The headline says, “President Obama needs to focus on jobs,” but the 624 words of this latest Seattle Times editorial can be summed up in this single paragraph:
The time, energy and political capital Obama invested in creation of a national health plan would have been better spent on promoting job creation and helping U.S. employers compete internationally.
What’s that, the fourth time in as many weeks the Times has advocated scuttling health care reform, each time using jobs as the main rationale?
And how exactly would Obama create more jobs? Here’s an idea: raise taxes on the rich and spend the money on a massive investment in public infrastructure, like building rail and green energy production, or maybe something less controversial like making a dent in the trillion dollars worth of deferred maintenance and investment in our aging drinking water and sewage treatment infrastructure?
Nah… that would require tax increases, and we all know how the Times feels about that.
So come on, Team Blethen… let’s hear some suggestions of your own on how a president might create jobs.
Goldy–
Ummmmmmmmm…most the world is not of the Marxist ilk of the Atheist Progressive Movement you and the messiah Obam-Mao worship.
You have blown your “leadership” opportunity with your endless bigger government dogma.
Get a job.
Goldy, the answer to all questions pertaining to economics regardless of context is lower taxes. Also too works well on athletes foot and crabgrass.
Well Cuba, North Korea, Japan, Canada and Europe aside, I guess we should follow the example of libertarian paradises like Somalia.
Given how violent this country often is, it would seem we have been for a long time.
You pack heat Klyn?
Mr. Cynical is right. Everyone knows that we got out of the depression thru lower taxes and smaller government….fortunately we had the right crew in place through the 1930s and the early 1940s and they single mindedly reduced taxes, debt, size of government, and this is what got us out of the depression and into the long boom period of 1945-1970.
And you know Canada, they’re matching us in gdp per capita now. Hey, good work. Thank god they eliminated their national health care and reduced their taxes and social programs, that’s how they did it!
Seriously the people like cynical who think obama is mao and who think that sweden and taxes are marxist are so mentally defective and ignorant, it’s like debating with … I don’t know, maybe a cultish mentally disabled … cow? a slug?
Cynical, you have the mental ability of a slug. That’s it. You think Obama is Mao and Sweden is Stalinist.
did you even go to school, ever?
Yeah, what #4 said. Cynical, you’re just a braying mule. A useful braying mule mindset that will keep a Democratic Party majority for years to come.
So….thankyou for being you, and please comment fruitfully and often.
India is not socialist.
It’s amazing, people are so uninformed.
Health care reform will create jobs.
Small businesses are currently not hiring, because they cannot afford to provide health insurance.
The Blethen’s comically feudal worldview is the result of ideology steamrolled by reality.
It’s embarrassing.
@2
It is economic policies like tax cuts for the wealthy that have exacterbated the income disparity between the middle class and the people at the top of the income ladder. The gap between the rich and the middle class is as wide as its been since the 1920’s. This is irrefutable. Republican economic policies don’t benefit most Americans. The “trickle down” theory is a lie.
The amusing thing is that the Times’ own track record destroys their case. Over the last decade, especially 2001-06, they’ve gotten almost everything they’ve wanted from federal tax policy. Moreover, their main competition all but folded.
During that decade, they’ve eliminated, what? Two-thirds of their jobs?
Re 4
Many respected economists think that the FDR programs would have prolonged the Great Depression. WW2 was a statistic breaker that makes any conclusive scholarship on this impossible, though.
I can respect your point of view that government is the one and only solution to anything. I’m amused by the insecurity you show in attacking any other point of view.
Re 7
Small or large business owners hire when there is a need for staff and pay what needs paid to do so. Tax rates, insurance costs and such do drive decisions to a degree, but business demand is the real driver. Who do you think will pay for universal health care? The poor? No, it will be business owners and the wealthy. If insurance costs are limiting increased employment now wait until Obamacare.
Before Hey… spouts a lot of nonsense, I’ve lived in Europe and had friends who were business owners. The taxes are ruinous on them so that only the very largest companies can afford to keep employees full time, or people find ways to cheat on taxes. Have you lived there, or do you just jabber on about GDP this and standard of living that?
