A Day In The Life Of Joe Republican

[SnakeRat]

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning
coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for
minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his
daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie
liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because
some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now
Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is
safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat
packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled
with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby
liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much
it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean
because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from
polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized
ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees
because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which
gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits,
retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members
fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays to these standards
because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or
unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home
because of a temporary misfortune.

Its noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's
deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to
protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before
the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal
student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would
be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home
in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in
the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He
arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house
financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural
loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck
his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social
Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made
sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The
radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He
doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection
and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.

Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After
all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just
like I have."


People for a Peaceable Planet
Committed to Peace, Justice and Nonviolence!
http://www.ppplanet.org

[nolanfan34]

I see your profile says student. Are you a normal college age student? In your 20s? If so, get back to me in a few years when you start paying taxes, and we'll see if your tune changes at all.

I understand your tongue-in-cheek post, but it's a really horrible stereotype.

And what about this sentence:

[ QUOTE ]
some lazy liberal union members
fought and died for these working standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate? I'm pretty sure there were a few conservative union members here and there throughout history who did this too.

[adios]

I won't even get into Social Security. The EPA and OSHA started during the Nixon administration. All Union members are not liberal. I could go on.

[jcx]

Your sig line betrays you comrade. Peace, Justice, & Nonviolence! I can hear the rage inside you from where I'm sitting. You're little group would like nothing more than to have complete control over the world and everyone in it. Isn't it your peace loving non violent buddies who like to break things and burn cities down whenever there is a WTO or G8 meeting? I'd rather live under Saddam Hussien than a regime controlled by the likes of you. Both would be peace through tyranny, but at least Saddam won't give a hang about what car I drive or whether the life saving medicine I take was tested on animals.

There is a theme in all this drivel...A liberal attacking industrious individuals who invented the products that run those factories or risk everything they have to work those farms. Do you really expect anyone to believe that without liberal watchdog groups people would be dying left and right from bad medicine and meat? The market polices itself, and Merck or Tyson wouldn't be around long if people started dropping like flies from consuming their products. Companies offer good benefits to workers in this job market because if they don't a competitor will and they won't be able to get the best employees. And if Grandad's pocket hadn't been picked his whole life to redistribute his income to the unproductive he'd likely be able to afford retirement on his own. Stop preaching lies to the ignorant!

[SnakeRat]

First off its not a sig line, it is the source of this tongue in cheek little article.

Its true that many conservatives today benefit from union membership. This is exactly the point.
Historically communists and socialists led the battle for the working man.


I am a student and haven't payed much tax to speak of in my 21 yrs. When the government starts taking a big cut out of my wallet, perhaps I will change my tune.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I see your profile says student. Are you a normal college age student? In your 20s? If so, get back to me in a few years when you start paying taxes, and we'll see if your tune changes at all.


[/ QUOTE ] C'mon Nolanfan34, you seem bright, but why do you assume college kids don't know whats its like to work 40 hrs a week and pay taxes? I work 40 hrs a week and go to school, and I am only 22, I don't like paying taxes anymore than a 50 yr old CEO.

[nolanfan34]

I think you'd be the exception, not the rule. I'd say MOST college students don't work more than part time. And I'm not simply referring to sales or income taxes, but to property taxes, and taxes on those who operate businesses.

I think as you get older, the more you work and pay into the system, the more you tend to have less tolerance for those who are abusing it. This isn't relevant to the original post, just another thought.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I think as you get older, the more you work and pay into the system, the more you tend to have less tolerance for those who are abusing it. This isn't relevant to the original post, just another thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

You probably won't get your fair share of what you're contributing to Social Security either. Assuming that what you got was somehow fair to begin with. If people had the option of taking their employer contribution and their contribution to Social Security and buy govt bonds themselves (probably bond funds in reality) I'm almost certain they'd do better in the long run than they would with Social Security. If I've got the liberals to thank for SS in it's current form (both partys are responsible as usual), thanks but no thanks.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I think as you get older, the more you work and pay into the system, the more you tend to have less tolerance for those who are abusing it.

[/ QUOTE ] I already am tired of it. True, I don't pay property tax, but I pay a whole lot of other taxes, part of the reason I hate Washinton.

One thing that I noticed as I read that little story of his was that most people support the things in the story, and thats not really were republicans and democrats differ. Most people want a clean enviroment, most people want safety standards, and most people want less government waste, the difference though is each parties have different views on how to achieve those goals.

So I don't know how you can thank any party in particular for the things we have.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
the difference though is each parties have different views on how to achieve those goals.

So I don't know how you can thank any party in particular for the things we have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true, good point.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I am just gonna throw this out there just for discussion purposes. It seems that the federal government works at its best when no party holds the majority in both the house and senate. Because of this, the two parties have to work hard to compromise and appease the others. What do you guys think about a law stating that no party could hold a majority in both the house and senate, or is this just simply to absurd(which it probably is).

[Knockwurst]

Uh, not true. If you think the GOP has the goal of reducing toxic emissions into the environment, you are sadly mistaken. W.'s only priority in this regard has been easing environmental restrictions on major polluters and rolling back Clinton-era EPA standards. He eased restrictions on polluters from coal burning power plants to mercury emitting oil refineries. Why do you think Christy Todd Whitman quit the EPA? Let's at least be straight up about this one.

[nolanfan34]

Yes, a law like that would be absurd. But they do get the best work done with split houses.

[nolanfan34]

I don't argue that point.

I'm just enough of an idealist to believe that in a general sense, both parties are trying to make life better for everyone, and have different beliefs on how to get there.

[ThaSaltCracka]

why would it be absurd?

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
why would it be absurd?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're essentially suggesting that regardless of the results of Congressional and Senate elections in each state, the final total of members would be manipulated in a way to assure the two houses would be under separate control. A better question is why this ISN'T absurd.

(I know you just threw it out there for discussion, but let's hear your argument)

[MMMMMM]

"Historically communists and socialists led the battle for the working man."

I don't even believe this. They said they did but really they didn't. Communism was just another way for the political elite to oppress and control the masses. Socialism, while purporting to look out for the working man, really lowers the overall average living standard, so while under socialism Joe's income might not be so far away from Dave's, they are both earning less.

Winston Churchill put it well: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing or blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries".

I for one would rather share blessings unequally than share miseries equally. When you get older you will probably realize that so much of the socio-economic stuff you are now learning is a crock, and that Communism is the biggest crock ever invented. Its nephew, Socialism, is a crock overall too, but at least it is not unadulterated nonsense in every last respect as is the uncle.

Safety standards are indeed important. Labor unions aren't really very important today, in my opinion, although they may once have been so.

Social security provides the average contributor with a 1% lifetime rate of return on investment. Pretty crapy, eh? It was a Ponzi scheme to begin with, and the miserly rate of return has caused many retirees to live pinched economic existences, whereas if they had instead been able to invest that money taken from their paychecks each week for Social szecurity, they would now be far better off. Social Security contributions have helped to keep many people poor. Heck the average Joe would have been much better off just putting 7.5% of his paycheck every week in a bank savings account drawing interest and letting it compound for 40 years, rather than being forced to "invest" it in Social Security.

Class warfare speech is becoming so much drivel nowadays, as continual globalization and the breaking down of barriers renders moot many of the issues of yesteryear.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Uh, not true. If you think the GOP has the goal of reducing toxic emissions into the environment, you are sadly mistaken. W.'s only priority in this regard has been easing environmental restrictions on major polluters and rolling back Clinton-era EPA standards. He eased restrictions on polluters from coal burning power plants to mercury emitting oil refineries. Why do you think Christy Todd Whitman quit the EPA? Let's at least be straight up about this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did Clinton wait till his final night in office to finally approve the new arsenic standards which had remained the same for the last 60 years? Yes in between signing all those pardons for his crooked political cronies he slipped in an 80% reduction in the arsenic standard. You guys miss all the details and end up fooling yourselves into believing that the Demmies are pro environment and the conserv(atives) are con.

Just an FYI the standard was set in 1975 but based on 1942 data.

[riverflush]

Rage Against the Machine, brotha!

Take the power back...protect us from the evils of industry!

http://www.allposters.com/IMAGES/LPG/51052_a.jpg

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
A better question is why this ISN'T absurd.

[/ QUOTE ] haha, well how about this then, what if each state was required to have one democrat and one republican senator? I know it seems absurd, but I would have to think the benefits would outweigh the cost.

