Posted by Tina
The Washington Examiner posts surprise findings from a comparison between Walmart’s insurance plan and the health exchange plans under Obamacare. All of those Walmart haters that have criticized the company for its inferior healthcare plan should now begin to tone down the rhetoric on Walmart. The President called such private plans “substandard”. It’s time he backed off on his rhetoric as well.
Here’s a sampling of the findings from a report by independent insurance agents affiliated with the National Association of Health Underwriters and various health policy experts who participated in the study:
Walmart offers its employees two standard plans, a Health Reimbursement Account and an alternative it calls “HRA High” that costs more out of employees’ pockets but has lower deductibles. Blue Cross Blue Shield manages both plans nationally.
Also offered is a Health Savings Account plan that includes high deductibles but allows tax-free dollars to be used for coverage.
For a monthly premium as low as roughly $40, an individual who is a Walmart HRA plan enrollee can obtain full-service coverage through a Blue Cross Blue Shield preferred provider organization. A family can get coverage for about $160 per month. …
…Low premiums are not the only distinguishing feature of the Walmart plan. The retailer’s employees can use eight of the country’s most prestigious medical facilities, including the Mayo Clinic, Pennsylvania’s Geisinger Medical Center and the Cleveland Clinic.
At these institutions, which Walmart calls “Centers of Excellence,” Walmart employees and their dependents can get free heart or spinal surgery. They can also get free knee and hip replacements at four hospitals nationwide.
Many top-rated Walmart hospitals — such as the Mayo and Cleveland clinics — are left out of most Obamacare exchange plans.
Walmart also offers a free preventive health plan that mirrors the Obamacare plan. Its employees can take advantage of a wide range of free exams and counseling, including screenings for colorectal cancer, cervical cancer, chlamydia, diabetes, depression and special counseling for diet and obesity.
Their children can get more than 20 free preventive services, ranging including screenings for genetic disorders, autism and developmental problems to obesity, lead poisoning exposure and tuberculosis. There are also 12 free vaccinations, and free hearing and vision testing.
Walmart employees pay as little as $4 for a 30-day supply of generic drugs and only $10 for eye exams through a separate vision plan.
Walmart’s health coverage is better than Obamacare coverage…let the howling and protests at the exchanges begin!
First of all Obamacare is not a health insurance plan.
There is a new healthcare law called the ACA or Affordable Care Act
Second it is not government insurance. LOL The same old healthcare Insurance Companies are offering the Plans according to the new law.
Third The Tea Party Governors who did not participate just to get at obama are hurting their citizens and they will have higher health Ins and many will not get good rates
Fourth Walmart has done nothing but try to close down small business and create a monopoly. They pay low wages and everyone I know who works for them says they treat their workers bad. The also had to have a can food drive for their own employees for Christmas.
Walmart Boycotters will continue to boycott.
Costco pays their workers, gave them health Ins and they are happy. They did not need a law to do so.
Bottom Line Taxpayers have to subsidize many many walmart workers with food stamps ect while they sell Chinese Products, have been busted for counterfeit, and pay their workers like slaves all while paying them pennies.
Walmart Children hold the wealth of 30% of Americans combined. Walmart Children inherited the wealth and are on a plan for positive PR since the Boycott has hit them. They want to get rid of the inheritance tax and buy Politicians as well.
The Boycott remains in Place and nothing has Changed.
LOL there will be a catch as soon as they see the people are serious about the boycott. We are tired of them moving into cities and closing down local business.
I remember walmart saying they would have to cut hours and lay off workers, seems that was not true. So now they want to profit off it…no problem there just follow the new law
Just goes to show that there’s nothing that government can do better than government-funded private corporations.
Dewey: “First of all Obamacare is not a health insurance plan.”
Thanks for pointing that out. The headline literally doesn’t make any sense, and is designed to appeal to idiots.
Dewey I didn’t write that Obamacare is an insurance plan.
I wrote, “…and the health exchange plans under Obamacare.”
The new healthcare law does not deliver the product that was promised.
States that had the wisdom to look ahead and refuse to be part of this terrible law served their citizens well. The law is a mess. It has too many confusing and questionable regulations and it shifts burdensome costs for medicaid onto the states. Who can blame states for opting out.
According to The Hill the Obamacare law includes another cheesy slight of hand to make it appear less expensive than it is:
Those “same old” health insurance companies have been satisfying many customers for a number of years. There were reforms that could have been made to make them better and less costly without creating this very expensive law.
Dewey your perspective is hilarious. This is particularly funny: “Walmart has done nothing but try to close down small business and create a monopoly.”
Oh yeah…Sam Walton sat in his basement night after night and plotted different ways to stick it to the small businesses in his neighborhood. His big desire was to see others fail.
Dewey…It can’t be that the plan was just to bring products that cost a little less so people have choices and so those with less buying power can get the products they want at a price they can afford.
Car makers put buggy makers out of business too. Does it mean that Henry Ford had it in for those guys who made buggies?
The business world is always changing. If we don’t change with it we get left behind.
China is an emerging market country and we have to compete with them cause they are not going away.
People used to make fun of Japanese goods too. Are you old enough to remember when Japanese products amounted to items like those little umbrellas that we put in tropical drinks to make them look fancy? The Japanese produced premier products within 30 years…Honda, Nikon Camera, Toshiba, Sony, Mitsubishi. They found a way to make a better product at a cheaper price and gave America a run for her money.
Competition keeps prices low for consumers. It forces companies and businesses to innovate and to manage well.
Small local businesses have been under pressure for several decades. The malls were the first big threat to downtown businesses. Grocery stores started selling plants and gifts, baked goods, prescriptions, books, and even some hardware items. The big box stores came along. All of that has harmed local small business! (I know because I used to own a small downtown business) Now the internet is a threat (or an opportunity) for all of them. Small downtown businesses have to find a way to compete or they will go out of business. Things change.
We will never see abundance or good jobs through control measures imposed from on high. Businesses need breathing room. Competition is healthy. People must learn to adapt as things change. Workers must realize that they have to compete too and make smart.
Boycotts will not work. People like to shop at Walmart. Walmart is successful because they deliver the things that people want at a price they like. Most people employed by Walmart are happy or they soon move on to a better job having gained some experience.
The old union extortion game doesn’t work well in the world wide competitive game of business. In fact the union cut its own throat by demanding too much as third world countries began to emerge. Workers are business people also…they had better start learning how to think like a business person if they want the jobs.
Competition…why do you fear it?
Comparing Walmart to Costco is also silly. They have different business models. Costco customers have to pay for membership every year. Costco caters to the businessman and to people who can afford to buy in big quantities. Poor people can’t do that. Walmart offers them lower prices.Middle class earners also appreciate the ability to stretch their dollars at Walmart. Walmart employees are not unhappy. The insurance plan Walmart offers, as it turns out, is better than plans offered in the Obamacare exchange. It’s a fact…the numbers don’t lie.
Walmart also hasn’t forced a lot of people out of the insurance plans they liked or denied them their doctor. It hasn’t forced people who had their own insurance onto the medicaid system. It hasn’t put certain hospitals off limits.
Obamacare laws have!
Walmart, along with Costco and millions of businesses small and large contribute every day by offering products and services that people want and jobs that people need. the same cannot be said for Obamacare…the law!
Walmart children hold wealth their family built. It doesn’t represent money that was taken from others. People willingly and happily purchased the products they sold. The family risked their profits again and again to build the company and expand across the world. That wealth was created and their father earned it! It’s not a zero sum game.
Walmart, like a lot of businesses, has to cut workers or workers hours from time to time. Usually when our government has manufactured a crisis of some sort. But all business must make a profit to stay in business…profit is not a dirty word. Covet is a dirty word. so is extortion. Earn your own wealth!
Lets look at Costco:
Marketwatch:
Dewey it sounds like Costco has an aggressive business model. They are making big profits, they raised their membership fees on customers, they are shipping jobs overseas, they are forcing small businesses out of business.
Chris: “Just goes to show that there’s nothing that government can do better than government-funded private corporations.”
Oh please!
Get the government out of the way completely. Stop the corporatism by opening the law so it supports all comers and controls none and allow the people, and the businesses the joy of choices, superior care, and lower prices for everyone!
The headline makes perfect sense. Walmart does offer insurance that is better than anything you can get through the exchanges.
And the only “idiots” the headline appealed to so far are…you and Dewey. Nice going Chris.
Mark Levin’s brilliant idea.
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/107172-mark-levin-idea-brilliant-totally-flip-game-democrats/
“WalMart Insurance is Better than Obamacare!”
The ACA is not, and does not operate, any sort of HMO or insurance carrier. Why do you keep trying to give the impression that it is. It’s very annoying.
Tina: “Oh please!
Get the government out of the way completely.”
If you actually believed this, you wouldn’t be cheerleading for a welfare queen like Wal-Mart. Any mildly informed person knows that Wal-Mart is NOT a success story of free market competition. It is a success story of corporatism, the very thing you say you are against. Wal-Mart would not exist in its present form without generous land grants, subsidies, tax breaks, and price controls in other countries. Part of the reason they are able to keep prices so low is their relationship with Communist China, which artificially keeps wages low and imprisons and tortures workers for attempting to strike. How is that a free market? And that’s not even getting into the hidden subsidies we pay to keep wages low here in the U.S.
Actual supporters of the free market, rather than the vulgar libertarians who have risen in prominence due to the Tea Party in recent years, oppose this type of corporate welfare. But modern Republicans seem to have no problem with it. We all remember the recent Republican hypocrisy over the farm bill, which handed out billions in farm subsidies while cutting billions from food stamps.
Apparently, when the government gives poor people money, it’s socialism, but when the government gives rich people money, it’s the “free market.”
Tina: “States that had the wisdom to look ahead and refuse to be part of this terrible law served their citizens well. The law is a mess. It has too many confusing and questionable regulations and it shifts burdensome costs for medicaid onto the states.”
That is absolutely false. The federal government pays for 100% of the Medicaid expansion for the first three years, and pays for 90% up until 2022.
Governors who chose to reject the Medicaid expansion in their states (all Republicans) put politics above the needs of their constituents. Most of them are states with the highest number of the uninsured, states which would have benefited the most from the expansion. The goal was always to sabotage the law, not to do what’s best for the public.
http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacares-medicaid-expansion.php
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/08/states-edge-closer-to-medicaid-expansion-who-ll-go-first.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/06/medicaid-is-obamacares-biggest-success-but-neither-side-wants-to-talk-about-it/
And even the low info folks are finding out that even though they filled out the Obumblecare website forms, the insurance companies have never heard of them.
Must be a SCREWUP button that goes active whenever Obumblecare applicants hit “submit.”
Libby: “The ACA is not, and does not operate, any sort of HMO or insurance carrier. Why do you keep trying to give the impression that it is.”
“Obamacare: The Return of the HMO” – Bloomberg:
Walks like a duck Libs. The ACA limits choices and forbids others…Health Maintenance Organization or HMO is the name of that game.
Chris: “If you actually believed this, you wouldn’t be cheerleading for a welfare queen like Wal-Mart.”
Chris Walmart is not any different than other companies like Costco that also receive these subsidies. Walmart has been targeted as if it were different.
I cheer lead for Walmart when it is being unfairly targeted for political reasons and lied about by union operatives.
I am against corporatism generally and have written about it. I also think that cities and towns have a vested interest in using tax incentives and other subsidies to bring such businesses to their communities for the jobs, the taxes, and to offer their citizens more shopping options. At the local level citizens have a personal stake in the deal, will personally benefit, and have greater opportunity to be involved in the decision. I don’t approve of secret deal making, special interest influence, or approval in exchange for votes and campaign cash.
Wal-Mart would not exist in its present form without generous land grants, subsidies, tax breaks…”
Once again why single out Walmart?
How exactly does this harm you or your community rather than benefit it?
Why do you not see that the cities/counties that award these things see a greater return to the city for the investment they make?
“…and price controls in other countries.”
Prices in other countries are not within Walmarts control. It’s ridiculous to hold Walmart or any other company responsible.
“Part of the reason they are able to keep prices so low is their relationship with Communist China, which artificially keeps wages low and imprisons and tortures workers for attempting to strike.”
It should please you that companies like Walmart risk going into countries like China to introduce western values and offer those oppressed people an opportunity to work. When they do they have to be very careful not to interfere with the affairs of government or general economy. The result would likely be a confiscation of their investment, lost jobs for the people and loss of the opportunity (possibility) to affect the society and hopefully in time their government. i understand you passion but your understanding of the situation is very narrow. Walmart should not be responsible for what china does to its citizens…nor should any other company.
“How is that a free market? ”
It isn’t and I never said it was. China is another country with its own set of principles and laws.
A greater question is why you support the party that is most likely to move America in the direction of greater government oppression when you already live in a (supposedly) free country where your rights are protected?
