O'Reilly article

[layoutshooter]

How can ANY American, who believes in the Constitution agree with REDISTRIBUTION of wealth?

Besides, I have MORE than done my part to keep REAL, HARD WORKING, Americans in work this year. SO if ANYONE should not pay taxes it SHOULD be me!!

I mean, after all, I did the following with my hard earned wages, by choice, which keep people OFF welfare and WORKING!

Bought a boat/motor/trailer (NOT CHEAP)
Hired a lawn care service to care for my lawn/snow removal while I am on the road
Hired a tree removal service to take down two trees in my yard
Hired a contractor to rehab my back garage

I did MY part. I did NOT provide handouts or hand ups, I provided WORK that those people ACTIVELY sought.

Maybe you guys who think that I should pay even MORE in taxes, making less likely that I can continue to provide people like that work should give them a call. YOU can inform them that I should have my money taken from me, so as not to hire them, to give it to those who refuse work. Then YOU can pay for THEIR welfare.

You can tell the boat prop service that I am hiring to reprop my boat next spring the same thing. Alone with the landscaper that is putting in the driveway to the back garage and the contractor who will add the addition to that garage to house the boat.

Now, which makes more sense? Allowing me to keep MORE of my money so I can continue to HIRE WORKERS and provide THEM with wages? OR? Take my wages, by force, and give it to those who don't work or actively seek it. Please don't insult me and say there is NO work available, every one I hired looked for and found it.

Guess no one told them THEY had it all wrong.

That is ALL in addition to the APU I bought, the truck work I paid for, etc etc etc.

Who's program REALLY works? Let me know if you need their phone numbers to inform them they are better off losing my business so I can pay people NOT to work. I will be HAPPY to provide those numbers for you.

 

[davekc]

I think you still need a form of welfare for temporary assistance. With a time limit. When time is up, you get no money. If you have kids, you work somewhere providing childcare for others that are working to get your check. Fix two things at once. After listening to screaming kids for eight hours, Walmart might sound appealing.
Have to be fair to the kids as their choice for parents is limited.


As for Obama, have to give him credit like any other president for dealing with Bin Laden. Outside of that, unemployment is higher than when he started (can't blame Bush at this point), could say he closed out Iraq, but that was started before he became president, and the rest of it was perceived accomplishments that now have us 16T in debt and climbing. We are still printing money like crazy and it is a little late at this point to still blame Bush although I have a feeling we will be still hearing that lame excuse for failure four years from now.

 

[layoutshooter]

OH YEAH, I bought a rifle too. That is made here in the U.S. Soon I will be off to bed. Getting up early. Hopefully weather will allow for a duck hunt. Then I can maybe use of the the Michigan made shotgun shells I bought, so I can buy MORE next year. Keep that guy working too. Not to mention the guy with slice the lunch meat I put on the bread that was baked in Michigan for my lunch.

DANG GUM! I am a one man welfare need destroyer! Just think what I could do if I were able to keep MORE of my wages. I guess that makes me greedy.

No need for welfare. EVERYONE I hire LOOKED for work, FOUND it and will continue to do so. How does that work? It is called ACTIVELY SEEKING WORK! Moving for it if need be. Learning new skills.

HEY, my tree guy I hired does SO well that he only works March trough Nov. Spends the rest of the year fishing in the Keys! Work smarter, not more, he has the RIGHT idea!

OH YEAH, I forgot about the American made ammo I bought from Lake City, a plant near Kansas City. Obama is trying very hard to put those AMERICAN WORKERS onto welfare. Wants to outlaw their product. What a PUTZ. I did MY share to keep them in business.

 

[cheri1122]

I think you still need a form of welfare for temporary assistance. With a time limit. When time is up, you get no money.

The problem with unemployment [which is the basis for many other problems] is how the dynamics have changed since the program was begun. Who envisioned mass layoffs, where entire companies moved production offshore to reduce labor costs [not because they were struggling, in many cases, but just to satisfy shareholders demands for more profit] would become so popular? Who envisioned the WalMart business model of restricting workers to part time [to avoid paying benefits] or the widespread use of temporary labor for the same reason?
Unemployment hasn't mushroomed because workers decided they don't want to work, but because management decided they have better uses for profits than wages.
I'm all for people working, but think it's rather unreasonable to expect them to work two jobs just to pay the rent, or move to North freakin Dakota, either.

If you have kids, you work somewhere providing childcare for others that are working to get your check. Fix two things at once. After listening to screaming kids for eight hours, Walmart might sound appealing.