[sameoldsht]

It makes me sad that so many are brainwashed as you obviously are. Your only hope is the 12 Step Program to Overcome Liberalism (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1024509&page=15&view= collapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1#1024509) .

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social
Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made
sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.


[/ QUOTE ]

The truly elitist paternalism of a leftist. It makes me sick. "The government made sure he would take care of himself" pretty much sums up everything that's wrong with you left-wing wacko commie bastards.

natedogg

[Cyrus]

"Communists and socialists said they led the battle for the working man but really they didn't. Communism was just another way for the political elite to oppress and control the masses."

In any country you would care to mention where the communists did not assume power (that would include a pretty BIG chunk of the world, as you should know), what the original poster wrote is, of course, correct. And you are, of course, wrong. This is not a matter for yet another of the long, drawn-out debates you are so fond of. It's a matter of historical record.

And you are confusing post-victory communists (who then formed those political elites, dummy!) with communists/socialists in the perennial opposition, who, yes, fought for the working man.

America, mind you, has a long and distinguished record of working class struggles. If you ever get a chance to get your head out of your behind (say when the time comes to vote!), you could do worse than look up a useful book or two on the subject.

My recommendation would be this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060528370/qid=1095819615/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-8791833-2050449) little title. Easy reading too.

"Safety standards are indeed important."

Hah. and who forced these standards through?

(Don’t answer "the legislature", baby, it's a trick question!)

"Labour unions aren't really very important today, in my opinion, although they may once have been so."

You are wrong about today -- and of course you are right about "once". Note that if you are right about unions having been useful at other times, and since all fighting labour unions were socialist by nature, this contradicts your statement (in the same post /images/graemlins/grin.gif) that socialists never did anything for the working man!

"Social Security contributions have helped to keep many people poor. Heck the average Joe would have been much better off just putting 7.5% of his paycheck every week in a bank savings account drawing interest and letting it compound for 40 years, rather than being forced to "invest" it in Social Security."

The issue of Social Security should be viewed in he context of human behaviour. People, in general, behave far, far differently than your little worldview would have it. Yes, the math are precisely as you put it -- but there's a reason for all this.

I would recommend something by Tversky et al here, but I hesitate since you should be reading your History by now...

"Class warfare speech is becoming so much drivel nowadays, as continual globalization and the breaking down of barriers renders moot many of the issues of yesteryear."

If I had a penny for every time an ignoramus has announced the end of the class distinctions and class warfare, I would be ...well, I would be at the same class I am now, but you get my point. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Bez]

You are embaressingly biased. Having just finished University, I claim that students are ridiculously idealistic.

[Bez]

The unions almost destroyed Britain in the '70s. God bless Maggie Thatcher.

[BeerMoney]

Is that in we should be happy for some of the contributions that have been made.. I think we can agree that if we WERE ALL on the LEFT, or ALL on the RIGHT, things would get out of hand.. Like if liberals ran things, you could sue your boss if he asked you to come to work.. And if strong conservatives ran things we wouldn't get to surf for internet porn, or read anything other than the bible..

There's no point to going through and saying,,,"Oh liberals had nothing to do with blah blah" Take in the spirit of the message, not the minutae of the points..

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus,

Yes, the Commies have always claimed to be "for the working man"--but that position has always been a sham, in my opinion. What the Commies really wanted all along was Power--pure unmitigated political power backed up with gun barrels. Where they got that power, they abused it most horribly. Where they didn't get it, or are still striving for it, they make the claim that they are doing it "for the people". Yeah right. Leave the people the hell alone, you totalitarian freak bastards.

[Bez]

We all need internet porn.

[vulturesrow]

Id like to see how how Cyrus can gloss over the fact that Communist governments have historically been some of the most violent and oppressive in history. Im sure Chris Alger will jump in with a few plays from the Chomsky playbook.

[Bez]

You like guns too much but your points here are 100% correct.

[SnakeRat]

American Labor Movement, good yes?
Led by socialist and communist liberals, yes?

I didnt mean Soviet Commies.
I meant the ones who actually did fight for the working man.
The ones who lived in America many years before Joe Republican.

[Dr Wogga]

....to the man (?)behind the curtain.......

[Cosimo]

I am not a Republican.

* There are free-market solutions to all of these problems that don't ask that the public trust that a government bureaucrat is doing his job right. Drinking water is unpleasant in many areas, and unsafe in a few--yet the local governments insist that it meets their standards. I can't vote with my dollars, nor do I relish inspecting the labirynth of red tape surrounding such government-granted monopolies.

* Medical costs are signifigantly inflated due to bureaucracy. The costs of bringing new drugs to market are insane--because the only way to do it is by appeasing a bureaucrat.

* Child-labor laws were pushed by adult union members who didn't want competition from children. The lifespan and wealth of the poorest citizens increased signifigantly during the era of "unsafe, unclean" factories.

* "Government subsidy" is another word for "paid for by the forceful appropriation of taxes."

* Banks are encouraged to make high-risk investments in overseas markets because the federal government promises to keep them from failing. This led to the S&L scandal. Without any backing to our currency, the government is free to inflate dollars at will. Why do hamburgers cost more than 5c now, like they did decades ago? Because the goverment printed billions of bills and gave them to itself, which it then spent on goods--competing with our hard-earned dollars.

* It's unfortunate that the government has driven out so many privately-funded charities by taking on those roles itself. Now everyone is forced to contribute, whether they approve of the charity's goals or its management.

* It's sad that Joe's father refused to make plans for his own retirement, and lives off of the pyramid scheme known as Social Security. It's unfortunate that the moneys paid into that plan aren't made available for businesses, large and small, to expand their operations and provide services that people enjoy enough that they're willing to pay for.

[MMMMMM]

I think the American Labor Movement filled a real need in its time. Issues of unsafe working conditions, children working as adults, and monopolies, all needed to be addressed.

Today, laws regulating safety, age, and antitrust are strong and plentiful. Today, I think Labor Unions are mostly like boils on the butt of progress.

[Boopotts]

"...wanted all along was Power--pure unmitigated political power backed up with gun barrels. Where they got that power, they abused it most horribly."

This, of course, would be in start contrast to George Bush and his cabal.

[nothumb]

I think he's already addressed this. When communists have come into power their governments have generally become oppressive and totalitarian. However, many important labor victories in the US were originally backed by socialists - largely by socialists. That includes the 8-hour workday, weekends, etc.

I think it's fair to criticize hard-line communist governments, and socialism as well (although it has been less destructive and mildly successful in a few situations, though not in the long term) - but to ignore the socialist contribution to the American labor struggle is foolish.

MMMMMM, I like how you presume that any Communist or Socialist who fought for workers' rights was just out to take over the world. Most of them were probably just workers who wanted rights.

NT

[cowboyzfan]

I am very suprised how many whacko left (no offense) poker players there are on this site. I would think that Poker is inherently conservative. It's survival of the fittest right? Do we not read 2+2 books so that we have an "unfair" advantage over the uneducated? Do we not try to use that advantage to take money from their very hands?


I would think an ultra lefty would feel too bad for the opponent and would rather pay him a per diem than take his stack.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
"...wanted all along was Power--pure unmitigated political power backed up with gun barrels. Where they got that power, they abused it most horribly."

This, of course, would be in start contrast to George Bush and his cabal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it would be in very stark contrast. You do know your world history, don't you?

[MMMMMM]

"MMMMMM, I like how you presume that any Communist or Socialist who fought for workers' rights was just out to take over the world. Most of them were probably just workers who wanted rights."


Why then couldn't they see that the only way to implement Communism, even if just internally in their own countries, was at the point of a gun? Totalitarianism, I say again.

[baggins]

what's sad is that Americans, for the most part, are fooled into thinking that politics fits into a nice little dichotomy, a two-party system whereby people fight each other tooth and nail and develop a deep hatred for one another and people they don't even know, all because there is some artificial divide in political parties. and supposedly 2 parties is enough diversity to reflect the opinions and wishes and needs of 360 million americans?

wake up people. we don't have to take this. withhold your vote until someone earns it. you have the right to NOT VOTE.

not voting is a vote for change. send a message that you are fed up with bipartisan bullshit. don't rock the vote. rocking the vote is just admitting that you'd rather let a bunch of over-priveleged stuffed shirts do your thinking for you. rocking the vote is just another way of pretending the problem isn't there, and sweeping it under the rug for another 4 years.