Exactly. especially rail. We need to fix up our rain lines.
why should the rich pay for everything? just curious….
how about everyone pay the same percentage, and the govt learns to live withing their means and stop wasting money.
just an idea…
This provides a thoughtful discussion on the issue Goldy raises.
@9 During that decade, they’ve eliminated, what? Two-thirds of their jobs?
And during this decade exactly how many jobs has HA created? The fact of the matter is Goldy has a highly personal stake in health care reform – forget the details of the “reform” – because he can’t make a decent living through HA. Forget hiring others, forget putting money away for his retirement, forget putting money away for his child’s college education, forget buying a house . . . forget decent health insurance, because HA, Goldy’s personal passion, can’t generate decent income for him, let alone others. Your best hope Goldy will be to find a significant – actually, a very significant – other. Ranting about the Times every other day won’t help you in that goal.
Who has the money? Not the poor and the middle class. Yet Ronnie Raygun rose taxes on them at least 10 times.
Rich have gotten WAY richer and the poor, middle class have treaded water at best in the last 30/40 years.
In the meantime we’ve let assholes get away with expensive disastrous mistakes like wars of choice.
Those who profited from the mistakes of the last 30/40 years should pay for unwinding from them. It’s that simple.
14 – You seem pretty threatened by what Goldy writes here. And if you weren’t why did you bother?
This sounds like a pitch for more tax giveaways to newspaper publishers who have done a lousy job of running their businesses.
@1 “most the world is not of the Marxist ilk of the Atheist Progressive Movement”
You’re right. You have to work damned hard to find a Marxist or Atheist these days. There aren’t very many of them in our country, thank God.
@2 “Goldy, the answer to all questions pertaining to economics regardless of context is lower taxes.”
But only for business and the rich. You never, ever, see Republicans or their lackeys (e.g., the fishwrapper) demanding tax relief for average Joes. They think wage earners should pay all the taxes. Why would any working person vote for these self-serving swine? Or, for that matter, buy their newspapers?
@9 Bingo. Give more and more to these Republicans with their hands out, and you’ll get less and less back. There’s nothing in it for you, only for them. Republicans don’t believe in sharing.
@10 “Many respected economists think that the FDR programs would have prolonged the Great Depression.”
Name one.
“I can respect your point of view that government is the one and only solution to anything.”
Spare yourself the trouble, because there is no such point of view, and no one claims that. This is your own concoction, and represents the point of view of absolutely nobody.
@15…oh, I get it….
anybody who has done well for themselves over the last 30/40 years, has merely “profited from the mistakes of the last 30/40 years”
so that is how you define sucess….very interesting. I guess hard work has nothing to do with it.
I guess that is why you are such a jealous loser.
@10 “Small or large business owners hire when there is a need for staff and pay what needs paid to do so.”
And when consumers don’t have jobs or income there is no one for businesses to sell their goods and services to — a point that neither you, the other trolls, Frank Blethen, or the Republican Party comprehened.
So go ahead, cheap labor conservatives, keep outsourcing jobs and laying people off and slashing wages and dumping all the taxes on wage earners. Do that, and you’ll end up broke with the rest of us.
@10 “Who do you think will pay for universal health care?”
How’s this for a plan: The people who get the health care. I like that better than the current Republican status quo, which is, I not only have to pay for my own health care but also for all the freeloaders who clog ERs, Hill-Burton hospitals, and tax-supported community clinics.
When Rep. Inslee held his health care townhall, he said this freeloading costs each of us $1,300 a year in higher health insurance premiums. Only stupid people like you are in favor of the status quo.
@10 (continued) If you could afford to live in Europe, then you’re not hurting, and your whining doesn’t move me. I’ve never even been to Europe.
@12 “how about everyone pay the same percentage”
I’m for that! Let’s start with this Washington. The poor pay 17.5% of their income in state/local taxes, the rich 3%. Let’s make that even-steven. Are you on board?
So this is how the Democrat and unions crookery works:
I am non-union and have a “gold plated” health insurance plan…lets call it “A+”
My buddy is a union person with the exact same “A+” plan.
here is the catch….I have to pay a huge tax on my plan, but he doesnt.