“And that’s not even getting into the hidden subsidies we pay to keep wages low here in the U.S.”
Such as?
“…modern Republicans seem to have no problem with it.”
Modern republicans? Like who? Please name also the democrats that have been big on getting government out of the subsidies for business business!
When I say get the government out of business I mean it. I also realize it is very difficult to do and as long as people don’t understand how things work we won’t. Please in the meantime don’t pretend that you or the party you support are without skin in this game. You are neck deep in it and the only protest you make are those that target for destruction. You aren’t interested in the free market principle or an economy that thrives, you just want something (higher wages-more union members/money) and a company like Walmart makes a good punching bag in the political game.
“We all remember the recent Republican hypocrisy over the farm bill, which handed out billions in farm subsidies while cutting billions from food stamps.”
the question is just how well do you remember the facts surrounding the decision or the larger issues that complicate the matter?
CATO
“Heritage
We all get to live with laws as they are and it’s damn hard to change them once they are put in place.
Republicans aren’t always successful at reform attempts and sometimes they just cave but they are generally in favor of downsizing government and include cutting or reforming subsidies in those plans.
The extreme democrat leadership/pack stands for wide redistribution of wealth and radical government control and would not begin to consider giving up the political advantages that subsidies afford them.
Mercatus:
Obama has managed to create the worst poverty levels in fifty years and has raised the food stamp program 70% to ease that pain.
“Apparently, when the government gives poor people money, it’s socialism, but when the government gives rich people money, it’s the “free market.”
Wrong on both counts!
Chris you’re wrong and President Obama’s policies tell you why. He is in favor of socialist policies and it has resulted in greater levels of poverty. the one area outside his control is in Idaho where companies are operating on privately held lands and have created thousands of good paying jobs, raised a lot of revenue for the state and federal governments and brought the price of gas down!
No one has suggested corporate subsidies should continue, especially not at the expense of the poor. But companies, not government, are the best opportunity the poor have to lift THEMSELVES out of poverty. Government can only keep them in at subsistence levels.
“That is absolutely false. The federal government pays for 100% of the Medicaid expansion for the first three years, and pays for 90% up until 2022.”
No it isn’t “absolutely” false. State leaders have to look at the long term picture and they also have to consider other mitigating factors and the very real possibility that congress will “amend” this law in future. Already the numbers of people being dumped into state medicaid programs is growing as people who once paid their own insurance don’t qualify for subsidies and can’t afford the bronze plan. This Forbes article explains some of the considerations governors have:
2020 is just around the corner in terms of budgeting. The law directs states to do something in future they may not be able to do. a lot of them can’t afford it NOW!
The bottom line is the complex law gives tremendous power and control, too much power and control, to the President and the HHS secretary and they have already shown a lot of interest in changing it. The congress can make changes any time also. The states have no assurances from one year to another that the law will not be altered or that the numbers of people on their state plans won’t increase dramatically because of the law. In fact the way the President has waved certain parts of the law there’s no guarantee of much of anything.
“Governors who chose to reject the Medicaid expansion in their states (all Republicans) put politics above the needs of their constituents.”
Oh yeah…because a state that would elect a republican wouldn’t agree with that decision. it’s a bit arrogant of you to decide what the people in other states want or need!
“The goal was always to sabotage the law…”
It is a very bad law! it is poorly written. it does not do what was promised. It is more expensive than promised. It was sold to the people and passed with lies and dirty tricks. OF COURSE republicans will do what they can to rid us of this very bad law!
If you think this very bad law is “what’s best” for the people then your expectations are s*$t!
Gotta go…thank goodness!
Tina: “No it isn’t “absolutely” false. State leaders have to look at the long term picture and they also have to consider other mitigating factors and the very real possibility that congress will “amend” this law in future.”
I will never stop being amazed at your capacity for self-deception.
You made this claim:
“States that had the wisdom to look ahead and refuse to be part of this terrible law served their citizens well. The law is a mess. It has too many confusing and questionable regulations and it shifts burdensome costs for medicaid onto the states.”
I pointed out that this claim is not true. The law does NOT shift costs for Medicaid onto the states; the federal government picks up the entire tab for the next three years, 90% of the tab for the next eight, and we don’t yet know what happens after that.
And your defense for your initial claim is, as usual, that what you said was true because the law *might* change at some unspecified later date.
And you’ve managed to convince yourself that this is perfectly honest and logical.
Wow.
That is some high quality crazy.
Let’s try this out: Tina Grazier is a serial killer. Hey, don’t accuse me of making a false claim! After all, you might become a serial killer at some time in the future. I have no way of knowing whether or not you might change. Oh, the uncertainty!
In your world, all claims made against the ACA are true, *even after they are proven false,* because hey, the law can change at any moment! Why not just say the ACA makes it illegal to go to church and requires all white babies to be aborted while you’re at it? I mean, Obama could just issue an executive order and make those things true, so that’s the same as it being true now, right? It would only be slightly more ridiculous than the way you’re already behaving.
You may delude yourself this way, Tina, but I will not let you use these dishonest tactics to delude others.
Tina: “Chris Walmart is not any different than other companies like Costco that also receive these subsidies. Walmart has been targeted as if it were different.”
Wal-Mart is the largest corporation in the world, and pays its workers much less than Costco pays its workers. Its workers complain much more frequently about corporate policies than Costco’s. It is different.
“I am against corporatism generally and have written about it.”
Can you provide a link? The only time I have seen you complain about corporatism is when it’s engaged in by Democrats. This would lead one to believe that you’re not anti-corporatism, you’re just anti-Democrat.
“I also think that cities and towns have a vested interest in using tax incentives and other subsidies to bring such businesses to their communities for the jobs, the taxes, and to offer their citizens more shopping options. At the local level citizens have a personal stake in the deal, will personally benefit, and have greater opportunity to be involved in the decision.”
It’s like you’ve never even heard the complaints of local community members whose businesses and incomes have been devastated by the construction of a Wal-Mart in their town. Wal-Mart does not give small town dwellers “more shopping options,” it gives them less, because smaller businesses cannot compete. And let’s be clear: that’s not a result of competition in a free market. That’s a result of government favoritism toward large corporations like Wal-Mart.
“I don’t approve of secret deal making, special interest influence, or approval in exchange for votes and campaign cash.”
…because Wal-Mart’s never bribed government officials for building permits, ohwaittheydid.
http://business.time.com/2012/04/24/feds-launch-criminal-probe-of-walmart-over-bribery-scandal/
This kind of corruption is RAMPANT among corporations, Tina, and they rarely pay for it. Corporations seen as “too big to fail” are propped up the government and given more rights than us serfs. If you’re a human being caught with a few ounces of marijuana, you’ll probably do some jail time. If you’re a corporation or bank caught smuggling money for drug lords and terrorists, like HSBC, you’ll get a slap on the wrist and move on.
“Once again why single out Walmart?”
Again, I’m singling them out because they are the world’s largest retailer. But the same goes for all large corporations. Corporations are a government invention. They would not be able to accumulate so much power in a truly free market.
“How exactly does this harm you or your community rather than benefit it?”
You know, it’s really easy to find testimonials from small business owners and workers who feel their communities have been harmed by the introduction of a Wal-Mart. The stories are out there; I don’t feel the need to copy and paste them here.
One study from Washington found that for every new Wal-Mart store opened in the community of Puget Sound, the community would lose $13 million in economic output and $14 million in lost wages:
http://www.pugetsoundsage.org/article.php?id=419
“Why do you not see that the cities/counties that award these things see a greater return to the city for the investment they make?”
Because they don’t.
“Prices in other countries are not within Walmarts control. It’s ridiculous to hold Walmart or any other company responsible.”
Of course. “With great power comes absolutely no responsibility”–the corporatist’s mantra.
“It should please you that companies like Walmart risk going into countries like China to introduce western values and offer those oppressed people an opportunity to work.”
Man, there is just no turd you’re not willing to polish for your corporate masters, is there?
So now a corporation is to be seen as a damn *hero* for relying on low-wage workers in a country where one can literally be imprisoned or tortured for protesting company policy. That is somehow an example of the corporation taking a “risk” and engaging in some noble act.
You are completely brainwashed.
“When they do they have to be very careful not to interfere with the affairs of government or general economy. The result would likely be a confiscation of their investment, lost jobs for the people and loss of the opportunity (possibility) to affect the society and hopefully in time their government.”
This is very naive. Wal-Mart is the world’s largest corporation. You’re acting like they have no power in this situation. And given that they were caught bribing Mexican officials, your belief that Wal-Mart has to be careful about influencing other countries lest they face punishment seems very unfounded.
“Walmart should not be responsible for what china does to its citizens…nor should any other company.”
My point wasn’t even that doing business with a nation like China is immoral (though it clearly is). You posted this article to further your narrative that the free market is better at solving problems than the government. But Wal-Mart has nothing to do with the free market. My point is that Wal-Mart clearly benefits from government policies, both here and abroad, that have absolutely nothing to do with the free market. Part of the reason Wal-Mart is able to keep prices low is because of oppressive government interventions in the market in China. Even if you think Wal-Mart has no responsibility for the poor treatment of its workers in China, you have to admit that Wal-Mart would not be where it is today without big government intervention.
“It isn’t and I never said it was. China is another country with its own set of principles and laws.”
Yes, and Wal-Mart takes advantage of the principles and laws in China to benefit its operations here. When those principles and laws involve workers being jailed and tortured if they propose unionization, that is wrong.
“Such as?”
We’ve been over this. 80% of Wal-Mart workers make so little that they are forced to go on government assistance. That amounts to a hidden subsidy, and it costs us big time. If Wal-Mart paid wages adequate enough to keep its workers above the poverty line, then this subsidy would not exist.
“Modern republicans? Like who?”
Are you asking me to name Republicans who haven’t spoken out against corporate subsidies? How about every Republican who voted for the subsidies in the latest farm bill? Specifically, how about these ten Republican congressmen who RECEIVE the very same farm subsidies they voted on?
http://ourfuture.org/20130920/the-10-farm-subsidy-recipients-who-voted-to-cut-food-stamps
How about Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann, who rants and raves about cutting government services to the poor, but who has never held a job that didn’t rely on government subsidies?
To be fair, some Republicans voted against the farm bill, and some Democrats voted for it. But you can’t seriously make the case that Republicans, as a group, have made cutting corporate welfare a priority. They’ve certainly spent a great deal more time arguing against welfare for the poor, which makes up a smaller percentage of the federal budget than corporate welfare. That doesn’t make any sense.
“Please name also the democrats that have been big on getting government out of the subsidies for business business!”
I can’t read this sentence; try again please.
“When I say get the government out of business I mean it.”
Then prove it. Show half the outrage over corporate welfare that you do over welfare to the poor, and I’ll start to take your claims seriously. Until that point, your position is just an excuse to not help the poor.
“You aren’t interested in the free market principle”
I’m interested in it to an extent, but the difference is I don’t claim to be a free market absolutist the way you do. And yet you only complain about interventions in the market when those interventions are intended to help the poor. You never complain when those interventions are used to prop up corporations.
“No one has suggested corporate subsidies should continue,”
Why would you say such a ridiculous thing? Of course people have suggested that corporate subsidies should continue. Republicans suggested that when they overwhelmingly voted to keep corporate subsidies in the farm bill. You suggested yourself that oil subsidies were critical to the economy right here!
http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2011/05/11/mr-presidentwhat-oil-subs/
You reiterated your support of oil subsidies in comment #24 here, writing, “The subsidies to oil companies help every single American in terms of keeping their energy costs down.”
http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2013/11/11/affordable-boat-act-aba/
So why on earth would you say “No one has suggested corporate subsidies should continue” when anyone can do a simple Google search and see that you’ve said that very thing? YOU ARE BAD AT THE INTERNET.
“especially not at the expense of the poor.”
LOL! Republicans overwhelmingly voted to keep farm subsidies while simultaneously cutting food stamps, and you’re going to type that with a straight face? Please tell me this blog has become performance art.
“But companies, not government, are the best opportunity the poor have to lift THEMSELVES out of poverty.”
That may be true, but it’s irrelevant to this conversation, since we’re talking specifically about companies which are propped up and subsidized by the government.
Chris: “Blah blah blah…there is just no turd you’re not willing to polish for your corporate masters”
Nor is there any victims story you won’t blame on corporations rather than the governments they live under or the people themselves whose lack of effort and bad choices are the bigger drivers of their circumstances than are the particulars of any companies business model.
You are filled with resentment and armed with very little knowledge or understanding of how businesses work, the challenges they face, the circumstances they must overcome and work within, the risks they take, or the huge contributions they make.
I can participate with a company by investing, buying products, or seeking a job but the decision is my choice. Companies do not force participation on anyone! You have the same options. You also have the option to start your own company rather than work for one. It is not the responsibility of any company to make life work or assure any individual has enough to live. Every business is different. One size fits all does not work for businesses or for employees. Businesses have jobs to offer people. People are not required to take them.
