PDA

View Full Version : Still a liberal? Paradise beckons...



Bluesman
18 Sep 06,, 18:56
After all the evidence down through the decades...WHY does anybody still believe that a liberal is intelligent? The results and price of liberal ideology in government grows with each passing year, so WHY do idealists keep wishing the world were like they want it to be, instead of being as evidence shows that way it REALLY is?


The Sick Man of the Midwest
Michigan -- a liberal failure.

By Rich Lowry


Liberals dissatisfied with the Bush economy have, through the wonders of federalism, an alternative. They can move to Michigan. The state represents a rough approximation of ideal liberal economic policy. It is heavily unionized, taxed, and regulated in a failed attempt to close its eyes to the dynamic forces of the market and globalization all around it.

This stew has helped make Michigan the economic sick man of the Midwest. It is suffering from a one-state recession all its own, mostly because it has failed to foster the most profound economic force in the universe — opportunity. The state has been losing out to more business-friendly environs both overseas and in other states for decades, but has refused to adapt accordingly.

That’s why anyone moving to Michigan to enjoy the stifling taxes and burdensome unionization will be lonely. According to the free-market Mackinac Center for Public Policy’s analysis of United Van Lines data, Michigan is now the No. 1 state in the continental United States for outbound traffic. An estimated 65 percent of the moving company’s Michigan interstate traffic is families moving out of the state, headed to more economically open and vital destinations. As an official in Wyoming put it, “Michigan has been very good for us.”

This has given Michigan the rarest of breeds this election year, a vulnerable Democrat in the person of incumbent Gov. Jennifer Granholm. As Republicans often point out, Michigan was the only state in the country not hit by Hurricane Katrina to lose jobs between September 2004 and September 2005. The state unemployment rate just ticked up again to 7.1 percent, substantially above the nation’s rate of 4.7 percent. The rate of growth of its per capita gross state product is 49th in the nation; lowly Mississippi is 44th.

Michael LaFaive of the Mackinac Center calls Michigan “the France of North America.” Economically competitive states might have a personal income tax, or corporate income tax, or sales tax — Michigan has all three. It has long been the only state with a European-style, value-added tax — the Single Business Tax. A company can be in bankruptcy and still have a tax liability, making Michigan a bad state even to lose money in. In a 2002 filing for relief from the tax, General Motors explained that it would operate at a loss, but one of its projects would still create a $7 million-a-year tax liability.

Michigan recently repealed the Single Business Tax effective at the end of 2007, but has punted the decision about how to replace it. A relative moderate, Gov. Granholm has resisted general tax increases, but levied new fees, sin taxes and other “revenue enhancers.” The state still insists on trying to target tax incentives and other special breaks to favored businesses, in a doomed replay of 1970s-era industrial policy.

Meanwhile, unions make the state an inhospitable place to do business. A company can be bankrupt in Michigan and still face threats of a strike, as Northwest Airlines and the auto-parts maker Delphi have learned. Michigan’s unionization rate of 21.8 percent is much higher than the national average of 13.5 percent. This accounts for it having the second-highest unit-labor cost in the nation, according to the Mackinac Center. States with right-to-work laws, and consequently less unionization, experience more growth and create more jobs, at the expense of troglodytes like Michigan.

It used to be that unions could force unnaturally high wages and benefits on U.S. manufacturers, and the costs would be passed along to consumers. Those were the days prior to globalization when the U.S. auto industry had a lock on the domestic market and experienced little international competition. It was inevitable that Michigan would find the new competition disruptive, but not that it would react to it so poorly.

The way to thrive in a globalized environment is to create a low-tax economy without the rigidities that come with heavy unionization and regulation. For those who disagree, Michigan beckons.

— Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.
© 2006 by King Features Syndicate

gunnut
19 Sep 06,, 02:04
So basically Michigan is like California without the nice weather. I guess I won't move there any time soon.

