Dale says: “Looking at the list of republicans who want to run for president, I get the weird feeling even Bernie Sanders, socialist senator from VT could beat them.”
Yes, but why? Can most of us here at SUFA agree on a candidate? How about for an experiment, we review first, the Republican candidates on foreign policy. I will post a page on each one and ask all to start with what they like and dislike on their position on foreign policy.
JAC had some great comments starting with:
“The entire debate over US foreign policy is linked to WWI and then WWII. Especially Hitler’s legacy and how it has been used in the USA.
We have argued moral and ethical principles long enough to easily see why it is NOT OUR BUSINESS.
But then the Specter of Hitler causes us to gasp……….”but if we stopped them now we might be saving millions in the long run”.
Of course, we have no way of knowing if this is true, false or only partially true. And once we allow the emotion of the “Hitler phenomenon” to take hold, we sacrifice our principles of non aggression.
I submit that if it were not for Hitler and the Nazis the USA would not be embroiled in wars around the world. The citizens would not stand for it and the elite would not have the propaganda tool needed to get their approval.”
An article at American Thinker caught my eye, a small part reads:
Now it is my assertion that the vast majority of GOP politicians over the last century can be classified into one of the following three categories:
- RINOs – meaning that they do not really believe that progressivism and big government are bad for America – it’s just that the Democrats are screwing it up and Republicans should be entrusted with the task of implementing the progressive agenda because they will do it more efficiently and cost effectively than liberal Democrats have or could.
- CRUELs – that is, confused Republicans who are unable to exercise leadership. These are conservative politicians whose hearts and minds may be in the right place, but they are unable to: (i) articulate their beliefs; (ii) explain the connection between progressivism and the ills that beset the nation; (iii) describe clearly how conservative policies will enhance liberty and economic prosperity; and (iv) deflect the vicious slanders that the Democrats hurl at them.
- CCCs – that is committed, conservative constitutionalists. These are politicians who have a clear understanding of what the progressives have wrought and how the country has changed. They can envision and describe the bleak future that awaits us if we don’t have a major course correction. Furthermore, such people also have a clear idea of what must be done to return the country to its founding ethos, re-institute the ideals of free market capitalism, constitutional and limited governance, and American exceptionalism and thereby restore the republic. Moreover, they can explain these ideas clearly and simply.
So is there a savior in the crowded field? If so, who is it? Well, here are my assessments of the various candidates (the list will not be exhaustive).
RINOs: Romney, Christie, Graham, Snyder, Ehrlich, Gilmore, Kasich;
CRUELS: Santorum, Perry, Palin, Cain, Bachmann, Paul;
CCCs: Cruz, Carson, Pence, Walker, Bolton.
You have, of course, noted several missing names: Bush, Huckabee, Rubio, Jindal, Ryan. These are the folks that I am unable to definitively pigeon-hole. Several (like Huckabee, Rubio and Jindal) are not RINOs, but I can’t decide between the other two categories. The other two (Bush and Ryan) might be RINOs, but I am not sure.
Black Flag®
commonman55
d13thecolonel
gman
Just A Citizen
Life of Illusion
Jon Smith
USWeapon
Stand Up For America 
Total Idiocy. Thinking that doing the same thing over and over will change the outcome.
There is so much more important stuff to do then this nonsense.
It seems to me that you are either too afraid or too lazy, and instead would rather mumble around pretending that a Messiah will save you, instead of you actually doing the work yourself.
😎
From a previous article: One thing I can celebrate this season is I do not live in NY City. (Or anywhere near St. Louis)(Or any other large, mufti-generational controlled Democratic city) With the protests escalating, I wondered how popular is their mayor? De Blasio beat Lhota 72.2% to 24%. Voter turnout set a new record low of only 24 percent of registered voters. After the recent murder of two officers, he has called for calm and a pause in the protests. And he is being mostly ignored. I wonder if that surprises him? He won a “landslide”. But with only one quarter of those registered to vote bothering to cast a ballot, he can’t claim any popular mandate. Another number, it appears only one third of New Yorkers register to vote. De Blasio won three quarters of one quarter of one third? Being generous with some rounding, I make that to be about seven cents out of a dollar he can claim as supporters?
The point here is even with terrible voter participation, someone is elected. That person has legal authority to act for and against our interests. How does refusing to participate change this situation? Maybe insisting on your logic is right and the only solution misses the mark in this frequently illogical world.
I will fall back on the words of the Master.
Robert A. Heinlein
“If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for … but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.”
For the sake of discussion…..the reason I think cynically that Sanders could beat the Republican candidate in 2016 is…..If any of the RINO’s are on the ballot, regardless of who, people will say why bother. The way the RNC came out after the November win, with their nationally known mouthpieces, McCain and Graham, the RNC will eat the CRUEL’s and especially the CCC’s long before 2016. What the RNC did not grasp was that the voters want choice 2-3…not 1 which is indestinquishable from the Dems. As much as I agree with a great many of Ron Paul’s policy statements, Rand will be branded as a fringe crackpot to be ignored. As far as Jindal and Rubio go, I do believe they by the Constitution are ineligible to be president. The fact the RNC really never challenged all the stuff that has come out about Obama told me they wanted also to have that little technicality in the constitution to go away, NOT by and amendment but by precedent…and Obama fulfilled that role.
The reason I spoke about Sanders was not because I endorse one iota of his agenda, but I’ve known him for 35 years and he does not have the smell of a politician that goes along to get along and honestly he does have integrity….unlike the presumptive candidate on the DNC side will forfeited to Hillary. A neighbor retired from the State Dept and moved next door. He spent his career in the M/E. Anyway he always talked extremely well about Condeleeza Rice. Always put together in all ways, looks and sentences, grammar knowledge, work ethic etc. He retired because of Hillary saying she was totally incompetent, As if we didn’t know that already
Dale
I don’t know where you get your information but there is NOTHING in our “history” to lead to the conclusion that Rubio or Jindal are not qualified per the Constitution to be POTUS. At least nothing I have seen to date.
I am guessing you have a bad explanation of what “native born” meant to the Founding Fathers.
messed up my reading ….my mind is occupied elsewhere…anyway Rubio is nice guy but is to narrow on his focus. Jindal is extremely smart and good and NOT arrogant, possible….but the way to pundits are tearing into him for actually making a correct statement and not like the idiot Emerson from Fox who make an insert foot here statement….maybe it is jaded by the current POTUS for being unqualified due to sheer arrogance and idiocy.
My old pirate friend is correct, but I think the comment about Messiah was probably rhetorical so I’m not going to get into that.
Instead lets focus on WHAT it takes to be a successful POTUS, besides the charisma.
Great public speaking is in fact not necessary to be a good POTUS, unless you are trying to move the nation against the tide. Thus Obama was a transitional person who’s oratory skills lifted and motivated people to change direction for what they perceived in Bush/Bush/Reagan. They now know they chose poorly, if that was their primary driving consideration.
Those who were depending on him to ACTUALLY “transform America” are the most disappointed. Why? Because he lacked the other factor needed to succeed as POTUS. Succeed relative to his promises and his electorates expectations.
Campaigning skills and organizing to campaign or create outside force against opponents is not the same as “leading” or “managing”. Both of these skills are needed, along with great “political” skill. Political in this sense means knowing how to get what you want, or most of it, while making the other side feel happy about it, or at least accepting.
Bully politics, which is what we have now, may get you something but loses the bigger somethings later. Unless you can get total control. This is one reason I said long ago Christy would not be the Republican nominee. He comes across as a bully, and now as a corrupt, stupid, attention needy, bully.
A successful POTUS has to understand the political landscape, be able to orchestrate strategies to maneuver in that landscape and then get agreements, even from opponents if needed. Some sound horse trading may be needed at times, but does not require giving up the farm.
Mr. Obama’s failure with ACA, and yes it was a failure given his desired outcome, is a good example. Simply telling staff what you want is not enough. POTUS has to lead the effort and “manage” it. This includes maintaining contact with staff and key players as well as holding people accountable for executing what you ask them to do.
Allowing staff to go on for months arguing about the details, jockeying for their own positions, etc, etc, can not be allowed.
Leadership, political and management skills are one reason that Americans have more often elected “governors” than Senators or Congressmen. The one Congressman who knew how to get what he wanted was LBJ, but he also did this primarily via coercion and threat of some force. One reason he knew better than to run a second time. It wasn’t just his popularity with the people at question. He had burned most of the bridges he needed to get back to town.
Now add to this list, a great respect for the “traditionalist” view of our Constitution and why it is so important. You see, we need a POTUS who can articulate the WHY it is so damn important to the masses. Otherwise you cannot overcome the left wing diatribe of “confederate states love the tenth amendment” and “R’s want people to die from dirty air and poisoned water”.
There are some who can articulate the WHY, but are lacking in other areas. This is why they seem weak to us. While I love Cruz’s strength in defense of the Const. his style is very alienating. If that is in fact his “style” he would not be successful at moving us “towards” a the “constitutional republic” as founded.
Paul is good at articulating these issues but, like his Dad, is too cerebral for most voters AND the press. Just look how many people make fun of his hair when he is speaking about the “use of force” and its impact on our foreign policies.
I am starting to wander a little to much so I will stop there for now. I will add one thought to the key factors we should look for that have been so lacking.
HONOR being the greatest…………which requires HONESTY and ITEGRITY.
Watch the video, interesting way of looking at things. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/straight-talk-about-an-article-v-convention/
Yes, very interesting. I believe she is not representing accurately some of the comments made by folks like Madison about the Article V amendment process, but her primary concern is valid.
One which is why I have said that Article V Conventions are the only means of peaceful change BUT that we are nowhere near ready for such conventions. The effort would be futile until the States are on the same page legislatively. That is 3/4 all thinking pretty much the same.
It also requires enough in Congress to support the demands of the States.
Now for the reality of her argument…………..There is no solution. Because you see, she has ignored the role of SCOTUS in the usurpation. Without amendment there is no way to remedy the defects created by SCOTUS. And since amendments by the corrupt people will not cage the corrupt people,……………we are soooooo screwed.
I do agree with her assessment of many of the “Amendment” movements, including Levin’s proposals. Many don’t even address the “flaws” which necessitate the amendments.
I also think her interpretation of the restrictions of the Constitution are a little narrower than the framers intended. Anyone who cites Hamilton as a source of what “restrictions” were intended displays a lack of understanding about Hamilton. He, and some others, were basically “spinning” the public, knowing full well they were taking more power than they let on. He immediately went to work expanding these powers once he was in Govt. This was the primary source of the “disagreement” between him and Jefferson.
I whole heartedly agree with her assessment of how “We the People” failed. And this is why we are losing the game. All the education won’t matter because those getting free cookies really don’t care. They are only worried about the primary “rights” outlined in the Bill of Rights.
We don’t care what you take, how you constrain, etc.,, just don’t try to tell us who or what we can have sex with and don’t allow anyone to discriminate against anyone, for any reason.
Cruz is doomed because he looks a lot like the twin brother of………
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/18/ted-cruz-the-reincarnation-of-joe-mccarthy/
I may have been the first person to notice this a few years back but others are catching on.
She would have been 71 today. man, that’s old. The footage comes from that time when the Colonel and I (Dale too?) were a bit preoccupied. The Colonel more so than I.
Remember those days well. The early years in NY were actually in Woodstock. Even though the festival was down the road a bit it did transform the village. The video, I recognized every performer and enjoyed many of their concerts over the years and their songs today. The best one was Richie Havens at Schaffer rink in Central Park one summer evening a couple years after the Mud fest. FYI, I’ve been mistaken for Jerry Garcia when my beard is fuller. But now it’s white along with the hair…..that is before he died. Those that are still making music keep it up, for those that are no longer with us thank god for the recordings so they can be enjoyed forever.