Given the above truth, please explain your insane notion that corporations could make me, or anyone else, their “slaves”.
You take your resentful, greedy, spoiled brat American gimmee gimmee attitude and impose it people in other countries who are truly needy and who take jobs with American companies because they would rather work and feed their families than see them starve to death and you think you’ve shown that you care! What a complete elitist, judgemental a$$hole you are! What have you done lately to offer those people as much? Who the hell are you to judge what is better for them.
You’ve done it again Chris. I see no reason to continue to try to inform you about a subject that in reality means NOTHING to you beyond your own selfish biases and opinions. You know nothing about what it takes to run a company nor what it takes to run a company in another country yet you feature yourself as some kind of expert. You also know nothing about what it is to be in need having grown up in a country that gives you so much opportunity both privately and through our government.
Tina: “Given the above truth, please explain your insane notion that corporations could make me, or anyone else, their “slaves”.”
Who’s insane? You’re the one hallucinating, since I never said that. So typical of this site; you can’t counter anything I’ve actually said, so you choose to make up things no one ever said and attack those instead.
My original point stands: Wal-Mart is not a free market success story. It owes its entire existence to the government. You don’t support free markets; you support capitalism. There is a big difference.
http://www.amazon.com/Markets-Not-Capitalism-Individualist-Inequality/dp/1570272425
Chris, we counter your arguments, you just don’t have the experience, knowledge or grounding to recognize the truth in what we tell you. One thing that gets in the way is that you have decided its the employees against business or the poor at the mercy of the oppressive corporate giant and there are no other possibilities. That might work as a theme for a novel but it doesn’t reflect reality in most cases. Take for example this statement:
“It (Walmart) owes its entire existence to the government.”
That is a blatant emotional lie. The government (taxpayer) did not put money at risk to rent or buy property, buy inventory, pay all of the insurances and licensing fees, fill out all the required paperwork, manage and save enough to grow, expand and hire employees, pay employees, run payroll, report and pay all payroll taxes, report and pay sales taxes, conduct inventory, manage books and file income taxes, meet with vendors and sales people, issue purchase orders, manage shipping/receiving, worry during cash flow problems or carry the burden and responsibility to employees and, in the case of businesses like Walmart, to stock holders.
Governments extremely limited roll is to facilitate, in most cases, what they know will become a huge yearly revenue cash cow…for government!
Solyndra is an example of government doing something really stupid with taxpayer money.
Yes I support capitalism. Capitalism has done more to uplift people and improve conditions for people than any government in the world and there isn’t another system that could realistically come close.
Instead of broadening your perspective, instead of looking at and seeing the whole picture, instead of learning something you choose to assume. You assume you know everything there is to know. You assume I have ulterior motives. You assume all businesses are the same. You assume that you know what all people in all countries need and want. You assume you know what all employees want and think you know best what they should get. You assume that because I understand the business point of view I have no sympathy or empathy for the employee or for people in other countries who are or have been oppressed… by their government or because of local traditions and cultural realities. You assume because there have been a few examples of workers working in terrible conditions that all workers work in those conditions and that US companies direct the conditions and exploit the people out of greed.
And please, share with us your big plan to eliminate or wipe out greed! It’s part of the human condition and would exist under any economic system.
I repeat, people who make a lot of money through capitalism have not taken it from a big finite pot leaving nothing for others. People who make a lot of money get rich by creating and accumulating wealth, then reinvesting to create and accumulate more wealth. Anyone can do it in a free society. It isn’t a zero sum game. Capitalism is simply a model where the means of production, trade and industry are owned and controlled by private parties. Our Constitution protects the right to own property. It is a fundamental rights that ensures we citizens are free to create as much wealth (power) as we choose. A system that doesn’t not honor that is a system that inspires and protects tyrants. To the degree that you support government intrusion into the decision making process of business (minimum wage laws) you favor oppression and tyrannical government and not free markets.
I am not a strict extreme libertarian. I believe some laws and regulations are necessary. But the government has overstepped its bounds by leaps and bounds and our economy, the state of our middle class, and the jobs situation reflect it.
Please stop pretending you know me. Stop attempting to define me. You are very, very bad at it.
Bono, the lead singer of the famous rock band U2, has a lot of experience working with people living in real poverty and despair in Africa. he has worked with governments and seen the degree to which government aid is affective in lifting people from poverty and assisting them with daily challenges. Last year he came to the following conclusion:
Are you willing to have such an epiphany, Chris, or will you cling to belief systems and talking points?
Let me know when you’re ready to expand your thinking…maybe then we can have an interesting and satisfying conversation.
Tina: “That is a blatant emotional lie. The government (taxpayer) did not put money at risk to rent or buy property,”
But I’ve already shown you that in many cases, the government literally GIVES WAL-MART FREE LAND. Often, this land is first stolen from poor people by the government under the guise of “eminent domain” and then given to Wal-Mart. Why don’t you complain about that government intervention into the market?
“To the degree that you support government intrusion into the decision making process of business (minimum wage laws) you favor oppression and tyrannical government and not free markets.”
You don’t care about “government intrusion” as long as that intrusion is done in a way which favors big business. You are ignoring all of the many government benefits Wal-Mart receives. A 2004 report showed that Wal-Mart had raked in over $1 billion in government subsidies:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/24/news/fortune500/walmart_subsidies/
The only time you complain about government intrusion is when it’s done in an effort to help the poor. You never, ever complain about government intrusion which helps the rich. Therefore, it is very hard to take your stated concerns seriously. You aren’t against government intrusion as a general rule, you’re just using that as an excuse. You are not being intellectually honest.
It is the height of absurdity to claim that the largest, wealthiest corporation in the entire world is somehow being “oppressed” by the government. Four out of the ten richest people in the world are Wal-Mart heirs. If the government is trying to oppress Wal-Mart, it’s clearly doing a terrible job of it.
And the only “idiots” the headline appealed to so far are… Guess who!
….it always appears that Chris, Dewey and Libby are the anti-capitalist, and anti-free self reliance Liberal types, and in their world of thinking the people willing to create wealth without the need of ineffective Government use of the tax dollars
(supplied by productive capitalism)
They all seem to gravitate to the “we need more Government assistance/handout side” side of any discussion, and if you disagree with them, well then the word “idiot” is used to berate any opinion differing from theirs.
Here is how I would apply the word Idiot:
If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without
a license, but not for being in the country illegally …
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.
If you have to show identification to board an airplane,
cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book,
but you don’t have to show ID for the right to vote on who runs the government …
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.
If, in the largest city of the country, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas,
but not a 24-ounce soda because the government says a 24-ounce
sugary drink might make you fat …
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.
If your government believes that the best way to
eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more …
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.
If hard work and success is rewarded with higher taxes
and more government intrusion, while not working
is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid,
subsidized housing, and free cell phones …
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.
If the government’s plan for getting people back to
work is to reward them with 99 weeks
of unemployment checks with no requirement to
prove they applied for it …
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.
If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself
makes you more “safe” according to the government …
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.
If you are offended by this. then I’ll bet you voted
for the idiots who are “ruining” our country!
FOR PUBLICATION
Book Review: “Markets Not Capitalism” challenges both left and right
Do you support the free market? Do you support capitalism? According to the writers featured in “Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty,” this is not simply the same question phrased two different ways. Edited by Gary Chartier and Charles M. Johnson of the Center for a Stateless Society, this book offers a refreshing take on old debates over government, the free market, capitalism, corporate power, poverty, healthcare, and human rights. While these debates typically run along predictable partisan lines, this book offers a unique perspective which both affirms and challenges basic tenants of both Republicans and Democrats, and I for one can say that some of my most deeply held notions about the role of the government were challenged while reading the essays in this book.
To understand this book, it helps to first understand the title. While the terms “free market” and “capitalism” are often used interchangeably by both conservatives and liberals, the writers featured here draw a sharp distinction between the two. They define capitalism as “social dominance by the owners of capital.” This definition may seem unfair to many conservatives and right-leaning libertarians, but as more than one writer points out, the name itself seems to privilege capital over other elements within a free market; why not call a free market system “laborism,” for instance?
But it’s more than just a semantic issue. According to the writers featured in this collection, the form of capitalism practiced in the U.S. and other capitalistic countries today is a state-driven enterprise in which the government grants special privileges to corporations and wealthy landowners while disenfranchising individuals. One only has to look at the capital gains tax for evidence that the writers’ definition of “capitalism” is fair; because most wealthy people make more money from capital gains than from earned income, many end up paying a lower rate in taxation than middle class earners. This privileges owners of capital over the rest of society.
But these authors propose more than basic reforms like raising the capital gains tax. Their solution: abolish the state completely. This would seem a radical position to nearly everybody. Liberals, conservatives, and even most libertarians believe that there are at least SOME things the government should do. But free market anarchists posit that the state is an immoral construct predicated on force and coercion, and should thus be completely eliminated.
Despite their anti-statist goals, free market anarchists also identify as leftist-libertarians, and even as socialist libertarians. This may seem totally counter-intuitive given the way the word “socialism” has been used and abused in our society, but according to this book, state socialism is just one brand of socialism. Free market anarchists believe that true free markets are socialist in nature, in that they depend on individuals operating in a community. As if to pre-emptively counter charges that they are merely redefining the term “socialism” to make it more palatable to the general public, the book includes two essays by the 19th century socialist/anarchist/libertarian Benjamin Tucker. These two essays show how the definition of “socialism” has been contested both within and outside of socialist circles for over one hundred years, and also prove eerily applicable to today’s political landscape.
State socialists and most garden-variety liberals (like myself) have always seen free markets as tending toward predatory, “survival of the fittest” arrangements, and favor government interventions into the market in order to reduce inequality, regulate corporations and help the poor. But this book argues that the state almost always favors powerful interests such as big business, and that it has actually done more harm than good for the poor. The latter argument is of course common among conservative critics of the welfare state, and these authors certainly do not favor taxation, government redistribution, or wage controls; but they manage to be more convincing than most conservative critics because their most devastating critiques are leveled where they should be: at corporate welfare.
This book’s anti-corporate stance departs from the views of right-wing libertarians, who have become the dominant voice in the libertarian movement. The authors criticize “anarcho-capitalists” and “vulgar libertarians” who make excuses for large corporations and focus all their efforts on social welfare programs while saying little to nothing about corporate welfare. Corporate apologetics and freed markets are viewed as totally antithetical to one another.
Corporations, according to the essays in this book, are creations of the state. It is hard to argue with the evidence presented; in one article, satirically titled “How the Government Solved the Healthcare Crisis,” Roderick Long demonstrates how early 20th century mutual aid societies were driven out of business by the government as a response to lobbying by the medical establishment, and that our current healthcare crisis is a direct result of the government’s privileging of corporate interests. Other articles point out how eminent domain laws and “urban renewal” projects have allowed local, state and federal governments to steal land from the poor in order to redistribute it to the rich. They also point out the many tax breaks and subsidies that corporations get which individuals and small business owners cannot claim. This has lead to corporate monopolies, essentially granted by the state.
While most liberals would argue that this calls for state action against corporations and in favor of the common man, free market anarchists see this as counter-productive. In their view, the government cannot effectively combat corrupt corporations, because they are simply two heads of the same monster. And even when the state has been successful in curbing private monopolies, that often leads to simply replacing them with state-run monopolies, which according to these writers is no better.
The only solution, they argue, is a freed market in a stateless society. Without state-granted privileges, such monopolization would be impossible, as there would be more competition and people would be more free to choose where to do business. As for workers, free market anarchists follow the principle that “no one would work for another if one could work for oneself;” free from government regulations and price controls, work would be more highly valued, and workers would be seen as equally valuable to capital. In our society, workers compete for jobs; in a truly freed market, entrepreneurs would compete for workers as well. Workers would thus be treated and paid more fairly for the work performed, rather than in our current system, where corporate bosses make obscene profits mostly off the fruits of other people’s labor. The employer/employee relationship would be radically changed into a more equitable and mutually beneficial situation. They hold a similar view toward land, believing that ownership stems from use; thus, in a freed market, nor only would eminent domain not exist, but neither would the entire concept of “landlords.” This view is socialist in that it calls for the elimination of classes and liberation of workers; however, unlike state socialists, they believe this can only be accomplished by abolishing the state and freeing the market.
Though I found the arguments in this book far more convincing than most libertarian critiques of the state, I’m not quite ready to call myself a free market anarchist. I haven’t read every essay yet, but overall the book seems to lack specifics for how such a society could be practically implemented. Since free market anarchists are against force unless absolutely necessary, a violent rebellion is (thankfully) unlikely. Even electing left-libertarian politicians seems to run counter to the ideals expressed, since they don’t believe the government should even exist. They do favor peaceful protests and sit-ins in order to spur social change, but this would take a huge movement of like-minded people to accomplish, and that doesn’t seem likely to happen any time soon.