That's a great idea - in theory, lol. In practice, not every one is a suitable caregiver, and a responsible parent [which believe it or not, many unemployed people are] wouldn't leave their child with someone they don't trust, unless the facility is licensed and caregivers are screened carefully. It'd be a great help if the govt were willing to do it, but I just don't think it'd fly in today's environment, where public transportation gets a lot of opposition, and 'public' anything [libraries, parks, educational offerings] are being reduced or eliminated for lack of funding.

Have to be fair to the kids as their choice for parents is limited.

Yep. Half the people on public assistance are kids - how do we penalize them, even if their parents are dumb or lazy? We can't.


As for Obama, have to give him credit like any other president for dealing with Bin Laden. Outside of that, unemployment is higher than when he started (can't blame Bush at this point), could say he closed out Iraq, but that was started before he became president, and the rest of it was perceived accomplishments that now have us 16T in debt and climbing. We are still printing money like crazy and it is a little late at this point to still blame Bush although I have a feeling we will be still hearing that lame excuse for failure four years from now.

 

[muttly]

O, did I fail to mention Saddam Hussein & Osama bin Laden? Sorry, thought that went without saying. And GM & Chrysler didn't go down in flames, either.
If Obama had a crystal ball, he'd have tried to get a lot more done before the 2010 congressional elections, when the Tea Party Repubs moved in and began their policy of obstruction, but who saw that coming? Congress is supposed to vote for their constituents, not the GOP, right? Their publicly stated goal was to prevent passage of any and all legislation that Obama wanted. [I can't put my hands on it right now, but a journalist compared the % of bipartisan voting between Bush & Obama on 4 major initiatives for each, and Bush got more than twice as much cooperation from the Dems as Obama got from the GOP.] So it's hard for me to see how we can blame everything on Obama and nothing on the Congress that torpedoed every effort he made, purely on partisan grounds.
I have some reservations about the Prez myself [chiefly with the Patriot Act and feds spying on citizens], but for the most part, I think he did pretty well. Considering what he was left to deal with, and the GOP determination to stop him from doing anything, he did better than many could have, IMO.

Sadam Hussein was during Bush administration. Osama was served up on a platter due to intelligence developed in the prior adminstration, but ok, he gets's a cookie for not pulling a Bill Clinton and mucking it up. Auto bailouts started under Bush,but Obama made it worse by not reigning in the unions and making the companies more viable. By the way, GM still owes the tax payers billions of dollars and will probably be asking for more before too long. He stiffed the bond holders and screwed 20,000 of the non union employees. His first two years he had super majorities and could have passed most anything he wanted under the sun. The republican house was elected after the first two years with some tea party members to mainly put a stop to Obama's reckless agenda. He has however used Executive Actions and used departments like the EPA,Homeland Security,DOJ and others to bypass legislation normally written and passed by Congress to get pretty much all he wanted. Regarding Bush and his bipartisan support. It was because Bush liked to spend like the Dems. Sometimes it's not good to have bipartisonship.
Whatever the state of things now, Obama owns.

 

[cheri1122]

Let me get this straight: you think Obama should have reined in the unions, [to make the companies more viable], but the idea of govt reining in management or businesses [to make the entire civic structure more viable] is anathema?
And bipartisanship is good when your preferred party benefits, but bad when it doesn't?

 

[muttly]

Let me get this straight: you think Obama should have reined in the unions, [to make the companies more viable], but the idea of govt reining in management or businesses [to make the entire civic structure more viable] is anathema?
And bipartisanship is good when your preferred party benefits, but bad when it doesn't?

I don't think it's the governments's business to pick winners and losers. I was speaking of GM. He didn't do anything with the unions and so GM will be asking for more billions.The managemant got wacked in the deal,along with the 20,000 non union members and bond holders. Do you think it's ok for the tax payers not to get back the billions of dollars they are owed and to foot the bill for more? I'm for govt. creating an environment for businesses to be successful so they can hire people so they can have a job and have money. Bipartisanship is good when country benefits. Bad when the the country suffers.

 

[muttly]

Regarding the 20,000. non union members. The getting wacked part is reference to their retirement pensions that the Obama administration helped decide they shouldn't receive, while securing those of union employees, by U.S. tax payers.

Did Obama admin officials lie to Congress about Delphi pension termination? « Hot Air

 

[RLENT]

Regarding the 20,000. non union members. The getting wacked part is reference to their retirement pensions that the Obama administration helped decide they shouldn't receive, while securing those of union employees, by U.S. tax payers.

Did Obama admin officials lie to Congress about Delphi pension termination? « Hot Air

Yeah ... the real chuckle about that is that you pulled the lever for the guy that profited enormously - by extorting the United States government - through his fellow criminal-in-a-suit, Paul Singer ... and screwing the workers out of their pensions, dumping the pension obligations on the government.

