18 comments on “You didn’t blog THAT!

  1. Conservatives will own up to this example of taking quotes out of context when liberals do the same for Romney and his “I don’t care about poor people” quote.

    • Really? That’s the defense? “Well, they do it too?” You have a fine career in politics waiting for you. But, I’ll bite. Please do a search on this blog using the following keywords “Romney poor”. You’ll find three different posts where I actually defend Romney from misquotes and improperly contextualized messages. Next argument?

    • “’I don’t care about poor people” quote.”

      Josh, I can’t speak for every instance in which the clip was shown, but each time I’ve seen it, the statement was made in context–indeed suggesting that Willard hadn’t jettisoned the poor. I think the reason why it’s still running, is because Willard offers no specifics on how he would “fix” the holes in the safety net were they to occur.

      Paul Ryan’s plan, which Romney says he endorses, would give Medicare recipients vouchers to use to go out into the health-care market to buy health insurance–requiring I’m told more money on the part of seniors than the Ryan’s plan would provide, potentially thousands over a year.

      In short, the Ryan plan as a safety net comes with holes–big ones–and Willard, by endorsing the plan, endorsed a plan that already needs fixing.

  2. This issue isn’t whether businesses need infrastructure in order for the economy to thrive. Businesses should and already do pay for bridges, schools, roads, etc through taxes.

    The president’s comments suggest however that business is not paying enough, which would hint that he wants to increase its taxes. Why else would he bring this up?

    With the economy slowing down and unemployment way too high, his remarks were very unwise. They indicate the possibility that business taxes may rise, which would drive up costs and reduce competitiveness compared to China. Together with projected costs of Obamacare, statements like this have to increase uncertainty and make the business outlook even more bleak.

    How is presidential disdain like what was displayed by Obama helpful for the economy which may already be in recession?

    • Karen, you’re looking way too much into this. This speech mostly focused on the symbiotic relationship between entrepreneurs and the government. Everything else is speculation.

    • Okay, Karen, let’s deal with the meat and potatoes, and not just the gravy. Consider this statement from Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, and get back with me:

      Lautenberg on GOP Blocking Small Business Job Creation & Tax Cut Bill
      Lautenberg Press Office, 202-224-3224

      Thursday, July 12, 2012
      WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) released the following statement today after Senate Republicans blocked action on the Small Business Jobs And Tax Relief Act.

      “Republicans will stop at nothing to block the President from creating jobs and growing the economy,” Lautenberg said. “Republicans are stalling job creating measures in a feeble attempt to deny President Obama a second term, but what they are really doing is denying America’s entrepreneurs the tools they need to succeed. I will continue fighting to strengthen our economy and help small businesses prosper so that they can create good jobs for middle class Americans.”

      The Small Business Jobs And Tax Relief Act is a central part of President Obama’s “To-Do List” for Congress, and includes tax breaks for small businesses that hire new employees this year, pay higher wages to their current employees, or invest in new business equipment. It is estimated that these small business tax cuts could help New Jersey businesses create nearly 30,000 jobs.

      http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=337236

  3. Hey Dre,
    I’m not sure what “out of context” means in reference to this quote. I’ve read this quote over and over and whether your referring to the business as the Reps are suggesting, or the bridges, infrastructure, or government as your suggesting, the idea that “you didn’t build that” in reference to successful people or businesses is equally offensive. Why? Because outside of their considerable risk and effort, businesses paid taxes that helped build that, businesses supplied heavy equipment that helped build that, they supplied jobs that also contributed taxes that built that. Actually, since they pay the majority of the taxes in this country, they built MOST of that. It works on the premise that they didn’t also contribute work or taxes to those things that President Obama was mentioning which is dead wrong. It unfortunately plays into my major complaint about the man who I voted for 4 years ago. He thinks the caboose pushes the train instead of the engine pulling it. That part seems to me to be exactly in context and I’ve heard several simular versions. I’m sorry, but I no longer believe he understands how the economy works. You also left out the part;

    “I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.”

    It sounds like he’s saying that we built the field and the bleachers so it doesn’t matter who’s on the field, anyone could do that. He never speaks like that when he’s talking about his favorite basketball team or player.

    • “Because outside of their considerable risk and effort, businesses paid taxes that helped build that, businesses supplied heavy equipment that helped build that.”

      Your argument seem to settle on generic business vs. specific business. Without a consumer of some sort–whether it’s government directly, or government indirectly–a business cannot succeed on its own, as it cannot drive itself.

      if you’re an entrepreneur, or just opening a business for the first time, your success depends directly on what someone did prior to your opening the business–some of which may include the establishment of the legal structure or framework of it, protecting your legal claim to your product, or service, either through the provision of trademarks, the granting of copyrights, or the issuance of a patent–all government services.