Acknowledging the impracticality of accomplishing such goals in the short term poses problems for those concerned with achieving social justice, as free market anarchists genuinely seem to be. Free market anarchists oppose all state action, so should they oppose social welfare programs and a boost in the minimum wage? Such measures could provide short-term aid to poor, but to support them would be to support expanding the power of the state, the very agent that they believe creates systemic poverty and predatory corporations in the first place. However, one could argue that these measures merely serve as reparations for property systematically stolen from the poor by government-backed corporations.
The book also raises many other unanswered questions. Without a state, there would be no agreed upon system of laws, and no police force. In that vacuum, private militias would result. Why are these preferable to state police forces? A free market anarchist might say that the lack of a monopoly is what makes this preferable, but that seems like it would be little consolation to victims of a rogue private militia. In addition, how would free market anarchists stop new, aggressive states from forming? Or current states from attacking this continent if it alone became entirely “stateless?” Perhaps these questions have been wrestled over by anarchists in other forums, but they seem entirely absent from this book.
That isn’t a crippling flaw, however. This book serves mostly as an introduction to the concepts of free market anarchism and socialist libertarianism. The essays should be accessible and entertaining to anyone, and even if you don’t find yourself agreeing with the authors, they still offer a fascinating and unique perspective.
In the meantime, I will probably continue supporting sensible regulations, a raise in the minimum wage, and social welfare programs. But this book has made me a lot less comfortable and certain in doing so. It has caused me to look at state power in a way I’ve never done before, and to examine my knee-jerk nanny-state tendencies. While I’m not ready to call for abolishing the government completely, I do think this book has a powerful message about the way the government creates and supports corporations, and that’s a message that Republicans, Democrats, moderates, and libertarians both left and right can all potentially unite around.
Unless you are one of the few people who already identifies as a free market anarchist, this fascinating collection of essays is sure to challenge your beliefs.
Harold: “….it always appears that Chris, Dewey and Libby are the anti-capitalist, and anti-free self reliance”
“Anti-capitalist” and “anti-self-reliance” are two separate things. Also, why are you calling me “anti-self-reliance” for arguing that Wal-Mart shouldn’t rely on government subsidies?
“Liberal types, and in their world of thinking the people willing to create wealth without the need of ineffective Government use of the tax dollars”
Dude, you seriously did not comprehend a single one of my comments. I’m the one in this discussion saying that Wal-Mart should be willing to try and create wealth without the need of ineffective government use of tax dollars. Tina is the one supporting Wal-Mart in doing that.
“They all seem to gravitate to the “we need more Government assistance/handout side” side of any discussion,”
Again, you have this completely backwards. I am against government assistance/handouts to Wal-Mart. Tina, apparently, is for it. At the very least, she’s neutral on the subject.
“If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without
a license, but not for being in the country illegally …
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.”
Record numbers of people have been arrested for being in the country illegally over the past six years, so this makes no sense.
“If you have to show identification to board an airplane,
cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book,
but you don’t have to show ID for the right to vote on who runs the government …
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.”
In that case, by your logic, our country has been run by idiots for the majority of the 20th century.
“If, in the largest city of the country, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas,
but not a 24-ounce soda because the government says a 24-ounce
sugary drink might make you fat …
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.”
I’ll give you this one, only I’d say that this only proves that NYC is run by idiots.
“If your government believes that the best way to
eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more …
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.”
Agreed, which is why we should stop spending trillions on corporate welfare.
“If hard work and success is rewarded with higher taxes
and more government intrusion, while not working
is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid,
subsidized housing, and free cell phones …
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.”
Idiotically simplistic, since many of the people who receive those benefits work hard every single day.
“If the government’s plan for getting people back to
work is to reward them with 99 weeks
of unemployment checks with no requirement to
prove they applied for it …
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.”
No requirement to prove they applied for what? A job? I am pretty sure they do have to prove this, but I could be wrong.
“If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself
makes you more “safe” according to the government …
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.”
No one is stripping you of your ability to defend yourself. I went skeet shooting last week in the Bay Area, the place with the harshest gun laws in the country. No one is coming to take your guns. If you believe they are, you’re an idiot.
“If you are offended by this. then I’ll bet you voted
for the idiots who are “ruining” our country!”
I’m not “offended,” since almost none of it accurately describes our country.
Chris: “But I’ve already shown you that in many cases, the government literally GIVES WAL-MART FREE LAND.”
Is it land the city owns that sits there and generates zero revenue?
Do they give it or lease it? If they lease it they get rent. Even if they award it they still will get tax revenue year after year. Governments will get sales tax, property and income tax, corporate tax, business license fees, and payroll taxes for the people the store employs…year after year. A plot of land that sits there and generates nothing has been turned into a revenue cash cow.
“Often, this land is first stolen from poor people by the government under the guise of “eminent domain”.
If memory serves we posted a story about cities doing this just for the taxes. The story involved a big hotel and both Jack and I thught it was wrong. I’m against it if the city does it just because they can get more revenue from a hotel or a business. But if the city has legal standing and a legitimate reason…house has been condemned or the family has not paid property taxes for many years, it makes sense. Even in those cases the people should be compensated for the property at current prices minus what they owe in taxes. I think the word “often” may be a bit of an exaggeration, Chris.
“Why don’t you complain about that government intervention into the market?”
As I said we have. I notice once again it is Walmart featured in the question as if they were the source of an evil plot
Those who make the decision to take people’s property just because they can get more tax revenue are government people, Chris. Usually they are people with little respect for private property rights. Which party talks more in terms of communal ownership, communal living?
Holding the business responsible for the decisions made by city managers is just wrong.
” A 2004 report showed that Wal-Mart had raked in over $1 billion in government subsidies”
Yes that’s a very interesting report funded in part by “the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.” It is fraught with exaggeration. Walmart’s healthcare plan is not inferior. Most people who work at minimum wage receive raises within a reasonable amount of time or move on. Some aren’t working motivated by money but by having something to do. New retirees, for instance, cannot make much money or they will lose SS money that they worked their entire lives to get.
a Walmart spokesman’s response to the accusations in the report are interesting:
So in reality the municipality is paid back in full for the subsidy and then continues to profit from the deal year after year.
“The only time you complain about government intrusion is when it’s done in an effort to help the poor.”
That’s not true. I think governments tax and regulate the people and business too much. And my criticisms about government intrusion in things supposedly designed to help the poor are that they don’t work well. They don’t lift most out of poverty and they do consign them to a life of poverty with no hope of becoming a contributing (equal) member of society. I object because I care about all people and want to see them reach their full potential. I care because the excessive programs are funded by people who are working and struggling to provide for their own children but don’t qualify. I object because there is a lot of waste and abuse. I object because the money could be used more effectively and efficiently. someone said we should measure the effectiveness of a program by the numbers of people who no longer need it. We just keep demanding more money and programs. it doesn’t make sense.
“You never, ever complain about government intrusion which helps the rich.”
Lets flatten this ridiculous “politically driven” notion.
The rich don’t need “help”. Politicians and governments use the rich. They write the laws and create the hoops that must be cleared before business can be conducted…they ask for the campaign contributions and they make the deals to get it…they collect the revenue. Consider the deals made with public worker unions that are now breaking budget, creating a need for higher tax rates, and causing bankruptcies. it’s the same deal making by governments but without the return on the investment other than the work performed which is often administering and handling the paper work to facilitate the deal making.
The rich would prefer certainty to money. They would prefer to operate less encumbered with red tape and complex laws. The worst thing in the world for anyone with money to invest is the constantly changing laws and changing tax rates. Every time the laws are changed or the tax rates change both time and extra money must be spent to come into compliance. It makes it very difficult to plan ahead. It’s a pain in the a$$.
The left uses this line of attack against the rich to tug on your emotions. its so easy to demonize people with money…and so easy to incite class envy and resentment.
“You are not being intellectually honest.”
Not true. YOU are not paying attention.
It is the height of absurdity to claim that the largest, wealthiest corporation in the entire world is somehow being “oppressed” by the government.”
I did not say that.
Chris, you lead with an attitude. If you want to succeed in your won life you might want to check that.
Forgot to provide a link to the book in the review I submitted for publication:
http://www.amazon.com/Markets-Not-Capitalism-Individualist-Inequality/dp/1570272425
And a link to the group behind the book, the Center for a Stateless Society. Many of the articles in the book can be found on their blog for free.
http://c4ss.org/
Harold Chris represents the failure in our educational system to fully educate and inform students. He represents the utterly cynical, dishonest and unscrupulous intentions and goals of the extreme left in this country who seek to make the state all powerful and rob citizens of freedom and opportunity. He represents a failure in our society to preserve the values that would make all citizens, in government, in business, in education, in poor communities strong and self reliant. Chris represents the future which is why I bother to soend s much time i discussion with him.
Dewey, like Chris, comes to the discussion filled with assumptions and attitudes…and sometimes he’s so far out it’s tough to even think about a response.
Libby…not sure what to make of her. She is either a committed Marxist or just terribly stubborn. Its hard to imagine anyone that has witnessed the years since WWII who believes that socialism offers more to a citizen than a country that embraces capitalism, freedom and the rule of law.
Enjoyed the funnies!
Stacy Mitchell writes:
“Rarely are tax dollars given to local retailers. For them, it’s sink or swim in a sea of giant, subsidized competitors. When asked how Scottsdale’s small businesses were to survive the arrival of Wal-Mart and Lowe’s — slated to receive the second largest corporate subsidy in Arizona history — city councilor Ned O’Hearn declared, “That’s urban dynamics. This is private enterprise. This is competition.”
Yet taxpayers pick up the tab for corporate chains by bridging the difference between what their workers earn and what they need to survive. Half of Wal-Mart’s employees qualify for food stamps. Many rely on other forms of public assistance. Washington state reports that Wal-Mart workers are the single largest group of users in its low-income health care program.
Some cities have gone so far as to condemn property owned by small businesses in order to turn it over to chain store developers. Last month, Wheat Ridge, Colo., designated property owned by three independent businesses as blighted. The three enterprises—a multi-generation, family-owned automotive repair shop, a billiards hall, and a kitchen cabinet business—will be booted for a Walgreens drugstore. The developer has also been given $500,000 in public subsidies.
Tax policy, too, is riddled with loopholes that benefit chain stores. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has documented, about half the states allow national chains to avoid state income taxes by transferring profits earned locally to tax-free states such as Delaware. Small businesses, meanwhile, pay state income taxes on every penny of their earnings.
All of this adds up to a startlingly tilted playing field, a rigged system that can hardly be characterized as free enterprise. Our hometown businesses deserve better.”
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/independent_business_walmart_eminent_domain/
Chris: “Yet taxpayers pick up the tab for corporate chains by bridging the difference between what their workers earn and what they need to survive.”
Once again this is a gross exaggeration. There isn’t a static minimum wage body. Most people who start at Walmart at minimum wage either move up to higher salaried positions or move to other jobs within a few months. Some of the minimum wage earners are NOT the main breadwinner in their household; they are supplementing the family income. None of the minimum wage earners are forced to take these jobs and for heavens sake, Walmart did not put people who need to be on government assistance in the position they are in, Walmart isn’t the only business where people who get these benefits work, and Walmart didn’t write the laws that give the benefits to people from tax dollars! Finally let us not pretend that those small business that are having trouble competing would offer jobs at higher starting wages. They certainly do not offer the same number of jobs.
“Washington state reports that Wal-Mart workers are the single largest group of users in its low-income health care program.”
This proves several things. 1. Washington has a lot of poor people…their poverty programs are not working! 2. Walmart is picking up the slack for the failure of government schools and programs and by giving these people an opportunity to earn some of what they live on is offering them a modicum of dignity. 3. Poor people like working at Walmart because of the health insurance, which is better than what government offers!
“Some cities have gone so far as to condemn property owned by small businesses in order to turn it over to chain store developers.”
But instead of holding government accountable you demonize the business!
“Last month, Wheat Ridge, Colo., designated property owned by three independent businesses as blighted….”
If the property has been kept up and the people have paid taxes this is wrong, probably illegal, and should be stopped. Why do you continue to put the responsibility on business instead of the city government? Does it not occur to you that private property rights would prevent Walmart from making this deal were it not for the shenanigans by the elected government officials?
Your gripes about the tax code are, once again, a failure of government. You support the party of big government. Why?
Every American that pays taxes, attends college, starts a business is subject to various tax laws and every single one of us takes whatever tax breaks THE LAWS allow! It is not Walmart’s doing that the tax code benefits them. It is the politicians doing and those who put big government types in office. The public, through our votes, have created this mess.