Just be sure to remember that, whenever you feel inclined to talk about the poor Delphi non-union workers that got screwed out of their pensions - by the really big takers (not makers) .... here's your "free stuff" (money):

Mitt Romney's Bailout Bonanza | The Nation

Did Mitt Romney Break the Law by Failing to Disclose Delphi Investments? | The Nation

 

[davekc]

I think you still need a form of welfare for temporary assistance. With a time limit. When time is up, you get no money.

The problem with unemployment [which is the basis for many other problems] is how the dynamics have changed since the program was begun. Who envisioned mass layoffs, where entire companies moved production offshore to reduce labor costs [not because they were struggling, in many cases, but just to satisfy shareholders demands for more profit] would become so popular? Who envisioned the WalMart business model of restricting workers to part time [to avoid paying benefits] or the widespread use of temporary labor for the same reason?
Unemployment hasn't mushroomed because workers decided they don't want to work, but because management decided they have better uses for profits than wages.
I'm all for people working, but think it's rather unreasonable to expect them to work two jobs just to pay the rent, or move to North freakin Dakota, either.

If you have kids, you work somewhere providing childcare for others that are working to get your check. Fix two things at once. After listening to screaming kids for eight hours, Walmart might sound appealing.

That's a great idea - in theory, lol. In practice, not every one is a suitable caregiver, and a responsible parent [which believe it or not, many unemployed people are] wouldn't leave their child with someone they don't trust, unless the facility is licensed and caregivers are screened carefully. It'd be a great help if the govt were willing to do it, but I just don't think it'd fly in today's environment, where public transportation gets a lot of opposition, and 'public' anything [libraries, parks, educational offerings] are being reduced or eliminated for lack of funding.

Have to be fair to the kids as their choice for parents is limited.

Yep. Half the people on public assistance are kids - how do we penalize them, even if their parents are dumb or lazy? We can't.


As for Obama, have to give him credit like any other president for dealing with Bin Laden. Outside of that, unemployment is higher than when he started (can't blame Bush at this point), could say he closed out Iraq, but that was started before he became president, and the rest of it was perceived accomplishments that now have us 16T in debt and climbing. We are still printing money like crazy and it is a little late at this point to still blame Bush although I have a feeling we will be still hearing that lame excuse for failure four years from now.

For the ones that can't work in a daycare, they certainly can do some type of public service if they are drawing a check. Many towns have already let go hundreds because they are broke. This might be a way to address that. Just a thought. As for childcare centers, set them up as a licensed facility. Don't know that it is the answer but as we start running out of money, we better start thinking of something or those on assistance are going to start feeling the pinch.

 

[jaminjim]

Yeah ... the real chuckle about that is that you pulled the lever for the guy that profited enormously - by extorting the United States government - through his fellow criminal-in-a-suit, Paul Singer ... and screwing the workers out of their pensions, dumping the pension obligations on the government.

Just be sure to remember that, whenever you feel inclined to talk about the poor Delphi non-union workers that got screwed out of their pensions - by the really big takers (not makers) .... here's your "free stuff" (money):

Mitt Romney's Bailout Bonanza | The Nation

Did Mitt Romney Break the Law by Failing to Disclose Delphi Investments? | The Nation

A whole lot of disturbing things laid out in that article. If most of it is true (they did use the word if 38 times) that is in large part what is wrong with capitalism today.

I would like to be able to see reports as detailed as that one on a host of other topics.

 

[RLENT]

A whole lot of disturbing things laid out in that article.

Yupper ...

Unfortunately, it's probably just the tip of the iceberg ... not in terms of the specific actors involved, but generally of the type of things that go on behind the scenes and are not widely reported on, in an in-depth manner, at the government/private enterprise nexus ...

If most of it is true (they did use the word if 38 times) that is in large part what is wrong with capitalism today.

JJ,

There really needs to be a serious discussion about what is wrong with capitalism today ... it is certainly a big subject with many aspects, in terms of how it functions in and affects today's society ...

Unfortunately, the subject, like many others, gets polarized by those at the political extremes, if not by the folks that just lean slightly in one direction or the other:

The extreme left is so focused on economic injustice that it concludes wrongly and says capitalism is inherently bad ...

And many on the right say that capitalism can do no wrong (or if it does, it's merely an aberration)

Neither position is inherently true ... and I suspect that "the truth" - which is likely to be rather complex in it's specifics - lies somewhere in the middle ...