How the fuck is that legal? This the type of poitical pay-off that should be illegal – from all parties.
fucking crooks in the govt – all they do is take from the people who work hard and give it away to the fucking lazy assholes who sit on their ass all day and do nothing.
@14 It’s amazing how totally full of shit you people are. Goldy pays for his own health insurance with money he earns himself with his own hard work. Whether that money comes from HA or somewhere else is immaterial. You people argue that everyone should be self-sufficient. Well, Goldy is self-sufficient. He doesn’t depend on a big corporate employer, and he sure as hell doesn’t depend on the government. Goldy is as entrepreneurial as they come. Comments like this demonstrate how utterly shallow and hypocritical you people are.
You know what? If we’re talking about raising taxes accross the board to pay for much needed transportation infrastructure repairs I’m okay with that. Throwing money at ‘shovel ready’ projects is wasted money mostly. They are shovel ready because they were so low priority no one funded them. If the 520 bridge needs work I gaurantee money will be found. If the Mountain Loop Highway, not so much. The state might put it on a wish list for the remote contingency that it can be done sometime, but they won’t fund it because it doesn’t matter.
Alternatively if the poor are willing to give up services paid for by the wealthy so that transportation can be paid for I’m okay with that.
What you folks want is different. You want the top percent of wage earners already paying 60% of gross federal revenue to pay even more. You want a free ride. You get the highways to drive your cars on and someone else pays. You get universal health care paid for by someone else. You want all the benefits of citizenship paid for by a small minority at the top while you pay nothing.
That is childish. It is the political philosophy of a 6 year old.
@22 You don’t get anything. You’re dumber than a rock.
@26…YEP! EVERYONE pays ONE SINGLE TAX – PERIOD.
ALL other taxes are immediately revoked. No sales tax, no property tax, no tax on my fucking phone bill, NOTHING!
one income tax percentage for everyone. I dont give a fuck if you only made $10 in 2009, you are going to pay the same percentage as the guy who made $1 million.
end of story, end of debate. That is fair, and everyone contributes.
If you dont like, move the fuck away to North Korea or Cuba.
@30…STFU you nazi motherfucker. go back to jerking off to old Hitler and Goebbels speeches.
@27 If Republicans had played ball, they could have gotten things for their constituents. Instead, they picked up their marbles and stalked off the playground, leaving you empty-handed. Why do you vote for a party that does such a shitty job of representing you?
Re 21
With respect, Roger, I imagine Hey… can speak for himself. Poorly, but he can in a way. This was a specific comment aimed at him, not at progressives in general.
@34 This is a public forum, so stuff it. Anything anyone posts here is fair game for everyone.
@33…THAT kind of thought process is exactly why party partisans should be strung up.
it is also why political parties of all types should be illegal.
assholes like you care more about your party than the nation….you are a cancer.
it also proves what an empty headed idiot you are…based upon your post, all non-union people are republican, and all union people are democrat.
does your brain actually function, or has it just turned to shit?
@32 http://tinyurl.com/cp8yqd
Re 35
Of course you can respond to anyone you like. I just don’t see why you would. The context was clear and it makes no sense to make a specific statement general and respond accordingly.
@36 “it is also why political parties of all types should be illegal”
How are you going to do that, pray tell? The Framers of the Constitution opposed parties. But the ink was hardly dry on that document when they themselves formed parties. And how do you choose candidates, formulate platforms, and raise money for campaigns without some sort of organization?
“assholes like you care more about your party than the nation….you are a cancer”
That’s your opinion; and opinions are like assholes, everybody’s got one.
“it also proves what an empty headed idiot you are…based upon your post, all non-union people are republican, and all union people are democrat”
No, it proves what an empty headed idiot you are, because I never said that. Those are your words, not mine.
“does your brain actually function, or has it just turned to shit”
I have a rabbit brain. You have a rock brain.
Re 33
So equal treatment under the law only applies to the party in power?
@38 Among the many things you don’t understand, you don’t understand teamwork. We’re a team here. We’ve got each other’s backs. I look out for my friends. If you don’t, then either you have no friends, or you’re a lousy friend.