I was # 32 in the lottery and got my Greetings from the President of the United States; You are hereby ordered to report for induction into the armed forces of America. Report to (address inserted here at 0800 on date inserted here) for your physical and blah blah etc etc.
That summer of ’69 was a good summer. Does anyone remember what they were doing when Neil Armstrong took the 1st step on the moon? I for one watched the landing on TV at a GF house…no TV there. It was a waste of time with to many other thing going on, like rock climbing and other X-treme sports. The parents had taken off for a major portion of the summer and were camping and exploring all throughout the southwest. The night of the landing they were in some Anasazi ruins looking through a telescope and listening over a crackling radio.
My Dad worked on many portions of the space programs in the 60’s and we alway got photos from JPL before the public. The space stuff he would talk about but the bulk of the work was missile defense stuff and spook stuff so Dad went to work sometime gone many months in White Sands NM. It was very interesting listening to him after some of the spy programs were replaced by newer technologies and then you’s see a declassified program on Nova etc…..he’d sit there and fill in the blanks that due to time limitations could be shown…..cool times.
Yes sir, I was at Fort Campbell, Kentucky going through ground combat school….They actually let us come in just to watch the moon landing..
Jeez, you are reminding me of the concerts in Central Park sponsored by Schaffer and Rheingold in the late ’60’s. A buck, a lousy buck to see everything from the Kingston Trio to Buffalo Springfield! Actually sitting in the girlfriends living room watching the Moon Landing when I was home from the Army. .
The irony: at that time I was fully indoctrinated to the “Better Dead then Red” and more then willing drop nukes on Russian women and children.
Thank God my heart (physically) made that impossible, so that eventually my brain changed my heart.
None, none of them, zero, will change the system.
They would not be there if they risked changing the system.
They are there to continue the system.
Nothing will change. Your vote is pointless. Your non-vote is critical.
Try explaining this to some of the brainless wonders out there at a level they can understand. I’ve used the Patriot Act as an example, they still don’t get it. I try with Obamacare, explaining that they R clan don’t want it to go back to the way it was, they want to replace it with something worse. Then I get the irrational hatred, that’s when things get fun.
How’s the drop in oil prices affecting the oil sands up there?
Hope all is well with you and your family 🙂
The oil mines are too big to be affected by the price.
We will spend $7 billion this year, down a paltry $250 million from last year. Our all-in costs are actually very low, not what the news media claims they are. The media’s numbers are for new startups that need to do a couple of years of work in clearing over burden before the first drop of oil is produced, but those that are producing today paid those costs when oil was high, so now its more than half of what the reports claim the costs are.
And even if the price goes to $25, it won’t matter. Money pockets are deep. These guys have been here before, working with low prices. They will acquire the companies that are in trouble at pennies to the dollar, and be even bigger when the price rises again.
It’s the new startups, like in ND, that will be at risk, not the mature players.
I have found that to be true in the fracking area as well. New wells cost a fortune, but the one’s in place are just going to continue to produce at a profit. The fracking business will take a hit with layoffs, which have been announced already (9000 by one company). It’s nice to have low gas prices and it’s really good for those who use heating oil. There will be those who will experience a negative side, and some of this will be applauded by those on the Left (anti-frackers). Obama get’s his wish, shut down fracking and hurt Russia in the wallet. These idiots are going to get us into another war.
Heck the big boys are leasing super tankers to fill them with oil (each tanker capable of carrying 3 million barrels of oil and parking them. Cheap oil from Arabia at a discount, time to stock up!!. It’s like my wife seeing a massive sale on, say toilet paper, at Walmart. Stock up! You know you’re going to use it eventually, so buy when its dirt cheap. It’s not like it rots.
The Saudi’s think they are in the driver’s seat. They always think that. They are politicians.
The big oil guys have seen dictators and nations come and go. These guys know the business better than anyone else in the world. They are laughing all the way to the bank.
Still go with the Master.
Robert A. Heinlein
“If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for … but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.”
Nope.
You cannot change a system by continuing to support the system.
There is no one you can vote against. All the votes are for something. That is its trick.
The way you break the trick is not to play.
Even he would agree to that.
Dunno, Always vote against the school budget. Even won once.
Nice try to muddle Federal Politics, where you are utterly pointless, and local politics where you can have an affect, as I have posted a thousand times before.
NPR had a very good political analysis this afternoon. What they did was take audio clips of the State of the Union addresses of Presidents after their party got slammed in the midterms and lost control of Congress to the opposing party. Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton and Bush 2….their speeches were quite good and conciliatory and they then got some things accomplished….The NPR analysis said now how do you think tomorrows speech will be. Like all other previous ones, or an in your face and confrontational….he BETS confrontational and not once ounce of humility or conciliation.
All political rhetoric requires polarization. Doom vs Salvation. Both sides ply the same rhetoric, the other guy doom, their side salvation.
The reality is both provide doom. They are both plying the game from the same play book.
There is no fundamental difference between them. The wars went on, Bush and Obama. They expanded, Bush and Obama. The words that qualified the wars and the expansion were irrelevant. Their actions are the measure.
There has been no quantifiable difference in policy in the Federal government since before WW1.
To pretend today, such a difference exists is naive.
The narratives are identical.
100% agreement….
Anyway folks…I will be preoccupied for the next month or so and I will be an infrequent visitor. I hear it now…thank god for the break, our prayers have been answered. I am shutting down my house here in NC and moving temporarily back to Falmouth Foreside Maine. An old and dear friend needs some help and she called me this AM. We’ve been friends for 36 years and almost got married 20 years ago.The plan is to sort out the issues and eventually pack her up from an obscenely expensive place to live on a fixed income. And come back to New Bern. We can rent here a really nice big new house with utilities for 1200. Maine has been infected with the progressive cancer and people from NY, CT and MA have overrun the state. The costs here are so low compared to New England it’ll make your head spin. Nothing new for you guys in the NY/NJ metro area…..she asked what I did today, and I said I did put on long pants to go to a property managers meeting, but had a T shirt on and sandals without socks and changed to shorts when I got home…..so she’s been sold.
Have fun!
What am I missing on the “Deflategate” scandal…NE supplied the balls as home team and both teams played with them. The report said they both used the same balls. Where’s the cheat?….I know it’s just to hype and create crisis.
Each team supplies there own balls. There are limits on inflation of the balls, it seems that one ball may have fallen below the lower limit and was taken off the field and tested. Though it would not have mattered to the end result of the game, NE caught “cheating” again will make for a news story, they will be fined and maybe lose a draft pick or two, the Patriots will apologize and blame some nobody claiming he/she didn’t know the rule existed.
http://www.goldcore.com/us/gold-blog/ukraine-lurches-full-scale-war-russia-drastically-reduces-gas-supply-eu/
Haven’t had any fun conspiracy theories lately, how about FUNVAX: http://www.naturalnews.com/048347_aerosolized_vaccines_behavioral_modification_obedience.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/01/yes_there_are_no_go_zones_in_france_.html
I find myself in an interesting place (as usual) regarding the “American Sniper” movie as well as Charlie Hedro. Just like Vietnam, we are all urged to be in one of two places on both issues. There is no middle ground allowed.
I condemn the shootings in Paris but also condemn Charlie Hedro for being in incredibly bad taste and passing off as satire and humor, insults to peoples deeply held beliefs. This does not just apply to Moslems but to the Catholics, other Christians and Jews they have mocked in the past. It would be somewhat hypocritical of me to laugh at their humor while I was busy condemning “piss Christ” and the other anti-religious exhibits held at Public museums these past decades. So, while murder is not the answer, people of conscience should ostracize those folks.
Snipers. I have a real problem with snipers. I wonder how the rah, rah sniper folks would feel about a sympathetic major international movie on Viet Cong sniping? Sniping is a necessary evil and should not be talked about. A few years ago there was a pretty fair movie called “Enemy at the Gates” . It turned into a sniper vs. sniper contest with the evil German being outgunned in the end by the noble Russian. Really? The noble Russian never killed some poor bastard taking a crap? The evil German never killed any bad Russians? I wonder how many people, burning up the airwaves today with their pro or anti comments remember that movie? I think back to the final scene in “All Quiet on the Western Front” when Paul, after four years in combat and days away from the end of the war makes the tyro mistake of sticking his head over the trench parapet.
When the American Sniper book first came out, I was appalled. Celebrating 160 kills! How times have changed, how low we have sunk that we can no longer be the simple people who celebrated Sgt. Alvin C. York not for the “kills” he made but for his reticence to profit from them and his lifelong search for peace after the war. Sniping may be necessary and it certainly has saved lives but it should not be celebrated anymore than carpet bombing.
Today, because of the interest in sniping, Carlos Hathcock is widely known. Back in the day, only a few knew of him, he was a legend in the Marine Corps, a proud legend who demonstrated personal bravery beyond being a sniper but he too never profited from his fame nor boasted of it. In fact, when he was dying of MS, fund raisers were quietly being held in gun clubs across the country to help him out.
Both these things which keep popping to the front of my mind these past few weeks bother me a lot. As Americans, we are really in a very bad place if you are only allowed to be “pro” or “anti” and cannot finesse them any further than two dimensions.
I’m in that interesting place too. Have to agree with the pope, and I’m not looking to fondly on him so far, but it’s not cool to slander their hero. Doesn’t mean I give the jackwagons a pass for retaliatory beheadings and such but people could use a filter before speaking. Curious how you feel about Rob O’Neil and his story. Should we have heard that one? At first I thought no. Now after hearing the families’ reactions, the closure it brings for people, I guess I’m ok with him telling the story. Double standard? I don’t know. I’m tired of worrying about labels.
It would have been nice had O’Neill not had to go public if the government would have filled in the dirty details. Having said that if his purpose is literally “just the facts ma’am.” I am all for it. No different than WW 2 vets on the history channel talking about hand to hand combat. JAC is probably right about the appetite for blood and gore.
I am old school, probably thanks to my Dad regarding blood and gore. Print the facts don’t spend 300 words telling me what it looked like as the guys guts spilled out on the floor. The purpose of the long descriptions seems to be to titillate not to be either cautionary or educational. Thanks to reality in your face TV programming, we are getting closer and closer to that Roman “Bread and Circus” thing.
I remember as a Psych major back when the Beatles came to the US our Profs talking about the sexual compliment of all the screaming and hysteria going on in the audience. Years later, reading Dan Mannix’s “Those about to Die”, using contemporary Roman sources, he made the same claim about gladiatorial combat, lions eating people and Christians publicly crucified and set afire for the “entertainment” of the masses.
Sorry folks but the society has devolved, badly. I was quite serious about how we looked at Sgt. York or Audie Murphy vs. this sick voyeurism we have today. You can show gore and it can be instructive. The first 20 minutes of Private Ryan are an example. An even better 5 second example is a little scene in “All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) where during an attack, the French troops are shelled. As one soldier struggles through barbed wire, a shell bursts. Next scene, almost too fast to register is two hands, nothing else, no body anymore, grasping the barbed wire. That little gem has stuck in my mind for the past 50 years.
It is the writers, editors and publishers ya’ll can thank for this new trend.
Kyle’s was not the only book published by military people from Iraq or Afghanistan. It is the publishers that write the subtitles and market the books with things like emphasizing the “KILLS”.
But in the end, it is once again WE the people who eat it up. Perhaps that is because far to few of us know what military service is about and especially service in a war zone. I am guessing many Americans try to live it “through” the movies and books.
Kyle was a hero, but not for the number of kills. It was due to his knowing sacrifice in order to try and save as many of his “mates” as possible.
Now to address the hypocrisy of those on the left criticizing this movie and Kyle.
They all howl about how many of us should make sacrifices for the good of the country, via their various schemes of taking property, because it is the “greater good” that matters.
Yet when it comes to an individual making the ultimate sacrifice for the “good of his country” they scream “fool, tool, coward, murderer, psychopath, etc, etc.,etc..”