[nothumb]

Hi cowboyzfan,

You obviously have no idea of my politics and are making a completely absurd statement. You called me a whacko leftist and then asked me not to take offense. I merely stated historical fact - that socialists played a major role in achieving basic workers' rights in this country in the not-so-distant past. Do you dispute this?

It's not unfair to read a book and beat someone at poker. The book was available for anyone. It's also absurd to say that, because I may or may not be on the political 'left,' I have such condescending and paternalistic views of my opponents (and am so filled with guilt and self-loathing myself) as to do something so patently ridiculous as to give them money for losing to me. I'm sure (I hope) you were at least partially joking, but it really wasn't very clever.

NT

[cowboyzfan]

nothumb,

the self loathing and all that does remind me of many leftists, very incisive. You are wrong when you say i called you a "whacko leftist", i developed that opinion over a long time on this board. I guess if i had anyone in mind when i wrote it i was thinking Ray Zee and that Conjelco guy whith the Avatar of flag draped coffins. If i was refering to you i would have the guts to quote something you said or address you.

sorry you find my posts not interesting or funny. i thought i made a real point /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
Why then couldn't they see that the only way to implement Communism, even if just internally in their own countries, was at the point of a gun? Totalitarianism, I say again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, first of all, foot soldiers of many political movements - or believers in a variety of causes - are often deluded about how they can be achieved. Naturally hard-line Marxists are of the belief that this can only come through violent class stuggle - however brief they might hope the actual violence would be. But there have also been Utopian socialists/communists who believed in leading by example or by taking power gradually through syndicalism, trade unions, etc. These people failed to take power in this way for the most part (although trade unions have at various times in some places become quite powerful) but that does not mean they didn't believe at the time that they could do so peacefully.

I would also point out that, while Communism in it's purest, most centralized form has been the product solely of violent uprising, socialist governments of varying degrees have legitimately and peacefully taken power in a variety of countries in the past century.

So, again, it's easy for you to see and say now that hard-line Communists have taken power only at the barrel of a gun. I do not - and have never - disputed the fact that these governments have inevitably been initially composed of or fallen quickly into the hands of violent thugs. However, to assume that any member of the movement has that motivation at any second, or that they should have known from the very beginning that it was inevitable, is not reasonable IMHO.

NT

[MMMMMM]

I will agree that some footmen, as it were, may have merely been dupes.

Communist leaders, however, had more nefarious agendas (even if only subconsciously, in some cases), because they could clearly see that communism could only be implemented through brute totalitarian force, and they were positioning themselves to be the beneficiaries/administrators of that hoped-for totalitarian power and control.

[The once and future king]

Word.

The workings man lot was so much better before the formation of unions and socialist ideals spread amongst the working class.

In no way did the Capatalist Class exploit the working classes quite literaly to death.

Do you have any idea of the standards of pay and working conditions 1850-1920.

If the capatalist class hadnt expolited their workers to the last penny then unions would never had a reason to exist.

However in the context of the given day. Yes perhaps some of the things you say are true. However Large corporations continue to break the social contract with their workers and customers.

As I have said before I would rather live in a society were there are conflicting nexuses of power rather than power concentrated in one hegemonic centre. As this means I have more relative power and relative freedom as an individual.

Unions help to achieve this.

Edit to add:

Yes having read further into this thread it does seem that you have some ideas of working conditions in said dates. /images/graemlins/blush.gif
My apologies for the rush of blood to the head.

[The once and future king]

Whilst I agree with much that Marx says when he is criticising Capatalism. What he says about the solutions to those problems are in short total wank.

This is the general consensus amongst political academia in the UK and Europe.

However it has to be said that if someone perpetrates a Communist revolution then one has all ready deviated massively from Marxist ideology. The transition from Capatalism to Communism is according to strict Marxist theory ment to be bloodless and just a natural smooth switch as it were. After this switch there would be no state apperatus.

Communist revolutionary thinking goes like this.

1. Cant wait for "natural" transition to occur we want Communism NOW

2. Ok got rid of those evil capatalist dogs, according to Marx there should now be no State. However we have forced this communism on a society that was not at the advanced stage neccesary for a seemless switch over therefore the state will exist until we bring society upto this advanced stage.

3. I know lets use the State to bring society upto the advanced stage were society dosnt need a state anymore. This is quite a radical task so we will have to give the state lots of POWER. Ok then we will give the state lots of power so it can perform the hard but neccesary tasks neccesary to make it self redundant.(ROFL at this whole concept).

4. Given that Statelessness is an idealogical phatom imagined by Marx then obviously this condition cant exist. We dont know this so we will keep giving the state more POWER so that it can get rid of itself.

5. Hi, my names Joe Stalin. Check out my realy poerfull state that im in charge of. Aint no way Im letting any other fecker get his hands on it. The POWER is all mine Muhahahaha.

6. Gulags etc etc.

[MMMMMM]

Good description IMO.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
not voting is a vote for change

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but do you think the people who are in office really give a rat's ass if only 1/2 the population votes? As long as they remain in office what incentive do they have to change?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
If i was refering to you i would have the guts to quote something you said or address you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently you didn't have the guts to name Ray Zee or that Conjelco guy whith the Avatar of flag draped coffins

[MMMMMM]

You don't seriously think Ray Zee is a wacko leftist, do you? I cannot imagine Ray being a leftist; the image is too absurd somehow. If you really think that then I don't think you have been on these boards all that long.

[The once and future king]

He isnt a "Wacko" leftist. Or a red neck Bush fan.

He is just on the left.

[MMMMMM]

I can't speak for Ray, but he does not strike me as being on the Left.

Ray has made it clear he is very concerned about the environment, and he seems against the Iraq war; but I would much doubt he is on the Left when it comes to money matters or taxes.

Ray strikes me as being more of a Classical Liberal: that is, liberal on civil liberties and social matters, but against government intrusion or interference; and probably financially conservative.

I definitely don't lump him in with the current crop of control-freak liberals who want bigger and more comprehensive government programs to solve everything.

Maybe Ray will chime in and clarify some of this if he cares to.

[Knockwurst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"...wanted all along was Power--pure unmitigated political power backed up with gun barrels. Where they got that power, they abused it most horribly."

This, of course, would be in start contrast to George Bush and his cabal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it would be in very stark contrast. You do know your world history, don't you?

[/ QUOTE ]


MMMMMM, I think it's safe to say that just about any new political system replaces the prior system with the help of the barrel of a gun. After all that's how this country got started. And we're seeing it in Iraq right now -- Democracy, or at least GWB's version of it being insitituted with the barrel of guns, tanks and Apache helicopters. Even in this country's recent history, we have trained our guns on our own citizenry who have been engaged in political dissent. See Kent State, civil rights marches, and most recently GOP convention in NY (no gun shots but many illegal arrests, which of course are backed up with guns).

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
I definitely don't lump him in with the current crop of control-freak liberals who want bigger and more comprehensive government programs to solve everything.


[/ QUOTE ]

Im not sure to whom you are refering. I think I would put Ray on the left of you.

I would classify myself as centerist left. I am a fan in general of the current UK administration (apart from Tony's idoitic alaince with Bush and Iraq etc).

I dont want bigger government as an ends however I view it sometimes as a means. The term bigger is entirely relative.

I also think that when someone says to me that the market can solve all problems, well here we go another solution to all problems that involves a slavish obedience to a cetain ideology. Yea sure.

As I have said before I am a pick n mix kind of guy who likes to keep his options open. As far as I can see this is the only rational stance to take.

[MMMMMM]

"Even in this country's recent history, we have trained our guns on our own citizenry who have been engaged in political dissent. See Kent State, civil rights marches, and most recently GOP convention in NY (no gun shots but many illegal arrests, which of course are backed up with guns)."

Which is in very stark contrast to the USSR and Red China murdering tens of millions of their own citizens in order to to hold on to power--right?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
nothumb,

the self loathing and all that does remind me of many leftists, very incisive. You are wrong when you say i called you a "whacko leftist", i developed that opinion over a long time on this board. I guess if i had anyone in mind when i wrote it i was thinking Ray Zee and that Conjelco guy whith the Avatar of flag draped coffins. If i was refering to you i would have the guts to quote something you said or address you.

sorry you find my posts not interesting or funny. i thought i made a real point /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Somebody has a Avatar of flag draped coffin? I tried searching for Conjelco as a user name, but came up with nothing? How is it spelled?

[cowboyzfan]

I should not have used the term "whacko leftist", I should have just said leftist. If you actually read my post you would see the post was not "about" anyone.