@40 I don’t see any relevance to #33. It’s nonresponsive, so there’s no reason to reply.
Re 28
Goldy pays for this site. He maintains it at presumably with a lot of time and effort. Granted his advertising strategy probably calls for a vibrant exchange of views bordering on the burlesque, there is the duty due a host.
I don’t attack the man himself, but will argue with his views. It seems in bad taste to walk into a mans’ living room and call him names to me.
@43 Again, I don’t see any relevance of these comments to what was posted at #28. Is English your second language? You don’t seem to comprehend what I said in my comments.
Re 42
I see. So because Union thugs were invited to attend legislative talks they had no real business with they receive one level of taxation. Because the other side was barred from these talks they receive a different level on the exact same taxed item. This isn’t unequal treatment under law? Wow.
Well, the trolls are here, and they bring to the table the usual:
– meaningless snark toward liberals
– no policy suggestions whatsoever
Troll challenge:
Name a measure to create jobs that was NOT something done during the Bush/Cheney/GOP majority years. Tax cuts for the rich? Off the table. Capital gains tax cut? Off the table. Cutting regulations? Off the table. What have you got?
Oh, and please remember that 20% of Washington workers are employed by federal, state, and local government. throwing them out of work does NTO count as “creating jobs.”
You guys DO know that the entire Bush presidency was the most anemic job growth since we started keeping records in 1939, right? Bush created three million net jobs, Clinton 22 million. And of course there were those pesky 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office. (Source: Wall Street Journal staff)
So have at it.
Re 44
For once in a way I was agreeing with you Rog. Sorry to throw you off base.
Re 41
Yes I stick up for my friends. But if one of them had an affair I wouldn’t write a precis on the defensibility of adultery. If one of them said something stupid I wouldn’t favorably compare him to Winston Churchill.
Americans have traditionally had more tolerance for economic inequality than have citizens of other nations; de Tocqueville even noted that phenomenon. What has always fed that tolerance is the notion that if we keep our noses clean and work hard, we’ll end up better off than our parents did. That notion is starting to crumble and the generation now hitting adulthood most certainly cannot expect to have it better than earlier generations. Part of the reason that notion is starting to crumble is that Americans are starting to recognize that our economic system more often rewards luck than it does hard work. Our system is skewed toward the wealthy, and playing by the rules and working hard often just leads to bankruptcy.
Cutting taxes even more for corporate entities and the wealthy, and not providing healthcare to all, is just going to create greater inequality in this nation. We’ll see how much tolerance for such inequality younger generations will have as they recognize the need to reduce their expectations.
@45 Republicans had an opportunity to participate in the drafting of a bipartisan health care reform. Their strategy was to boycott the process in an attempt to block any reform at all. Fine. But when they did that, they gave up their seat at the table, and had to expect the Democrats to proceed without them. If this is purely Democratic legislation that considers the input only of Democratic interest groups, it’s because that’s what Republicans chose for themselves. If you have a complaint about it, bitch to the GOP, because they are solely responsible for this state of affairs. There’s nothing Democrats can do about it. Given that Republicans refused to participate in this legislation, Democrats have no choice but to pass it without their input or support.
Small companies create jobs, but they’re the ones currently priced out of the corporate health insurance market.
Large companies cut jobs – ever heard of a merger that created jobs? Time to stop subsidizing large companies. Why does Boeing need a quarter billion in subsidized loans from S.C.? If they were profitable they could get their own loans.
Re 46
“Well, the trolls are here, and they bring to the table the usual:
– meaningless snark toward liberals
– no policy suggestions whatsoever”
Actually since you’re party locks Republicans out of all policy discussion this is the fault of your president and party.
At an individual level it isn’t even true. The snark comment must be irony for instance as liberals use ‘meaningless snark’ as a standard deflection technique when they can’t answer an argument.
And I did offer a policy suggestion at 29. No takers so far…
Re 49
Great! So maybe Mexican nationals immigrating here can have their rights taken if they don’t happen to have a seat at the table?
How about taking away the rights of green eyed people (the bastards) because no green eyed legislators happen to be in the Senate?
You’re an attorney. You know better.