      That the government built a variety of things to make this happen, regardless of who specifically put up the money, it all comes back to we the consumer, whether through the taxes we paid to government by way of doing business with a business or corporation, or because we paid property taxes, or income tax, or taxes on gasoline, or taxes on a utility or what have you.

      President Obama is right on this point, and anyone who would argue to the contrary, has a political ax to grind, or has a political point to make, or to defend, by stretching the fact that they somehow made it all happen without the help of the government.

      The last I check, the people of this nation is the government, and nothing gets built, or stay built long, without us–or by not taking us into account.

      “Actually, since they pay the majority of the taxes in this country, they built MOST of that.”

      Well, not exactly. In many instances, those who consumed what they (business) produced actually paid the taxes. And then we have this:

      “But by taking advantage of myriad breaks and loopholes that other countries generally do not offer, United States corporations pay only slightly more on average than their counterparts in other industrial countries. And some American corporations use aggressive strategies to pay less — often far less — than their competitors abroad and at home. A Government Accountability Office study released in 2008 found that 55 percent of United States companies paid no federal income taxes during at least one year in a seven-year period it studied.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/economy/03rates.html

      “It sounds like he’s saying that we built the field and the bleachers so it doesn’t matter who’s on the field, anyone could do that. He never speaks like that when he’s talking about his favorite basketball team or player.”

      How do you manage to hear what’s never said. A bias will do that. President Obama is saying this: being “smart” ain’t good enough, an neither is “working hard.”

      His point: You can’t do it alone. You need the effort of many to make a success of anything, whether they’re seen or not seen, heard or not heard, or working directly for you or not. It was the central point of his speech, until it was hijacked, and purposely distorted. He’s saying: It doesn’t matter if you’re running for city council, mayor, governor, president of the United States, or starting a franchise, opening a business, or forming a corporation–you’re going to need the talent, effort, and “smarts” of many to make THAT happen.

      “He thinks the caboose pushes the train instead of the engine pulling it.”

      a self-serving analogy. The fact is: The people of this nation is both the “caboose” an the “engine.” Without us, there would be no “train,” and no tracks upon which it may run. Without us, there would be no economy, no taxes to collect, and no government to orchestrate or execute our common good or “general welfare.”

      We’re not only the government, but more than that, We Are This Nation’s Ultimate Consumer.

      The problem as I see it: This fact is continually being lost in a wilderness of political intrigue, and a lust for absolute political power above all else, where the world “compromise” is not only a four-letter word, but the lack of which has driven some Republicans from even attempting another term in the House or Senate.

  4. Hey B.D.,
    Your demonstrating the most fundamental difference in the way the two parties view the economy-is the government a help or a hindrance? You make a lot of good points here…many that I share. It’s absolutely true that no one runs or creates a business on their own, but as far as the government’s involvement, isn’t that partly because it’s impossible to do it otherwise? I built a cabin up north almost completely by myself. After my son and some of his friends helped me frame it, i spent weekend after weekend up there alone hammering away for 4 years. There were 7 inspectors from the government watching 1 man work. Electrical inspectors, plumbing inspectors, drain inspectors, building inspectors, zoning inspectors, etc.. While I certainly couldn’t have built it without them, (the government won’t let me) it felt ridiculous for 7 people to watch one guy work. BTW, it added thousands to the cost just in fees. Before all this bureaucracy, people built homes, they built roads and they built schools all without government. You act like that would be impossible but it’s been done throughout time. You can argue that everything is built better and safer and for the most part, you’d be right, but to throw the government in the way of all my efforts and then act like I couldn’t have done it without them denies all of history. I don’t need their “help”. My problem with President Obama’s speech was that he wandered from what he started out saying. In the beginning he was saying that nobody does great things alone, on that I agree. However, by the end he was saying, “Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business–you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” that “somebody” was also the taxpaying business owners. To suggest otherwise is like saying that I didn’t build my cabin at all and that’s insulting. Sure, some people avoid taxes, just like some people cheat welfare, but the vast majority do pay their taxes and it’s easy to prove. I gather that you believe in consumer driven economics. To continue my analogy, it’s true that there would be no NBA without the fans, but it matters more who’s on the field to create the best team and compete. I’m assuming you believe that it’s the consumer and the bureaucracy that is the all important component to our economy, i believe it’s the entrepreneurs and investors, that’s a very debatable economic discussion. I believe, as a student of Milton Friedman, that he was closer to getting it right than his counterpart John Maynard Keynes. Keynesian philosophy is failing around the planet and the only argument is the normal Liberal tenets, we didn’t spend enough, it wasn’t broad enough, and there was too much opposition. Don’t you ever get tired of all these excuses instead of results? Decades of trying to lower poverty, improve our inner-city schools, and reduce crime and all I get from the Democrats is excuses and how evil the other side is while even in totally Dem controlled cities things get worse and worse. Frankly, I’m tired of hearing it and voting for Dems for over 30 years based on fear mongering that Reps want to destroy the Earth that they themselves live on, put blacks back in second class citizenry and reverse women’s suffrage. You know what I think is a true “War on Women”? To continue to support over-sexualizing them as if that’s all they have to offer and to normalize out of wedlock births so that single moms can be poorer and and their children more likely to suffer divorce, drugs and prison. That’s what is really hurting women. I know you’ll never believe it, but why would the Democrats want to end this bad cycle when single moms vote overwhelmingly Democrat because it’s so hard to survive on your own as a single mom without government assistance? We can debate the best solutions, and we should, but my point is; just because I believe that Dem policies are hurting and not helping poor people, particularly black people, doesn’t make me evil. I believe that education is the answer and teaching people to be self -reliant, not dependent. I was once from a dirt-poor family in a nearly all black school and I know several other people who crawled out of that crab bucket. Dependency atrophies everything good in people.