Bluesman
19 Sep 06,, 02:47
So basically Michigan is like California without the nice weather. I guess I won't move there any time soon.

Very few others do, either.

astralis
19 Sep 06,, 17:30
So basically Michigan is like California without the nice weather. I guess I won't move there any time soon.

funny, then, why is california's economy not THAT bad? :) i'm telling you, it's the sun! :)

dalem
19 Sep 06,, 18:00
To be fair, a lot of the exodus from Michigan is directly traceable to people leaving Detroit.

I do find it interesting though. I left Michigan 5 years ago but not for any of the reasons applicable to the article.

-dale

gunnut
19 Sep 06,, 18:58
funny, then, why is california's economy not THAT bad? :) i'm telling you, it's the sun! :)

Definitely the sun. Who would want to be taxed and regulated to death AND be in miserable weather?

SnowLeopard
20 Sep 06,, 07:29
Conservative, liberal, conservative, liberal, ...............

What is one these days and what is the other? I consider myself a liberal but in many eyes, I'm a conservative, but not to the extreme of many who call themselves conservatives or at least, don't call themselves liberals.

For example, consider our recent discussions regarding crime, punishment, and the 8th amendment. I am pretty firmly based with the Constitution. Don't violate the Constitution, that's a no-no .................. and yet, given that I wouldn't torture a serial killer to death, to some, that might make me a liberal, a softie .................... but if you support the Constitution, are you not conservative?

Or perhaps it is not how one sees laws but how they react. Is a softie a liberal? Well, if so, then what basis is a conservative judged by, if the defn. is "of the old ways", then which old ways, when?

Or perhaps that is not the defn. at all.

Is it how money is spent? Do liberals just give out all the money, then? Well, considering how money has been spent in the last few years, I'm under the impression that those in power don't see themselves as liberal ........ and yet money has been spent as if there is no end to it.

Basically, what is liberal and what is conservative is probably held in the speaker of the word.
------------------------------------------------------
("Uplink, underground, uplink, underground, if you don't shut up, I'm going to uplink your a** and then you'll be underground!"--Ben Richards (Arnold), (wtte), "The Running Man")

gunnut
20 Sep 06,, 19:13
We have some political candidates in California who describes themselves as "liberal on social matters, but fiscally conservative." They are the ones who are softies but stingy at the same time. Basically a tactic to please more people, more of the times.

A strict observance of the Consitution makes one a libertarian, I believe. The founders wanted limited federal government, broad state power, and an armed citizenry to guantee freedom for the people.

A conservative also means one who is more likely to follow tradition.

A liberal means one who wants to deviate from tradition. To re-intepret customs, if you will. Those are the ones who claim the "Constitution is a living, breathing document."

In America, we lump all liberals, socialists, leftists, softies, and appeasers together.

Conservatives are the capitalists, right wing, religious (Christian only, all other religious zealots are OK), gun toting, heartless, profit seeking, warmongers.

dalem
20 Sep 06,, 21:59
In the past, American liberals were more heavily associated with "classic" liberal ideals, like spreading freedom, self-rule, open societies, etc.

Nowadays it's the American "conservatives" that are actually carrying those banners. The libertarians I know trend more toward isolationism.

-dale

Bluesman
25 Sep 06,, 03:30
I wish George would shut up. He's about to spill the beans to the Dems about what they are doing wrong.

Oh, wait, I forgot: they don't read his columns. We're safe.;)


Liberalism as Condescension
By George Will

EVERGREEN PARK, Ill. -- This suburb, contiguous with Chicago's western edge, is 88 percent white. A large majority of the customers of the Wal-Mart that sits here, less than a block outside Chicago, are from the city and more than 90 percent of the store's customers are African-American.