@47(1) Who do you claim attacked Goldy or called him names? I don’t understand that comment.
@47(2) Affair? Adultery? Churchill? I have no idea what you’re talking about. Did I miss something?
@52 You have got to be the most illogical and unfocused troll on this blog. You’re posting nonsensical babble.
@51 In addition to being a rambling idiot, you’re a liar. Republicans weren’t locked out of health care legislation. They boycotted it.
Your thesis seems to be that Republicans, who haven’t supplied a single vote for this legislation, and have publicly sworn to pull out all the stops to defeat it, should be invited to attend Democratic strategy sessions. That’s bullshit.
If the Democrats did invite them to these meetings, the Republicans would abuse the invitation by doing everything they could to delay, stall, hinder, and prevent passage of this legislation. We’d have to be mighty stupid to give them an opportunity like that. Especially in return for nothing.
Well, it has the FORM of an idea.
Of course, no one is proposing it, it could never be enacted, and if by soem Divine intervention it were, it were it would be amended for someone’s favorite tax break immediately. If Republicans are in power, the tax breaks that are immediately passed will be theirs. But of course, because they have a whole raft of tax preferences THEY favor, they’ll never vote in your fantasy.
Your idealism is cute but stupider than even real Republican policies. Na Ga Ha.
goebbels rabbit is still stuck on his R vs D slant….maybe SOMEDAY we will finally decide to think as Americans, rather than members of political parties.
im out…gonna go crank up the CO machine because I love globull worming.
Re 48
Breathtaking ignorance is on display here.
“Americans have traditionally had more tolerance for economic inequality than have citizens of other nations.”
Yes, it’s called freedom. That means the freedom to fail as well as to succeed.
“What has always fed that tolerance is the notion that if we keep our noses clean and work hard, we’ll end up better off than our parents did.”
Yes, exactly.
“That notion is starting to crumble and the generation now hitting adulthood most certainly cannot expect to have it better than earlier generations.”
The standard liberal line. America sucks and its’ best days are behind it.
“Part of the reason that notion is starting to crumble is that Americans are starting to recognize that our economic system more often rewards luck than it does hard work.”
I try to avoid profanity. This is taxing that effort. This statement is purest applesauce. Luck happens to all of us. Some of us take advantage, some don’t. It’s what a man does with fortune or misfortune that is telling, not whether he has it.
“Our system is skewed toward the wealthy, and playing by the rules and working hard often just leads to bankruptcy.”
Not worth responding to, this is the standard progressive “I hate the wealthy because I’m jealous” nonsense.
@57 We’ll think like “Americans” when you assholes do. A complaint about partisanship, coming from the likes of you, is like Ted Bundy complaining about crime in his neighborhood. For further information, see #37 above.
Re 55
Making it simple for someone for whom this should be unneccessary-
Just because a group isn’t represented doesn’t mean one set of law applies to them and another to the group that is. That is prohibited by the Constitution.
Clear enough?
@58 “Breathtaking ignorance is on display here.”
Yes, yours.
@60 What’s clear is that you don’t have a fucking clue what’s in the proposed legislation.
proud @ 48
Exactly.
As Adam Smith taught us, labor is the source of all wealth.
Progressive policies emphasize wealth creation.
Plutocrats, who call themselves conservatives, favor wealth transfer. What you and I would call “theft”, but since it’s official policy, it’s called “free market capitalism”.
lost @ 60
It’s kind of tough to engage you in conversation.
Each new thread is a complete do over, as though we’ve never talked about any of this stuff before.
And every now and then you’ll bail with a “gee, no one’s gonna convince me with facts, and I’ve got work do to, see ya!”
I expect Mr Cynical, Empty Suit, Stammer, and Puddy to just make shit up to start a fight.
I was kind of hoping that you were different.
lost @ 58
Talk about standard ideological pap . . . All you are doing is spewing the same rightwing rot we’ve been hearing for generations. What I posted above is, simply, true. Wages have been flat in this country since the 1970s. Many economists expect that the generation now hitting adulthood will see wages actually go down. Polls suggest Americans are in fact more apt to believe that luck propels getting ahead than does hard work.