  5. I won’t revisit that which I’ve already responded to, and successively argued. Let me reiterate what I’ve said previously about the “war on women,” and your statement:

    “To continue to support over-sexualizing them [women] as if that’s all they have to offer and to normalize out of wedlock births so that single moms can be poorer and and their children more likely to suffer divorce, drugs and prison. That’s what is really hurting women.”

    Yours is a male-chauvinistic approach to the problem, not taking into account that these supposed “over-sexualized” women didn’t arrive at their dependent condition alone, but was pressed by “over-sexualized” men, men who didn’t use a condom, didn’t marry these women they impregnated, and did whatever they could–in some cases resorting to murder–to avoid paying child support for their progeny.

    And Republicans are making it harder for these women to get birth control–one in particular calling a woman a “slut” for using them–making it nearly impossible to exercise their Constitutional right to an abortion, and balking at providing assistance to these women once the kids are born.

    And you say it’s liberal policies “that’s … really hurting women”?

    “Keynesian philosophy is failing around the planet and the only argument is the normal Liberal tenets, we didn’t spend enough, it wasn’t broad enough, and there was too much opposition.”

    If you believe that the several governments in the Eurozone with struggling economies can use austerity to rebuild their broken economies, dream on. It’s not going to happen there, any more than it’s going to happen here.

    Can you spell depression, because if Willard Mitt Romney is elected and Republicans use austerity measures–namely cutting or dismantling programs that benefit the poor and the middle class, and reducing the size of the federal government, while giving the rich more tax breaks–to bring down the national debt rather than economic growth, that’s what we’ll be staring down the barrel at.

    “[B]ut why would the Democrats want to end this bad cycle when single moms vote overwhelmingly Democrat because it’s so hard to survive on your own as a single mom without government assistance?”

    More Republican claptrap.

    What’s the Republican solution to the unwed-mothers situation in this country? Send them to work? Fine, just give them childcare. Fine, just train them for high-paying jobs that meet all their financial needs. Fine, create an economic climate that will make their skills, talents, training, and education in demand. Fine, just assure that their kids are receiving a first-class education. Fine, just assure that those kids have a fair crack at this nation’s finest colleges and universities.

    Talk is cheap!

    “[J]ust because I believe that Dem policies are hurting and not helping poor people, particularly black people, doesn’t make me evil.”

    Not “evil,” just naive.

    Politics isn’t the solution for underclass blacks or underclass whites–whether it’s liberalism or conservatism. You seem to feel that the problems of this country center around blacks, but there’s a large number of whites struggling to make ends meet, have out of wedlock babies, and are in the throes of poverty. Should we blame Democratic policies for that, too?

    “Dependency atrophies everything good in people.”

    It’s not as devastating as all that, but the aim, of course, is to make everyone independent. That’s neither a conservative value or a liberal value, it’s a human value that has been politicized.

    Let me introduce you to Joe Bageant in case you haven’t already met. He has a lot to say about the American political scene, societal missteps, and many things about poor whites in this country. If after reading Bageant, you’re still a “recovering liberal,” I’ll wish you Godspeed. http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/12/america-y-ur-peeps-b-so-dum.html

    The problem as I see it: It’s our dependency on capitalism (which Republicans want to expand), which can’t and won’t put everyone to work who wishes to work–and which, on its own, won’t put in place safeguards for its workforce, or attend to its healthcare needs.

    The government that you seem to rail against at every turn did that, as well collective bargaining. Capitalism with its emphasis on the bottomline, and cheap labor, will never hire all who have a need of work at a living wage, and neither will a healthcare system, focused as it is on the bottomline, provide all the national healthcare that’s needed on its own, and without the intervention of government.