One of whom, a woman pushing a shopping cart with a stoical 3-year-old along for the ride, has a chip on her shoulder about the size of this 141,000 square- foot Wal-Mart. She applied for a job when the store opened in January and was turned down because, she said, the person doing the hiring "had an attitude.'' So why is the woman shopping here anyway? She looks at the questioner as though he is dimwitted and directs his attention to the low prices of the DVDs on the rack next to her.

Sensibly, she compartmentalizes her moods and her money. Besides, she should not brood. She had lots of company in not being hired: More than 25,000 people applied for the 325 openings.

Which vexes liberals like John Kerry. (He and his helpmeet last shopped at Wal-Mart when?) In 2004 he tested what has become one of the Democrats' 2006 themes: Wal-Mart is, he said, "disgraceful'' and symbolic of "what's wrong with America.'' By now, Democrats have succeeded, to their embarrassment (if they are susceptible to that), in making the basic numbers familiar:

The median household income of Wal-Mart shoppers is under $40,000. Wal-Mart, the most prodigious job-creator in the history of the private sector in this galaxy, has almost as many employees (1.3 million) as the U.S. military has uniformed personnel. A McKinsey company study concluded that Wal-Mart accounted for 13 percent of the nation's productivity gains in the second half of the 1990s, which probably made Wal-Mart about as important as the Federal Reserve in holding down inflation. By lowering consumer prices, Wal-Mart costs about 50 retail jobs among competitors for every 100 jobs Wal-Mart creates. Wal-Mart and its effects save shoppers more than $200 billion a year, dwarfing such government programs as food stamps ($28.6 billion) and the earned-income tax credit ($34.6 billion).

People who buy their groceries from Wal-Mart -- it has one-fifth of the nation's grocery business -- save at least 17 percent. But because unions are strong in many grocery stores trying to compete with Wal-Mart, unions are yanking on the Democratic Party's leash, demanding laws to force Wal-Mart to pay wages and benefits higher than those that already are high enough to attract 77 times more applicants than there were jobs at this store.

The big-hearted progressives on Chicago's City Council, evidently unconcerned that the city gets zero sales tax revenues from a half a billion dollars that Chicago residents spend in the 42 suburban Wal-Marts, have passed a bill that, by dictating wages and benefits, would keep Wal-Marts from locating in the city. Richard Daley, a bread-and-butter Democrat, used his first veto in 17 years as mayor to swat it away.

Liberals think their campaign against Wal-Mart is a way of introducing the subject of class into America's political argument, and they are more correct than they understand. Their campaign is liberalism as condescension. It is a philosophic repugnance toward markets because consumer sovereignty results in the masses making messes. Liberals, aghast, see the choices Americans make with their dollars and their ballots, and announce -- yes, announce -- that Americans are sorely in need of more supervision by ... liberals.

Before they went on their bender of indignation about Wal-Mart (customers per week: 127 million), liberals had drummed McDonald's (customers per week: 175 million) out of civilized society because it is making us fat, or something. So, what next? Which preferences of ordinary Americans will liberals, in their role as national scolds, next disapprove? Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet?

No. The current issue of The American Prospect, an impeccably progressive magazine, carries a full-page advertisement denouncing something responsible for "lies, deception, immorality, corruption, and widespread labor, human rights and environmental abuses'' and of having brought "great hardship and despair to people and communities throughout the world.''

What is this focus of evil in the modern world? North Korea? The Bush administration? Fox News Channel? No, it is Coca-Cola (number of servings to Americans of the company's products each week: 2.5 billion).

When liberals' presidential nominees consistently fail to carry Kansas, liberals do not rush to read a book titled "What's the Matter With Liberals' Nominees?'' No, the book they turned into a best-seller is titled "What's the Matter With Kansas?'' Notice a pattern here?

georgewill@washpost.com
(c) 2006, Washington Post Writers Group

Bluesman
11 Jan 10,, 04:46
Bumpty-boo, because I ended this thread with a George Will column, and I just tacked some Will onto a thread from back in September.

Just seemed to be kinda symmetrical, ya know?