Perhaps the individuals perception they are doing “good for the country” is delusional. But how is it any more delusional that claiming that I must sacrifice the well being of my family or my property to satisfy some strangers view of what others need?
He was no hero.
He was a spineless gutter rat who loved killing people, supporting an attack upon an innocent population thousands of miles away.
Jesus H. Christ!
This guy is a hero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada
It takes no guts to say “Yas,masta!” when ordered to kill.
Kyle had no threat to his family, risked no condemnation for going.
Watada risked his career, future, his freedom for standing up for what is right.
…and no one will make a movie about Watada, will they?
Actually, they probably will.
SK
Here is your gutter rat… err… “hero”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/01/american_sniper_lawsuit_chris_kyle_told_lies_about_jesse_ventura.html
It is interesting that his life ended by gunfire. Karma anyone?
BF
You obviously want to ignore the meaning of the word and impose your own morality on others. Sorry old friend but that is a grand FAIL.
Then you try to judge this guy by the actions of others. Talk about FALLACEOUS argument.
Good grief man, get out of the toxic oil fumes for awhile.
Oh, more spit and spew from you.
*He was not a hero*
He was a murderous RAT.
It is you who cannot understand the term, not I.
Somebody dropped by and left a message for ya Flaggy.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/20/politics/sarah-palin-american-sniper-chris-kyle/index.html
Yeah, more nonsense from you.
Just because “these guys” say the truth, well, because you don’t like them, the truth is now not the truth.
Your brain is dissolving.
SK,
I think we are all conflicted. We profess a desire for peace but show a bloodthirsty nature with our acts, books and movies. Blame the authors, but we, the public bought every Tom Clancy novel published. But there can be good and bad found in every act. Do snipers “save” lives? A civilian is Iraq would probably damn the sniper who killed the man next to him. Should he be thankful it wasn’t a machine gun? Should we have ever been in Iraq? Moot point. History.
The real question is should we return? If ignored, ISIS looks able to conquer Iraq & Syria. They will then be a nation hostile to us and our interests. The same can be said for virtually the entire world. And if one sniper can do what a company cannot, give him the credit due. If fewer of our troops die in the killing of our enemy, pardon my cheers!
So your solution to a terrible and evil invasion, creating even more terrible consequences is to continue that solution even harder thinking this will fix the consequences the first time the solution was used.
You are bloody insane.
If you want ISIS to disappear, *then promote the US to leave the region*
Without the energy of the imperialism of the US, the population will not rush to fill the ranks of resistance. No less the “terrorists” in France, called the “Resistance” evaporated when the Germans left France.
BF, you and I both know, that if the US pulled totally out of the region, retreated to our own shores, built a 100 ft high brick wall, eliminated all contact with that regions…..ISIS nor Al Queda nor any of them will disappear.
Oh, of course they would.
People are not extremists. They have lives, want kids, etc.
They become extremists when the latter has been destroyed.
Restore the latter, they have no interest in the former.
Nearly every example in history demonstrates my point, not yours
You are merely plying the nonsense that created the problem, believing that once you step into shit, to get out of the shit, you need to cover yourself in shit.
“You are bloody insane.”
“They say I’m crazy
but I have a good time”
I’m still conflicted over ISIS and what the US should do. I think what we are currently doing is entirely wrong. Either stay out of it completely or go in and exterminate this terrorist army. I would add Boko Haram to the list. In no way do I see them as a threat to us at this time. By their actions and words, I expect them to attack us if & when they are able. Can we survive another 9/11? Sure. Not the point. If there is evil in the world, they are the face of it today. Unrestrained war against all, beheading, rape and torture comparable to Genghis Khan. The question is do we allow genocide again? Where is the morality there?
“Leave or obliterate”.
Yep, I’ll agree.
You will need to wipe out about 3 to 4 billion people, and most of the people the US to boot, to win your war of obliteration.
I’d suggest the former would turn out better.
Wow, what utter insanity.
So, to you ISIS is now Genghis Khan…… you are utterly scared shitless of a few thousand guys with no nukes, no airforce, no navy, a dozen tanks, a couple of dozen artillery.
Boy I can’t image how shitless you will be when you face a real army, like the Russians.
I cannot compare Clancy with some of the trash I see in the movies or on TV. Somehow, blood and mayhem are not the same in the written form. Even the movies made from his books are not full of gratudious violence. Off the top of my head there is only one book I can quickly remember that made me cringe. The torture scenes in “Casino Royale” . I have no idea what they did in the movie but as a male, Bond sitting naked in that rattan chair with no seat is an image I’d rather not remember.
As I said, Snipers are a necessary evil but you do not go around rah-rahing the act. York, killed tens, Murphy killed a hundred and John Lewis Barkley killed hundreds in WW 1. All earned the MOH for their deeds. They saved lives, their stories have been told (Barkley less so) but even though their fighting was face to face, the deeds have been honored, lives were saved but there is not this sick and I do think it is sick ignoring of the human tragedy involved. As they used to say in the Bond books, “eliminate with extreme prejudice” and certainly some, maybe many who were killed by snipers earned the wrath of God many times over but for others, wrong place, wrong time. They were the enemy, they were also men and it is good to remember that.
During the making of the film “The Battle of Britain” in 1969, Adolph Galand, former head of Fighter Group West was a German technical adviser. He proposed that he organize a reunion/memorial service between fellow German pilots who survived and British pilots who fought them. Douglas Bader (the legless pilot) and I believe Sailor Mann another RAF Ace went ballistic. They made sure it never happened and almost made Galand mad enough to quit the film. Galand’s point was “that was then, this is now, let us honor their courage and sacrifice”. I think he got it right.
I am all in favor of giving him the credit due, just quietly. Perhaps another comparison in the air war? Hiroshima, Hamburg,Nagasaki, Dresden? Necessary? Absolutely! Something to crow about? Hardly! Something to be ashamed of? Nope! Sorry that it got to that point? Certainly!
It is a tough one my friend and perhaps it is the reason, when you see the old soldiers on the documentaries, they tend to cry so much. Waxing philosophical today I am.
SK
Your “waxing” seems to be covering the floor quiet well, in my opinion. Feel free to continue.
I did not read the Kyle book but I did not like the way people like Sean Hannity were using the “number killed” as the measure of his “worthiness” or “heroism”. Kyles comments were often tough and callous, but that is the point of the story, and the movie. This is what happens to men who go to war. At least some men. Others go off the deep end or become introverts and reclusive.
SK,
Well said & it all works for me. I just do not agree with any dis-honor labels being applied to military snipers. They volunteered to serve and do a tough and for the most part, thankless job. Sadly, I think criticism is deserved by America. Our lack of consistent foreign policy makes us look like an ape tripping on acid or something. We meddle where we shouldn’t and like Libya, leave a shamble in our wake. Now we appear to be doing the same in Syria.
Mafia hitmen volunteer to serve to. Hardly heroes.
Who says they are not? Know any? The pay is also better and your prey is usually not armed nor ready.
Your understanding of what heroism is, is quite suspect, obviously.
How does that saying go about Progressive agendas.
They have no end game because the game is to always be reforming the thing that is broken from the last time they reformed it. In my profession we called this a “Sustained Yield Unit”.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2918003/NHS-forced-abandon-free-healthcare-says-Britain-s-doctor-warns-service-needs-radical-change.html
They won’t admit that the need for rationing and death panel’s. It’s inevitable.
What I am getting is an admission that doing away more or less with GP’s and neighborhood doctors in favor of this huge and expensive government set up was not the greatest idea in the world.
I have been hearing since the ’60’s that the “poor” use the emergency room as their physician. What I get from GP’s I know is that they have no status, no respect, ridiculous insurance bills, incredible paperwork, constantly shrinking re-reimbursements (which lead them to cheat) and Health insurance companies that require them to submit everything three times in triplicate before rejecting it.
As with “federally” guaranteed mortgages, “federally” guaranteed student loans, “federally” administered medicine (Medicare and Medicaid) prices started skyrocketing as soon as Uncle stepped in. Would love someone to prove me wrong on that.
Interesting takes…..interesting indeed.
You are a southern gentleman, no doubt about it. “Interesting” must have a much different meaning in Texas than it does in Idaho or Montana. 🙂
Although I get the thought that we shouldn’t make how many we kill a thing to cheer about-we should cheer more about winning and how many of ours weren’t killed. I find the idea that one type of killing of the enemy in war should be privately endorsed and praised but publicly declared a necessary evil and the person doing the killing by association being deemed doing something just not quite right -well it is somehow just not quite right and more than a little bit hypocritical.
You are strange.
So you champion “how many were not killed”, yet you do not consider that if they weren’t there, they wouldn’t be at risk to be killed
So you champion a murderer instead.
You do the same…by not condemning THEM..you only condemn US…that’s bullshit.
Gee, da ya even try to wonder why?
Didn’t see any Iraqi’s invading the US EVER
Do ya think that means something? Or do you just shut off your brain every 30 minutes??
Let’s see if you can do it Barack ,jr, Repeat after me:
I condemn any Muslim jihadi for their evil actions in killing innocent civilians.
You do not condemn YOURSELF for condoning the slaughter of innocents.
There was no ISIS before the invasion.
There were not a million dead before the invasion.
You ignore the cause, *because it is YOU* and your ilk that is responsible.
You blame the victims for their response.
You will cry a river of tears for your ignorance.
I knew it. Guess what? I (USA) didn’t call them…they called me. In 93 and countless other times. Then they defied the UN how many times in the years between ’93 and ’03. You can go all the way back to Adam and Eve and they’ve been pestering. It’s what they do. Blame us all you want. They’re on a mission (jihad) and it’s violent. They kill their own. So tell me how it’s my fault that they want to kill their own and me and everyone who thinks like me. They were killing before the USA was born. So your story doesn’t add up. They will kill you BF…unless you are them. I can’t believe you’re being so stubborn. But that’s ok . I’m sure the good colonel has your back anyway. I’m thankful he has mine.
Hohoho!
Right, the UN, the one that is controlled by US and its minions. Yeah, that’s a great argument.
You mean the UN that said unprovoked invasion of another country is a war crime? Hmmm… bet the US vetoed that when applied the international law to itself.
Look, you want to fool yourself, you want to ignore the cause/consequence, you can.
You can ignore the truth, but you will not be able to ignore the consequences of ignoring the truth.
You will cry a river of tears, dear.
LOL!
http://twitchy.com/2015/01/20/bwahaha-the-onions-sotu-preview-might-just-be-the-best-thing-ever-photoshop/
http://conservativevideos.com/jimmy-kimmel-catches-americans-lying-dr-martin-luther-king/
With 11 of the 12 balls the Patriot’s used in the AFC Championship proven to have been deflated below standards, the question should be, did this give them a competitive advantage and if so, should they not have to forfeit the game to the Colts?
Sorry for the slight hijack. but the who attacked who first thing has played itself out before.
Reading some of the Left Wing drivel this morning, some of these people have lost their minds. The fawning is disgusting, almost fanatical. I bet many of these nuts would do what ever he told them to do. 🙄
Come on – even you need to admit he gave a good speech.
It put me to sleep within the first 12 minutes. Missed the response as well. No big deal. I have read both. Basically, useless drivel from both sides. What is sad is that people actually believe the drivel and in some cases, cross the line from supporting a politician to worshipping one. But, at least I’m not one of THEM 😀
Dude! It was redistribute the wealth to the max! Tell you what…just give me your check right now Buck. I’ll take it from there.
Good morning, Buckster…..I cannot admit it…….no sir…….but then again….I did not watch the speech. I quit watching SOTU speeches decades ago no matter who was giving them. All they are is a pat yourself on the back thing.
Hope you are doing well sir.
Buck
Can you define “good speech” for us?
I know no one here would ever find the content of the speech compelling or a good idea; however, they way in which it was presented, his oration, etc. – it was overall a good speech.
