guy who works super hard in order to make more money than just a lowly paycheck....that is the real story of America.....we have the liberty and freedom and opportunity to create our own business and bigger profits....which is the total antithesis of marxist liberal socialist communists who target capitalism because they can't stand real Americans who strive for more out of life.....Americans are winners and anti-capitalists are whiny losers...

Yes, yes, we're all familiar with the nice little anecdotal story any anti-socialist enjoys spewing out. It's a shame that you can't rely on somewhat more statistical evidence to support your claims. Some familiarity with political and economic philosophy would also be welcome, as I am neither a "Marxist" nor a "liberal."

Should the player on the bench get the same pay as the franchise player,should the rodies be paid the same as the rock stars,should Woopies hair dresser be paid the same as Woopie. Should the chef at the white house be paid the same as the Pres. and why not..

I'd say not. I can think of little utility value provided by entertainers that warrants that they be paid obscenely greater amounts than average workers. But if your claims are intended to further a belief that compensation differentiations according to labor input differentiations do not exist in a socialist economy, that's not the case.

good points

Not really. As mentioned, they're based on the inaccurate belief that compensation differentiations do not exist in a socialist economy.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The problem is that you're arguing with individuals who can't be expected to know the first thing about economics, such as Pubicus and AllieBabble.

Without the benefit of having read beyond this first sentence, I find the raw projection from this member that her opposition is ignorant of the subjective science of economics.

Thus I'm lead to believe that I'm about to be treated to a fountain of knowledge born in the factual understanding of the subjective science of economics; from which I may sip to expand my understanding of that subjective science and the FACTS which she PROVES TO BE TRUTH from her extensive understanding of same.

Let's examine the balance of the paragraph for those two common elements... that of supposition founded in subjective opinion, hopefully where such is born from a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument and science born on analysis which tested the elements of that supposition and the sound scientific conclusions drawn from that empirical evidence...

For instance, they derive nothing from my repeated observation that the economic framework of capitalism necessitates a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation.

Huh... We see an unsubstantiated reference to a series of opinions, which have conveniently been noted without a cited reference; which likely is the result of the certainty that IF such observations were indeed submitted, that they were responded to and summarily discredited or refuted; this based upon the readily refutable descriptions provided in the relevant paragraph... So, in TRUTH, no scientific facts are represented in this paragraph, only the lowest order of raw supposition, which again serves no other purpose than the projection of the aforementioned, readily refutable implications.

"the economic framework of capitalism necessitates a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation."

In this classic demonstration of mindless pap, we see a projection that Capitalism is a scheme… it’s a plan, wherein people have conspired against other people to exploit them… thus given the specified elements, the Hierarchy is then necessarily scheming to exploit, or to openly exchange an unfair value in terms of compensation for the exchanged value represented by the service provided by Labor.

Would this had NOT been a PERFECT PLACE to note what a FAIR exchange would represent, so as to show that the Hierarchy was IN FACT: Screwing labor? Yet this member chose to omit this would-be scientific fact. WHAT… WHY… HOW could someone who claims to be in direct possession of such knowledge, leave us to wallow in our ignorance?

IS it not true, that where such knowledge is known to this member and where she stands on the certainty implied in her assertion, which can ONLY rest in that knowledge; that in advancing the unambiguous projection that her opposition is IGNORANT, that she is bound be the moral imperative inherent in reason to provide this board with those facts; proving that her opposition was IN FACT ignorant of THOSE SCIENTIFIC FACTS, thus rendering their positions moot; thus proving her conclusion?

We’re left to conclude here, that this member believes that the entire scope of the calculation of economics is comprised in the exchange of the value of compensation for the service provided by Labor. That Capitalism fails on the inability of CAPITALISM to provide the scientifically certain formula wherein Labor receives the SCIENTIFICALLY correct compensation for their exchanged service.

Well DAMN! If that’s true… then WHERE IS THIS CALCULATION? Could this entire issue have not be put to rest RIGHT THERE? Is it not true, that HAD the member simply stated that Capitalism is untenable because the entity of Capitalism is simply incapable of paying the correct scientifically established wage for labor and simply posted the scientifically correct formula proving that Capitalism is simply WRONG in the means by which IT calculates the exchange, that this argument would be OVER? I mean who could argue against hard Scientific FACT?

Of course to do that, she would been obliged to identify WHO Capitalism is… to specify the identity of this ethereal being; so that we, the Ignorant, could in the future avoid advocating for and exchanging with this boogyman intent on exploiting our ignorance, in their conspiracy to profit from our service of labor? But if she did THAT…such would lead to what?
.
.
.
.
.
Would that not lead directly to the member having to acknowledge the unspeakable?
.
.
.
.
.
.