    Do you know how much the several governments of this nation contribute to the gross domestic product, the GDP, that we brag so much about?

  6. Hey B.D.,
    “Yours is a male-chauvinistic approach to the problem, not taking into account that these supposed “over-sexualized” women didn’t arrive at their dependent condition alone, but was pressed by “over-sexualized” men, men who didn’t use a condom, didn’t marry these women they impregnated, and did whatever they could–in some cases resorting to murder–to avoid paying child support for their progeny.”

    Did I miss the part where I said it was all women’s fault or is that an attempt to make me seem sexist in order to dismiss my points by tainting the source? Since our media culture and our governmental policies are driven by mostly men, I would say it’s MOSTLY men’s fault! How about, since we’re both against disrespecting women and against calling them discriminatory names, we stand united against people that use terms like “bitches” and “sluts” whether it’s Rush, Bill Maher, or media sources that refer to every Republican woman as a “flake” or as a “slutty airline stewardess”? that way, we could both be consistent? Deal? I’m offended by ALL of that, whether it comes out of the mouth of a right-wing conservative or a left wing liberal. It’s ALL misogyny to me.BTW, it takes more than a hand full of birth control pills and condoms to cure the problem. There are more birth control options available to women now than at any point in our history and the problems keep getting worse. Making birth control the sole issue is an attempt to distract women from the real problem, a culture that views them as throw away sex toys.

    And you say it’s liberal policies “that’s … really hurting women”?

    Yes. I am. However, denying birth control isn’t the answer either.

    “If you believe that the several governments in the Eurozone with struggling economies can use austerity to rebuild their broken economies, dream on. It’s not going to happen there, any more than it’s going to happen here.”

    It’s working here in Michigan, but I’m sure you have complaints. It also works in my home where I spend what i make and pay my debts. And I’m doing quite well thank you. I’m out of the ghetto, my kids are in a better environment despite that I own two houses and some acreage, I drive a 1998 s10. Europe is folding like every country that has tried those economic policies. Of course, that’s never the reason, is it?

    Whether we make the cuts or the bond holders stop lending us money…it’s going to happen here. Mark my words. We can work to stop it or live in denial and start accessing blame. Your choice.

    “Politics isn’t the solution for underclass blacks or underclass whites–whether it’s liberalism or conservatism. You seem to feel that the problems of this country center around blacks, but there’s a large number of whites struggling to make ends meet, have out of wedlock babies, and are in the throes of poverty. Should we blame Democratic policies for that, too?”

    I’m not pointing the finger at only blacks, I’ve seen the numbers on white out-of-wedlock births. And yes, I do blame the Dem policies that I believe encourage dependency.

    “What’s the Republican solution to the unwed-mothers situation in this country? Send them to work? Fine, just give them childcare. Fine, just train them for high-paying jobs that meet all their financial needs. Fine, create an economic climate that will make their skills, talents, training, and education in demand. Fine, just assure that their kids are receiving a first-class education. Fine, just assure that those kids have a fair crack at this nation’s finest colleges and universities.”

    I don’t think Republicans have the answers. but they aren’t encouraging it through the media and policies. I’m all for education. I work at a university.

    “It’s not as devastating as all that, but the aim, of course, is to make everyone independent. That’s neither a conservative value or a liberal value, it’s a human value that has been politicized.”

    On that, at least, we can agree.

    • “Did I miss the part where I said it was all women’s fault or is that an attempt to make me seem sexist in order to dismiss my points by tainting the source.”

      You miss the point when you left men out of the equation, and focused primarily on the woman, as though somehow her condition was totally her fault, and not that she had a little help along the way.

      “or media sources that refer to every Republican woman as a “flake” or as a “slutty airline stewardess””

      What “media sources” do you listen to? I’ve never heard “Republican women” referred to as “flakes,” and “slutty,” but then I’m more fatidious about the sources I use to inform me. That’s not to say that someone on the Left hasn’t, but that I haven’t heard it.

      “Making birth control the sole issue is an attempt to distract women from the real problem, a culture that views them as throw away sex toys.”

      If it’s a cultural perception, all the more reason to give women the means to fight back, and that’s where contraceptions come in, and abortions–women lives not coming to a standstill because now they’re with child, while the men walk away to have intercourse another day.

      “Yes. I am. However, denying birth control isn’t the answer either.”

      What, then, is the answer, a revamping of society’s values around women? And what do women do in the meantime?

      “It’s working here in Michigan, but I’m sure you have complaints.”