Corporate bottom lines go up because of technological innovations and improvement and because they’re shipping jobs overseas. Yet folks like you want their taxes to be reduced. How fair is that when one hospitalization can send a middle class family to bankruptcy court?
I believe in hard work (hell, I’m all alone here at the office this afternoon). I believe in playing by the rules. I don’t believe America’s best days are behind it, and I don’t hate the rich. I do, however, believe in recognizing reality, playing fairly, and rejecting tired, meaningless dogma. Your dogma, lost, does not pass the smell test anymore. Keep spewing it while the world leaves you behind. All you’ve got is ideology; evidence is beyond your comprehension.
You’re right in your first sentence and wrong in the second and third.
Without labor my business would fail. But most of the men working for me, while admirable craftsmen, have no conception of ambition or vision beyond the next month or year. This is the difference. I can’t instil this in these men. They simply don’t have it and don’t want it.
So yes labor may be the source of wealth, just as the Columbia may be the source of electricity. It still requires someone who knows how to harness that labor.
Your final sentence is interesting to me. I conceive the theft to be the other direction. Those people who made good by the application and intelligence they showed deserve to be rewarded. Joe Sixpack has all the reward he should expect for the investment in the job he made.
Re 65
Some of what you’re talking about can be addressed without radical changes. If taxes or policy encourage shipping jobs overseas make it more difficult. Close the tax loopholes. Find ways to make shipping jobs more trouble than it’s worth. If the WTO or NAFTA make this difficult pull out of them.
If you’re at your office today you know the following- For every 100 people who apply for jobs to me perhaps 20 of them have the skill and work ethic my clients deserve. Of these maybe 2 have any management ability. This isn’t because I’m trying to oppress them or ruin their lives. This isn’t because I’m too demanding. I hear this from all my suppliers and subcontractors. It is simply the way it is. It is human nature. You can dislike it if you want.
lost @ 66
Sounds like you’re general contractor. That’s pretty cool. Being a desk jockey, I often envy the trades.
I make a distinction between entrepreneurs and capitalists.
As a GC, you’re taking a risk, you deserve every penny you make.
But you’re not going to get crazy rich as a contractor. The big money is for the finance types, cronies, and war profiteers. The capitalists.
Their investment is lobbying. Resulting in rules that transfer wealth to themselves. Not building stuff. Not creating wealth.
That is what I call theft.
One of the great conservative cons is convincing the medium and small business owners that their self-interest is tied to the well-being of mega corps.
For example, tell the family farmers how more pork for ADM and Monsanto will help them. And yet that demographic keeps voting for the people screwing them. Presumably because of shared “family values”.
Re 64
I’m admittedly a political geek and enjoy this kind of thing, obviously.
But sometimes I actually do have a life to live outside of HA. Call it bailing if you like.
Re 68
I shop locally as much as possible because I want good jobs in my community. I avoid Walmart and Target for the same reasons.
I know my lot isn’t linked to that of the transnational corporations. I know that these corporations are often more harmful than good to economies.
But there are ways of dealing with this that don’t involve remaking our entire economy. Regulations on where a corporation is based on how it is taxed are one thing. Asking anyone who happens to have done well to be punished for it quite another.
lost @ 67
I don’t know what your line of work is, but we certainly have no shortage of outstanding and ambitious candidates when we’re hiring. The trouble is having to cull those who are clearly qualified, not in having to pick someone who is not likely to succeed. When people who are very capable, hardworking, and ambitious can’t find suitable work, paradigms about how to get ahead start shifting. I think that such shifting is already well underway.
“But most of the men working for me, while admirable craftsmen, have no conception of ambition or vision beyond the next month or year.”
Pure. Unadulterated. Horsepucky.
What next? You gonna’ go all Galt on us? The stink of your unbridled narcissism is overpowering.
“Asking anyone who happens to have done well to be punished for it quite another.”
This overlooks the rules set up by government that encourage certain behaviors (i.e., “success”) over others. Since the rules favor those that have, why shouldn’t they pay?
Furthermore, there is nobody posting here advocating “remaking our entire economy” whatever that means. So knock off the hyperbole.