Buck is always fooled by the glitter and pageantry. The content is irrelevant. As long as Obama spoke well, Buck will fall right in line, take up the machetes and start hacking off limbs.
Ummm…not at all BF, not at all…but you continue to believe as you wish…
Buck
If he ever put forth a good idea I would gladly recognize it.
You are right, he has very good oratory skills. He has a “public” personality, like Clinton, that helps with those skills.
Your point confirms my expectation. It is all about the emotion for many on the left.
While you may disagree with much of the content, I thought he did a good job of putting forth his views of where we should be going as a country. There were some good ideas in there.
The speech was notably short on specifics and how to get there, but it set forth his general agenda in a relatively concise, well structured and well delivered speech.
I’m for progress! That should make me an excellent candidate. You young folks should realize the difference between the golden oratory off the teleprompter and someone who: A. has an idea and a means to execute it other than extralegal, B. an out and out huckster.
Trust me, JFK had me going long after he died and in comparison to the big O, he was no danger at all.
I’ve been looking at some things that have occurred over the last 12 years or so, I can’t really say that the actions of the R’s are any different than the D’s. All the talk and BS is out there, but mostly, they agree with each other. Their are many laws that have been enacted with serious opposition (as it appears), only to watch the opposition do nothing about what they so vehemently were against when they get the control. I remember many on the Left decrying the Patriot Act, only to renew it when given the chance. Obamacare is not going anywhere, despite all the rhetoric. The Repug’s are now making excuses, claiming problems. It was “repeal and replace”, which means the foots in the door, we ain’t going anywhere. Government run healthcare is what both parties in DC want.
Big O may not be going anywhere either, it’s not 2016 yet. Obama’s 30+ delay’s to the ACA was in violation of his authority and he will not be held accountable. Boner is an idiot, no better than Pelosi. The talk and the actions are quite different. The actions are quite the same.
Good ideas?!? You are as insane as he is – Communist to the core.
Let’s steal more wealth, and burn it, that is how we will improve the wealth.
Ugg… economic idiocy dominates.
His agenda-Found this article seems to cover his agenda pretty well. I find his taxing college funds-really weird considering he’s pitching helping the middle class. What I really wonder about is where in his policies are business’s and the economy allowed to grow-you can not provide all the needs of the people through tax manipulations.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396775/obamas-class-warfare-michael-tanner
Didn’t watch live, have caught clips on internet and listened to some on radio. Thought his oration very odd sounding – voice got very high pitched at times. He was his snotty, snarky self; continue to be amazed that the leader of our country is so immature. In the clips I thought his eyes were weird again. Put it all together and I’d bet he was juiced up on something.
Those that are squealing over him today are pathetic. The bar has been lowered so significantly that if he reads his prompters correctly they are impressed. To hell with the words or truthfulness behind them. Sad state.
From Buck:
“There were some good ideas in there.”
Please enlighten us.
Buck
What “ideas” were identified in the speech that you believe are “good ones”???
Let’s see…to name two:
— paid maternity leave
— increased minimum wage
More important to me wasn’t any specific proposal — SOTU’s in general (and this one in particular) are notoriously short on any details and specifics — but the general vision he laid out.
Let’s see…Buck is economically irrational, still. Hasn’t learned a thing.
— paid maternity leave
Why do you believe the government needs to overrule the deal between labor and management and impose its own demands that neither party agreed?
Why do you believe, as a third party that is not part of their deal, get to impose a new deal upon them?
— increased minimum wage
You are economically illiterate. Who do you think benefits from this?
You increase unemployment.
You increase costs to everyone.
You increase business closures.
You ensure the low-skilled unemployable remain permanently unemployable.
You are the enemy of the workers, you are not their friend.
Buck
So you like his “general vision”. Which means you really like the idea of a Centralized Federal Govt imposing itself in virtually all aspects of private life. From providing health care, to day care to education care, setting prices of goods and services, dictating working hours and private employer/employee relationships, etc. etc.
Is that really the vision you support??
You seem surprised — I’m not sure why. I’ve stated my views on federalism and the role of government before. For instance, on health care, you know (or should know) that I’m a strong supporter of single payer.
Of course you are in favor of monsophonies and monopolies, you have no economic literacy so you go with whatever crackpot idea that worms into your brain.
You believe all the defects that exist in these things evaporate if it is government that are these things. You believe in magical economics.
A typical Leftist – supports Peter Pan fantasies just because you like the story
Yup BF, that’s me….an economic illiterate! And, given your views, quite proud of it!
Yes, you are, sir. You are economically illiterate AND ignorant.
You pretend that you can overthrow economic law by writ.
I’m surprised you don’t equally pretend government can overthrow the law of gravity by writ too, merely because you do not like how gravity causes people to fall to their death.
You do not understand that with such pretense, *you will manifest the very problem you believe your fantasy will solve*. That is what makes you stupid. You want to solve a problem, but you promote *an action that will do the opposite*.
I cannot think of something more stupid then doing something that makes worse a problem to be the solution to the problem.
The deflated footballs is no fluke…..they were deflated. the Colt safety that intercepted knew it right away…..
You probably cannot take the win away….but you can take the next five years of draft picks away…..that is what I would do. That would be a good death sentence.
tch….such grammar……”are” ………
Poor Anita and her ilk, now are fighting ghosts….
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/world/africa/18iht-iraq.4.6718200.html?_r=5&
How absolutely hilarious. YOU citing the CIA/US Military as the source of absolute truth.
All the while not recognizing that either case refutes your claim of a “ghost”. A fictitious public figure does not negate the actual leaders existence. Or did you miss that part of “logic class”?
JAC,
You have brain disease.
If your ilk cannot even know who exists or not as an enemy, do you think you understand who you are fighting???
BF
I know EXACTLY who I am fighting. It is YOU. Well more precisely it is your mushy arguments and irrational hate filled attacks on the USA in general and people here in particular.
Like how you denigrate US intelligence for creating “false flags” and now you cite that same intelligence agency as proof that “we are fighting ghosts”. And you can’t see the hypocrisy or at least irony in that? Instead you say I have brain disease. Pretty pitiful argument for someone claiming such an high IQ.
Well you know what? Those people killing other people over there are not ghosts. Unless ghosts have suddenly become real and are capable of mass killing in the name of their non existent GOD.
Your venomous hatred and rhetoric against the USA aint selling with me any longer either. The longer you pursue that course the less your credibility as far as I am concerned.
There are legitimate issues and questions to be evaluated when it comes to the state of the world. But simply blaming the USA and accusing us all of murder is just more Anarchist hyperbole.
Oh more spit and dribble. Get a hanky.
If your own intelligence service admits it has no idea who or what they are fighting, you think this is a *false flag*??? Wow. Musta hurt your brain to come up with that one…..
You are fighting ghosts. The more you pound and kill, the more who rise from the ground to fight back. You do not even know who you are fighting any more.
BF
You are making a FALSE claim of equivalency. The lack of knowledge about a Single person’s existence, the supposed “self proclaimed” leader does not negate the actual existence of those who are killing people for no reason other than they don’t share the killer’s view of Islam.
Whether “my intelligence” knows whether this “self proclaimed” leader exists does not mean they do not know that the killers who are actually killing do not exist.
You are trying to make the two equivalent. Claiming that because we don’t know who this “self proclaimed” leader really is, or if he is real at all, we therefore must not know who these people are who are killing innocent people in Syria and Iraq.
An yes, they are killing innocent people. Or are you going to flatly deny that reality as well?
If you do not know WHO YOU ARE FIGHTING, how do you know WHAT YOU ARE FIGHTING
Buck and others like him might need this speech translation courtesy of Stossel:
http://twitchy.com/2015/01/21/now-it-makes-more-sense-john-stossel-translates-obamas-sotu-speech/
http://absoluterights.com/neither-obama-nor-republicans-talked-about-restoring-liberty-during-state-of-the-union/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=1-21-2015
Question.
Could an abortion that was needed to protect the life of the mother, in fact, be considered as “self defense”????
If I am driving and I blackout, and am heading toward an innocent person, a semi-truck seeing what is happening rams my car to stop me from killing the innocent person, but ends up killing me in the crash.
Is he a murderer?
Yes
BF
No. He is a killer of another human but not a murderer.
Now answer the question directly. Can abortion be considered self defense?
The analogy represents the answer.
If you think it was murder, then so with your abortion case.
If you think it was not murder, but justified, then so with your abortion case..
BF
Sorry but you introduced a third party to the equation. The case of self defense is between the Mother and unborn child.
The truck driver was an “observer” who took action without being asked. As such the human rule of “good Samaritan” kicks in. He did not kill you on purpose but it was the result of his action. So it was a homicide but whether due to negligence or not is up for question.
The unborn is killed “deliberately”. In the example it is killed to “protect the life of the mother” . Different situation.
Now can YOU answer the question? Never mind, I know you cannot. You never can.
Though to be fair, BF finally seems to be at least implying that there may be shades of gray and not everything is black and white.
This is a big step for him!
There is no shade of grey, Buck. Only you have kaleidoscope glasses here.
There are two principles at play.
Pick one, and you have your own answer.
The third party can be anyone, including the victim. It does not matter WHO saves the victim, it is the ACTION that is applied.
Not ‘self defense’ but definitely not ‘murder’ either…
Buck
What does that leave? Justifiable homicide………. but what is the “justification”??
It is not “accidental” or due to “negligence”.
Neither — its not the killing of a person. 🙂
Come on JAC – you should have seen that one from a mile away!
Buck
I did, but you threw me a curve with your first answer. I thought maybe you had a change of mind or something.
But notice how you HAD no choice but to claim there is NO PERSON being killed. It was required in order to answer the “legal question” per our current definitions.
Instead approach it the other way around, that is addressing the moral question of whether a person really exists and under what circumstances would its killing be justified.
Do we disavow the existence of another person because we truly don’t believe it true, or because we cannot create a situation in our mind, based on historical views of homicide, that would justify killing this other person? That is kind of rhetorical I know.
But I think it gets to the conundrum created by the simplistic arguments raised on both sides.
Comments from Left Wingers like this is why I DISPISE most of them. They don’t see their Communistic personalities.
Quote: Yes, Congress has been pretty pesky of late. But you are wrong when you say that you are moving forward on your own. You will do what the American people decide you will do and that’s that.
This dipshit asshole has no idea what American’s really stand for.
— increased minimum wage
You are economically illiterate. Who do you think benefits from this?
You increase unemployment.
You increase costs to everyone.
You increase business closures.
You ensure the low-skilled unemployable remain permanently unemployable.
You are the enemy of the workers, you are not their friend.
How can this be explained to people who are mindless zombies?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/07/19/332879409/states-that-raised-minimum-wage-see-faster-job-growth-report-says
You can’t.
They absolutely abandon any economic thinking because if they did not, they would have to admit their ideas are idiotic and destructive.
They would rather live in Peter Pan world, pretending that merely moving their mouths saying “We want to help”, and actually doing something that helps is the same thing.
When it fails, as it always does, they merely reach back and say “See, we tried” and self-absolve the blame away from them. They do not care about the destruction they wreck… “well, maybe next time it will work!”
They are superficial thinkers, and as such, are immune to the necessary intellectual thinking to understand their policies. If you can’t explain it to them in 30 seconds, they are lost and they abandon the effort to truly understand.
This is not normally a problem. There is no crime being stupid.
It is a huge problem when these people get in control of government violence, for then they enforce their stupidity on the rest of us.
Buck
Cause and effect are absent. I have seen these studies and claims by those using them. In reality the improved job growth, due to economic growth, comes first.
During the last “boom” wages grew in the rocky mtn states to where even Macdonals was paying over minimum wage for first time workers. If they didn’t the kids would work construction doing menial labor.
Now that is the technical arguments, which should have ZERO bearing on the role of the Federal Govt. when it comes to using coercion against its citizens.
Most States have the authority to dictate wages, the Fed Govt was not granted that power, it simply took it thanks to a Progressive Supreme Court. But NO GOVT should have that authority. PERIOD.