      What’s “working here in Michigan”? Perhaps I should rephrase that: Who’s working in Michigan? Thanks for making my point. Austerity may keep the state out of bankruptcy, but what good is that in an economically depressed state that has suspended democracy in favor of the an autocratic crisis manager.

      “And yes, I do blame the Dem policies that I believe encourage dependency.”

      What policies are we talking about exactly, aid to families with dependent children, dependent because the men in our society won’t take responsibility for their offspring–either to raise them or to provide for them.

      And you blame liberals for doing what these shiftless men won’t do? Should we make these women pariahs, and turn our back on them and their children, or should we assist where we can, and give them–and their children–the means to live lives of dignity and the hope of escaping dependency overtime.

      That’s the civilized approach, wouldn’t you say?

      “I don’t think Republicans have the answers. but they aren’t encouraging it through the media and policies.”

      And that’s the nub of the problem. They have no answers and are attacking those who are, at least, seeking remedies.

      It’s like the healthcare issue. If you don’t have health insurance, the Republican remedy is that you should be left to die in the streets. If Democrats provide for something else, then we’re bleeding hearts that are using government policies to garner votes.

      You’re going to have to make up your mind: Either you’re for sustaining life, or you for every man and woman for him or herself.

      Then, again, maybe you already have.

  7. @B.D.,
    A few more thoughts.
    I read the link you gave me, and while I am impressed with Mr.Bageant’s obvious writing skills, I work in a major university. I don’t need to be schooled in liberal thought, I live it every single day ad nauseam. I would venture to say, if the average liberal was exposed to as much conservative thought as I get liberal thought we all might understand each other better. Unfortunately, every liberal professor in my university has his walls lined with books and magazines that espouse the very ideology that they do. There’s no effort to learn, only to re-enforce and indoctrinate. Free thinking, debate and dissent against their ideology is strongly discouraged if not outright banned. I also couldn’t help but notice the sexism exhibited by Mr. Bageant when he calls Sarah Palin a “”squirrel brained woman”. Is this the proper way to address a woman who has come from no rich or connected background to become a PTA president, then a mayor, then a governor, then a vice presidential hopeful, and finally a well paid political pundit? I guess any “squirrel brained woman” could have done that. Why it always O.K. for the left to act misogynist and degrade a woman and her achievements as long their victim is on the right? Discrimination and sexism always has it’s justification, doesn’t it? I respect Sarah’s achievements even though I disagree with her on most everything. But then again, I don’t degrade women for fun.

    “The government that you seem to rail against at every turn did that, as well collective bargaining. Capitalism with its emphasis on the bottomline, and cheap labor, will never hire all who have a need of work at a living wage, and neither will a healthcare system, focused as it is on the bottomline.”

    I have no problem whatsoever with the government protecting the workers. Hell, that’s their real job outside of infrastructure and defense. I’m a union member and a union supporter. However, government is also a business that runs on politics designed to protect it’s own interests. That’s where liberals get confused, they think it’s a altruistic deity, the answer to any and all their problems. The only difference between a CEO and a dictator is one is in business and the other government. They both need to be controlled. I fear my government as much as I fear corporations. They are both run by the same egotistical, money hungry, power hungry people. However, I would no more get rid of capitalism then I would get rid of government. They both have their positive functions and both need to be restrained. BTW, why have so much faith in a government when several of them once put black people in slavery, not to mention a long list of atrocities including genocide? The only reason I favor well regulated capitalism is because powerful governments have a very bad history and it takes a lot of bloodshed to get the power back. When is the last time you heard of thousands dying to get rid of a company? They are dying every day in places like Syria to get rid of a government that grew too big and too powerful.

    “Do you know how much the several governments of this nation contribute to the gross domestic product, the GDP, that we brag so much about?”

    There is one fundamental difference between a government run function vs a private, and this too is lost on most liberals. Private industry pays property taxes, city taxes, state taxes, federal taxes, corporate taxes, business taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, and taxes on profit.. Government does not. One feeds the tax revenue stream, the other is exempt.. The more functions you put into the private arena, the more taxes you collect. That seems to me to be common sense. Demanding more government programs, paid for with taxes, at the same time that you move more and more into the public sector makes no sense at all, IMO.

  8. “I also couldn’t help but notice the sexism exhibited by Mr. Bageant when he calls Sarah Palin a “”squirrel brained woman”.”

    If you had read more than that one article, you’d know that Bageant doen’t pull his punches. He attacks himself with as much relish as he attack others.

    “I don’t need to be schooled in liberal thought, I live it every single day ad nauseam.”

    It wasn’t liberal thought that I was hawking, but a view upon a white lifestyle that’s rarely discussed or considered here in these United States.

    “Free thinking, debate and dissent against their ideology is strongly discouraged if not outright banned.”