It is also incredible to have you preaching to us about the tax code. We have long been advocating for a simplified tax code!
There is something you are going to have to accept.
There will always be people who have more money than you do. That money affords them a lot of advantages and perks you will never have. Here’s the important thing: That advantage does not prevent you from realizing whatever level of wealth or whatever level of success you want. The only thing that limits your future is the limitations you put on yourself and the attitudes you bring to your life.
Some small businesses can survive the big box intrusion. They do so by appealing to shoppers, being smart buyers, creating a way to attract customers through the shopping experience and hands on service. Walmart and Costco have a warehouse atmosphere. Small businesses can offer intimacy, warmth, and a welcoming atmosphere. The value to the customer is the shopping experience as well as the product offered. I understand its a big challenge and not always achievable but that is always true simply because things change.
If you want the system un-rigged you are going to have to admit who is responsible for writing the laws and which party has been in favor of smaller government and simplified tax codes. The laws should be neutral with respect to the citizens.
Tina: “But instead of holding government accountable you demonize the business!”
No. You’re ignoring the portions of my comments where I explicitly condemned government policies which have given corporations these subsidies and special privileges. I’ve made it clear that government is complicit in giving corporations too much power.
You’re also ignoring that big business lobbying efforts has a huge influence on politicians. It’s absurd to say that corporations should not be held responsible for their unethical yet legal actions, when those same corporations’ lobbying efforts are what made those actions legal in the first place.
The power and influence of corporations on politics has only grown since Citizens United declared that corporations are people with the right to free speech–essentially giving state-created institutions the same rights as individual human beings. You call Democrats the party of Big Government, but this decision is overwhelmingly supported by Republicans and opposed by Democrats. Both parties support Big Government–they just support using its influence in diverging directions.
I’m going to ask you a very simple question: should the government continue its corporate welfare policies providing billions of dollars in subsidies for large corporations such as Wal-Mart? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.
Tina, I’ll understand if you don’t publish the article I submitted for publication given our contentious debate here, but I am curious if you read it and what your thoughts are on the free market anarchist position.
Chris argues; Dude,(dude 🙂 )you seriously did not comprehend a single one of my comments.
Actually it’s you who have lacked comprehension, not only in so many of the debates you enter and lose to Tina or others on post scripts, but in my recent post about yours and your liberal friends rants.
Normally to read one of your comic strip wanderings, would be a waste of my time, you may have nothing in this world to do, other than time to post your excessive and gimme gimme ridden manifestos, but you have gotten off track so often of late, and especially on my post pointing out your obsessive, let alone your self indulgent use of the word “Idiot”.
Go flail away with your meaningless arguments, you just seem to be keeping yourself entertained.
Chris: “I’ve made it clear that government is complicit in giving corporations too much power.”
I don’t think you made it clear that you hold the government responsible but I’m glad to hear you do. However, you think the end game is that the company ends up with power. What power?
“You’re also ignoring that big business lobbying efforts has a huge influence on politicians.”
Why do you think a company would bother to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and a lot of time attempting to influence politicians when they could be focusing on their business interests and using the money for expansion or equipment?
“…when those same corporations’ lobbying efforts are what made those actions legal in the first place.”
Are you sure about that or is it just something you’ve heard that seems to make sense? Does it occur to you that government action, say in the form of the Affordable Care Act, can come out of nowhere and turn businesses on their heads?
The ACA was sold to Blue Shield and kaiser just like it was sold to you and me…with promises. Those companies were told don’t worry, the law will mean more customers for you and you will be just fine. The latest concern is that they will not have enough new policy holders to cover their expenses…they may be asking for a government bailout! Now, I don’t defend the companies. They didn’t have to help the government sell this turkey, but what was their alternative play? Either way they knew the Obama administration, harry and Nancy were hell bent on changing the healthcare industry. If you had a business with employees and investors counting on you, not to mention your policy holders, would you choose to sit on the outside and just wait or would you want to be in the meetings attempting to make the law as painless as possible for your company and the people that depend on it?
If the government is suddenly going to change the rules of the game on your business don’t you think you have a right and an obligation to try to make sure the changes don’t destroy your business?
How do you think it feels to be in the coal business about now? You have run a business that offers cheap energy to a lot of people that need it, especially during long cold winters, for decades. Through the years you have gone through the trouble and expense to make coal production cleaner. You did it for all the right reasons even though it put a big hole in your profits and you, along with other polluting companies, managed to reduce harmful emissions by 95%. Instead of being applauded your business is maligned. But it gets worse…suddenly a man is elected who supports alternative energy and says he will enact standards that will likely put you out of business…and then he does it. We are talking about the owner of the company losing his business but we are also talking about his employees, his suppliers, the citizens his product serves, and even the government which takes its share of his profits.
Don’t you think he has a right to petition his government…to attempt to influence how the regulation is enacted?
I don’t understand how you can fail to realize that companies are comprised of citizens…citizens with rights…citizens with obligations and responsibilities.
“The power and influence of corporations on politics has only grown since Citizens United declared that corporations are people with the right to free speech–essentially giving state-created institutions the same rights as individual human beings.”
Wrong honey. The decision was that corporations have the same rights as big unions and big special interests of all kinds from which used huge sums of money is used to influence government. Whether a teacher, a business owner, a stock holder, a union member, the president of G.E., the director of The Nature Conservancy, or the president of the UAW, we are all citizens and we all have the same right to participate.
“…this decision is overwhelmingly supported by Republicans and opposed by Democrats.”
Supported by republicans because we believe in equality…we believe laws should apply to everyone equally.
Opposed by Democrats because they had an advantage when unions and enviro organizations could spend big bucks but companies couldn’t spend a dime.
“Both parties support Big Government–they just support using its influence in diverging directions. ”
While it’s very difficult to defend Republicans when it comes to growing the size of government I have to say that they have been blocked quite often through negative campaigning, lies, and media that always supported the democrat position. They have to campaign against an opponent and the media. They are always demonized. When they wanted to simplify the tax code, reform Social Security, simplify regulations, consolidate and eliminate departments they were always met with dramatic negative accusation. The left does not work with them to look for ways to improve how the government functions or spends money. The one time they did was when Bill Clinton lost the House to Newt Gingrich and declared the era of big government over. He signed legislation that changed how welfare was run. But it’s obvious the party is right back to big government as usual.
Republicans support business because that is where the economy and good jobs are made…we have nothing without business being able to thrive. So the so-called diverging directions you allude to are not as divergent as you imply. Without the wealth building power of business there would be no money for government to spend. There would also be a lot of poverty and terrible living conditions.
“should the government continue its corporate welfare policies providing billions of dollars in subsidies for large corporations such as Wal-Mart? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.”
No Chris, a simple yes or no does not suffice. You might as well ask if I want this country run by a dictator..yes or no?
Some of these decisions are local and so the answer is that would be up to the local citizens. they have to decide whether the tax incentives are worth the tax expenditure given the return to the community.
At the state and federal levels I have already said I prefer a simple tax code sans loopholes and a simple set of regulations.
I will respond to your question about the article in another comment box.
Chris, Stacy Mitchell, the author of the article you posted, seems to understand that the decisions are made by local governing boards and yet her resentment, like yours, continues to be pushed in the direction of Walmart, and Walgreens.
I suspect that the emotion she feels spring from a desire for things to be fair. If so, she will never be satisfied…not going to happen.
One of the toughest hurdles on the road to adulthood is the realization and acceptance that life is not fair and never will be. Once over that hurdle we realize we have more options than we thought. People that have experienced this often say things like…”It all turned out for the best,” or “We’re doing better than ever.” My own thoughts on the matter is that once you give up the hope the life will be fair, you realize the value of faith, and willingly risk.
In most of the cases she sites the local governments are either doing exactly what the majority of local people want them to do or they are acting against the will of the majority of the people (A common elitist attitude). Either way the gripe is with the government and not the businesses that want to locate in the area (Or have been invited to locate in the area).
The way a business would approach the problem of location would be to find available land and purchase it through a realtor, get plan approval and obtain the required permits and licenses, build, meet all inspections, hire the people, stock the shelves, and then open the doors for business.
If they are getting incentives to build or if others are being pushed out it is the local government arranging it for their own desires/desires of the people.
If laws are being broken then the owners of the small businesses should seek council and take their case to the courts.
But is there something else can they do? Yes! They can stop acting and thinking like victims. They can decide to treat this like an opportunity to improve and grow their businesses:
Okay…a big box store wants our space and we don’t have the power to stop them because the city is on their side. How about we start looking for a local contractor who would like to build a new shopping center but has considerations about being able to rent the spaces in this economy. (A good local commercial realtor might be of help too.) Once we find one, we present him with a business proposal that includes evidence of our past success and an interest in committing to a five year lease of new spaces after he builds. We ask him if it would be possible to work with him to make the spaces attractive and reflective of our businesses.
If, they are successful in finding a contractor, they and the contractor should go to the city with the plans and see if the city would be willing to help them since they have been displaced. It might be that the city finds it worthwhile to get another piece of vacant land put to good use.
Now the little shop keepers get to work selling their customers on the new location. They post drawings of the new digs, they use mailing lists to keep their customers informed about the progress, they advertise to inform the public and inspire new business. When they re-open they again advertise to attract new customers…local Chambers of Commerce, newspapers and radio stations will usually help with this. While they are closed they organize and create new or improved business plans.
Most contractors would welcome the challenge and opportunity. A contractor feels a lot more confident about risking capital to build a new strip mall if three or four of the spaces he builds are guaranteed to be filled at completion with a five year lease.
If that doesn’t work maybe they have to accept the reality and apply for work at the new Walmart store while they decide their next move. Or maybe they take some classes at the local community college and discover a new occupation.
Change is hard but it doesn’t have to mean defeat and loss.
One last word about the fact that some Walmart workers receive benefits paid by taxpayers. These are separate issues. The employees don’t receive benefits because Walmart pays minimum wage. They receive benefits because our government has set it up so they can work and receive benefits. Walmart is not a welfare office. It is not in business to make sure people can afford things. It has work available for anyone to apply to do beginning at the minimum wage. Take the job or leave it.
The responsibility to better ones circumstances lies solidly on the persons own shoulders.
I hope I have managed to address everything of interest. If not just ask and I will do my best to respond.
Harold:”gimme gimme ridden manifestos”
Harold, get back to me when you learn how to read.
Tina, thanks for your response, but I was actually referring to my review of the book “Markets Not Capitalism” I submitted for publication in comment #22. I think the readers here might be interested in a different perspective on free markets, and there’s a lot in this book that I think we can all agree on.
Tina: “However, you think the end game is that the company ends up with power. What power?”
Are you asking me to explain what power Wal-Mart has over our economy?
“Why do you think a company would bother to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and a lot of time attempting to influence politicians when they could be focusing on their business interests and using the money for expansion or equipment?”
Because corporate executives believe that doing so will get them more money and power in the long run.
“Are you sure about that or is it just something you’ve heard that seems to make sense?”
Tina, are you really asking me if I’m sure that corporate lobbying has helped change laws in corporations’ favor? Of course I’m sure about that. It worries me that you’re not.
“Does it occur to you that government action, say in the form of the Affordable Care Act, can come out of nowhere and turn businesses on their heads?”
I suppose it could, but if you want me to believe that the ACA is harming big corporations such as Wal-Mart, you’re going to have to show me some hard evidence. If that’s not what you’re saying, then I’m not sure what your point is.
“If the government is suddenly going to change the rules of the game on your business don’t you think you have a right and an obligation to try to make sure the changes don’t destroy your business?”
Of course. People within a business should have just as much right as anyone else to make their voices heard. However, the business ITSELF has no such right. Unlimited cash donations to politicians from corporations is wrong. Individual wealthy people should be able to donate as much as they want, but they shouldn’t be able to use their corporation, which is a state-created invention, to do that.
“How do you think it feels to be in the coal business about now?”
…Pretty good, since coal production is up?
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4970
“You have run a business that offers cheap energy to a lot of people that need it, especially during long cold winters, for decades. Through the years you have gone through the trouble and expense to make coal production cleaner. You did it for all the right reasons even though it put a big hole in your profits and you, along with other polluting companies, managed to reduce harmful emissions by 95%. Instead of being applauded your business is maligned.”
Tina, you really couldn’t have posted this at a worse time–you haven’t heard about the state of emergency in West Virginia this week? 300,000 people can’t use their tap water because of a coal-related disaster.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/09/22245996-west-virginia-chemical-spill-cuts-water-to-up-to-300000-state-of-emergency-declared?lite
There is plenty of reason for President Obama to want to move away from coal.
“Don’t you think he has a right to petition his government…to attempt to influence how the regulation is enacted?”
Again, yes: “he” does have that right. His corporation does not. There is a difference.
“I don’t understand how you can fail to realize that companies are comprised of citizens…citizens with rights…citizens with obligations and responsibilities.”