Buck, study after study after study has long demonstrated the fact that min. wage is utterly destructive.
It doesn’t take much economic education to understand why.
I would wager you understand the Law of Supply and Demand.
What you cannot seem to understand is that economic law applies to labor equally and absolutely.
If you raise the price of an economic good, the demand for that good falls. Economic law.
Certainly there are localized effects that may make it appear that this is not the case.
But no less you watching a feather float in the sky, do you declare that gravity has been vacated in that area, and the feather is immune to gravity. No, you hold the law of gravity and apply another natural law to explain the floating feather.
Same here. Do not pretend that the law of Supply and Demand is somehow vacated by government writ. It is not.
As I said, the problem is the lack of economic thinking that is an epidemic with your ilk. As such, your ilk is so easily swayed by fairy tales.
Buck
One other kind of key thing missing from this story, and others of its kind.
The minimum wage hikes just passed have not been implemented in many states as yet. Or they are just now going into affect. Seattle/Tacoma’s famous $15 per hour does not go into affect for another two months.
I also point to the irony/hypocrisy of NPR claiming that reality differs from the CBO findings, when they use the same CBO to justify the “savings” in health care costs by the ACA.
Buck
And for the record, I don’t think an increase in minimum wages will cause an downturn in economic “growth” necessarily. It will cause a reduction is some low wage jobs or cause certain people to lose those jobs. They will be replaced by higher skilled people who cannot find work.
But the question is not one of economic growth. The minimum wage issue is played by you “progressives” as a “human rights” issue. One of “empathy for the individual person”. You know, all that rhetoric about “dignity” for the person.
So in this respect, it can be counter to providing the very thing it is claimed to fix. Especially in a declining economic situation. The average low wage here in N. Idaho is now LOWER than it was before 2007. Because we now have excess of “low value labor” relative to “lower value jobs”.
Now if you FORCE those jobs to be higher wage, do you really think they will last long? If the value is not there what will sustain those jobs?
Next on the progressive horizon, additional tax credits for employers paying the new minimum wage. Somebody will have to subsidize this new labor market. I wonder if the Progressives will still call this a “subsidy” then??
“They will be replaced by higher skilled people who cannot find work.”
Why do you believe this???
If X is higher skilled but unemployed then Y, and Y is employed, why can’t X take Y’s job now??
There is no economic growth with min. wage.
There is a drop in economic growth.
Economic growth means there is increase in productivity. How does increasing a wage by government writ increase productivity? It is a wage increase without productivity. As this causes companies to close, reducing the number of products and production, which is opposite of economic growth. Further, small startups that would have employed at lower wages will not open.
“One of “empathy for the individual person”. You know, all that rhetoric about “dignity” for the person.”
They are hypocrites. They do not care about those that are radically unemployed and makes it impossible for them to get a foothold.
They are merely making mouth moves instead really solving problems.
BF
It is something that existing employers are stating they will do, but obviously it is limited in its application.
The situation being that the employer will “change the job” to try and get more productivity out of the new $15 per hour employee, instead of the old $7.00 per our employee. Such as combining two low wage jobs into a single job requiring someone who can work faster and with fewer errors. One of the things overlooked is the beginning worker and the cost to productivity than employers are willing to suffer for later growth of a good worker.
The job changes because the wage is mandated.
Just as some will eat the cost for now, then search other ways to improve their profits. Nobody is going to take less from their business if it causes discomfort.
Others will shut their doors due to low margins at current wage rates.
The most ironic thing of all these increases is that the food industry is the primary one’s howling. Yet many states exempt the food industry from minimum wage requirements. They count TIPS towards the minimum wage, thus reducing Direct Cost to the employer.
It is not clear how these new $15/hr rates will affect this in Washington, et al. Some are now saying that “tips” will be prohibited in certain eating establishments.
I can’t disagree much with that analysis.
The only other think I will point out is that it will cause a productivity loss.
As companies cut back and others close, these things reduce the goods and services in an economy – less goods available, fewer providers.
Prices will go up, eliminating any mythical benefit of the artificial wage increase.
Great idea! Let’s get all McDonalds to raise their prices to what it would be if their workers were making 15 bucks an hour, then, after a month or two, subtract the actual effects on sales and apply the to the new wages, and the same percentage of profit for the owner of the Franchise and see what happens.
Buck, would you be willing to apply this idea to all workers and Minimum Wage?
And people wonder why the economy is sick.
Min. wage laws are a war against low skilled workers. Min. wage do not help the vast majority of workers, and it is very destructive to the economy.
It helps no one who earns higher then the min. wage. This group’s wages do not change, so you can ignore the effects on this group.
It helps no one who earns less then the min. wage. There is no one here, they are unemployed and now raising the min. wage pushes the bar of employment ever higher out of their reach. You ignore these people all together in the calculation already.
At the min. wage, is only where maybe there might be an increase. But here, there will be a large segment that are currently just earning at their level of productivity. These people will lose their jobs, the opposite of helping them.
So there is a tiny fraction of people who are more productive then their earnings, and they get a pay raise not because they produced more or better, but merely by writ
Of course, the closing of businesses, the increase in unemployment, the rising costs upon current business is all ignored. Sure, this small minority may get a bigger number on their pay stub, but their costs went up too. Indeed, they actually can buy less, since costs have risen, competition and the goods produced has fallen, and their taxes have risen.
So, the people who self-declare how much they care, instead destroy.
Those that support min. wage are the enemies of the workers, not their friends.
If Buck honestly cared about workers, he’d eliminate min. wage.
The low skilled workers cannot compete on productivity but they can compete ON PRICE. They can undercut the cost of labor to an employer who may change his own calculation on the value of the labor.
“One high skill guy does X, one low skill guy does X-25, but TWO low skilled guys whose cost is the same as one high skilled guy does 2X-50, and I get more stuff made for the same price”
The free market in all goods allows entry into the market for the weaker competitors who cannot compete on quality, compete on price. Why do some people buy cheap Chinese TV’s that last 2 years instead of US made that last for 5?
The Chinese can’t compete on quality, but can on price. Everyone wins. Those that want quality get their TV and those that cannot afford the quality get a TV too
But Buck, he hates people having things. He hates people working.
So his plan will be to keep people hopelessly unemployed, and those who cannot afford expensive TV’s are stuck watching walls.
Minimum wage at this point is nothing other than a sneaky acknowledgement of the inflation going on under the table for the last few years. The new pound of 14 ounces, the new quart of 28 ounces and the price of meat. This is all part of keeping the lid on.
Modern day Russia under Stalabama 😀
Sorry Stalibama 🙂
Very interesting report just out. I am going to watch and see who picks up on it and considers it news and who does not.
The United States Justice Department under Eric Holder just announced that it is going to close the Ferguson case next week……………..with NO CHARGES and NO VIOLATION of civil rights.
What now? I wonder if now, there will be protests because Eric Holder and Obama’s czars found no criminality. What now?
Maybe the race pimps will shut up and go away as they are irrelevant.
That is the recommendation of the investigators. There may be an executive memo or two to come yet.
Actually Buck, you have surprised me a little…. I know about your support of a single payer system…..but you do surprise me a little on mandatory issues as if those are rights. Mandatory sick leave? Mandatory minimum wage? Very interesting.
Don’t forget paid maternity/paternity leave…
🙂
Odd, since everyone should be insured now, that should be a non subject.
It is a covered medical issue after all. Is Obama admitting that Obamacare won’t work as intended?
What does having health insurance have to do with having paid maternity/paternity leave?? Your comment confuses me.
Because health insurance covers paternity leave under the short term disability clauses in most policies. It sure did before Obamacare, at least where I worked.
Ummm, not quite.
Perhaps your specific insurance covered paternity leave under its short term disability. Not true with the vast majority; from my knowledge there were a handful of states that expressly included maternity leave, but most were restricted to pregnancy leave – where it was medically necessary both pre and post birth for recovery.
OK, sorry, it seems Obama forgot something in his new fancy healthcare law. Apparently Gruber and him weren’t being very thoughtful towards the women who he thinks there is no law for equal pay and equal work, despite the fact that women in HIS house are the very victims he talks about.
Just joking of course. I do remember this very subject of equal pay supposedly being resolved under Carter. But, that was Carter, which don’t say much.
Ok, Buck…you support it……can you tell me why?
Let me ask this question…..do you consider a paid maternity/paternity leave to be a right instead of a privilege or gift?
None of the above.
Why do I support it? Because it makes good sense, both economically and socially. Studies have long demonstrated this.
Why are you against it (assuming of course that you are against it)?
Why shouldn’t women pay for it under their health insurance?
It’s not a health insurance issue. And it’s not about paid maternity leave — paternity leave as well.
Sure it is! Both for mother and child. I have no problem with this being a coverable issue under health insurance. Since the President is claiming the economy is much better, more people should be able to afford health insurance, then why is this not covered? There’s where it should be fixed, under health coverage. It would end up being an insurance issue anyway, except for the employer, who will have to keep wages lower and health insurance higher for everyone else to pay for it. I’m curious, who do you think is going to pay for this suggestion, the tooth fairy?
You still keep going back to only maternity leave, why?
How to pay? There are many ways – payroll tax would probably make the most sense in my mind.
More sense? No, just more nonsense like the nonsense to begin with.
Buck, women and the man who made them pregnant should pay for it. It’s a personal choice, not a societal choice. Sorry, if it becomes a tax issue, then government becomes the controller of who can and can’t get pregnant. Pregnancy can NEVER become a government issue, EVER. Although I fear that it already has.
Exactly Gman.
Typical mentally ill Socialists. The personal choices and consequences of individuals must become the problem of everyone else.
They are nothing but mentally ill busy bodies. Can’t run their lives, so they want to run everyone else’s into the ground too.
G – what nonsense are you spouting? If it becomes a tax issue the govt gets to decide who gets pregnant?? Care to explain?
G – how does a payroll tax on all employees which is used to fund parental leave get to the government dictating who can and cannot have kids?
Buck, we do not have a tax to support such things to find out, and hopefully never will 🙂
How in your mind would that play out? I’m curious how you arrived there.
I would not support such a tax anyway. It’s an individual decision. It should not be up to society to pay for such things, and if you care to remind me about how it is with the poor and minorities under welfare and all that, I know, and still don’t support it. If one can’t support themselves financially, they should not get pregnant. I’m positive that pregnancy is not an accident.
So you see absolutely no merit in paid parental leave?
Don’t ply this “economically” nonsense. You are an economic moron. Let’s see your economic reasoning.
From one of many articles on the subject:
But here’s what men may not realize: While paid paternity leave may feel like an unexpected gift, the biggest beneficiaries aren’t men, or even babies. In the long run, the true beneficiaries of paternity leave are women, and the companies and nations that benefit when women advance. In October, the World Economic Forum released its latest global gender-gap report, showing that countries with the strongest economies are those that have found ways to further women’s careers, close the gender pay gap, and keep women—who in most nations are now better educated than men—tethered to the workforce after they become mothers. One strikingly effective strategy used by the highest-ranking countries is paternity leave, which, whatever else it may accomplish, is a brilliant and ambitious form of social engineering: a behavior-modification tool that has been shown to boost male participation in the household, enhance female participation in the labor force, and promote gender equity in both domains.
Typical economic idiocy of Socialists.
If this was wanted, men would negioate it with their employers.
Typical Socialists – they think they know best and blunder on regardless of the errant and destructive policies create.
Yep, they want to “engineer” human beings – they are the sickest of the sickest of humanity.
I am not against it at all….I am against the Federal Government mandating what is a personal choice. I am against the Federal Government telling me that I have to have this. If I want to do it, I will and will pay what I want to pay. I will negotiate between the individual and myself. I am against the Federal Government or any government saying…you must cover this and that.