    And you think, somehow, you’d find this paragon of “free thought” in conservative colleges and universities?

    “That’s where liberals get confused, they think it’s a altruistic deity, the answer to any and all their problems.”

    That’s your bias speaking again. Government policies unto themselves aren’t the answer, neither liberal policies nor conservative policies, but government can go a long way towards allowing us to collectively support human policies.

    “They are dying every day in places like Syria to get rid of a government that grew too big and too powerful.”

    There’s nothing wrong with a government that’s “too big and too powerful.” It’s only “wrong” when that government decides to serve itself rather than the people, or when it decides to serve one man and his interest, at the expense of the people.

    “Private industry pays property taxes, city taxes, state taxes, federal taxes, corporate taxes, business taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, and taxes on profit.”

    Haven’t we discussed this before? And where did all that money to pay taxes come from? And further, what working citizen in this country doesn’t pay these taxes–direct or indirectly–unless you’re as wealthy as Willard Romney, and can avoid taxes by stashing your money in offshore accounts.

    Many coporations don’t pay taxes, or enjoy susidies, or is favored by the government in other ways.

    There’s never been a year since I entered the workforce that I didn’t pay taxes. And further, the government assists the private sector with grants for research and development, subsidies, and taking on some of the early investments such as in the Internet, nuclear power plants, and NASA, which will overtime allow private investors to take upon themselves lucrative space missions, for which the government will at that time exact a tax, but it won’t reap the billions in taxes that the private sector will reap in profits for government’s initial outlay to make it happen.

    And, too, government workers pay taxes, as well as government contractors, and government-sponsored programs that benefit states and local governments–highway funds for one, and other infrastructure projects–you know, like the “bridge to nowhere,” and other government pork.

    Right or wrong: One person’s pork is another person paycheck.

    Who do you think provide food to the military, and other provisions that bases, forts, and other military installations require?

    Who do you think are building our military planes, our ships, our tanks, our guns, our weapon systems, our rockets, our uniforms, our drones, our … I could go on ad infinitum.

    “The more functions you put into the private arena, the more taxes you collect.”

    And the more disconnect we’ll be where people are concern, with the bottomline outweighing human considerations.

    “Demanding more government programs, paid for with taxes, at the same time that you move more and more into the public sector makes no sense at all, IMO.”

    We aren’t moving “more and more [people] into the public sector,” we’re laying off teachers, police and firemen (and closing fire stations), and other civil servants, to bring in balanced budgets under austerity programs–and Republicans in the House aren’t willing to spend federal dollars to make up for these shortfalls.

    Where’s “pork” when you really need it?

    Here’s the hard, cold as steel fact: Capitalism doesn’t care about people. It’s amoral. It only cares about profits.

    As a result, capitalism will never hire all this nation’s workforce–and now with an expansion of outsourcing, and offshoring, that number will inevitably grow, and grow exponentially.

    Couple that with automation, and the outcome is devastating. My bank is a good example: It’s pushing ATMs over people, and in a few more years, banks as a structure we walk into, and bank tellers will be as extinct as the dodo bird.

    Frankly, without the government stepping in long ago, as the employer of last resort, we would have seen the shortcomings of capitalism decades ago.

    In the coming years, government has two choices: Either hire the unemployed or provide government assistance.

    Let me ask you a question: How many taxes would the government be taking in now from the private sector, had it allowed the auto industry–and its attendant suppliers–to go bankrupt witout government intervention, an outcome that Republicans were pushing?

    How many taxes would the government be taking in now from the private sector had the banks–a private sector corporate entity–not received a government bailout, as a faltering, overextended, banking sector dragged us all into the hell of a depression?

  9. Hey B.D.,
    “I also couldn’t help but notice the sexism exhibited by Mr. Bageant when he calls Sarah Palin a “”squirrel brained woman”.”
    If you had read more than that one article, you’d know that Bageant doen’t pull his punches. He attacks himself with as much relish as he attack others.”

    So as long as you attack yourself and others equally it’s o.k. to be sexist? I could not disagree more.

    “Free thinking, debate and dissent against their ideology is strongly discouraged if not outright banned.”
    And you think, somehow, you’d find this paragon of “free thought” in conservative colleges and universities?”

    Your comparing publicly funded universities like the one I work at with private funded? You don’t see the difference?

    “There’s nothing wrong with a government that’s “too big and too powerful.” It’s only “wrong” when that government decides to serve itself rather than the people, or when it decides to serve one man and his interest, at the expense of the people.”