Of course I realize that companies are comprised of citizens. Those citizens have always had the right to contribute to campaigns. Their companies, as separate legal entities, have not until Citizens United. If the court says that a corporation, as a legal entity, has the right to free speech, then why not grant it the right to vote?
“Wrong honey. The decision was that corporations have the same rights as big unions and big special interests of all kinds from which used huge sums of money is used to influence government.”
I think you’re wrong here. Citizens United removed limits on corporations AND unions.
Bloomberg:
“Before the 2010 ruling, labor unions were able to make donations only through regulated political action committees, which collect voluntary donations from employees and have reporting requirements and limits on disbursements. The decision lets unions spend from their treasuries, taking restrictions off using member dues in political campaigns.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-18/unions-gain-under-citizens-united-decision-they-seek-to-overturn.html
The decision was wrong in removing the limits on both unions and corporations. Neither should have such an outsized influence in a democracy.
“Whether a teacher, a business owner, a stock holder, a union member, the president of G.E., the director of The Nature Conservancy, or the president of the UAW, we are all citizens and we all have the same right to participate.”
But you’re still referring to individuals, which is not the topic under discussion. A corporation is not an individual. Neither is a union.
“Supported by republicans because we believe in equality…we believe laws should apply to everyone equally.”
Removing limits on campaign spending from unions and corporations doesn’t promote “equality,” it essentially gives corporate and union bosses more rights than other citizens.
“Opposed by Democrats because they had an advantage when unions and enviro organizations could spend big bucks but companies couldn’t spend a dime.”
From what I’ve read, that was never the case. According to this site (which does have a union bias), prior to Citizens United, corporations could spend on campaigns, but they had to go through a PAC, just like unions did. I can’t see how corporations were ever at a legal disadvantage to unions.
http://www.unionfacts.com/article/political-money/what-citizens-united-means-for-union-political-spending/
“Without the wealth building power of business there would be no money for government to spend.”
All I’m asking is that, if businesses are so good at building wealth, we let them do that on their own without the government giving them billions of dollars in subsidies. Why is that unreasonable? You believe that poor people lose incentive to work when the welfare state is too generous to them; why is it hard for you to consider that this might also be true for the wealthy?
“No Chris, a simple yes or no does not suffice. You might as well ask if I want this country run by a dictator..yes or no?”
Amusing, since you’ve asked me that very question in all seriousness before.
“Some of these decisions are local and so the answer is that would be up to the local citizens.”
Theft is theft regardless of if it’s at the local, state or federal level. Also, local citizens don’t always have a whole lot of say in what their governments do. Big money can influence local politicians a lot more than the interests of their constituents, and that’s exactly what’s happened with Wal-Mart in too many communities to name.
“At the state and federal levels I have already said I prefer a simple tax code sans loopholes and a simple set of regulations.”
OK, but you haven’t named any specific loopholes you want to close. Neither did Romney when he ran for president. Neither will most congressional Republicans. And every time I bring up a specific loophole and suggest it should be closed, you argue against closing it. The lower rate on capital gains tax than earned income is a loophole that favors the rich. So is the cap on social security taxes. So is allowing offshore accounts. You’ve defended every one of those things. You can’t just say you support closing loopholes without ever saying which ones, then dismiss others every time they suggest closing a specific loophole, and expect to have your position taken seriously. You have to actually say which loopholes you support closing, otherwise there’s no reason to take you at your word.
Chris I apologize for not responding @ #22 . We’ve had a lot of SPAM lately and I just missed it.
I started reading what you have posted and I have to say, I was turned off right from the get go. Why? Because anyone who begins by deciding the definition of a word in order to make a case is being dishonest.
Words mean things. We don’t get to make it up as we go along. The purpose of language and communication is greater and goes beyond mere self expression. What we say is worthless unless we can agree on the meaning of words so that our thoughts can be fully received by another.
Consider this from the next paragraph:
This doesn’t describe capitalism as practiced in the US. It describes government as practiced in the US in some instances. It describes the unconstitutional intrusion by our government into the affairs of citizens and business. It suggests that business is an oppressive entity with power to keep people from participating and advancing as they choose. Business has no such power.
At the same time it sidesteps/ignores governments intrusion into the affairs of individuals through social welfare programs and redistribution which can be blamed, at least in part, for the creation of a permanent poverty class.
The bugaboo for these writers seems to be fairness.
Why don’t they just say what they mean? Why don’t they just say they think it would be better if the lives of people were controlled so that we all get the same stuff, are paid the same amount for work, are given the same size house, are awarded the same vacation each year?
I have made the case for a government that aligns with the intention of the framers and which places government in the background in our lives. I believe in limited government because I think freedom is fundamental to the realization of the aspirations and dreams of individuals…and that means specifically freedom from intrusive government intervention. I won’t be dissuaded from support of freedom and limited government by any suggestion to control outcomes. Tyranny was the motivation behind the establishment of a free America! Control of outcomes is tyranny.
A free market is a market in which individuals and companies can arrange their business dealings, their buying and selling, between themselves unencumbered by government intervention/participation.
The Library of Economics and Liberty brings some light to this subject:
(You might find the remainder of the above interesting. It offers a window into the many ways history becomes distorted.)
I stand behind the above statement from Robert Hessen’s, “Capitalism,” above, which compares to the dictionary definition of capitalism now in common use (Websters):
Consider once again the definition of capitalism from your review:
This doesn’t describe capitalism as practiced in the US. It describes government as practiced in the US in some instances.
It describes the unconstitutional intrusion by our government into the affairs of citizens and business.
It suggests that business is an oppressive entity with power to keep people from participating and advancing as they choose, which is a lie. Business has no such power.
The statement sidesteps governments intrusion into the affairs of individuals through social welfare programs and redistribution of wealth which can be blamed in part for the creation of a permanent poverty class.
Our government has become a dictator/king and used its power to go outside its bounds to control and manage the lives of all citizens.
I admit I have not read the book and I am reacting to just a few sentences but its difficult to move on when the bugaboo for these writers seems to be unfairness and capitalism (As they believe it exists) the reason for it.
Why don’t they just say what they mean? Why don’t they just say they think it would be better if the lives of people were controlled so that we all get the same stuff, are paid the same amount for work, are given the same size house, are awarded the same vacation each year? Why don’t they honestly make the case against freedom and against private property?
I have made a case for a government that aligns with the intention of the framers and places government in the background in our lives. I believe in limited government because I think freedom is fundamental to the aspirations and dreams of individual citizens. That means freedom from intrusive government intervention but it also means freedom from special interest pressures that use government as a hammer against others as a means of furthering causes. A free market is a market in which individuals and companies can arrange their business dealings, their buying and selling, their contractual agreements between themselves unencumbered by excessive government intervention.
“…there’s a lot in this book that I think we can all agree on.”
May I suggest you bring them up, one at a time, for discussion? Asking our readers to comment randomly on the content of a book length piece is asking too much. Post them like an article and I will post them to the front page.
Chris: “Are you asking me to explain what power Wal-Mart has over our economy?”
I’m asking you to explain this statement:
“I’ve made it clear that government is complicit in giving corporations too much power.”
What power is awarded Walmart by the government?
“Tina, are you really asking me if I’m sure that corporate lobbying has helped change laws in corporations’ favor? Of course I’m sure about that. It worries me that you’re not.”
It bothers me that you can’t see that governments intrusion into the affairs of individuals and businessmen has made lobbying a necessity, and a necessary expense, of business! It bothers me that you don’t think of these corporations as a group of individuals (fellow citizens) forced to spend time and money to protect their interests and business.
“I suppose it could, but if you want me to believe that the ACA is harming big corporations such as Wal-Mart, you’re going to have to show me some hard evidence. If that’s not what you’re saying, then I’m not sure what your point is.”
I’m telling you that passing the ACA has disrupted and harmed all business. And we have posted articles that indicate as much. One was a small business that sold medical supplies…her business closed. The ACA is government intrusion on steroids! Big insurers like Kaiser and Blue Shield benefit (maybe) while small insurers are pushed out.
The following is part of a judges opinion:
“Unlimited cash donations to politicians from corporations is wrong”
Oh is that right? Well if it is wrong, and it isn’t, then unlimited cash donations from the University of California system is wrong…or cash from the SEIU is wrong! Those organizations of individuals are no different than a group of individuals in a business.
The Supreme Court found that money is speech and in its ruling leveled the playing field!
“There is plenty of reason for President Obama to want to move away from coal.
The President hasn’t just “moved away” from coal. The president promised to decimate the industry and his EPA has taken steps that will do just that!
We were discussing the ways that government intrudes into the affairs of business. I was making the point that lobbying is a necessity born out of this intrusion! When a man running for the presidency makes a statement like this:
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.
You can be sure that the coal industry felt the earth move. That statement represents a legitimate reason for a corporation, or groups in the industry, to lobby government! It is particularly alarming when the coal industry has already made great efforts to reduce polluting emissions. There is no reason for a president or congressman to insert himself aggressively into the market like that. NONE!
“All I’m asking is that, if businesses are so good at building wealth, we let them do that on their own without the government giving them billions of dollars in subsidies.”
Agreed. I also insist that government end the practice of making loans to special interest groups and threatening to bankrupt one business to advantage another. I’m against management and control by the government.
”
Jan 12, 2014
11:04 am
#36 Chris :
Tina: “However, you think the end game is that the company ends up with power. What power?”
Are you asking me to explain what power Wal-Mart has over our economy?
“Why do you think a company would bother to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and a lot of time attempting to influence politicians when they could be focusing on their business interests and using the money for expansion or equipment?”
Because corporate executives believe that doing so will get them more money and power in the long run.
“Are you sure about that or is it just something you’ve heard that seems to make sense?”
Tina, are you really asking me if I’m sure that corporate lobbying has helped change laws in corporations’ favor? Of course I’m sure about that. It worries me that you’re not.
“Does it occur to you that government action, say in the form of the Affordable Care Act, can come out of nowhere and turn businesses on their heads?”
I suppose it could, but if you want me to believe that the ACA is harming big corporations such as Wal-Mart, you’re going to have to show me some hard evidence. If that’s not what you’re saying, then I’m not sure what your point is.
“If the government is suddenly going to change the rules of the game on your business don’t you think you have a right and an obligation to try to make sure the changes don’t destroy your business?”
Of course. People within a business should have just as much right as anyone else to make their voices heard. However, the business ITSELF has no such right. Unlimited cash donations to politicians from corporations is wrong. Individual wealthy people should be able to donate as much as they want, but they shouldn’t be able to use their corporation, which is a state-created invention, to do that.
“How do you think it feels to be in the coal business about now?”
…Pretty good, since coal production is up?
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4970
“You have run a business that offers cheap energy to a lot of people that need it, especially during long cold winters, for decades. Through the years you have gone through the trouble and expense to make coal production cleaner. You did it for all the right reasons even though it put a big hole in your profits and you, along with other polluting companies, managed to reduce harmful emissions by 95%. Instead of being applauded your business is maligned.”
Tina, you really couldn’t have posted this at a worse time–you haven’t heard about the state of emergency in West Virginia this week? 300,000 people can’t use their tap water because of a coal-related disaster.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/09/22245996-west-virginia-chemical-spill-cuts-water-to-up-to-300000-state-of-emergency-declared?lite
There is plenty of reason for President Obama to want to move away from coal.
“Don’t you think he has a right to petition his government…to attempt to influence how the regulation is enacted?”
Again, yes: “he” does have that right. His corporation does not. There is a difference.
“I don’t understand how you can fail to realize that companies are comprised of citizens…citizens with rights…citizens with obligations and responsibilities.”
Of course I realize that companies are comprised of citizens. Those citizens have always had the right to contribute to campaigns. Their companies, as separate legal entities, have not until Citizens United. If the court says that a corporation, as a legal entity, has the right to free speech, then why not grant it the right to vote?
“Wrong honey. The decision was that corporations have the same rights as big unions and big special interests of all kinds from which used huge sums of money is used to influence government.”
I think you’re wrong here. Citizens United removed limits on corporations AND unions.
Bloomberg:
“Before the 2010 ruling, labor unions were able to make donations only through regulated political action committees, which collect voluntary donations from employees and have reporting requirements and limits on disbursements. The decision lets unions spend from their treasuries, taking restrictions off using member dues in political campaigns.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-18/unions-gain-under-citizens-united-decision-they-seek-to-overturn.html
The decision was wrong in removing the limits on both unions and corporations. Neither should have such an outsized influence in a democracy.
“Whether a teacher, a business owner, a stock holder, a union member, the president of G.E., the director of The Nature Conservancy, or the president of the UAW, we are all citizens and we all have the same right to participate.”
But you’re still referring to individuals, which is not the topic under discussion. A corporation is not an individual. Neither is a union.