By your own admission, this is not a right so, consequently, the government has no business in it. The law of supply and demand ( labor and labor issues ) will solve the problem. If my competitors decide to give benefits and I do not, then I will suffer.
Also, it may be perfect sense economically,,,,,,,but that is for a company or business to decide….not some academia somewhere and certainly not Washington DC.
On the Patriots and deflated footballs…let me ask a few questions here.
1) Is there anyone on here that feels the coach did not know about this?
2) Is there anyone on here that feels that the quarterback did not know about this?
3) Why would a team, with this type pf talent, feel the need to have an additional advantage?
4) I recommend a 5 year no draft punishment. Is there someone out here that feels that is too extreme? If so, why?
Who cares?
A bunch of grossly disfigured men pushing a ball across dirt…. yeah, that’s something important.
I because I made some good money on their weekly play. An economic boon that would have otherwise not existed without them. Mind your damn business, just because you aren’t smart enough to figure out how to profit from it don’t mean it’s bad, it just means your not smart enough to profit from it. I have so go away and pound oil out of sand 🙂
I profit from it by not paying attention to it. The time not wasted is far better spent doing something more profitable without gambling on stupid men whose only use of their brain is to slam into someone else’s while chasing a ball.
And I PROFIT from it by ENJOYING it for the great game it is. I make no money….I just suffer though the highs and lows with great anticipation.
Watching football, baseball and even basketball is not a “waste” of time for me. Just like sitting and watching the birds in my trees or the ducks and geese on the pond.
Only from a mindset, BF……only from a mindset. Peoples reactions are directly related to politics, economics, and understanding.
I told him good, ROFLMAO! 🙂 😀
Gladiators…..BF……Gladiators………..the only thing that has changed is there are no horses. tridents, or swords……..people all over the world love to watch this type of entertainment whether its football, European football, Rugby, Soccer, field hockey, Ice hockey……it really does not matter, does it? It is the way of the world.
Hell, they are making football so powder puffy now, I like to watch ice hockey now. But……Gladiators.
D13
1 & 2 they both knew and it was undeniable that those who handled the ball on a regular basis knew as well.
3. It is their history to try and gain competitive advantage, despite the rules.
4. NO, Patriots should forfeit the game and Colts should play. There would be no competitive advantage by doing this, I’m guessing that the Colts may even be ready to play on. PLUS 5 years of only 7th round picks, no free agency and not allowed to trade up in draft.
5. If the NFL is going to smash players for gaining a competitive advantage as individuals, teams should be held to a 67 times higher level. The integrity of the game is on the line. Cheating must be squashed. Ask Pete Rose what it means to be stupid.
Musings on the Middle Class and Minimum wage and related topics.
Two weeks ago I had the opportunity to send 10 days with Junior helping him, pack and move back from his stint at Command and Staff school. We are not much alike politically. He is far too much of a populist for me. Occasionally though, we come to the same conclusion from different places.
All of us who traditionally argue against increasing the minimum wage have argued it from the point that these are “starting” positions. No one is expected to stay there for a career. If they do it is because they are incompetent. Well, times have really changed. I am afraid that there is no ticket to the middle class anymore, certainly not like there was thirty or more years ago,.
Certainly people can still become wealthy or at least well off but the good blue collar jobs are lost and “hospitality” and “service” will not put you where your Daddy was. There are no alternatives. I was surprised, having four children who are “professionals” that at least three recognize their professions are in danger. Lawyers are a dime a dozen which is why the eldest also has two masters degrees. Knowing his field even though he does not practice he surprised me by pointing out a lawyer today nets about half what his father did on a standard house closing because of the competition. Both the scientist and engineer look askance at the H 1 B visa programs which are gutting salaries in their fields. A US engineer or scientist can be replaced tomorrow by a half competent Indian or Pakistani for a fraction of the cost. Our buddies at Berkshire Hathaway and Microsoft are pushing for more of this. Draftsmen have been replaced by CAD machines and CAD machine operators in the US are being replaced by operators in New Delhi or Peking (Beijing).
Now I know that Mr. Flag will tut-tut this because he has done well. But not everyone has the skills he has. I too was a bring yourself up by your bootstraps kind of guy but the society, technology and the economy not to mention unconscionable student loan debt seems to have closed off avenues to young folks today.
Read an article that Jr. gave me by a Law prof talking about the new scam in the law business and even in the Government. It is something called, post grad and post bar exam unpaid internship to “prove” you can do it. They keep you for a year or two, use you as a free law clerk and then say sorry Charlie! Hundreds more to take your place. I’d always thought the science and engineer professions were a way around stuff like that but with the ability to recruit abroad in places where just having a roof over your head, three square meals a day and some free time for recreation look super there seems to be less and less chance for any real security.
I do not know the answer. The only truly upwardly mobile folks out there today seem to be in the financial community and I am scared out of my wits by the crap that they keep coming up with to keep themselves where they are. I keep looking at this stock market with the sure and certain knowledge that once inflation hits, there is going to be a 5,000 point one day drop. I guess the “administrator” or bureaucrat class are doing well too. I know that in universities they do better than the young aspiring professors will ever do. Same in education and medicine, the paper pushers outnumber and outrank the doers. I also wonder how the average guy equal to the average guy I went to school with forty some years ago can possibly make it today. I have never been a rich guy and have never considered myself “average”. Don’t have any advance degrees and too lazy to have studied the “hard” subjects in depth. I have been able to do what I have done because there were opportunities I could take advantage of due to my routine “outside the box” thinking which I doubt are available today.
Thoughts folks? The issue is worth thinking about. Us older folks have to take into account the world that Buck and Matt and my kids inhabit. I always seem to come back to how us baby boomers managed to FUBAR an entire society.
I think I may go out and re-read “Beyond this Horizon” by RAH because it raises a lot of the points I have touched on. Here is an interesting review. Maybe we should start a book club and all read and discuss it.
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2015/01/robert-heinlein-and-looking-beyond-this.html
“Now I know that Mr. Flag will tut-tut this because he has done well.”
Bullshit.
I tut-tut this because it is stupid. It was stupid when I was poor and it is still stupid when I’m not poor.
So you fret that your Daddy and you were overpaid when you worked. You didn’t produce anywhere near as good as an Indian or Chinese can today, but the market of workers was small that was able to the task, so, you got more.
Today, the Indians are a lot better than you were. There are more of them. So today, you’re not going to get overpaid.
Because you are superfical, you only see what’s against your nose. You do not realize how wealthy you have become because labor costs are low. Your Papa didn’t have cell phone, HD TV, car with airco and airbags, cheap air fare, etc. etc. etc. because there wasn’t anyone to build them CHEAPLY.
The rich enjoyed these things, but you didn’t.
So you want to go back to the days you had little goods, just because your nose is out of joint over your wage – the latter being a problem because you are not as productive as the other guy
Just bat-shit crazy.
“there is going to be a 5,000 point one day drop.”
Ah, no. The other way around. There will be a huge surge when inflation strikes.
You want to GET OUT OF MONEY and INTO ASSETS.
You do not want to get out of assets and into money during inflation.
Learn to start a business. Why did you raise a lawyer… geezus….
Look, the Chinese built a 1000 sq yard house with a 3D printer for under $4,800.
You will cry and weep… “oh what about the home builders that charge hundreds of thousands, they’ll be out of business…” instead of going “OH YEAH BABY!” – cheap housing, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy something else AND have a house to put it in
You have no idea how wealth is created, and ply nearly as bad as Buck, economic nonsense.
If I bring down the cost of a product, pray tell who I will sell it to when they are all out of work? You mix yourself, your good fortune and the brains God gave you up with the general population. Now that I have started to read RAH again, I see things I wasn’t paying attention to before. He was certainly an advocate for rugged individualism and independence but at the same time he was an advocate for the common man. Go figure.
Please don’t drag modern technology into the argument. It wasn’t there. Last week I watched something on C-Span about the Pan Pacific exhibit back after the earthquake in San Francisco. The author of the book showed slides including one of a giant Underwood typewriter that really worked. She made some snarky, demeaning comments about how “cute” it was. Years ago, I took apart an Underwood 5 when a spring let loose. I was and am still amazed at the mechanics of the thing. So please don’t tell me about the :”quality” issue. The dumb broad probably can’t drill a hole and sink a drywall anchor properly yet has an “opinion” on 100 year old technology far beyond her grasp.
The old man my son and I went to the NY auto show the year Chevy debuted the Citation and Chevette. He sat in one, got out, slammed the door and with a growl yelled “cardboard” the damn thing is all cardboard inside. That was his work ethic talking. The assholes who decided to put in the cardboard were not workers on the line.
On inflation, 30% guaranteed, no risk while the stock issuing companies have to borrow at 40%. We will see my friend, we will see.
SK, I have urged so often to get some economic understanding before you race your brain into a car wreck.
People are not out of work!!
Who is building my product?
Who is supplying my parts to build the product?
Who is building those parts?
Who is supplying their parts to build those parts?
Says Law (one of those economic laws you refuse to learn about):
Producers by the products of other Producers
You make goods so you can buy other goods.
You are an ass-backwards Keynesian, who believes that you need to have a starving man before you think you should grow some food.
NO! You grow food so you can get shoes.
You make shoes so you can buy food.
Companies won’t borrow at 40% (ps: it won’t go that high, if it goes over 20%, the Fed risks falling into hyperinflation and losing control. They will never let it get above that if they can)
No, in inflation, the money is becoming worth less (not worthless). So traders will dump money and buy assets, whose prices GO UP during inflationary times.
I would not (and did not) say “stocks” but “Assets”. There is a lot more stuff going on in any stock market to claim that stock prices rise and fall due to a single factor.
For example, regardless of high or low inflation, a bad companies stock will probably fall, and a good companies stock will probably go up.
Further, recessions are more important to stock price then inflation as a recession indicates lower disposable incomes, and corporate sales slow downs, which affect profitability, which affects their stock price.
But say property. As inflation goes up, less people can afford the payments, yet, the price of property also goes up with the inflation rate. This is a good buy in inflationary times if you have capital. Gold is another, of course, etc.
Guess all those folks who used to work for Maytag, GE, GM and Eastman Kodak now standing around on street corners are just plain lazy.
As an aside, yesterday’s State of the State message by Governor Cuomo reminded us that upstate or downstate, we are all one state. That’s cute considering he sentenced upstate to a slow, lingering, painful death by banning fracking. .
Read what I said.
They are overpriced for the quality and productivity they produce.
I know you utterly resist learning economics.
Like so many people, you pretend you can still do certain actions without suffering particular outcomes, and economics tells you “hohoho! Nope, you’re going to get kicked!”.
You hate that economics tells you that, so you believe if you ignore economics, you get to ignore the consequences economics delivers.
But nope. You can’t.
You can ignore the truth, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring the truth.
Sorry, your quality sucks at the price you want to charge. Economic truth, SK, sorry it hurts.
There is a class of consumers that always buy the highest quality. I have a friend who insists on buying stereo speakers that whose electromagnets are twisted by hand, etc. and pays $20,000 for a pair of them. He says he can hear the difference. I can’t. So I paid about $100 for mine and to me, sounds the same.
But that class of consumer is small. Maybe a few hundred thousand.
The largest class of consumer is always looking for the cheapest price for the level of quality they want, which is generally low. They’d rather pay a $100 for a pair of speakers that burnout every year or so, and then buy the next generation of speakers that does more (wireless for example) that costs…. about $100.
That class of consumer is counted in the quite of few hundreds of millions of people.
There is a reason Walmart is the largest retailer on Earth and not Sachs.
SK,
You don’t even know why those cars had “cardboard” in the doors. You put it down as “quality issue”. It ain’t. It is a WEIGHT ISSUE
With all your government mandated nonsense, car manufacturers had to build cars that needed to achieve some artificial gas mileage standard. To achieve it, you have to make the cars smaller and lighter. Laws of Physics.
You can build the car out of advanced materials, but a Chevette would have cost $100,000.