    And if it does, how many have to die to get it back in line? I’m sorry, but your faith in the government to not turn evil if granted too much power baffles me. It has happened throughout history in dozens if not hundreds of examples. BTW, every horrible dictatorship started out as a Labor Party, from Hitler (who was elected democratically) to Stalin, Napoleon (who’s writings helped forge the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and Pol pot. They all started out as heros of the poor who rallied people by separating them by class, religion, and ethnicity. Be very careful who you grant great power to, it has a tendency to greatly corrupt.

    “We aren’t moving “more and more [people] into the public sector,” we’re laying off teachers, police and firemen (and closing fire stations), and other civil servants, to bring in balanced budgets under austerity programs–and Republicans in the House aren’t willing to spend federal dollars to make up for these shortfalls.”

    I was speaking to the past decades, not the past few years. i’m still confused as to where all this money is supposed to come from that you want to spend. Even with the reductions your talking about, we’re already $1.2 trillion in deficit. You’d like to increase that even as excessive spending appears to be our problem? Spending our way out will never work. It doesn’t work in business, it doesn’t work in my home, and it won’t work in government until after the private sector is completely destroyed like in FDR’s time. BTW, his programs required work, paid minimum wage and were designed to be temporary.

    “Frankly, without the government stepping in long ago, as the employer of last resort, we would have seen the shortcomings of capitalism decades ago.”

    That’s highly speculative. What’s your proof? I say we would have reduced dependency and brought in more taxes thereby reducing our debt. Both are theoretic, how is your version of events that didn’t happen any more valid?

    “How many taxes would the government be taking in now from the private sector, had it allowed the auto industry–and its attendant suppliers–to go bankrupt witout government intervention, an outcome that Republicans were pushing?
    How many taxes would the government be taking in now from the private sector had the banks–a private sector corporate entity–not received a government bailout, as a faltering, overextended, banking sector dragged us all into the hell of a depression?”

    Once again your being highly speculative. Chrysler went into bankruptcy in 1979 and is still around, so why couldn’t have GM and Chrysler gone the same route this time?. Thousands lost their jobs, some of them my friends, due to Obama’s “saving” of the auto industry, dozens of dealerships closed leaving people with nothing. I guess they don’t count. Contracts were ripped up in the restructuring of GM and Chrysler destroying 200+ years of contractual law thereby setting the precedent for state governments to do the same with their union contracts with the teachers and firemen you are concerned about losing. You seem to think that if a company goes bankrupt everyone loses their jobs and the company closes their doors automatically. That’s not how it works most of the time and you should look up a little bankruptcy law. Lastly, we’re not in a depression by any accepted economic measurement.

  10. “So as long as you attack yourself and others equally it’s o.k. to be sexist? I could not disagree more.”

    It was your assessment that Joe was “sexist.” Many might disagree. It appears that Ol’ Joe doesn’t think much of Sarah’s intellectual acumen and used colorful language to say so.

    “Your comparing publicly funded universities like the one I work at with private funded? You don’t see the difference?”

    Of course I do: One is “publicly funded,” and the other isn’t.

    “They all started out as heros of the poor who rallied people by separating them by class, religion, and ethnicity.”

    Remember: blacks have already felt the bite of government, mostly Southern Fried. It was government that finally gave us the civil rights to which we were entitled, and not the “evil” version that you meticulously defined.

    “i’m still confused as to where all this money is supposed to come from that you want to spend.”

    For starters, we can reduce the size of our military outlay that’s consuming a large chunk of our budget and make it commensurate with the real threat we face, and in line with other governments of the world.

    Yes, we can tax the rich more, since our military, especially our Navy Armada, protect the high seas and various straits that protect their various money interests, especially since they are disproportionately represented in the military.

    “That’s highly speculative. What’s your proof? I say we would have reduced dependency and brought in more taxes thereby reducing our debt.”

    Is it now? Here’s a professor with whom I’m sure you’ll disagree, because he doesn’t support “your” wild speculations.

    http://rdwolff.com/content/why-no-government-jobs-program

    “Once again your being highly speculative. Chrysler went into bankruptcy in 1979 and is still around, so why couldn’t have GM and Chrysler gone the same route this time.”

    You think?

    In 1979, the government did go out on a limb with Chrysler by guaranteeing its loan. For GM there was no lender willing to take the risk of lending the necessary monies need for a “quick-rinse bankruptcy,” hence the government to the rescue.

    “Thousands lost their jobs … due to Obama’s “saving” of the auto industry, dozens of dealerships closed leaving people with nothing. I guess they don’t count. Contracts were ripped up in the restructuring of GM and Chrysler destroying 200+ years of contractual law thereby setting the precedent for state governments to do the same with their union contracts with the teachers and firemen you are concerned about losing.”