“Supported by republicans because we believe in equality…we believe laws should apply to everyone equally.”
Removing limits on campaign spending from unions and corporations doesn’t promote “equality,” it essentially gives corporate and union bosses more rights than other citizens.
“Opposed by Democrats because they had an advantage when unions and enviro organizations could spend big bucks but companies couldn’t spend a dime.”
From what I’ve read, that was never the case. According to this site (which does have a union bias), prior to Citizens United, corporations could spend on campaigns, but they had to go through a PAC, just like unions did. I can’t see how corporations were ever at a legal disadvantage to unions.
http://www.unionfacts.com/article/political-money/what-citizens-united-means-for-union-political-spending/
“Without the wealth building power of business there would be no money for government to spend.”
All I’m asking is that, if businesses are so good at building wealth, we let them do that on their own without the government giving them billions of dollars in subsidies. Why is that unreasonable? You believe that poor people lose incentive to work when the welfare state is too generous to them; why is it hard for you to consider that this might also be true for the wealthy?
“No Chris, a simple yes or no does not suffice. You might as well ask if I want this country run by a dictator..yes or no?”
Amusing, since you’ve asked me that very question in all seriousness before.”
Context please.
” it essentially gives corporate and union bosses more rights than other citizens.”
The only advantage it gives is the advantage that is always present. There will always be people, wether singly or in groups, with more money than others…always!
“Theft is theft regardless of if it’s at the local, state or federal level.”
Your earnings are your property and yet you think its great that government takes more from the wealthy than they take from you…theft is theft!
My point was that it was up to the local citizens of ANY community to decide whether they approve or disapprove of a local government investment…and whether or not a taking of property has been done legitimately under the law.
“Big money can influence local politicians a lot more than the interests of their constituents, and that’s exactly what’s happened with Wal-Mart in too many communities to name.”
If this is a problem it is a problem of those communities. if Walmart is not the only entity than it is a larger problem of that community. If Walmart is being singled out as a target by union bosses that want to intimidate and harass then that is a problem of another sort that people in communities will have to take under consideration.
I am struck by the energy behind this hatred of Walmart and the need to control…I suppose it is the angst of youth.
“OK, but you haven’t named any specific loopholes you want to close.”
I have posted articles or made comments on several alternative tax plans. I believe all of them would eliminate all loopholes. Its been so long since the idea has been seriously discussed I haven’t kept up with the particulars and I wouldn’t favor one over another at this point…politicians have a way of changing things in disturbing and disruptive ways.
” And every time I bring up a specific loophole and suggest it should be closed, you argue against closing it.”
My memory is that you bring up a loophole to show how unfair it is and I explain the reasons it might have been put in place or the reason it might be of benefit to all Americans. (Context)
“The lower rate on capital gains tax than earned income is a loophole that favors the rich.”
That may be true but it isn’t the purpose for a lower rate. The purpose is to stimulate business and the creation of jobs, and that benefits everyone.
It is also true that low income earners don’t pay any income tax and many of them get cash back with the earned income tax credit. Are you as negative on that “loophole” as you are on lowered rates on investment income?
“So is the cap on social security taxes. So is allowing offshore accounts. You’ve defended every one of those things.”
Context Chris! I think there should be a cap on SS taxes. It is theft to take from the rich just to redistribute wealth. It is particularly onerous to suggest removing it since the reason for eliminating the cap is that the money all of us invested has been borrowed leaving IOU’s in the fund. Government overspending and theft, Chris. Damn straight I will object to this fix for an error in management of funds that is beyond evil!
The only offshore accounts are those used for the purpose of conducting business. I am against accounts to hide funds. (Although if our government were not so intrusive and its taxing system so complex there would not be a need for hidden accounts…the money you earn is your property and the government has no business knowing what we earn or what we have).
I’m not worried about whether you take me seriously or not so you can relax on that one. I am happy to discuss with you and it is my ope that one day you will actually get it.
Chris once more offers nothing but excessive immature rudeness. Chris’s reflex response is nothing but belligerent egotism, so habitual of anyone that is truly an Liberal ideologue.
Chris once more you prove the point so many have referenced about this pattern of yours of seeking attention to your opinions and self alone.
Chris theres a world of opportunity out there as Tina points out, ‘The only thing that limits your future is the limitations you put on yourself and the attitudes you bring to your life’,if you begin to understand that, you’ll have liberated yourself from a losing poker hand.
Harold: “Chris once more offers nothing but excessive immature rudeness.”
You’ve got to be kidding with this. You’ve ignored every single point I’ve made here. You accused me twice of making an argument in favor of government handouts, when all of my arguments in this thread have been against government handouts. Making strawman arguments is rude, Harold. Pointing out that you have not bothered to actually read and comprehend my comments before responding with ignorance is not rude.
Tina: “I started reading what you have posted and I have to say, I was turned off right from the get go. Why? Because anyone who begins by deciding the definition of a word in order to make a case is being dishonest.”
That’s a very odd thing to say, and I’m not sure I understand what you mean. If one is going to criticize a concept, then of course it is necessary to first define that concept, so that the audience knows what they are talking about. In fact, I would argue the exact opposite is true: failing to define the terms under discussion is usually a bigger sign of dishonesty in an argument than articulating a specific definition. For instance, the story Peggy posted earlier about the college professor implementing “socialism” in his classroom to teach the students a lesson. The story never defines “socialism,” and the fictional incident described actually has nothing to do with any definition of socialism I’ve ever heard; the goal seems to be to simply play on the audience’s negative associations with the word, not to help anyone understand what that term actually means.
“Words mean things. We don’t get to make it up as we go along. The purpose of language and communication is greater and goes beyond mere self expression. What we say is worthless unless we can agree on the meaning of words so that our thoughts can be fully received by another.”
But Tina, the definition of capitalism is not something that is agreed upon by all people, and its meaning has been hotly debated throughout history. “Capitalism” is a fairly recently invented term, and as even you point out, it’s a term that was first used by early socialists as a criticism of big business. It wasn’t used to describe the free market system until much later.
The writers in that book aren’t “making it up as they go along,” they explicitly draw on a lot of history and worldwide understanding of capitalism in order to show why they believe their definition is appropriate. Capitalism has extremely negative connotations in many parts of the world, and to many people the word means something entirely different than what it means to you. The writers also explain that they understand not everyone will agree with their definition.
It seems to me that you’re turned off because they are trying to define the terms of discussion. They’re not trying to control the conversation or impose this definition on anyone. You’re turned off because they used a definition of the word you don’t like. So if anyone’s trying to control what words mean, it’s you.
“This doesn’t describe capitalism as practiced in the US. It describes government as practiced in the US in some instances.”
There’s no difference according to them. Government IS capitalism. And it’s more than just “some instances;” the entire system is rigged to prop up corporations.
“It suggests that business is an oppressive entity with power to keep people from participating and advancing as they choose. Business has no such power.”
When business becomes bloated and massive, of course it has that power. Again, let me use Wal-Mart as an example:
“Not since the days of the British East India Company as the cornerstone of the British imperial system, has one single corporate entity been responsible for so much misery. At the core of its policy, Wal-Mart demands of its suppliers that they sell goods to Wal-Mart at such a low price, that they can only do so by outsourcing their work to low-wage factories overseas. This causes the exodus of millions of production jobs from the United States and the setting up of slave-labor concentration camps around the globe. Wal-Mart’s policy includes crushing living standards in America, forbidding its workers from unionizing, bringing in workers illegally from abroad, and bankrupting tens of thousands of stores and outlets on Main Street, ripping apart communities and their tax bases.”
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3044wal-mart.html
“At the same time it sidesteps/ignores governments intrusion into the affairs of individuals through social welfare programs and redistribution which can be blamed, at least in part, for the creation of a permanent poverty class.”
…OK, you admit you didn’t read my entire review, yet you think it’s wise to assume that the book “ignores” government intervention through social welfare programs and the theory that such programs help create a permanent poverty class.
I explained in the review that the book DOES go into that in detail, and that the authors are extremely critical of the welfare state.
Look, I don’t blame you for not reading the entire review. It’s long. But when you choose not to read someone’s comment, it’s extremely rude and ignorant to then make assumptions about the content within. You’re doing exactly what Harold’s been doing in this conversation: responding to things that were never said, or claiming that certain issues were not addressed when they actually were.
When you assume, you really just make an ass out of you.
“The bugaboo for these writers seems to be fairness.”
No, their main bugaboo is government. You actually have a lot in common with these guys, except they like government even less than you do.
“Why don’t they just say what they mean? Why don’t they just say they think it would be better if the lives of people were controlled so that we all get the same stuff, are paid the same amount for work, are given the same size house, are awarded the same vacation each year?”
Oh dear Jesus. This is absolutely ridiculous. You literally did not read past the first three paragraphs of my review, and you don’t see anything wrong with making such absurd, uninformed judgments? THESE PEOPLE DON’T EVEN BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD EXIST, Tina. They don’t believe in controlling ANYBODY. They don’t believe in taxation, regulations, health codes, police, social welfare, or subsidies of any kind. That’s what “free market anarchism” means.
I don’t know why you feel entitled to make snap judgments about people like this. Why are you so PROUD of choosing not to inform yourself before you make untrue statements?
“I have made the case for a government”
And that alone makes you less free market than these guys!
“I won’t be dissuaded from support of freedom and limited government by any suggestion to control outcomes. Tyranny was the motivation behind the establishment of a free America! Control of outcomes is tyranny.”
You are no longer responding to anything in the review you’re attempting to respond to. You’re literally just making stuff up. I don’t understand why. Is it just more entertaining for you to imagine anyone who disagrees with you as a monster? Do you have a Don Quixote complex? Is it too much of a bore to actually read the opinions of those who disagree with you before responding to them?
“A free market is a market in which individuals and companies can arrange their business dealings, their buying and selling, between themselves unencumbered by government intervention/participation.”
Again, that’s exactly what the book I reviewed supports. Unlike you, they don’t make excuses for government subsidies to big business.
“I admit I have not read the book and I am reacting to just a few sentences”
But you’re not even reacting to just a few sentences. You’re reacting to a whole philosophy that was never suggested in my review, which you assumed the authors had, even though the rest of my review clearly explained that their views are the exact opposite of those you attributed to them. It’s one thing to choose not to read a long comment, it’s quite another to make up stuff that just isn’t there and respond to that instead.
“but its difficult to move on when the bugaboo for these writers seems to be unfairness and capitalism (As they believe it exists) the reason for it.”
You’re the one with the irrational “bugaboo;” you imagined these guys as big government statists based on nothing but your own biases.
“but it also means freedom from special interest pressures that use government as a hammer against others as a means of furthering causes.”
But you have no problem with that when the special interests involved are big corporations.
“May I suggest you bring them up, one at a time, for discussion? Asking our readers to comment randomly on the content of a book length piece is asking too much.”
I was simply asking for responses to the review, not necessarily the book itself; I don’t expect everyone to go out and buy it right away, I was just trying to introduce a new perspective into the discussion. We get so bogged down in conservative v. liberal here that we often forget there are other perspectives (I’m guilty of that too). You and Jack have posted book reviews here before, so I didn’t think I was asking too much of your readers by posting it. But you didn’t even get past the third paragraph, so obviously I was asking too much of you; I will lower my expectations accordingly.
I will try and find some specific articles online and submit them. Here is the link to the website again if you want to browse:
http://c4ss.org/
“What power is awarded Walmart by the government?”
See above.
“Well if it is wrong, and it isn’t, then unlimited cash donations from the University of California system is wrong…or cash from the SEIU is wrong!”
Yes, I believe I said that already.
“The Supreme Court found that money is speech and in its ruling leveled the playing field!”
I’ve asked you to explain how that’s true. I showed you that before the ruling, unions and corporations were still held to the same standard, and that that standard has been lowered for both of them.
I really, really don’t see what’s so hard about reading my comments before you respond to them.
“I have posted articles or made comments on several alternative tax plans. I believe all of them would eliminate all loopholes. Its been so long since the idea has been seriously discussed I haven’t kept up with the particulars and I wouldn’t favor one over another at this point…politicians have a way of changing things in disturbing and disruptive ways.”
A picture of this comment should be placed in the dictionary under the definition of “mealy-mouthed.” You still refuse to name a single loophole that you want closed. That proves that your concern is not genuine. “Simplifying the tax code” is code for “Lower taxes on the rich while raising them for the poor.”
“That may be true but it isn’t the purpose for a lower rate. The purpose is to stimulate business and the creation of jobs, and that benefits everyone.”
Jobs are created by demand. The lower rate on capital gains mostly helps the rich, and thus does not stimulate demand. It makes no sense to tax investment lower than work. That is a blatant privileging of the owners of capital over workers.