I was saying that I was suprised that there were so many left leaning people in poker. I thought that poker was inherently non liberal.

as far as Ray Zee goes, your description of him makes him sound Libertarian. I have only read a few political posts he has made and they sounded more liberal to me.

[Knockwurst]

Agreed, with the caveat that the government in this country backs up its authority with a gun when its power is threatened just like anywhere else. It's just that maybe it's hegemony (both Republicns and Democrats) is not threatened because we're happy as long as we have our cable t.v., six pack of beer in the fridge, and salted peanuts at our side. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Knockwurst]

I think he's referring to Chuck Weinstock's avatar.

[cowboyzfan]

yes, that was what i was referring to. And i have not read a single political post he has made. The avatar is of flag draped coffins right? That is what it looked like to me. It certainly made an impression.

[Knockwurst]

While I can't agree with any of your political opinions, I can see your point about Poker being antithetical to liberal politics, but its also anithetical to conservative politics as well. It probably has more of an affinity to Libertarian politics, hence the many Libertarians on this site.

Remember Walter Matthau's classic line: Poker reflects the worst aspects of capitalism that have made this country so great.

[MMMMMM]

Just to clarify, my own political stance is nearly 100% Classical Liberal. I don't want either the Dems or Repubs telling us what we can do or must do or must not do (as long as we are not harming others.) The religious Right is anathema to me insofar as they attempt to legislate behavior or morality.

Most people here think I am conservative, but the truth is, I am just WAY more liberal than most of the so-called "liberals" on on these forums. For instance, I believe a person's life should be their own to do with as they see fit--even if it lands them broke and pensionless in old age. Live and let live. In keeping with the spirit of true liberty and free choice, I believe in a minimalist approach to government.

In my estimation, most of today's liberals aren't even half-liberal. Calling on government to forcibly order society the way one sees fit is not a liberal position.

The primary purposes of federal government should be:

1) to protect from foreign military attacks,

2) to try to protect citizens from illegal usurpations of their property and liberty,

3) to conduct business with foreign powers, and

4) to raise revenues necessary for the financing of the above.

And that's about it. And just maybe if that was ALL the federal government did, people would only have to work a month or two a year instead of six months a year just to pay the government. It is a sorry state of affairs when the government requires MORE in payment every year than it takes for an individual or family to shelter, clothe and feed themselves.

[cowboyzfan]

well i agree with your opinion about poker being more libertarian than extreme left or right.

[cowboyzfan]

MMMM,

I agree with most of what you wrote there. Certainly no modern deffinition "liberal" would agree though. You seem to be a combo libertarian constitutionalist from that post.

one bit about the morality issue, its not just the Religious Right that pushes it. Many on the left think punishing the successful and giving to the poor is a moral issue. And they think they can spend your money better than your can.

[The once and future king]

Dosnt it ever annoy you when sections of the right say conservatives or Neo cons or whatever you wanna call em appropriate your economic agenda then bolt it on to a horrible authoritarian social agenda.

lefty wacko Liberals might want to tax you to death but what ever you have left they dont mind if you spend it on some decent grass, go have an abortion and then marry someone of the same genda as you.

Its intresting that those of a classical liberal bent seem in the most part to tend to parties of the right whom mirror there economic agenda more closely but on social agenda seem to be the complete opposite rather than parties of the left that whilst opposite in there economic outlook are much less likely to interfere in civil society in terms of life choices etc.

[crash]

The primary purposes of federal government should be:

1) to protect from foreign military attacks,

2) to try to protect citizens from illegal usurpations of their property and liberty,

3) to conduct business with foreign powers, and

4) to raise revenues necessary for the financing of the above.



What about things like interstate commerce and the like? Without any federal authority to interfere, the states could and probably would try to screw each other in various ways. Without federal agencies to standardize and regulate, interstate commerce would be a nightmare.

Plus things like the actual Interstate highways, National Parks, judicial power to review state courts... I think your list is too short. You could try to shove these in 2) or 3), I guess, but I don't think that's what you had in mind. If so, those categories can get pretty expansive.


In keeping with the spirit of true liberty and free choice, I believe in a minimalist approach to government.



Well, your definition of "true liberty" anyway. Washington and Adams etc. had their own version of liberty, and they were for a strong federal center. IMO (keep in mind I'm not claiming to be a history expert) a strong federal government held us together over many rough periods: 1790s, 1860s etc. IMO if we had a minimalist version of fed. power, we never would have survived and flourished the way we did.

[riverflush]

The left/right political spectrum is an old European holdover that doesn't really make any sense in practical terms. To call the extreme left's Stalinist Communists and the extreme right's Hitler Nazi Fascists polar opposites is really way, way off. They're close to the same thing. In fact, the Nazi party originally stood for "National Socialists" - and the attempt to label Nazi's as "right-wing" doesn't work for the U.S. - as we have NO HISTORY of that form of left/right politics. What's true in Europe doesn't necessarily apply here in the U.S. or in other parts of the world.

A four quadrant political spectrum is more apt - also known as the "Nolan Chart."

There are many versions of this, do a Google and you'll find a whole slew of arguments against the left/right linear political spectrum.



Also - (as was alluded to in an earlier post) I, too, am very surprised at the number of "lefty" (or Democratic socialist, or "progressive" - whatever label fits) folks that inhabit perhaps the most hardcore poker forum on the internet. Poker is a very individualistic game, and more importantly, a game that involves pure economic risk. It doesn't get any more straightforward than poker. Many economic concepts are inherent to the game of poker - from tournaments being "zero-sum"...the idea of "equity"...the ability to fold when faced with sure defeat, rather than chase a bad deal that loses more money, etc. etc. etc. Gambling itself always involves a required understanding of risk/reward ratio (if one is to be successful, not merely looking for entertainment) - one that is very much similar to the business concept of risk. To feel comfortable in poker, you must be comfortable with risk - which is the exact same mindset that is needed to start a company that will likely fail (and be ok with it).

What is stunning to me is that I'm sure that 100% (or nearly 100%) of 2+2ers would recognize that "fixing" a poker game to ensure an equality of outcome is totally unacceptable...yet many of these same folks advocate the "fixing" of the real-world game of life, in the form of Social Security, minimum wage, the Earned Income Tax Credit, etc.

It makes no sense to me. Why do some refuse to apply their poker acumen to life itself? Is it that the stakes are much higher in life? When the stakes are high, the fix is ok?


/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
I am very suprised how many whacko left (no offense) poker players there are on this site. I would think that Poker is inherently conservative. It's survival of the fittest right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty liberal, but I'm also for this "survival of the fittest," as you call it.

As in, if you're smart, and you innovate, and you work hard, you deserve to be rich.

That said, rich people should pay more than their fair share of taxes. Not less, through the various loopholes they are afforded.

I'm certain we could operate the government with more efficiency and common sense, and therefore save EVERYONE on taxes, though.

Finally, in my opinion, any system other than Capitalism is doomed to fail, but Capitalism unchecked will ruin the world in many ways.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]


What is stunning to me is that I'm sure that 100% (or nearly 100%) of 2+2ers would recognize that "fixing" a poker game to ensure an equality of outcome is totally unacceptable...yet many of these same folks advocate the "fixing" of the real-world game of life, in the form of Social Security, minimum wage, the Earned Income Tax Credit, etc.

It makes no sense to me. Why do some refuse to apply their poker acumen to life itself? Is it that the stakes are much higher in life? When the stakes are high, the fix is ok?


/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a dumb analogy, but I'll speak to minimum wage.

If you want the country split inequally into an all-powerful ruling class and a teeming mass of uneducated, diseased serfs, by all means, eliminate minimum wage.

When people with money can set all the rules, the poor simply have no chance.

I'll say it again: I love capitalism. But the "invisible hand" of the market must be guided from time to time or it'll start fisting the poor.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want the country split inequally into an all-powerful ruling class and a teeming mass of uneducated, diseased serfs, by all means, eliminate minimum wage

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this an opinion or do you base it on some data of some sort. There are many that argue that elimination of the minimum wage would create more jobs. Minimum wage laws seem to have zilcho effect on the vast majority in the middle class as far as I can tell.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want the country split inequally into an all-powerful ruling class and a teeming mass of uneducated, diseased serfs, by all means, eliminate minimum wage.


[/ QUOTE ]

What an incredibly gross lack of knowledge of basic economics.