Re 72
Ya know what, you’d do better confining your comments to what you know something about. I’ve worked in professional and trade environments and found little difference in this regard.
Ask most people where they see themselves in 2 years you’ll get a thoughtful look. Ask about their 5 year goals you’ll get a baffled one. Ask about how they see retirement you’ll get a blank stare.
Yes, I’ve read Rand. Didn’t think much of her, to be honest. Life is more nuanced than she portrays it. It’s interesting though that you see success as a matter of luck for which the recipients owe society a tariff. Now that is “Pure. Unadulterated. Horsepucky.”
And don’t bother with the abuse. I’d have to care what you think for it to matter.
Re 73
And you’d rather have a government that encourages certain behaviors (ie “failure”) ?over others
lost @ 74: “Ask most people where they see themselves in 2 years you’ll get a thoughtful look. Ask about their 5 year goals you’ll get a baffled one. Ask about how they see retirement you’ll get a blank stare.”
Thanks, lost, you’re actually proving my point. The future is frightening to most Americans at the moment, and the present presents enough of a struggle that asking them how they see the future produces bafflement. Such bafflement does not reflect a lack of goals, ambition, or sense of responsibility. Not by a long shot. Little recommendation to you: don’t go into social psychology.
lost @ 75
All policies choose winners and losers.
I’m curious about something: Do you provide health insurance for your people?
If so, have you reviewed the portions of the senate healthcare reform bill that helps small businesses?
I estimate that my health insurance costs $6,000/year. Copays, meds, and deductibles add another $1,500.
What the difference does it make if I (and my employer) pays that money to the government vs an insurance company?
@64 “It’s kind of tough to engage you in conversation.”
It sure is. She’s all over the map.
@66 Well, let’s see. All of America’s wage earners put together currently get a little over 40% of our nation’s economic output, and the small coterie that owns the capital get a bit under 60%. And you think you’re being ripped off by the working class?
@67 “If taxes or policy encourage shipping jobs overseas make it more difficult. Close the tax loopholes.”
Well, to do that, you have to vote for Democrats — and that’s our point.
@67 I think you have an inflated opinion of what management ability is worth. Without workers, managers produce nothing. I think you’re simply unwilling, for selfish reasons, to acknowledge how badly our economic system is failing America’s workers.
And that’s before considering how bad the management of our banking system and many of our major businesses has been recently.
@68 Not exactly. He said he buys houses, fixes them up, and resells them. That’s not exactly flipping, but it’s not general contracting either, it’s a specialized way of playing the real estate market in that it very much depends on finding properties at distressed prices and then finding buyers who are willing to pay more markup than just the cost of the repairs or improvements. This type of business is very cost-driven, so “lost” is under tremendous pressure to pay his labor as little as possible.
Yep. They have the money. They more or less consented to the disastrous policies of the right wing hoping to benefit from them either directly or indirectly. They are obligated to help the country. If this country is in trouble and they have the means, they should contribute. As it was in FDR’s time so should it be today.
And if they balk, they really don’t like this country very much do they?
Why do you like people who hate America?
@69 We are all acutely aware that you are just another garden-variety troll mouthing mindless rightwing dogmas.
@70 “But there are ways of dealing with this that don’t involve remaking our entire economy. Regulations on where a corporation is based on how it is taxed are one thing. Asking anyone who happens to have done well to be punished for it quite another.”
This paragraph is so … you. Our economy isn’t being remade. It’s still going to be a capitalist economy that coddles business owners like you. Because your factual premise is wrong, all your conclusions that flow from it also are wrong. You sound like you’re drunk on the rightwing “socialism” kool-aide.
As for the “taxes are punishment” meme, that’s an example of what I mean by mindless rightwing dogma. Taxes exist to pay for government; they are not fines imposed for bad behavior. Furthermore, self-employed business people get extremely good tax breaks that wage earners can’t even dream about. You can go out and buy a $50,000 pickup truck to use for your business during the week and use for towing your boat or camping trailer on weekends, and write the whole thing off as a “business expense.” No wage earner can do that; the guys who work for you can’t deduct their gas to the job site, but you can. Frankly, listening to people like you bitching about taxes is nauseating enough, without having to listen to you panhandle for more tax breaks.