And re-read the threads, because it will very soon notbe theoretical what happens when a state goes smash, and the Federal gubmint ain't solven enough to help 'em out.

And the good citizens of the 49 OTHER, less-irresponsible states will seek the blood of any politician that dares to suggest it is their duty to bail the wastrels out after they had a party and blew all their OWN money. Like California has. AND New York.

Vote Republican and save your country.

ErrantVenture11
11 Jan 10,, 05:47
I'm bucking the trend, having moved here to Grand Blanc, MI from Edgewater, MD in 2007 with my wife and 2-month old boy to attend Kettering University in Flint (consistently in the Top 5 or Top 10 cities for various crime stats, btw).

I expected to walk into some sort of Liberal Neverland, but it seems like a great majority of people here are quite conservative. The problems is the cities with their high populations, in addition to unions telling everyone who to vote for, that skews every election. I think the problem with Michigan cities (and many cities in general) is that in the cities, everyone is waiting for the government to solve their problems while they slave away making next to nothing, afraid to walk their own streets after 6:00 (and often before). If the people stood up, said **** this crap, and took back their city streets and their destiny, instead of waiting for Uncle Sam or the city councils to fix things, we might see some progress.

I have found Michigan to be a beautiful, vibrant state with so much wasted potential. In some respects they seem to be turning things around and diversifying, but I fear it is too little, too late, and too cookie-cutter Democrat agenda (green jobs, anyone?).

Bluesman
11 Jan 10,, 19:53
I loved my 18 months in Michigan, and yes, you're absolutely correct: the state has some of the very best people anywhere in the Lower 48.

BUT...you've also learned the reason for their misery, and it's that despite many right-thinking, hard-working, patriotic, productive and decent people, the state is in the grip of a Democratic machine so mandacious and criminal that all those good people exist to do is provide the feed corn for the massive behemoth that destroys everything, even as they fail to create the utopia they promised to their clients. In exchange for the maw that swallows their votes, the permanent underclass has become so damaged that they are now incapable of any industry, or even basic decency towards their own communities, and frequently, even their families.

And it is ALL because Liberalism has triumphed in the cities there, in the political power-weilding sense. The cities are more dangerous than Beirut, the infrastructure would make the most psychopathic junta in Africa blush, and social norms are Lord of the Flies quality.

It would not have happened if they could free their minds from the plantation that they're now permanently shackled to. But the Long March Through the Institutions is now complete, and there is no chance for a captive population, addicted to government 'assistance', to ever free themselves from the new world that their masters have built for them.

That's too bad. I liked it there.

astralis
11 Jan 10,, 20:07
actually, i would venture to say that the root of michigan's misery lies in its economy's overdependence on manufacturing, particularly automobile manufacturing.

that legacy produced the auto unions, which is certainly a shining example of liberalism run amuck. however, this was compounded by the rise of technology-- for instance, the creation of new steel-making processes and robotic technology in factories means that one worker today has enormously greater output than twenty or fifty workers just two-three decades ago.

thus, the curse of the economic monoculture, which trumps political leaning. if you look at the cases of ireland and iceland, consistently rated as among the most economically free states out there (flat tax, low tariffs, etc)-- they couldn't escape the recent collapse, either, and in fact, FELT it worse for being more globalized.

Bluesman
11 Jan 10,, 20:20
Read Atlas Shrugged. You NEED what's between the covers of that book.

It's not any over-reliance on manufacturing jobs. They'd still be booming, were it not for the Democratic machine wrecking everything it touches.

It really IS that simple. Political philosphy is crucially important to governance, and the more leftward it is, the more dysfunctional it will become. And we can see the results in the social laboratories around the country. California has NO REASON, NONE, for having become a basket case, except for the insane clown posse that has run the place into the ground over the past 60 years. It literally has the richest and best and most favorable collection of assets and circumstances of ANY of our states, and look what has been done to it. Michigan, likewise, to a lesser extent. There is NO REASON, NONE, that the state, EITHER state, should not thrive. Same goes for New York. And eventually, Maryland and Massachusetts...