[riverflush]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


What is stunning to me is that I'm sure that 100% (or nearly 100%) of 2+2ers would recognize that "fixing" a poker game to ensure an equality of outcome is totally unacceptable...yet many of these same folks advocate the "fixing" of the real-world game of life, in the form of Social Security, minimum wage, the Earned Income Tax Credit, etc.

It makes no sense to me. Why do some refuse to apply their poker acumen to life itself? Is it that the stakes are much higher in life? When the stakes are high, the fix is ok?


/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a dumb analogy, but I'll speak to minimum wage.

If you want the country split inequally into an all-powerful ruling class and a teeming mass of uneducated, diseased serfs, by all means, eliminate minimum wage.

When people with money can set all the rules, the poor simply have no chance.

I'll say it again: I love capitalism. But the "invisible hand" of the market must be guided from time to time or it'll start fisting the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm not going to respond to this because you DON'T LOVE CAPITALISM. You can't LOVE capitalism AND support a minimum wage. You're talking two completely divergent concepts.

Serfs? The society that creates serfs starts with a "minimum wage"...pick up on that concept and we can begin a discussion. Maybe you meant Smurfs.

http://www.galeriap.hpg.ig.com.br/imagens/outros/outros/smurfs/robusto.jpg


For the record I support a $275,000/yr minimum wage. /images/graemlins/cool.gif Why not? That's just as arbitrary as $8.00/hr or $10.00/hr. At least that way we can ALL pay the top tax rate. Just imagine how many great social services we could get!

[MMMMMM]

"Dosnt it ever annoy you when sections of the right say conservatives or Neo cons or whatever you wanna call em appropriate your economic agenda then bolt it on to a horrible authoritarian social agenda."

I don't think of any examples off the top of my head, but yes that would annoy me.

"lefty wacko Liberals might want to tax you to death but what ever you have left they dont mind if you spend it on some decent grass, go have an abortion and then marry someone of the same genda as you.

Its intresting that those of a classical liberal bent seem in the most part to tend to parties of the right whom mirror there economic agenda more closely but on social agenda seem to be the complete opposite rather than parties of the left that whilst opposite in there economic outlook are much less likely to interfere in civil society in terms of life choices etc."

Yes it seems a bit paradoxical. However today's liberals seem to be getting right up there with the Right in terms of trying to control the behavior of others.

[MMMMMM]

hi crash,

I am aware that such a short list cannot be completely comprehensive, which is why I qualified the list as "primary purposes of the federal government". I think you will agree however that the current purviews of the federal government stretch far beyond the primary purposes I named, as well as far beyond the additional things you mentioned.

I would not be averse to expanding the list a little, but currently the list is expanded far more than a little, both in numerical listing terms and in terms of cost.

Your point about a strong federal center during times of crisis may be quite valid.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
There are many that argue that elimination of the minimum wage would create more jobs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Creating more jobs isn't necessarily a good thing if they pay $1.12 an hour with no benefits.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Creating more jobs isn't necessarily a good thing if they pay $1.12 an hour with no benefits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? If people have skills where they can demand higher wages then they'll work for those higher wages. If nobody want's to work for $1.12 an hour with no benifits, those employers offering those jobs will have to increase the wages being offered. If there are people that want to work for those wages then why not?

If an employer has a job that doesn't warrant paying minimum wage and he would be forced to pay minimum wage, nobody gets a job.

Why not increase minimum wage to $10, $15, or even $20 an hour? Hell make it $50 an hour then everyone will be out of the poorhouse.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
If nobody want's to work for $1.12 an hour with no benifits, those employers offering those jobs will have to increase the wages being offered. If there are people that want to work for those wages then why not?


[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that nobody "wants" to work for those wages, but there are plenty of people that "will." In order to get a job, you're going to have to compete against people who are willing to take $1.12 an hour and no bathroom breaks.

Simply put, it places the burden of competition upon the employees, rather than the employer. An employer should be forced to be profitable and innovative enough that he can afford to employ his employees. If he can't, he should be out of business.

[ QUOTE ]

If an employer has a job that doesn't warrant paying minimum wage and he would be forced to pay minimum wage, nobody gets a job.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. But I don't think this is very significant. It's not like there are so many jobs out there not being created because the business owner can't afford minimum wage. If the owner can't afford to pay someone minimum wage, it's probably a marginally profitable business at best.

[ QUOTE ]

Why not increase minimum wage to increase the minumum wage to $10, $15, or even $20 an hour? Hell make it $50 an hour then everyone will be out of the poorhouse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that's just dumb, and not related to what I'm saying at all.

Minimum wage isn't meant to make anyone rich, or even really balance the scales at all. It's there to prevent low-income, low-skill workers from being completely screwed.

I don't think everyone should be equal. If you don't go out and try to educate yourself and make the most of the opportunities you have, you deserve to be poorer than I am.

But this doesn't mean you should have to work for $1.12 an hour just because that's what the market dictates.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

I was saying that I was suprised that there were so many left leaning people in poker. I thought that poker was inherently non liberal.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who knows, maybe it there are more conservative people in successful poker. If I look out the street all I see is Kerry bumper stickers. This is the case in both Indiana and Massachusetts. I can understand Mass, but Indiana is a red state, so you would think there would be alot of Bush bumper stickers. This does not appear to be the case.

Maybe other people are exposed to more Bush signs than I am, but the left seems to be far more vocal than the right. The left protested Bush at the DNC mainly with the Billionares for Bush protest. And the left protested the RNC in NY. You don't see the right doing much protesting. I can't help but think lefties are just much more vocal, therefore much more noticeable. They are emotional thinkers, with a highly active amygdala (affects emotions), after all.

I think this is the article link
Political Brain (http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/22/magazine/22IDEA.html)


Just a thought, but simply by looking at all these Kerry bumper stickers in states that are a landslide for Bush, I can't help but think it's a legit hypothesis.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
yes, that was what i was referring to. And i have not read a single political post he has made. The avatar is of flag draped coffins right? That is what it looked like to me. It certainly made an impression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, that avatar left an impression on me too. That ain't right.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Simply put, it places the burden of competition upon the employees, rather than the employer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. There's plenty of alternatives for employees please. How many different kinds of businesses available to employees in the U.S. let alone self employment alternatives. Sorry that's a dumb statement.

[ QUOTE ]
An employer should be forced to be profitable and innovative enough that he can afford to employ his employees. If he can't, he should be out of business.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine for you to say but let the market decide. Why should we decide that a business shouldn't exist if it can't pay some arbitrary minimum wage.

[ QUOTE ]
True. But I don't think this is very significant. It's not like there are so many jobs out there not being created because the business owner can't afford minimum wage. If the owner can't afford to pay someone minimum wage, it's probably a marginally profitable business at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again that's easy for you to say. How do you this for certain. Why not let the market decide?

Is there any chance that people who could be making more than minimum wage arent' because of the minimum wage laws?

[ QUOTE ]
Now that's just dumb, and not related to what I'm saying at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it is. The minimum wage purely arbitrary.

[ QUOTE ]
Minimum wage isn't meant to make anyone rich, or even really balance the scales at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've got news for you. People that make $10,$15,$20 or even $50 an hour aren't rich.

[ QUOTE ]
It's there to prevent low-income, low-skill workers from being completely screwed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except there's no evidence that you can provide that this would be the case. Does minimum wage hold anyone back from making more money? IMO it probably does for many reasons that I'll get into later.

Also I've got more news for you, there are plenty of households struggling where the wage earners make $10 or $15 an hour.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think everyone should be equal. If you don't go out and try to educate yourself and make the most of the opportunities you have, you deserve to be poorer than I am.

But this doesn't mean you should have to work for $1.12 an hour just because that's what the market dictates.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there's someone willing to do it why not?

[wacki]

MMMMMMM,

I'm totally with you on the minimalist government thing. I agree people should live their own lives the way they want to. The whole darwin, "live and let die" concept I also agree with, but only to a point. The government should be a safety net people can run to when the are desperate. But the government should never be cozy enough that people can abuse it.



One area that the government, in my mind is not big enough, is federally funded research. Just about everything we have that is made out of plastic or uses a computer chip we owe thanks to NASA. Most medicines were created using the basic knowledge discovered in grant funded labs. I could go on and on and on. Private businesses do alot of R&D, but for some reason, nothing puts the spark in innovation and discovery like grant money.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]

Ray strikes me as being more of a Classical Liberal: that is, liberal on civil liberties and social matters, but against government intrusion or interference; and probably financially conservative.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never knew what to call myself before, I think this describes me pretty well. Practically everyone I know is liberal and I think I could say the same for them.