A couple things are for sure however - at least in my own mind:

1. Capitalism probably works as well as it does because it rewards personal initiative ... and penalizes the lack of it ...

2. There is a very good reason that greed is one of the seven deadlies ...

3. Any system which enables ... indeed rewards ... economic parasitism, whereby certain players are allowed (encouraged) to profit, often in an obscene manner, without delivering any real value or benefit for their actions - in fact, actually harming their fellow citizens and fellow man - is a system which is inherently flawed ... and will probably fail at some point ...

Patriotism is often considered in a very narrow sense - primarily from a perspective of supporting the troops or military actions, foreign policy, respect for the flag, etc.

Economic patriotism could be a subject where a lot of good discussion might be fruitful ... in terms of what civic/economic duties and obligations fall to those who have economically benefited greatly from the opportunities that their nation provides ...

I would like to be able to see reports as detailed as that one on a host of other topics.

One should never discount the ability of individuals to accurately observe and report on matters - even if one differs with them to a great degree philosophically or politically (and so considers them to be foolish or wrong in some regard)

All observation and reporting is influenced to at least some degree by the bias and motivations of the observer of course ... as long one can keep that firmly in mind, sorting the "wheat" from the "chaff" becomes at least somewhat easier ...

Greg Palast has done some very good work ... and is someone worth following or listening to ...

(BTW - great observation on the use of the word "if")

 

[muttly]

Yupper ...

Unfortunately, it's probably just the tip of the iceberg ... not in terms of the specific actors involved, but generally of the type of things that go on behind the scenes and are not widely reported on, in an in-depth manner, at the government/private enterprise nexus ...


JJ,

There really needs to be a serious discussion about what is wrong with capitalism today ... it is certainly a big subject with many aspects, in terms of how it functions in and affects today's society ...

Unfortunately, the subject, like many others, gets polarized by those at the political extremes, if not by the folks that just lean slightly in one direction or the other:

The extreme left is so focused on economic injustice that it concludes wrongly and says capitalism is inherently bad ...

And many on the right say that capitalism can do no wrong (or if it does, it's merely an aberration)

Neither position is inherently true ... and I suspect that "the truth" - which is likely to be rather complex in it's specifics - lies somewhere in the middle ...

A couple things are for sure however - at least in my own mind:

1. Capitalism probably works as well as it does because it rewards personal initiative ... and penalizes the lack of it ...

2. There is a very good reason that greed is one of the seven deadlies ...

3. Any system which enables ... indeed rewards ... economic parasitism, whereby certain players are allowed (encouraged) to profit, often in an obscene manner, without delivering any real value or benefit for their actions - in fact, actually harming their fellow citizens and fellow man - is a system which is inherently flawed ... and will probably fail at some point ...

Patriotism is often considered in a very narrow sense - primarily from a perspective of supporting the troops or military actions, foreign policy, respect for the flag, etc.

Economic patriotism could be a subject where a lot of good discussion might be fruitful ... in terms of what civic/economic duties and obligations fall to those who have economically benefited greatly from the opportunities that their nation provides ...


One should never discount the ability of individuals to accurately observe and report on matters - even if one differs with them to a great degree philosophically or politically (and so considers them to be foolish or wrong in some regard)

All observation and reporting is influenced to at least some degree by the bias and motivations of the observer of course ... as long one can keep that firmly in mind, sorting the "wheat" from the "chaff" becomes at least somewhat easier ...

Greg Palast has done some very good work ... and is someone worth following or listening to ...

(BTW - great observation on the use of the word "if")

The "Many on the right say capitalism can do NO wrong " is a gross exageration. There are some problems with capitalism, but it is by far the best system out there by far, and helps the most amount of people in this world, PARTICULARLY THE POOR.

 

[RLENT]

The "Many on the right say capitalism can do NO wrong " is a gross exageration.

Ahhh ... it's hyperbolic rhetoric used to illustrate/amplify a point ...

But I'll be sure to include a disclaimer next time ... so I don't cause your fur to stand up ...

There are some problems with capitalism, but it is by far the best system out there by far, and helps the most amount of people in this world, PARTICULARLY THE POOR.

Your response is typical - an immediate knee-jerk defense ...

There's a case that can made that while capitalism provides opportunities to the poor, it also allows some to make the poor even poorer ...

 

[muttly]

Yeah ... the real chuckle about that is that you pulled the lever for the guy that profited enormously - by extorting the United States government - through his fellow criminal-in-a-suit, Paul Singer ... and screwing the workers out of their pensions, dumping the pension obligations on the government.