    You’re right: Obama blew it. He should have let the auto industry fail, which was Romney’s idea all alone. He shouldn’t have “saved” it using a government-financed bankruptcy. It would have been cleaner, and more final, since Republicans at the time were telling the American people that Obama’s efforts were futile, and that he was only postponing the eventual demise of GM and others car manufactures.

    A pock on Obama’s house: This nation doesn’t need to build cars. Cars can be built cheaper and more efficiently, and with more bang for the buck, using foreign labor, and foreign automobile manufacturers.

    What in the hell was he thinking, believing that this nation should be the lender of last resort, and create all that chaos which you have carefully detailed.

    “You seem to think that if a company goes bankrupt everyone loses their jobs and the company closes their doors automatically.”

    In the case of GM, that would have been the outcome–all jobs lost, the company closing its doors, and yes “automatically” without a lender.

    Under the best-case scenario the outcome would have been as you stated, had the government kept to itself, and allowed GM to fall.

    “That’s not how it works most of the time and you should look up a little bankruptcy law.”

    And, sir, that’s insulting. Should I now hit back and tell you where your education is lacking, presuming as you’ve done that I don’t know as much as you on the subject.

    This article from the NYT’s Business Day offers some background on GM’s troubles and how it found itself in the predicament that has made it the bane, and laughing stock, of Fox News and other conservatives such as Limbaugh.
    . http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/general_motors_corporation/index.html

    For my part, I’m bullish on America, GM, and the auto industry.

    “Lastly, we’re not in a depression by any accepted economic measurement.”

    I never said we were. But we sure as hell were headed in that direction had it not been for the bank bailouts, which were followed up with a government stimulus.

    And if Romney and Ryan are elected to run the country, a depression is almost certain, as internal pressure mount–most of which will come from the Tea Party faction of the Republican party–to put the nation on an austerity path, by cutting entitlements to the elderly, reducing aid to the poor, and dismantling federal departments that protect this nation’s health and environment, while keeping untouched the income of the rich and uber-rich.

    It seems solvency comes at a high price–for the poor and the middle class, that is.

  11. Hey B.D.,
    I find myself wishing that I still had my radio show, I would have loved to have you on. As usual, I’ll let you have the last word. (I do that because I don’t care who “wins”, I just want everyone here to hear an opinion that isn’t like-minded, which I’ve already done.)

    My question, “Your comparing publicly funded universities like the one I work at with private funded? You don’t see the difference?”
    Your answer, “Of course I do: One is “publicly funded,” and the other isn’t.”

    The point is; with public funded universities the public funds are supporting their ideology and bias. Self funded, private institutions are not using public tax dollars to promote their ideology. You don’t have to be fair if your funding yourself, if you get tax dollars I believe you should at least try.

    “For starters, we can reduce the size of our military outlay that’s consuming a large chunk of our budget and make it commensurate with the real threat we face, and in line with other governments of the world.
    Yes, we can tax the rich more, since our military, especially our Navy Armada, protect the high seas and various straits that protect their various money interests, especially since they are disproportionately represented in the military.”

    Leon Panetta, Bill Clintons ex- chief of staff and current Sect. of Defense is already calling a 100 billion dollar cut a “disaster”. The military budget is currently at $930 billion, if you were to cut it in half, you would have $465 billion or about 1/3 of our deficit taken care of. Or would you? That cut would lay off half the military personnel or 725,000 people (I thought you liked government spending for jobs.) Most of those people would stop paying taxes, go on unemployment, and start applying for other expensive V.A sponsored programs like college and housing. The military is the biggest socialist, egalitarian jobs program in the world and now you want to slash that? If you dislike the military or belive they spend too much, fine! But it’s not going to be the quid pro quo savings that your espousing. I’m not so sure I like the idea of the world’s rich creating their own navy our any other military.

    I said,“That’s not how it works most of the time and you should look up a little bankruptcy law.”

    You said, “And, sir, that’s insulting. Should I now hit back and tell you where your education is lacking, presuming as you’ve done that I don’t know as much as you on the subject.”

    I certainly didn’t mean to be insulting, I simply thought, that since you were throwing out a false choice of GM and Chrysler either being saved Obama’s way or completely folding, that you were unaware that Chapter 11 was a choice. Your frankly still doing it, the government could have been the lender of last choice during Chapter 11 restructuring without screwing the bond holders, putting the burden of the pensions on the taxpayers or ripping up contractual law. You can argue which was the best choice, but to act like it was Obama’s way or GM and Chrysler folding is disingenuous. There were other choices.

    BTW, never worry that I’m going to throw my 9th grade education around. Especially when my last three years at Emerson Jr. High taught me nothing but how to fight, do drugs and blame other people for my problems. It’s only when I shed that philosophy that I became the person I am today, which is why I promote others doing the same.

    Peace and thanks for the debate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s