Most liberal people today are not looking to establish massive government programs, but they also don't demonize these programs as the cause of all of our problems.

Once conservatives get into power they are as fond of big government as anyone else.

I think this stereotype of the "control-freak liberals who wnat bigger and more comprehensive government programs to solve everything" does not describe most liberals today. Characterizing them this way is just a conveinient way of avoiding actually coming up with solutions for problems.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Practically everyone I know is liberal and I think I could say the same for them.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have found this to be quite common. I wonder if it is fear of a different perspective or merely an unconscious choice to be near those that comfort and support your own viewpoints.

[SomethingClever]

adios, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this, because I don't think we're changing each other's minds.

But, just to conclude my thoughts.

It's easy to say that the market will make the right decision, and that there are plenty of employment options out there for folks at the lower end of the wage spectrum.

But think about it on the grand scale.

Huge companies like Starbucks, Target and McDonalds would dictate the going rate for unskilled employment.

Every time their bottom line looks a little thin, they're going to pay their employees a little bit less, because it's an easy fix. As opposed to the tougher fix of increasing sales or innovating within their market. Hey, as long as people are willing to take the lower wages, right? Now, you might argue that this is preferable to laying people off, but I disagree. I just think there's a threshhold beneath which no person should be satisfied with working.

Employees that complain will be replaced by less troublesome employees that are willing to work for less.

It's as simple as that. People who demand reasonable wages and working conditions--and are unwilling or unable to gain the skills necessary to work in a higher-paying industry--are going to be priced out of the job market.

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. I just don't understand how you could see it any other way.

[Bez]

You are the first person I've heard that is a fan of the current UK administration. They've substancially increased tax and made many things worse - eg health and education.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Practically everyone I know is liberal and I think I could say the same for them.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have found this to be quite common. I wonder if it is fear of a different perspective or merely an unconscious choice to be near those that comfort and support your own viewpoints.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no fear of a different perspective. I do know conservatives and I have spent a lot of time talking with them. I live in New York City which is a very liberal place so I meet a lot of them.

Believe it or not, I am actually interested in information that challenges my viewpoints. That is part of the definition of liberal.

[riverflush]

[ QUOTE ]
Who knows, maybe it there are more conservative people in successful poker. If I look out the street all I see is Kerry bumper stickers. This is the case in both Indiana and Massachusetts. I can understand Mass, but Indiana is a red state, so you would think there would be alot of Bush bumper stickers. This does not appear to be the case.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wacki....

If you're in Bloomington, Indiana you're not getting a true sense of Indiana. I attended and graduated from IU in the mid-90's and still spend a great deal of time in that town at alumni and athletic events every year. It's a great town, perhaps the best college town in the country (I know, I know, it's debatable) - but it's the most "liberal" community in the entire Midwest that's not Madison, Wisconsin. It's essentially "Berkeley East" - both the campus and local politics are VERY left-leaning. Outside of the Kelley School of Business (and possibly HPER/Athletic Dept), you're hard-pressed to find a member of the faculty that would support Bush or ANY Republican.

There are only two parts of Indiana that vote Democratic with regularity - Lake County (Chicagoland) and Bloomington/Monroe Co. Marion (Indianapolis) will at times vote moderate Democrat, but not very often. Indiana might be the most red of the red states. It's a state that hasn't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1968 and likes its Democrats to be cut out like Evan Bayh (very conservative).

If you travel to any of the areas around Indianapolis you'll see Bush signs by a 4-1 margin. Bloomington - although I haven't been down in a few months - is certainly the Kerry stronghold in the state and I'd expect to see a ton of signs and bumper stickers.

Just 2 cents from a native Hoosier...

[baggins]

they probably dont' care. at least not right now.

but perhaps, when only .5% of the population votes, they'll take a look at why people are so fed up with voting for scumbags.

or maybe somebody will realize that there are som any people who don't vote, and they'll go after those people, and try to not only get them to vote, but get their vote for themselves.

if my vote is so goddamned important, then why the [censored] haven't they worked harder to earn it?

[nothumb]

Adios,

Have to disagree forcefully here.

[ QUOTE ]
If there's someone willing to do it why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's degrading, inhumane and greedy. Would you hire people for that amount and still look them in the face, still send your kids to the same school, still eat at their table (if they can afford one)?? I personally would love to be rich but paying people well below a living wage is not a way I'd be willing to do it.

Let the market decide... let the market decide.... why? Every decision the market makes is not a good one. A certain degree of market freedom does expand, on the grand scale, overall wealth. Expanding overall wealth endlessly and without restriction is not so important to me as my conscience; letting the market make every decision unfettered gives me no guarantee that I can live with myself. Leaving it 'up to the market' takes the responsibility of treating others like human beings out of your hands.

NT

[jokerswild]

What drivel from a man that believes that Dennis Hastert is a Senator, and that Keynesian and Monetarist theory have nothing to do with economics.

I know that people like you wish that seniors without money would just die young. They will die much younger thanks to the Bush destroy the budget philosophy.

If the New Deal hadn't been put in place, this country would have succumbed to either a fascist or communist revolution. One of the extremes of the political spectrum would have triumphed.

The fascists have today. They used the same techniques that the Nazis employed to come to powerThe primary tool: propaganda, propelled the illusion to the masses that drug addicts, alcoholics, and madmen should be elected. They then quickly permit a Reichstag/9-11 and blame all the problems on a snmall minority (Muslims). The rich go along in both cases believing that they can control the madness through the power of political financial contributions. They prosper from economic policies that benefit them to the exclusion of all others.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
You are the first person I've heard that is a fan of the current UK administration. They've substancially increased tax and made many things worse - eg health and education.

[/ QUOTE ]

All relaible quantative data indicates that both health and education have improved significantly over the last 10 years.

Dont believe everything you read in the tabloids.

[nicky g]

I'm not a fan of the current administration. But under the Tories, the quality of public services went through the floor at a much more marked rate than under this administration.

[Bez]

I know for a fact that University has become a joke having just completed my degree. In terms of health, my mother is a nurse who has always voted Labour but will be voting Tory at the next election. It is obvious that those who actually work in the health service know more about the situation than those who collect easily manipulated data. In fact many of the targets introduced by this Government have made care worse as these target numbers rather than providing proper care. Obviously the tabloids go overboard (especially wrt superviruses) but health has been declining since 1997. I am too young to be able to tell how public services have changed since 1979 to form a valid opinion.

[Bez]

I'll agree that the minimum wage was a good move.

[adios]

When you start pulling numbers like $1.12 an hour out of your ass it tells me that you don't have any factual basis for what you post. Yet you state it as being fact when in truth there isn't any. I find that irratating. Also I think it's more than a bit arrogant for you to decide that any employer that can't pay minimum wage doesn't deserve to be in business. I can't really say for sure if this is true but I'm fairly certain that there are some that are homeless that would be more than happy to work for less than minimum wage if given the chance. I'm sure there are other examples.

You seem to imply that somehow workers have no freedom of choice and that's just not true. Wage earners aren't oppressed in this country. The truth of the matter is that the minimum wage is a completely arbitrary number and anyone with extraordinary skills to offer an employer won't even work for anything close to it and they don't have to. Also anyone that can provide a service where they're self employed won't generally work for minimum wage either. Minimum wage applies to those who have no exceptional skills that are marginally employable. Minimum wage puts a floor on wages which has the effect of restricting the number of jobs for the marginally employable. Therefore more of the marginally employable workers go without jobs than what is necessary. I don't see how you could see that any other way.

[MMMMMM]

"Employees that complain will be replaced by less troublesome employees that are willing to work for less"

Only TO A POINT. Why? Because THE MARKET works both ways. Nobody is going to be willing to work for $1.12 an hour, period. And if companies lower wages too far, they will find themselves understaffed or non-staffed.

What you must realize is that THE MARKET is not only people competing for jobs, it is also employers competing for employees. This is a very important point. And right now the unemployment rate is at a pretty low point historically: 5.4% or thereabouts. At a certain point employers have trouble finding any employees, let alone quality employees.


"It's as simple as that. People who demand reasonable wages and working conditions--and are unwilling or unable to gain the skills necessary to work in a higher-paying industry--are going to be priced out of the job market."