Would this not require that she recognize the Capitalism is not a WHO… that Capitalism is not a being who is incapable of exchanging the scientifically correct value for the services provided by labor? Would she not then be left with no other alternative but to admit that capitalism is merely the word used to describe the actions of BILLIONS OF human beings engaging in the process of freely exchanging the value which they possess, for the value which another possesses, which they need or desire, throughout the course of their daily lives? And that because of the unspeakable number of variables which exist in an economy of billions of human beings, that there is no ‘Scientifically Correct’ value which can POSSIBLY BE ASSIGNED for the exchange of labor… because the CORRECT VALUE for one’s labor is that value which one is prepared to accept, given the circumstances with which they’re presently faced?

Thus the supposition which ASSUMES THAT THERE IS A ‘SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT’ VALUE TO BE SET FOR EXCHANGED LABOR IS FALSE, is it not?

And wouldn’t this be the result of the established, now indisputable certainty, that Socialism, OKA: Left-think ONLY PRETENDS to know what this Scientifically Correct value is, while themselves BEING ABSOLUTELY IGNORANT OF ANYTHING OF THE KIND; thus proving their OVERT INTENTION TO DECIEVE THE PUBLIC AT LARGE AND IN THIS CASE, WE, THE MEMBER’S OF THIS BOARD, SPECIFICALLY?

And would it not then be true that where we readily know that an advocate is promoting DECEITFUL IGNORANCE; that where it has been established that they’re sole purpose is to prey upon the emotional needs of others, who simply have not thought this issue through; that for us to lend their INVALID, DECEITFUL THESIS credence would and could ONLY lead to cultural CATASTROPHE?

To set them up in power; to allow them to establish policy which strips from us; the free individuals of this culture; EACH ONE OF US FULLY UNDERSTANDING OUR INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES; EACH ONE BEING VASTLY MORE QUALIFIED TO KNOW THE CORRECT VALUE FOR OUR INDIVIDUAL SERVICES AND THE GOODS WE EXCHANGE, BASED UPON THOSE INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, to meet the needs for which those circumstances provide; sets aside the INCONTROVERTIBLE CERTAINTY THAT WE MORE ACCURATELY KNOW THAT WHICH IS A ‘SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT’ VALUE FOR OUR SERVICES AND GOODS? And this better THAN ANYONE ELSE… possibly could…

It is OUR RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF OUR LABOR… IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO DEFEND THAT RIGHT; and to defend it from those who seek to strip us from that right, because of their feelings that we’re unable to determine what is fair FOR US; and who use LIES born of SUBJECTIVE SCIENCE… meaning SCIENCE WHICH IS NOT SCIENCE… but that which is used TO IMPLY THE CREDIBILITY OF SCIENCE WITHOUT HAVING ACCOMPLISHED THE HARD WORK ON WHICH THAT CREDIBILITY OTHERWISE RESTS. It merely project the COLOR if Science; the façade which they drape over their deceit to LABEL IT SCIENCE.

They’re liars folks… at BEST their enthusiastically MISGUIDED FOOLS advocating for that which deceives… but the end result is that, that for which they advocate serves to MISLEAD; but where such fools are shown the truth, and the above represents NOTHING LESS THAN THE TRUTH… INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT… and they continue to zealously perpetuate deception… THEY CAN NO LONGER ESCAPE THE CERTIANT THAT THEY ARE WILLFUL PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONSPIRACY TO DECEIVE… which is the underlying purpose of the full scope of the ideological left…

Now, I leave you to enjoy the various submissions by the deceivers, which will respond with what stands for high intellect on the left; the predictable cries that this argument is ‘too long,’ through the ad populum grope wherein they declare that “no one will read it’… or the more likely simple dismissal of the argument on the same, if unstated, fallacious premise; simply reiterating the now discredited projection, in hopes that to do so will somehow establish some discernable validity.

And it is THAT, fellow members of the board, which measures the scope of that which is the sub-par intellect of The Advocates of Social Science; those which would have us believe that THEY’RE HERE TO ‘lead us from the cultural darkness;’ even while they busy themselves with turning out the intellectual lights… through their INABILITY TO CONSIDER THE ARGUMENT BROUGHT BY THEIR OPPOSITION.

 

[Agnapostate]

Do you realize precisely how great an idiot you are?

 

[Andrew2382]

He has let his extreme fan base give him such an overblown self-image.. He's hiding a lot of problems under all that fat and behind that enormous ego.

His rabid fans look past his shortcomings.

Honestly, I don't think his fans care about his dick. I don't think he cares about his dick because I doubt he's even seen his dick in years.

Are you talking?