And the common denominator is the way they are governed. The more leftward you go, the worse the governance gets.

Rand saw it. Governors Perry and Palin see it. I see it. It isn't hard. The facts of life are conservative in nature, and to violate those laws is to invite unnatural consequences that should never have happened, but for the contraventional political choices made.

That's what happened to Michigan, not an advance in robotics and metallurgy.

astralis
11 Jan 10,, 20:42
blues,


Read Atlas Shrugged.

i have, along with The Fountainhead.


It's not any over-reliance on manufacturing jobs. They'd still be booming, were it not for the Democratic machine wrecking everything it touches...

And the common denominator is the way they are governed. The more leftward you go, the worse the governance gets.


i agree leftism, particularly in unionism, has retarded economic growth.

however, before you state that there are no other factors, consider this:

News Release: (GDP by State) (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/gsp_newsrelease.htm)

alaska, with farseeing governor palin: GDP down 2.0%, worst of any state in the union. so perhaps there are other factors other than the politics of the state involved...

highsea
11 Jan 10,, 21:00
...alaska, with farseeing governor palin: GDP down 2.0%, worst of any state in the union. so perhaps there are other factors other than the politics of the state involved...So you blame Palin for decining output on the North Slope? :rolleyes:

Take the enviro-weenies out of the picture and Alaska would have no problems. You know, Alaska used to have industry- Timber, Mining, Fishing and Energy. They have all been destroyed by liberals who think Alaska is their private park.

Now you work in tourism or for the State, or you are a visitor. :(

Open up ANWR. Open up the Chukchi Sea. The liberals won't allow it, because they know all they have to do is fight a holding action- as soon as the current North Slope output drops enough, the pipeline has to be dismantled. That will be the end of Alaska oil, permanently.

Mihais
11 Jan 10,, 21:02
No expert in economics,but could it be due to fall in oil prices?

astralis
11 Jan 10,, 21:17
highsea,


So you blame Palin for decining output on the North Slope?

the point was that the political outlook of a state is not the only factor in determining economic growth. so thank you for making my point for me.


You know, Alaska used to have industry- Timber, Mining, Fishing and Energy.

unless the plan is to have alaska be nothing but a resource colony, that's not feasible in the medium-to-long term.

gunnut
11 Jan 10,, 22:00
alaska, with farseeing governor palin: GDP down 2.0%, worst of any state in the union. so perhaps there are other factors other than the politics of the state involved...

I would blame global warming. It's making Alaska a much warmer places...wait...much colder place...due to warming, and thus people don't want to visit sunny Alaska...

See how everything revolves around Rev. Al?:P

ErrantVenture11
11 Jan 10,, 23:28
Michigan is a victim to some extent of failing to diversify in an increasingly global, technologically-advancing economy, but the same can be said of many one-trick-pony states. But the slide in Michigan has been so long and so gradual, it is a wonder that no administration has been able to turn it around. Of course some blame falls on the industry itself (is it any wonder the worst three automakers are based here) not keeping up with the competition.

Shamus
11 Jan 10,, 23:49
Michigan is a victim to some extent of failing to diversify in an increasingly global, technologically-advancing economy, but the same can be said of many one-trick-pony states. But the slide in Michigan has been so long and so gradual, it is a wonder that no administration has been able to turn it around. Of course some blame falls on the industry itself (is it any wonder the worst three automakers are based here) not keeping up with the competition.They don't care if Michigan's economy keeps tanking.....the Democrats have control over the vast majority of the major metropolitan voters in the state.Regardless of what the rest of the state wants(and if you check outstate voting it is conservative for the most part) the entitlement crowd in the metro areas vote their paycheck pals back into office based on whatever new handouts they're promised.It is a cancer......and like all cancers that run their course.....this one is running out of healthy cells to feed on.....it's in the terminal stage and at this point it would take a miracle cure.

indus creed
12 Jan 10,, 05:42
Michigan is doomed even if Republicans are back. John Engler, a Republican was the Governer from 1991 to 2003 and despite some bold efforts at reform could not make much headway. Too many vested interests are entrenched in the state's economy.

highsea
12 Jan 10,, 18:48
...the point was that the political outlook of a state is not the only factor in determining economic growth. so thank you for making my point for me.Lol. An even better point is that you used old numbers in your dig at Palin.