Not so fast, because again it works both ways. One could just as easily argue that employers who offer unreasonable wages and unreasonable working conditions are going to price their own companies out of the labor market and eventually out of business.

Your argument may have carried a more weight 50 or 100 years ago, when the economy was less diversified and fewer opportunities existed and people were more tied down to local employers. Today however vast opportunities for employment, and self-employment, await, and people can even make money sitting at home on the computers. Companies do not have the semi-monopolistic clout they used to have in the labor market.

As for self-employment, heck you can go buy a lawnmower at Wal-Mart on the cheap and go out mowing neighborhood lawns and raking leaves and make way more than minimum wage. Many other such opportunities exist. While I was studying computer programming full-time, I cleaned windows for businesses and homes in the area: self-employed. I didn't work many hours per week then but I earned a minimum of $15 per hour when I did work and that was back in 1985. A modest amount of work each week covered all my basic living expenses and left me free to study 60 hours a week.

Learning a basic skill or art like window-cleaning or painting or lawn care, and working your own part-time hours, is not all that hard to do. It isn't at all hard to gather a handful of local customers, either--where it gets more involved is if you want to build a sizable company out of it.


"The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. I just don't understand how you could see it any other way."

The rich do get richer on average, but the poor today are much richer than the poor of times past. A rising tide lifts nearly all boats. Heck the poor today typically have 2 TVs, a running car, plenty to eat, and air-conditioning, and only work 40 hours per week. That's a lot better off than the poor in the early 20th century. Heck that's even better off than the rich in the 19th century. In my opinion, the only truly impoverished who are in desperate shape in America are the homeless. They are the real poor; if you want to worry about the poor, worry about them. The rest of the poor can, and do, manage on their own.

Furthermore, most people working minimum wage jobs do not do so for very many years. It is a temporary thing for most, until they find something better: not a lifetime commitment.

[Bez]

The market is not the be all and end all, it doesn't have all the answers. Enron comes to mind.

[MMMMMM]

"Leaving it 'up to the market' takes the responsibility of treating others like human beings out of your hands."

Here I disagree, Nothumb, as I think you are being overbroad.

If YOU own a company, you can decide to pay your employees pretty well and as a result you get good employees. You can also, in your personal life, treat others with decency. There: you've taken responsibility for "treating others like human beings", haven't you?

But what gives you the right to dictate what price another employer and employee should contract for? That isn't "taking responsibility for treating others like human beings"; that is interfering in others' business, plain and simple.

[nicky g]

"Only TO A POINT. Why? Because THE MARKET works both ways. Nobody is going to be willing to work for $1.12 an hour, period. And if companies lower wages too far, they will find themselves understaffed or non-staffed.

What you must realize is that THE MARKET is not only people competing for jobs, it is also employers competing for employees. This is a very important point. And right now the unemployment rate is at a pretty low point historically: 5.4% or thereabouts. At a certain point employers have trouble finding any employees, let alone quality employees."

Partly true but it's important to realise that it's not an equal competition. It is generally much more important to a worker in a medium or large company to be able to keep his job than it is for the company to be able to hold on to him. Further more, there is almost always some level of unemployment in modern free market societies. The firms have the advantage when the demand for work is bigger than the supply, and they can dictate terms to a large extent.

[MMMMMM]

Good point, Nicky, there is generally somewhat more inherent advantage to the employer.

As for the unemployment level: if there were zero unemployment, companies would be screwed on regular labor turnover. Also, overall quality of goods and services for the consumer would suffer. Heck you see it already even at 5.4% unemployment when you go into a fast food joint and it takes the guy behind the counter two or three times as long as it ought to perform a simple task.

In other words, there has to be some level of competition built into the system--in labor, production, distribution, etc.--else consumers would be royally screwed everywhere they turned for service.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Further more, there is almost always some level of unemployment in modern free market societies. The firms have the advantage when the demand for work is bigger than the supply, and they can dictate terms to a large extent.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this was really true why is the median income in the U.S. $43,000 a year? It's not because of the power of unions here /images/graemlins/smile.gif. Full employment does not mean 0% unemployment (the Fed got very nevous when the unemployment rate reached 3.9% in 2000 I believe).

Natural Rate of Unemployment (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chinairu.htm)

[MMMMMM]

baggins,

Many elections I have not voted. For instance I did not vote in the last Presidential election, or in many Presidential elections, because I was thoroughly unimpressed with both sides. Now however I will be voting Libertarian as I hope the LP gains more recognition in the future.

[nicky g]

"If this was really true why is the median income in the U.S. $43,000 a year?"

A couple of points:
The imbalance of powere is generally more pronounced in low skill jobs; as your other post implies you have much more barganing power with some marketable skills. You might say then it's the fault of low skill workers for not getting those skills but a. it isn;t always as easy of that simple (it's hard to go to night school if you;re working two jobs, have a family etc) and b. we need people to work in low-skilled jobs.
Also, it isn't only in wages that this effect comes out, it's in things like working hours etc.
Finally, who's to say that median US wages couldn't be even higher, given the total level of US prosperity? When you think of what top level CEOs and the like are earning (ie the bosses), $43,000 isn;t really that much.

Another problem with a pure market approach to the employment market is that markets work by balancing supply with demand. But they don;t work, as many think, by automatically ensuring if there is x level of supply (eg x workers) then there will be x level of demand (x jobs on offer by employers). They work by pricing things so that the number of people willing to pay that will equal the number of people willing to sell it. The problem with applying that to the labour market is that the the level of supply of jobs is more or less fixed; people can;t say heck jobs pay too low so I'm not going to work; there's no alternative to working. It's not like when the price of butter rises too high so you stop buying it or switch to an alternative;even if you judge the price of employment on offer too low you either have to take it or starve.

"the Fed got very nevous when the unemployment rate reached 3.9% in 2000 I believe)"

That's because they're lackeys of the capatalist slave drivers /images/graemlins/laugh.gif. But seriously, I'm not arguing with the fact that "full" employment has to be less than 100% for inflationary or practial reasons. But the fact that there does always have to be some unemployment built in does, unchecked, give the upper hand to employers, especially in low wage jobs.

[nicky g]

Also, the Fed's fears of an inflationary explosion weren't really borne out, were they? And the fact that employment in the past has gone beyond the so-called natural rate disproves the idea that it's physically impossible to go beyond it (because people are always changing jobs etc). Impossible to hit 100% yes, but clearly possible to go beyond what most people's idea of the level of the "natural" rate.

[Utah]

The issue of Social Security should be viewed in he context of human behaviour. People, in general, behave far, far differently than your little worldview would have it

So, you are for forcing behavior on people because they simply cant be trusted to look out for their own interests?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Also - (as was alluded to in an earlier post) I, too, am very surprised at the number of "lefty" (or Democratic socialist, or "progressive" - whatever label fits) folks that inhabit perhaps the most hardcore poker forum on the internet.

[/ QUOTE ]

This could stem from a couple of things:
1) mislabeling people because of a lack of knowledge about the person
2) mislabling people because of a lack of knowledge about the label
3) Labeling people correctly but misunderstanding how people within that category normally behave

and probably others.


[ QUOTE ]
2+2ers would recognize that "fixing" a poker game to ensure an equality of outcome is totally unacceptable

[/ QUOTE ]

VERY few people think that things should be fixed to ensure equality of OUTCOME. Rather, people usually believe that by ensuring equality of opportunity the differences in outcomes will be improved. That's generally something right and left agree on. The difference is usually how to ensure equality of opportunity.

I have often seen the differences as the right wants the market to fix problems with unequal opportunities. The left believes that the government has a role in equalizing opportunities. Many on the right also believe this but disagree with when to hand it back over to the market (i.e. get government out.)

The poker/life metaphor really just doesn't work. That being said, I wonder if the decision to have Annie Duke in the TOC had anything to do with her gender? Don't get me wrong, she is certainly one of the best players in the world right now, but is she in the top 10? There is no question that she was qualified to be at a table of champions, but it just might be that by her being there a slightly more qualified man wasn't invited.

[Utah]

Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After
all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just
like I have."

And Joe is absolutely right.

[Wake up CALL]

Come now Max, a Kerry Flip-Flop does not befit you:

Firts;

[ QUOTE ]
Practically everyone I know is liberal and I think I could say the same for them.


[/ QUOTE ]

then;

[ QUOTE ]
I do know conservatives and I have spent a lot of time talking with them. I live in New York City which is a very liberal place so I meet a lot of them.