“It is also true that low income earners don’t pay any income tax and many of them get cash back with the earned income tax credit. Are you as negative on that “loophole” as you are on lowered rates on investment income?”
You’re asking me if I’m as negative about a tax loophole that benefits the poor as I am about a tax loophole that benefits the rich.
No, I am not, and I never will be.
Conversely, it is true that you are FAR more negative about tax loopholes and subsidies that benefit the poor than tax loopholes and subsidies that benefit the rich.
That, to me, is highly immoral.
Chris: “You’re turned off because they used a definition of the word you don’t like.”
It’s not that I don’t like it, Chris. It’s that I find it to be utter nonsense!
This isn’t a definition of capitalism. It is an opinion about capitalism. It is an attitude toward people with money!
“OK, you admit you didn’t read my entire review”
I said I was turned off from the get go!
THESE PEOPLE DON’T EVEN BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD EXIST
Even more reason for me to avoid reading. I don’t have the least bit of interest in reading what an anarchist says about capitalism or the free market. Chaos is not something this mama bear would champion as an ideal. Anarchy is, as far as I’m concerned, an idea embraced by an underdeveloped mind…an adolescent mind lacking in experience and responsibility or obligation.
Your/their characterization of the motivations and practices of Walmart are typical of such as these.
“you imagined these guys as big government statists based on nothing but your own biases.”
No! Based on the definition and this statement that you made:
Fairness can only be attempted through control!
“Simplifying the tax code” is code for “Lower taxes on the rich while raising them for the poor.”
Have you noticed that people don’t have jobs Chris? Have you noticed that people are spending more on food and energy today? Have you noticed that business people are reluctant to engage in business?
Do you think it might be because the government taxes us too much, spends too much of all of the money we make and invest, and generally serves itself rather than the citizens of this country?
The problem with you is you are not fully developed. You are still finding your way. That’s why you are fascinated by things these anarchists suggest. Neither you, nor apparently they, have the slightest idea what you’re talking about and you delight in pretending you do.
No control is control, Chris. It is an attempt to keep from being held to account by anyone or anything. It is an attempt to be free of responsibility and obligation. it is to disengage from the world. That is not freedom it is an imprisonment of the mind.
“But you didn’t even get past the third paragraph”
Because you failed to inspire further reading, as I wrote.
“Simplifying the tax code” is code for “Lower taxes on the rich while raising them for the poor.”
What do you suggest?
“Jobs are created by demand. The lower rate on capital gains mostly helps the rich, and thus does not stimulate demand.”
So if I and a lot of other people go out to the stores here in Chico and we tell the store owners that we really want stuff that will give them all the incentive they need to go buy stuff hoping were serious and will come back to buy…right?
What allows people to buy?
“The lower rate on capital gains mostly helps the rich”
To do what? The rich don’t need money, by definition. What possible value could the lower rates bring to people who don’t need money?
How about the opportunity to invest. Sure the end result is that more money is made but not out of need…out of participation…the pursuit of happiness…seeing that money build something…working toward a positive end.
“That is a blatant privileging of the owners of capital over workers.”
Boo hoo! And…what utter horse hockey!
People with money have privilege, so what? You have an opportunity to make money and grow money into wealth. What is the problem? You assume that everyone who has wealth was handed it and spends their every waking moment lording it over the poor.
Sorry…most people have worked for it! Most have built their wealth starting from nothing.
Your remark reminds me that your fascination with the anarchists is fairness. You want to make the world fair. You resent people with money and your attitude runs your politics.
“No, I am not, and I never will be.”
Because you think you have the moral authority, or should have, to take from the rich to give to the poor to make things fair.
Seems my assumptions about you, if not the authors of the book, were right on the money.
“Conversely, it is true that you are FAR more negative about tax loopholes and subsidies that benefit the poor than tax loopholes and subsidies that benefit the rich”
See how much better you feel when you think you have defined me as cruel. What an a$$hole!
Here’s what I think:
I think we were are all lucky enough to have been born in America, a nation of freedom and opportunity. I think that anyone who has the desire can achieve great things in this country, all it takes is a little initiative and some hard work. Wealth is something anyone can create for himself. Our nation is filled with rags to riches stories…and of gradual wealth building.
I think that sitting around feeling resentful about the success of others or about fairness is a waste of time.
I think that some individuals lack ambition and would rather work for someone else than take on the responsibility themselves. Given that they should expect that advancing will depend on learning and working hard and that compensation will be determined by what the market will bear and the boss is willing to pay. The bosses willingness to take the responsibility gives him that right.
I think the poor are given all the help they need in an education through grade twelve. If they apply themselves and graduate they can go into the world and devise a plan for making a life. If they are smart they will look for ways to improve their situation.
I think redistribution is immoral and I think the people who initiate it are using the poor to elevate and enrich themselves.
I think government at the federal level should be dismantled and brought back to a body that has limited power and reflects the Constitution’s call for defense of the nation, diplomatic concerns, and the settling of disputes between the states.
I think the tax code is a complex mess and should be eliminated and replaced by a simple flat tax or consumption tax.
Last but not least I think I am done. I’ve spent more time on this than I should have.
Tina: “Even more reason for me to avoid reading. I don’t have the least bit of interest in reading what an anarchist says about capitalism or the free market. Chaos is not something this mama bear would champion as an ideal. Anarchy is, as far as I’m concerned, an idea embraced by an underdeveloped mind…an adolescent mind lacking in experience and responsibility or obligation.”
I’m going to be real with you: your mind is not as “developed” as the writers of the book we’re discussing, unless by “developed” you mean “narrow, rigid, prejudiced, and lacking in critical thinking ability.” You’re just not as smart as them, at all.
You refuse to honestly engage with any ideas which might challenge your own. That is not a sign of a developed mind. You constantly make bad arguments, commit logical fallacies, and display blatant hypocrisy. You single out the poor in your arguments about government help, completely ignoring the many ways government helps the rich. Your ideology is totally inconsistent. Worst of all, you show pride in your ignorance. Take this gem, for instance:
“So if I and a lot of other people go out to the stores here in Chico and we tell the store owners that we really want stuff that will give them all the incentive they need to go buy stuff hoping were serious and will come back to buy…right?”
Did you actually think this was an intelligent thing to say when you said it? Why would you think basically admitting you don’t even know what demand IS would be an impressive argument?
I posted that review because I thought some people here may want a different perspective. Clearly that was a total waste. You’re not even willing to read something that might challenge your biases, let alone intelligent enough to understand it.
“I’ve spent more time on this than I should have.”
Time, certainly. Unfortunately, you spent zero thought.
Sorry Chris ,but MY post about your use of negative belittlement toward posters (in general)have had “nothing to do with this post about Wal Mart” at all! It is just disquieting to see you use demeaning insults toward any person with view’s that differ from yours. My post about “Idiots” was a attempt to get your attention that your overusing insults again.
You may have read my post but failed to comprehend (on as high a level as you feel we all need to function), the core of my post.
My Point is you do not need to bully people into what you would have them accept. A person of less hubris would have realized that a while back.
For some of us, this blog is a outlet to vent, discuss personal opinions realize how current events might effect us, not a “talk smack” classroom dictated by a single train of thought, that achieves nothing toward any tolerant discussion.
You can maintain the frolic of vicious verbal insults attempting to override Tina’s(or any ones)posts with your intentionally negative insults, which only cause people to dismiss your(political) based points of view, which are unendurable at best to most of us with the “less of Government need” toward self-sufficiency.
Really, it’s your style of verbal put downs that was all I have been commenting about.
Chris: “your mind is not as “developed” as the writers of the book we’re discussing, unless by “developed” you mean “narrow, rigid, prejudiced, and lacking in critical thinking ability.” You’re just not as smart as them, at all.”
If that is as “real” as you can get I’m not worried.
“You refuse to honestly engage with any ideas which might challenge your own.”
I’ve spend a heck of a lot of my precious time engaging with you on Post Scripts so obviously that statement is patently false.
“You single out the poor in your arguments about government help, completely ignoring the many ways government helps the rich.”
This statement shows that you have failed to get anything I have ever said about either. You are stuck in victim mentality that pits classes against each other. You are unable to consider that my thoughts about the poor are sympathetic because you believe redistribution is the way to “help” them or to equalize outcomes. You are thinking small Chris. You don’t really give a crap about the poor. You are content to have them settle for crumbs from the tables of the wealthy that government scoops up. You are willing to have them settle for being lesser. Your so-called “intellect” is phony. Your responses to information and ideas is purely emotional and like a typical child, when you are confronted with disagreement you strike out personally.
“Did you actually think this was an intelligent thing to say when you said it.”
No. I thought it was an absurd way to demonstrate how stupid your position is.
People have a tough time demanding products and services when they don’t have jobs, their dollars have been devalued, the cost of goods and services have gone up and the powers that be can’t think of anything besides redistribution, higher taxes on wealth producers, and government spending as a solution.
We are in the sixth year now of the Keynesian model and the result is a complete disaster! One third of the population isn’t participating in the work force…redistribution and money printing didn’t stimulate the economy…how the he77 can you still think demand is a silver bullet?
“you don’t even know what demand IS”
What I know is that it is a Keynesian theory that asserts government spending will stimulate the economy…redistribution…will get an economy moving. I know that this theory did not work under Carter and it did not pull us out of the Great Depression…in fact it caused the depression to last longer. I know it doesn’t work because I am willing to learn from history! I know it doesn’t work because under that policy wealth is not created. I know that to stimulate something means to excite it. I know demand side is a downer! It excites nothing…no new wealth is introduced into the market. Government is simply taking money from one pocket and putting it in another. (And creating debt in the process) I know Democrats like it because it lets them play the class envy game…for votes and power…a game that appeals to you since you see yourself as a victim/recipient. I know that supply side economics does work and has worked under Presidents of both parties so it isn’t a partisan thing. I also know that you refuse to learn this lesson even though you have witnessed the result of demand side economics in the last five years and are capable of reading the history (Much of which we have written about here). I know you are capable of understanding the profound success we experience when supply side economics is utilized. I know that you refuse to get it. I don’t know why and would not presume to decide for you. I know that you can’t stand the thought that someone has wealth and you can’t tap into it. I know that you don’t mind theft, Chris, as long as you (the poor) benefit! I know that is a very low position to take and will never bring you, or them, success.
“I posted that review because I thought some people here may want a different perspective.”
And when no one responded in comments you didn’t get that your review did not generate any interest?
“You’re not even willing to read something that might challenge your biases”
You might want to read that sentence again.
Who the he77 are you to decide what I should read, what I need to consider, or for that matter that I have biases that you need to “fix”?
Most of the time I indulge you because you are young. You have no respect for ideas other than your own, or the fact that some of the people you engage here have already thought about the things you find so damned profound. You see yourself not as one of a group in discussion but as one who has come to straighten people out. Sorry kid, we prefer to handle our own “biases” in our own way. (Hint: Your approach is extremely off putting)
How’s that for “real”?
From The Daily Caller, “Psychologist teaches mainstream Americans how to beat liberals at their own game:”
“For Dr. Timothy Daughtry, a clinical psychologist who has co-authored a book for mainstream Americans, too many citizens think they have done their civic duty if they show up to vote and return to their normal lives.
He believes that a historic debate is being played out about whether Americans are citizens or subjects of their government.
Conservatives are on defense too much to succeed, he thinks, but also believes that help is on the way as citizens are waking up to the problems caused by both political parties.
“We have to make the left start defending socialism instead of us defending liberty,” Daughtry said.
Mainstream America started waking up when Republicans and Democrats in Washington embracing bailouts, which he says “fundamentally struck Americans as wrong.”
Then, the widespread unpopularity of Obamacare became surprisingly irrelevant to a government that “rammed it through anyway.”
Read more: (video)http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/12/psychologist-teaches-mainstream-americans-how-to-beat-liberals-at-their-own-game-video/#ixzz2qJ0lP5pF
Tina, Harold–you have a point. I have been rude and resorted to insults here, and for that I apologize.
I’ll respond further later.
Thank you Chris. I look forward to further discussions.
Peggy isn’t it wonderful to know that Americans are waking up…and catching up! Those of us that have been ringing the warning bells for awhile sure look forward to the help.
Yes it is. I honestly didn’t think it would happen as big as it seems to be.
Did you hear McCain was even censured by Arizona Republicans? And Graham was censured for the second time last Oct.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2014/01/13/john-mccain-censured-byhis-own-party-n1777822
http://www.fitsnews.com/2013/10/08/lindsey-graham-censured-again/
ObamaCare woke up the “sleeping giant” and pigs are flying.
Re #47 Chris : Tina, Harold–you have a point. I have been rude and resorted to insults here, and for that I apologize.
Harold and Tina get it, however nothing will change on Chris’ part. He is the progressive disease. There is no cure except a good dose of reality. Not gonna happen. Not even the liar-in-chief has had an effect. Sad.