Palin cut State Gov't spending by 30%, and turned a deficit into a surplus, even at a time when the State had a $6 Billion reserve fund. That surplus went away when oil prices dropped last year, but it will come right back with the higher prices of today.

Her successor is also cutting the State budget, and looking at another surplus.

Alaska also has $39 Billion in the permanent fund.

Alaskans don't pay State income taxes or State sales taxes. It's the opposite- the State send every Alaskan a check each year.

unless the plan is to have alaska be nothing but a resource colony, that's not feasible in the medium-to-long term.So I guess you think Canada is a "resource colony".

Lol. What a comment. America needs energy. We need lumber. Alaska can provide it.

Washington and Oregon can provide lumber. That's what funded our education systems out here. Now that the timber industry has been decimated, so have the schools.

Instead we buy it from Canada. We have a $70 Billion annual trade deficit with Canada. That's about $2,000 for every Canadian. Hey, I like Canadians- but we could be using out own resources.

We have $30 Trillion in oil and gas in the US. That could solve our budget woes, but we can't touch it, thanks to Washington politics and the Democrats in bed with the environmental lobby.

A resource colony indeed. Nothing personal, but that is a completely idiotic comment. What Western States need is for the Federal Gov't to stop micro-managing everything. We have resources, it's stupid not to take advantage of them.

astralis
12 Jan 10,, 20:04
highsea,


Lol. An even better point is that you used old numbers in your dig at Palin.

Palin cut State Gov't spending by 30%, and turned a deficit into a surplus, even at a time when the State had a $6 Billion reserve fund. That surplus went away when oil prices dropped last year, but it will come right back with the higher prices of today.

Her successor is also cutting the State budget, and looking at another surplus.

Alaska also has $39 Billion in the permanent fund.

Alaskans don't pay State income taxes or State sales taxes. It's the opposite- the State send every Alaskan a check each year.

and that's not because of conservative political ideology, that's because of oil.

seriously, it's sort of like saying that saudis or kuwaitis are economic wizards because they have a huge monetary reserve.


Lol. What a comment. America needs energy. We need lumber. Alaska can provide it.

Washington and Oregon can provide lumber. That's what funded our education systems out here. Now that the timber industry has been decimated, so have the schools.

Instead we buy it from Canada. We have a $70 Billion annual trade deficit with Canada. That's about $2,000 for every Canadian. Hey, I like Canadians- but we could be using out own resources.

We have $30 Trillion in oil and gas in the US. That could solve our budget woes, but we can't touch it, thanks to Washington politics and the Democrats in bed with the environmental lobby.

A resource colony indeed. Nothing personal, but that is a completely idiotic comment. What Western States need is for the Federal Gov't to stop micro-managing everything. We have resources, it's stupid not to take advantage of them.

because we all know how profitable in the long-run raw material export vice finished materials/services export is-- especially when the resource in question is finite petroleum. it's great to know that your idea of a good economic model stems from places like saudi arabia or western africa instead of places like singapore or hong kong.

yes, that is the way for the US (or at least the "Western States") in the 21st century-- petroleum, lumber, and fish exports instead of high-tech.

in any case, we're getting off topic; i believe the question was, is conservative ideology central to the economic growth of states?