[/ QUOTE ]

Is it flip or flop today? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MaxPower]

I'm still trying to figure out the extent of your reading comprehension problems.

[Cyrus]

"So, you are for forcing behavior on people because they simply cant be trusted to look out for their own interests?"

No, certainly not. Someone here, I forget who, commented on Social Security being a "negative EV play". I agree! (And this goes for all insurance policies, of course.)

But why do we take insurance, then? And not just us dumb peons but smart corporations too? Because although it is a negative EV play, it is still a positive utility play. (I will let Mason elaborate.)

However, the issue of Social Security goes deeper than the above: people would truly be better off, utility-schmutility, if they were to invest their money otherwise. This is not the case, though, for reasons that have to do with human behavior. Behavior which deviates far from the normative models. (Hint: people do not trust themselves! So they take "insurance" against potential future unreliable behavior.)

And there's a whole, fascinating corpus of economic/prychological work in this field that came of age in the last twenty or so years and upended many long and dearly held beliefs.

This is the point I tried to make. Hope it's clear now.

[vulturesrow]

Its virtually the consensus among economists that minimum wage laws dont make sense. The primary problem is that minimum wage laws eliminates jobs. This is a near indisputable fact. Now some say well its not right that someone should have to work for so little, they need a living wage. If thats the case (and some people have already made this point) why not raise to 10$ an hour? Maybe 20$? The reason is because millions of middle class people would lose their jobs and people would know exactly why (Studies estimate that for every 10 percent increase in minimum wage 100,000 jobs are lost). But because the minimum wage laws only affect those at the every low end of the employment scale, that is people who dont have much affect on the political process. So while minimum wage supporters puport to be looking out for these people they are in fact destroying their opportunities. Who are we tell someone who wants a job that it "isnt right" for them to work for so little? Let them decide whats best for them.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The market is not the be all and end all, it doesn't have all the answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope and neither does government.

[ QUOTE ]
Enron comes to mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does Enron prove that the free market doesn't work? Are you stating that governments are free from corruption?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with applying that to the labour market is that the the level of supply of jobs is more or less fixed;

[/ QUOTE ]

That statement is totally and unequivically wrong. The level of supply of jobs is not more or less fixed.

[vulturesrow]

Of course if we take the premise that the supply of labor is fixed and apply it to the discussion at hand, we see that it proves the case against min. wage. /images/graemlins/smile.gif If you hold supply as fixed, and then artificially fix the price of labor, you necessarily decrease demand for labor.

[Utah]

I dont disagree with some of your analysis. However, you are saying that the government needs to protect people from themselves. Basically, you are saying that people have a better EV play out there but you wont let them take that play because you are worried that too many of them wont (and you may be right).

However, its not for the government to interfere in these matters. If it is, why stop there. Why not have the government take another portion of a persons paycheck for short term sayings? Why not limit their credit card debt? Whjy not force certain insurance requirements on them?

This is a fundamental difference between democrats/liberals and republicans/conservatives. Liberals believe they know whats best for people and they believe they need to interfere in peoples lives for their own good. Conservatives believe that people are in the best postion to make decisions about what is best for them and they believe the government should stay the heck out of their lives. I side with the conservatives on this one.

[Bez]

The government does not have all the answers nor is it free from corruption which is why checks and balances are incorporated into democratic systems. Enron does not prove that the free market does not work - capitalism is great and overregulation is certainly bad for all. However, there must be a balance - the Enron situation shows what can happen when people abuse the system. Given free reign, many businesses and businesspeople would use any egde they could for maximum profit regardless of the effects (eg environmental damage). This happens anyway but with no regulation things would be much worse.

[nothumb]

I'm sorry, I see no reason to believe this without substantiation. And if you do increase the minimum wage to, say, $12 an hour, wouldn't that just (in theory) eliminate the jobs for which employers are only willing to pay $8 or $11 or whatever? How is that going to make 'middle class' people suffer?

What raising the minimum wage is likely to do is encourage countries to outsource as much of their employment as possible to poor nations. It always struck me as odd that most conservatives are so interested in national security and the well-being of Americans first and foremost, but they are perfectly happy, thanks to the 'market,' to allow unskilled laborers to lose their jobs so that corporations can improve their bottom line, with no penalties or incentives to look out for their own people. I understand the basic economic argument made against it, but again, my point is that markets create wealth - but they don't necessarily create productive wealth, production, or distribute wealth. In fact, they tend not to. Increasing wealth (often unproductive wealth) endlessly is not high on my agenda; in capitalism it is the pinnacle of achievement.

Keep in mind that workers who don't have decent jobs tend to get upset eventually. Long-term best interests and stability are really not given priority in this equation.

NT

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I see no reason to believe this without substantiation. And if you do increase the minimum wage to, say, $12 an hour, wouldn't that just (in theory) eliminate the jobs for which employers are only willing to pay $8 or $11 or whatever? How is that going to make 'middle class' people suffer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which part dont you believe? That minimum wages eliminate jobs or that every 10 percent increase in min wage ends about 100,000 jobs? Pick up any decent basic economics primer for the answer to A and as for B I'll have to track down the studies. As for the other question, if you make 12 bucks an hour, you make about 24000 a year before taxes. That would hurt a lot of households.

The difference between min wage imposition and outsourcing is that outsourcing increases efficiency, allowing a company to offer better prices and has other positive economic effects as well, one of which is job creation. Min wage does none of these things.

[ QUOTE ]
I understand the basic economic argument made against it, but again, my point is that markets create wealth - but they don't necessarily create productive wealth, production, or distribute wealth. In fact, they tend not to. Increasing wealth (often unproductive wealth) endlessly is not high on my agenda; in capitalism it is the pinnacle of achievement

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by unproductive wealth? The only way I see wealth being unproductive is if you take all your money and shove it under your mattress. I would argue there is no such thing as unproductive wealth. As for your statement about production, that is just flat wrong. How do markets not create production? Not only do they creat production, they produce efficient production.

I have to ask again? What gives anyone the right to tell another person he cant work at a given wage because it isnt right? Lets say you were out washing a window for cash (I use this job since MMMM brought it up). And you got 15 bucks for washing that window. I walk up to you and say , no you cant wash that window nothumb, because you arent getting paid enough to do it. And I take that 15 bucks from you. Is that fair? Is that right? That is in effect what min wage laws do.

[Cyrus]

I do not support the government taking the active role in people's lives that you described. What I said was that the people themselves, in some of their economic transactions behave far differently than what the normative economic models proclaim!

This is why, for instance, we have people in their old age spending less than they should, exhibiting a pronounced inconsistency in behavior.

But the issue of Social Security involves employer and employee as well and it is a form of government intervention to make sure that the employee gets his security installments. It is more complicated than taking insurance on your home.

And, by the way, you guys have a very distorted view of what "liberals" think. (This works the other way around too.) "Liberals" don't want the government interfering in everything, as you guys fear. This is the realm of the communist (or the fascist) mindset. Liberalism, as its very name indicates, is supposed to be pro-liberty.

--Cyrus

[nicky g]

"That statement is totally and unequivically wrong. The level of supply of jobs is not more or less fixed. "

You are right. I meant to say the supply of workers (I originally had the demand for jobs, but then decided to switch the demand and supply side round and forgot to cahnge jobs to workers on the supply side).
Of course that itsn;t completely true either; eg sometimes women will give up working and return to housewifery or whatever, people emigrate etc. People do move in and out of the labour market. But you reach a point where no more people can afford to leave the labour market.

[nicky g]

"Its virtually the consensus among economists that minimum wage laws dont make sense."

No it isn;t. THere are plenty of economists who believe that minimum wage laws can be approporiate.

"The primary problem is that minimum wage laws eliminates jobs. This is a near indisputable fact."

Possibly. On the other hand when the UK introduced minimum wage laws employment didn;t go up, and there have been many examples of country's with minimum wage laws with close to full employment.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
The primary problem is that minimum wage laws eliminates jobs. This is a near indisputable fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

How come theres so much dispute then. This is just pure unadulderated bollox.

[crash]

Hi MMMMMM


"I am aware that such a short list cannot be completely comprehensive, which is why I qualified the list as "primary purposes of the federal government"."

I guess I thought some of the things you left out count as "primary". Semantic differences, perhaps.


"I think you will agree however that the current purviews of the federal government stretch far beyond the primary purposes I named, as well as far beyond the additional things you mentioned."


Agreed. But my list of additions wasn't comprehensive either. /images/graemlins/cool.gif