Or you can use cheap materials.
Don’t blame the car manufacturers because you can’t afford $100,000 Chevettes.
My ’75 Nova was nothing like my ’70 Nova. My ’79 Aspen wagon was nothing like my ’66 Coronet. Assembly was pathetic. Ditto for the attachment of those cardboard door interior panels.
Already explained why. But go ahead and ignore it. You will remain ignorant.
@Buck, down here! 🙂
Buck says:
January 21, 2015 at 10:29 pm (Edit)
How in your mind would that play out? I’m curious how you arrived there.
With taxes come control. It’s inevitable.
Perhaps control over who gets the funds; not over who gets pregnant. You are making quite the leap!
Yes, rationing. No leap at all, just wanted you to say it for me.
Kind of like health care under the same terms.
There is a huge difference between setting the terms under which individuals get paid parental leave (eg, number of weeks; amount of payment) and being able to say who is permitted to even get pregnant.
Please focus on the issue at hand and not some wild tangent having nothing to do with the question posed – whether or not paid parental leave is a good policy and, if so, how to pay.
You seem to argue that this should be handled by the private insurance market. I say doing so would be inefficient, cost prohibitive for many, and not reap the benefits of true paid parental leave. Please elaborate how you see this playing out.
Buck,
Do me a favor and visit what I wrote above. Tell me what you think and ignore the Flag’s BS . I am starting to think we have to come to a new way of thinking about things if in fact access to the middle class has been cut off.
I’ll never be convinced that government is the answer because I’ve been there and seen the massive inefficiencies and fraud they generate. So, now, in addition to re-reading Heinlein I will probably start reading up on TR and the square deal.
There is an interesting analogy, again from my father. Back when we started to concern ourselves with vehicle emissions, the government mandated changes in automobile engines. My Dad thought that what they should have done was set a standard, five or ten years in the future and let the private sector figure it out. Perhaps sick leave and health insurance should have been handled the same way.”By the year 2025 you shall provide employees with…….” Sets the stage for some real competition which everyone claims to like.
The fact SK was the the car manufacturers already started dealing with emissions long before government mandated it
You fall for the old socialist trick of taking credit for the market’s success.
So you ask why did they want the mandate? (PS: It was the CAR MANUFACTURERS who wanted the mandate). Can you possibly think why they would do that?
Yep, know they did,, also knew they offered seat belts before the mandate.
I do agree with your sentiment that it is a different world today that may well require different thinking to solve problems. Will try to take a closer look at your comments and give it some additional thought.
Today is promising to be a busier day than yesterday.
You see, Buck, the lack of any intellectual capacity of you and your Socialists ilk is the root of the evil of your Socialist policies.
You pretend that there exists consequence-free actions, that is, you engage in this action believing it will only produce positive outcomes.
You ignorantly ignore the negative outcomes. You absolutely do not spend an eye blink. When they occur, as they must, you shrug your shoulders and say “Gee, didn’t see that coming! Oh well…..”
This is the same mental problem most criminals have; they only look at the positive outcomes (they get loot!), they do not understand the negative consequences of their actions (you got to jail!). When they get caught, they act surprised. Many of my criminal lawyer friends describe this; they ask the crook “Didn’t you think you might go to jail for this?” and they say “Nope, never crossed my mind”.
You have the same brain as these criminals, utter superficial in your analysis, ignorant of consequences and worse of all, unrepentant about the destruction you wreck upon others and society.
Sure, My Grand parents and Parents managed just fine to deal with the issue. So did I and raised 3 kids who are doing just fine. My ex-wife didn’t have parental leave and we managed just fine. She did have maternity leave, which was for 6 weeks from birth. Not sure why this is such a bad thing to have under insurance, since this all happened well over 20 years ago. Yes, we paid for her private insurance, above and beyond my military coverage. It paid for itself, because of maternity leave.
It just seems that more and more people want taxpayers to pay their way. Sorry, we’re taxed enough, pay your own way and buy insurance for what you are likely to deal with. The so called benefits are based on “studies”, kinda like global warming, I would guess.
Be careful what you ask for, you may just get it. People will not go for the tax, employers might be forced to, at the detriment of young women.
Exactly Gman.
My wife stayed home to raise our daughter…. 19 years of maternity level all paid by me. Total cost of the maternity to date:
$2.1 million in “lost” income.
That’s the root.
Socialist morons want everyone else to pay for their lifestyle.
Instead of making the necessary sacrifices for the betterment of their own children, people like Buck and his ilk want the rest of us to sacrifice so they can have double incomes and go on vacations and have nice cars and have us, who are responsible, pay for the extravagances.
Now they aren’t totally stupid. They won’t say that. They will flower it up with platitudes of “how it is good for the children” and all the shit, but they don’t give a shit about the children or they would make those necessary choices for themselves.
They are merely self-centered, egotistical sociopaths who want to feed off the rest of us.
“My wife stayed home to raise our daughter…. 19 years of maternity level all paid by me. Total cost of the maternity to date:
$2.1 million in “lost” income.”
Oh please BF. You know full well that nobody is talking about paying you or your wife (or anybody else for that matter) to stay at home and raise one’s child to adulthood. The question of parental leave is about a few weeks or months.
“Buck and his ilk want the rest of us to sacrifice so they can have double incomes and go on vacations and have nice cars”
Once again — blatantly false.
“They are merely self-centered, egotistical sociopaths who want to feed off the rest of us.”
That just deserves one big….SIGH!
Buck, The point is that you want someone else to pay for the mother having a baby. You say this is false. You are bloody insane. You propose government mandated maternity leave and then claim this isn’t someone paying the mother for her baby
Do you Socialist nutcases ever make sense?
WordPress.com
Buck commented: “”My wife stayed home to raise our daughter…. 19 years of maternity level all paid by me. Total cost of the maternity to date: $2.1 million in “lost” income.”
Oh please BF. You know full well that nobody is talking about paying you or your wife “
Buck,
The point is that you want someone else to pay for the mother having a baby.
You say this is false.
You are bloody insane.
You propose government mandated maternity leave and then claim this isn’t someone paying the mother for her baby
Do you Socialist nutcases ever make sense?
Again…SIGH.
Again, that is all you brainless Socialists can say is “Sigh”…. the total extent of your brain power.
” I say doing so would be inefficient, cost prohibitive for many, and not reap the benefits of true paid parental leave. Please elaborate how you see this playing out.”
Oh what garbage! Is this all you Socialists do is make up stories and pretend they are true?
As if government is the model of efficiency! HOHOHOHOHOO!
You have it ass-backwards as usual. The market is EFFICIENT and provides all its goods AT THE BEST POSSIBLE PRICE due to competition.
Your upside down brain thinks monopolizing these goods in hands of government is efficient and cost effective, ignoring that monopolies always offer ever lower quality goods for ever increasing price
So you see absolutely no merit in paid parental leave?
I have no problem with young people who will likely have children paying for insurance to solve that problem. Why should young people , under the Obamacare model, pay high prices to fund the older and sicker? Your being a hypocrite here. If they can pay for the older and sicker they can pay for their own issues too, just ask Obama, he’ll tell you so 🙂
The health insurance plan with the company I worked for before retiring and also pre ACA. The plan had a base. You get married, base + 1. Want to have children you upped your plan personally to cover the pregnacy and maternity issues. Kids down the road need orthodontic work done above the base dental plan you upped your policy to cover the work while the work was ongoing. Upon completion you dropped to the base. Personal choice was built in. Emergency repairs were always covered. The single worker or those chosing to NOT have choice issues did not pay for those that did…..However when ACA went into affect maternity care, as an example, in my policy was NOT a choice I had to get it. As you know I’m single, retired in my 60’s and if I ever hook up with somebody again they certainly will be past the child bearing years. The ACA eliminated most choice. If you had a drug and alcohol problem insurance for treatment was available. If you had a problem and refused to get treatment, more than likely you’d be fired due to NON-performance issues. You were give plenty of time to resolve the issue. Just solve it. Now it was mandatory whether the problem existed or not. I argued and argued with the company and the company that handles the benefits and the answer always was the same….sorry its the law.
Sorry, having a baby is a choice, except the obvious impregnation due to rape. This cost should not be passed on to others. For D13, and Stephen if your mothers are still among us ask them how much it cost to have you. Usually maternity was considered natural and not covered unless an emergency occurred. I asked my Mom a year before she passed this question and another lady who had her children a little later. My mom said that my brother cost around $50.00 and I cost $75 because I was such a pain in the ass. We were normal no risk babies……My nephews wife had a baby the year I had asked that question. I asked her the costs to have her son. She said $20,000 and it was a no risk pregnacy and birth. FYI she’s in the medical profession…..Ron Paul who’s a doctor said when he started practicing there was little gov intrusion etc and costs were X. The more the gov and insurance got involved the higher the rates and costs went.
Personal note…close to 12 years ago I had to be admitted to the hospital on an emergency basis due to a near stroke or very close. I went through 4 days of just about every test. Including MRI’s on areas that had been severely damaged before causing symtoms. The bill submitted was $9,000. Not bad for everything done, private room contant monitoring etc. Two years later one of the problem areas in my spine went critical. Insurance company had changed and they disallowed going to the hospital I went to before. Had to go to Wake Med. I went through a 20 minute MRI and the radiologist report was billed to the insurance at $9,000. Now I had the same procedure before…how in hell can the there be that amount of change with the same equipment GE, same radiologist group. And insurance didn’t even quibble. Excuse me….the medical and insurance and gov intrusion is OUT OF CONTROL.
The practitioner in family said that she just got back from a training session teaching them how to do sutures differently so they can charge more because the normal stitches they could not charge as much. So technique change and the overall cost went up not down as intended.
Dale…..anything the Federal Government and some state governments pay for, creates bloat and inefficiencies. It also creates hyper inflation…….Ask any doctor you know how they bill for Medicare or any government health issue….they will automatically over charge because they know it will be cut and rationed.
I know…that is exactly what Ron Paul has been jumping up and down about….but then he’s a kook (please note the sarcasm). My comment of 9000 for 4.5 days in the hospital checking everything as a cause for the near stroke including MRI’s on all area that have had serious injuries and surguries before. And have only 1 of those areas checked with an MRI 3 vertebrate using the same radiologist team, but just a different hospital and different insurance carrier….9000 two years later….our health care crisis has been brought on by the FDA and all their dietary advise, now admittedly grossly in error. Insurance and government meddling.
$ 60 Bucks for 10 days in the hospital, Doc Avrutis, the GP was about 30 to 40 more (1946).
Even adjusted for inflation, both Medical and University costs are off the charts.
My son James just had another little girl last month. C-Section, three days in the hospital, and roughly $ 75,000. Manhattan College, day hop, 38 credits freshman year, $ 900.00 circa 1964-65. Today, $ 35,000 and another $15,000 for room and board. Closing costs on 1st house 1977, $ 600 for everything. Closing costs for my son Joseph last year $ 20,000.
What do all three of these things have in common? Federal interference in the form of:
1. Student Loans
2. Medicare & Medicaid
3. Freddie and Fannie even if you DON’T use them
I could throw in the cost of autos too when you look at government mandates.
Didn’t the C section make sense for delivering the baby for your son….bad joke….If a normal no risk birth is or was $20,000 2 years ago and a C-section is more than 3X no wonder more and more babies are being delivered with that procedure. Who is to question the immediate decision by the doctor’s in what is considered a crisis moment.
To university costs. My 1st year out of state tuition was $3,300 including room and board. Today the tuition is around $36000 depending on course load. It is 11X exactly the rate of inflation. I could easily pay for my schooling. But No IPODS, and all those frills one can not live without today…..parents 1st house in CA, $32,000, stables, private community, put in a 54 foot natural rock pool designed and installed by “Rick Dempsey’s” parents…played baseball in the 60’s with him….today the same house sells for….$4.3M
Buck, Gman
The “benefit” if any of paid maternity leave is a value that can only be determined by each employer and their employees.