Just be sure to remember that, whenever you feel inclined to talk about the poor Delphi non-union workers that got screwed out of their pensions - by the really big takers (not makers) .... here's your "free stuff" (money):

Mitt Romney's Bailout Bonanza | The Nation

Did Mitt Romney Break the Law by Failing to Disclose Delphi Investments? | The Nation

As usual, there is the other side to your doomed argument. It has been busted again. Ahhahaha.

Romney, the Carmakers, China, and All That - Kevin D. Williamson - National Review Online

 

[muttly]

Ahhh ... it's hyperbolic rhetoric used to illustrate/amplify a point ...

But I'll be sure to include a disclaimer next time ... so I don't cause your fur to stand up ...


Your response is typical - an immediate knee-jerk defense ...

There's a case that can made that while capitalism provides opportunities to the poor, it also allows some to make the poor even poorer ...

Yes there is a case that capitalism provides opportunities to the poor,and in some cases makes them even poorer. A lot of times the government makes it worse for them.

 

[RLENT]

Yes there is a case that capitalism provides opportunities to the poor,and in some cases makes them even poorer. A lot of times the government makes it worse for them.

No argument from me on that ...

 

[RLENT]

As usual, there is the other side to your doomed argument. It has been busted again. Ahhahaha.

ROTFLMAO ... by a certifiable ***-clown ?

I suspect not:

Williamson’s Howlers

By David Gordon
Thursday, March 15th, 2012

The Politically Incorrect Guide series includes many excellent books, but unfortunately Kevin Williamson’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism is not among them. One turns to the book with interest, as the author is a firm opponent of socialism and has read Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard. Unfortunately, the book cannot be recommended. Williamson lacks the ability to report facts accurately and his work contains preposterous errors.

Here are some examples. Williamson writes:

“The modern experience suggests that the economist Ludwig von Mises was only partly correct when he wrote, ‘The socialistic State owns all material factors of production and thus directs it.’ That was true for the authoritarian, single-party powers of his day. In our own time, the converse is a more accurate description of the real economic arrangement: under socialism, the state directs the material factors of production as if it owned them. The state does not have to actually own factories, mines, or data centers if it has the power to dictate, in minute detail, how business is conducted within them,” (Politically Incorrect Guide,p.15)

Can Williamson be so ignorant of Mises as not to know that the point he raises against Mises was a key insight of Mises himself? Mises writes in Human Action, e.g., “The second pattern (we may call it the Hindenburg or German pattern) nominally and seemingly preserves private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary markets, prices, wages, and interest rates. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs, but only shop managers (Betriebsfuhrer in the terminology of the Nazi legislation). These shop managers are seemingly instrumental in the conduct of the enterprises entrusted to them; they buy and sell, hire and discharge workers and remunerate their services, contract debts and pay interest and amortization. But in all their activities they are bound to obey unconditionally the orders issued by the government’s supreme office of production management. . . This is socialism under the outward guise of the terminology of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.” XXVII. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE MARKET: The Intervention

In another howler, Williamson writes: “The United States in the twenty-first century is not very much like nineteenth-century Prussia (Prussia today isn’t much like Prussia then, either.” (p.95) Evidently, Williamson does not know that Prussia ceased to exist in 1947.

Williamson’s ignorance is not confined to the European continent. He writes: “In India, British colonial rule came to a largely peaceful end thanks to the efforts of Mohandas K. Gandhi. . .” (p.51). In point of fact, after the 1947 partition between India and Pakistan, violent conflict between Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs resulted in deaths estimated between 500,000 and 1,000,000.

Rather than presume to instruct others in history and economics, Williamson should acquire some elementary knowledge of these subjects.

Williamson’s Howlers :: The Circle Bastiat

I must say mutt, you really do know how to pick 'em ...

 

[layoutshooter]

Let me get this straight: you think Obama should have reined in the unions, [to make the companies more viable], but the idea of govt reining in management or businesses [to make the entire civic structure more viable] is anathema?
And bipartisanship is good when your preferred party benefits, but bad when it doesn't?

The government should stay OUT of business. That includes reining in, or PROTECTING unions and/or companies. There should be NO forced union membership. Companies, and unions, should be allow to either succeed, or fail, without government interference of ANY type. That INCLUDES requiring things like a "minimum wage'. Government has NO business in business.

 

[davekc]

ROTFLMAO ... by a certifiable ***-clown ?

I suspect not:



Williamson’s Howlers :: The Circle Bastiat

I must say mutt, you really do know how to pick 'em ...

Your piece is from David Gordon who is a total liberal. Of course he is going to offer that kind of opinion.
Might have to do better than that. Maybe from someone with some objectivity.
About the Mises Institute