@74 “Ask about their 5 year goals you’ll get a baffled one. Ask about how they see retirement you’ll get a blank stare.”
That’s because no one can count on employers anymore, so there’s no way of knowing what they’ll be doing in 5 years, and most people don’t believe they’re going to have a retirement.
There used to be a social contract in this country. Under it, companies offered steady work to loyal employees who worked hard for the company’s success. It wasn’t the workers who tore that contract up.
@75 You’re spewing bullshit.
What happened to lostinaseaofblue? Why does he always seem to disappear when his ass is getting handed to him? Is he, and I hesitate to even say this, afraid to engage in serious discourse?
Aaagh (ravens make a variety of sounds.) I will soon be forced to beat someone to death with Marx in His Own Words (in the original German, the title translates as What Karl Marx Really Said.)
But, what is this? The editors of the Seattle Times agreeing with Paul Krugman? “Surely some great revelation is at hand!”
Croak!
Re 89
Don’t any of you have anything else to do on a Saturday night? I enjoy debating politics. Given the choice between that and the company of my family you folks don’t even enter contention though. Sorry if this hurts your feelings.
I’ll worry about your new arguments when you finally get around to answering my old ones.
Re 76 and 87
The future is frightening? Your employer might not need you in 5 years? This is why smart people think ahead. When playing chess I don’t play to my opponents last move but to my probable next ones. A career or life plan is no different.
You keep wanting to blame employers for the faults of the employees. When I had one my employer owed me the salary I had earned with whatever perks I had contracted to get. They didn’t owe me job security. They didn’t owe me a retirement. They didn’t owe me health insurance.
On the one hand you want government to coddle you from the moment you come into this world. On the other you want your employer to pick up whatever duties are left you. Where do you figure your personal responsibilities lie, Rabbit and Leftist?
Re 83
Yes, I’m an evil capitalist preying on the honest workman and the simple homeowner. Bwah ha ha. (I’m going for a ‘Mr. Potter’ feel here. Is t working?) Is that what you’re aiming at?
But fundamentally you’re right. I buy homes from people at as low a price as I can pay. I put hard work and capital into the house to the extent that the place will make a good family home for someone. I take risks and I expect a profit at the end. And I don’t apologize for that.
I also do high end remodels where I choose to. I work with clients who want good quality craftsmanship and know that this costs money. Because of the other end of my business I can afford to turn down clients who don’t seem to understand that, or who I don’t trust. I treat people fairly but they aren’t friends, they are clients.
Rabbit and Leftist and many others would call this luck. They look at the last 6 months of a 20 year process and judge the whole thing on that. I knew when I was 19 and sweeping floors on construction sites that hourly employees could never make the real money on a job. That money belonged to the man taking the risks and putting his business on the line. Rightly belonged to him. I’ve never met a carpenter who couldn’t be replaced, and I’ve met some damn good ones. The guy at the top doing the thinking and the planning is the one who can’t be replaced.
“The guy at the top doing the thinking and the planning is the one who can’t be replaced.”
Balderdash.
“The cemeteries of the world are full of indispensable men.”
–Charles De Gaulle, noted communist.
@92…..Charles De Gaulle was a noted ANTI-communist.
@93: Ah, dude, I was being ironic. Go back to your room and play like a good little boy.
Re 92
Your refutations of statements of fact have so far been masterly.
Horsepucky, to a comment based on personal experience. Not ‘I’ve worked in management and found this untrue,’ in all likelihood because you haven’t.
To the logically irrefutable comment that workmen can be easily replaced while competent executives can’t you say ‘balderdash.’ Again, no real world experience based refutation. Just a baseless retort.
Bravo.
“Horsepucky, to a comment based on personal experience…”
Even a bad lawyer could shoot that one down, but most degaulling is the assertion that your particular “personal experience” overrides all other considerations and the unspoken assertion that your experience can be generalized to aggregate economic behavior….something only the worst economists do.
And I’d take Charlie DeGaulle’s (he was a conservative, btw) observation on this matter over yours any day.
Logically “irrefutable”. Ha. What bullshit.