I could see some businesses where a highly trained woman would be of such value that it would be worth paying her for some time in hopes she returns. A “benefit” paid for her value.
I can see many more where the cost to replace someone and the abundance of equivalent skill would dictate that there is NO VALUE to maternity leave.
I had a business where replacing staff with temps for three to six weeks was IMPOSSIBLE. The credentials and licenses needed for the full time staff could not be obtained by Temps. If a tempt acquired the licenses they would immediately be hired by another company.
There was a SHORTAGE of qualified Licensed staff. The company damn near went under the first two years because staff were demanding maternity leave. When the board approved it ALL the new women employees got pregnant. That’s right, 100% of them. I will NEVER be part of a business again where that kind of risk exists. At the risk was COMPLETELY associated with the FEMALE employees.
I can also tell you that them staying home for two months did NOTHING to benefit my business. In fact, when they returned their time off for “sick days” and other things INCREASED. More paid time without generating revenue. More need for temps and overtime to cover their shortfalls.
So you see, the whole concept MUST be up to the individuals involved and not dictated by the Fed Govt.
Now………where in the hell in the Constitution did we ever give Congress or the POTUS authority to establish “leave” standards for employers??? My employees work in ONLY one state. There is no “interstate commerce” when it comes to their labor or the products they make.
JAC: “Now………where in the hell in the Constitution did we ever give Congress or the POTUS authority to establish “leave” standards for employers??? My employees work in ONLY one state. There is no “interstate commerce” when it comes to their labor or the products they make.”
First off, many of the proposals out there (and the handful of states that have actually passed paid leave) deal with this as a tax issue [payroll taxes to fund] and do not force the employer to provide job security.
Secondly, Constitution does clearly give the power to tax and spend.
Buck
Sigh……….
So we are to the essence of it. The Feds can do anything they want under the power to tax and spend unless it is specifically “prohibited”.
Do you realize that the spend part is covered by “enumerated” powers. There is no such power granted for DICTATING the price of labor or employee benefits. This power was simply created from thin air.
All payroll expenses are already deductible. So the only way to “pay for” maternity leave is to provide “tax credits” that go beyond the actual cost. But those credits amount to a “subsidy” because that is tax money siphoned off for a particular Govt Mandate.
Like I said, will the Progressives howl about those “corporate subsidies” as well???
And talk about irony. Remember the report on health care I posted for Gman’s review the other day. The one written by Mr. Gruber. Well in that report he describes how the “health insurance” deductions for employers has “distorted” health care choices, driving costs UP.
So now the people who had to reform health care to “fix” this issue, among others, want to propose the same policy for maternity leave and childcare they just admitted failed in health insurance.
The BENEFITS of mandated paid leave.
Paying employees to stay home drives UP the cost of labor for the same output. When you drive up the cost of labor you will get less jobs for that labor.
It takes more people to cover the same number of jobs (work), increasing the supply of labor relative to the demand. This will cause the price of labor to drop.
So the great BENEFIT to society is Less Jobs with Lower Wages.
You can escape these benefits by closing off your borders and halting trade with other nations. With a captive labor force you can try to distort the labor market, by creating a false shortage. But in the end, the affects will be the same.
One more thought on paid maternity leave.
WHERE would the female worker go if she were not paid?? The theory is that paid leave helps retain good employees. What is their real alternative? Is there really one after they have a child, at least in the short run??
The problem I see with the whole idea is that most don’t think things through, as has been done here. I’m sure that if on a Left Wing site debating the subject, I would be accused of hating women etc, etc. Here, at least there are rational thoughts that allows the big picture to be fully viewed. Once that big picture is fully viewed, it makes the emotional decision harder to make, because the negative possibilities make the positive ones look weak.
I would look at the issue as I have expressed earlier, my mother and Grandmother didn’t need it, the women of the future don’t need it. My ex had her maternity leave and went back to work. That was largely due to financial reasons, not a personal desire. Life happens. She actually looked forward to getting back to work.
The other issue that was brought up was “Day Care” for toddlers. There is no way I would support any Federal interference in this part of life. This should be a local issue. The one thing that makes the cost so high is that these centers have to abide by government mandated regulations and licensing. This likely doubles the cost of doing business, which doubles the cost of the product. After all is said and done, the government wants to solve a problem that they caused to begin with. There’s a term for this, but I’m not coffeed up enough yet so the brain is still shifting gears 🙂
“my mother and Grandmother didn’t need it, the women of the future don’t need it. My ex had her maternity leave and went back to work. That was largely due to financial reasons, not a personal desire. Life happens. She actually looked forward to getting back to work.”
A few things:
1) Didn’t need it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have been useful or beneficial.
2) What about you? your father? your grandfather? You are still stuck in the mindset of…women get pregnant…they need to take responsibility. No mention of fatherhood?
3) As SK has pointed out, the world is different now than it was.
Taking this to the Rand Paul thread to speed up load times.
As I’ve stated before…My nephew has and MBA, a dime a dozen. His wife is a doctor. The cost of day care and fopping off the rearing of your child or children to someone else while you get fulfillment, much less the sicknesses the children got and the calls come and get them etc etc….he resigned his job and is a “house herr” they started home schooling and have saved money. his income went gone good bye plus some for day care, so why do it?
Can’t wait to see the government step in like the case in the 30’s of the farmer who grew more wheat than allowed even for personal consumption. Court ruling he was expected to BUY the wheat and therefore impacted commerce….can’t take care of your own children because it is impacting the daycare industry….in a round about way I thing that is the liberal objection to home schooling and the voucher system…plus attacking a government run monopoly, whether local, state or national. Still government enabled.
Yep! Can’t save construction nor manufacturing jobs but just fine with those “service” jobs. Ever think they just want the folks doped up and barely surviving?
And your problem with service jobs?
You do know that medical services, financial services, accounting, tradesmanship (like mechanic or plumber services), computer services, etc. right?
C’mon, you know what I’m talking about. Lately there is something called a barista. It seems to have to do with selling coffee. Seems there are a whole lot of highly educated folks standing behind those counters. They fight over the tip jar in the evening.
http://coffeebeanhawaii.com/careers/job-descriptions/barista
No, you don’t know what you are talking about. You think its just waiters and bar maids.
It ain’t. They don’t even make up a fraction of service jobs
Service industry growth is directly related to the standard of living
Countries that have large service industries are richer then those that are industrially based.
Click to access beg_09.pdf
There is a reason. Service industries require more training and knowledge. It takes little knowledge and skill to dig dirt, so those jobs go to where the low and unskilled labor is larger.
I don’t know what I’m talking about? Hah!?
You do not. I gave a reasonable source to improve your knowledge and economic understanding of the service industry that absolutely demonstrates that any society that is capable of moving from:
agriculture to industry, improves that society
industry to service, improves that society.
You demean the service industry in favor of going backwards to industrial society.
You do not understand what you are demanding. You are demanding that you become poorer.
In your insanity, you think becoming poorer means you are becoming richer.
And then you wonder why I think you are an economic idiot.
Problem Flag is, you don’t know any people. Ya know, the kind that roll out of bed in the morning, make the Corn Flakes for the kids, get them on the bus and then spend the next hour commuting, working 8 1/2 to 9 hours (employers rarely give you time off your eight hours for lunch anymore) then begin the commute home. The folks I’m talking about don’t have college degrees, usually pay outrageous taxes for basically nothing in return and are less and less likely to have any type retirement plan.
It is good to fence with you. It makes me see the error of my ways. I was raised and educated with a strong sense of noblesse oblige instilled at an early age by parents who knew poverty, knew lack of opportunity and knew discrimination. There was a lot of “there but for the grace of God go I”, in their thinking.
The fact that you can afford cheap crap Chinese electronic devices all over your house does little to improve your station in life. The Army taught me that we cannot all be generals and no matter how hard you worked nor how many years you were in nor the deployments you went on, you were lucky after thirty to retire as a Light Colonel or M/Sgt. Have known many hard working business owners who certainly had good fulfilling lives but couldn’t quite, after 40 years at a six day a week job and 12 to 14 hour days retire on the cote d’azur. Have also known a few who putting in the same hours did very well. That, after a lot of analysis came down to “right place, right time” rather than some fantastic skill set on their part. More common than lottery winning but in most cases just as “lucky’.
SK,
Do you really think I don’t know people. I absolutely DO understand people – I know economics
So you’re complaint is that “life is hard”.
No shit
If “these people” are disappointed with their lot in life, it is their job to fix it.
If you don’t like the job, change it.
If you don’t like the commute, find a job that doesn’t need it.
If you don’t like the hours, find a job with better hours.
If you don’t like the conditions of employment, renegotiate or find another job.
If you don’t like taxes damn well quit asking for government
If you can’t fund a retirement, LEARN TO SAVE BETTER.
But don’t bloody complain to me, I am deaf to your stupidity if you refuse to do anything about it.
“The fact that you can afford cheap crap Chinese electronic devices all over your house does little to improve your station in life”
Bullshit! It is fundamental improvement, or I wouldn’t have bought it
I get all the benefits it provides for CHEAP! This saves me money to buy other things I wouldn’t be able to buy otherwise
Instead of a $100,000 Chevette that lasts 40 years, I get a $10,000 Honda that lasts 5 years, $90,000 of all sorts of other things
No one can predict the future. Circumstances come and go.
6 months ago, I had a few hundred thousand dollars of company shares.
Today, its now about a few thousand. Oh well.
In a year, it’ll be back to a few hundred thousand again.
If I need the money today, …ouch… I won’t get the hundred grand in a year.
If I don’t get the money today, I may have bigger problems in a year.
It’s not “luck” or “bad luck”, it is merely circumstances in collusion and then what choices are made at the time.
http://eaglerising.com/14192/ex-muslim-tells-literal-slaughterhouses-kidnapped-christians-dissected-organs-sold-islamic-nations/
Anybody happen to watch Belichick just now? He learned very well from Obama…..said the first he heard of the deflated balls was on the news and that he knows absolutely nothing at all. His standard answer was: I have told you all I know….there is nothing more…..he must have said that 30 times. He did say several times on other sentence…..I really know nothing of this. You will have to ask your questions somewhere else.
He has one big problem, he already got caught once. He’s the only coach in modern times that has been caught in the NFL. I don’t expect anything to come of this till after the Super Bowl, but it will hurt the Patriots much worse than last time.
OK…so what…Each team supplies there balls. OK….Who handles each and every ball on every play…the referees. You see them squeezing them, wiping them and placing them…If the ball on the Pat’s were so deflated that every opponent who touched them said they were noticibly deflated the referees and umpires and line judges should have caught it on play #1….obviously inflating them at the 1/2 didn’t affect the outcome. A Colts player said they could have played with soap balls and still beaten us….rule change each team supplies their own balls. Based on preference of the team and weather conditions, they can inflate or deflate +/- X pounds of pressure….just like racing sailboats. based on conditions you may decide on flatter sails or fuller, lighter or heavier. etc. each boat chooses their poison because you can carry just so many sails and extra weight.
http://politicaloutcast.com/2015/01/stealing-raisins-reviewed-supreme-court/
This would appear to be a no brainer, but…….
Yes……………”BUT”.
Can’t wait to see the distorted and tortured logic to support this theft.
In my simplistic NON legal mind….how can the government CLAIM a portion of the farms production citing said over production hurts the price raisins…OK but to then turn around and sell said raisins and pocket the revenue into the government coffers…come on that is theft by any stretch of imagination. This has got to lead to the supreme court to ultimately overturn that case in th e30’s that gave the government via the COMMERCE clause unlimited power….Bastiat had words for that “LEGAL PLUNDER”
Economics 101 for Buck
Next Lesson
Collectivism
I love this quote, makes me think of Buck
People like him seem to a soft heart, but tends also make his head soft too.