blues says it is, on the basis of overtaxation, the welfare state, and the unions-- at least this is a somewhat viable argument (although, as i would argue, ireland/iceland, even HK/taiwan/singapore, would be examples otherwise).

you say it is on the basis of lack of resource exploitation-- well, okay, then, you'll have to tell me how big those three industries are in relation to the $15 trillion US economy.

astralis
12 Jan 10,, 20:31
this opens up another can of worms: what contributes to a state's economic growth today?

i would argue that it depends on a state's ability and will to invest in S&T development, its education system (particularly higher education), low (but more importantly) stable tax rates, and diversified economic production.

certain areas in the south are doing well under this model; texas is expanding past its old energy sector reliance; CA did well until it hit political paralysis-- they saw the perils of overdependence on the sales tax.

economic monoculture is probably the worst peril of all; in manufacturing, you see the decline of michigan and pennsylvania, finance, NYC.

highsea
12 Jan 10,, 20:58
highsea,



and that's not because of conservative political ideology, that's because of oil. It's conservative ideology that sends the money directly to the people of the State, rather than bloating the government and giving handouts to select groups in the form of "services".

That's the difference between the conservative and liberal outlooks.

It's funny- last year when oil prices were through the roof, eastern liberals were whining about Alaskans making money off it. "That oil belongs to all of us". ROFL.

But whatever you do, don't pump any more of it...

seriously, it's sort of like saying that saudis or kuwaitis are economic wizards because they have a huge monetary reserve. Well, they aren't stupid- they know enough to exploit their resources and milk the US for the money...


because we all know how profitable in the long-run raw material export vice finished materials/services export is-- especially when the resource in question is finite petroleum. it's great to know that your idea of a good economic model stems from places like saudi arabia or western africa instead of places like singapore or hong kong.The US can't be compared to Singapore or Hong Kong any more than you can compare Juneau Alaska to New York City. Those places don't have any natural resources to speak of.

And I'm not advocating exporting our raw materials, I'm advocating using what we have to create jobs, boost our economic output, reduce our trade deficits, and make life better for the people in those States that have the resources to exploit.

yes, that is the way for the US (or at least the "Western States") in the 21st century-- petroleum, lumber, and fish exports instead of high-tech.There you go about exports again. Your way is to import all those things and leave our own resources untouched.

As if that's a superior economic model...

in any case, we're getting off topic; i believe the question was, is conservative ideology central to the economic growth of states?

blues says it is, on the basis of overtaxation, the welfare state, and the unions-- at least this is a somewhat viable argument (although, as i would argue, ireland/iceland, even HK/taiwan/singapore, would be examples otherwise).

you say it is on the basis of lack of resource exploitation-- well, okay, then, you'll have to tell me how big those three industries are in relation to the $15 trillion US economy.No, I also agree with Bluesman. And Alaska (which you introduced into the discussion) is a good example.

And I don't have to show how big those industries are to the entire US economy, it's enough that they are a significant piece of the economy of those States.

And as long as the US needs energy and lumber for construction, it makes more sense to use what we have before importing it.

One of Obama's first acts was to reverse an order by Bush for selective logging in part of Oregon's National Forest. One stroke of his pen put 5,000 people out of work. I'll tell them you said to quit whining and go get a high-tech job...

Roosveltrepub
12 Jan 10,, 21:01
i agree leftism, particularly in unionism, ...
Do you think the people of the country were better off before Unionism or would be better off today if we hadn't allowed it?

Roosveltrepub
12 Jan 10,, 21:14
I get all the liberal bashing but how do you explain the gdp per capita away when comparing supposed conservative bastions with the North east or west coast? Also if you go with the idea of not taking people's money away to give to other people as a foundation of tax policy then how come most conservative states get a tax largesse due to their receiving more federal dollars than federal taxes paid? Isn't that stimulus? I think it's a real over simplification to adopt all liberalism is bad all hands of laze faire good. Lets not forget in part deregulation was part of the problem in the banking sector. Balance is good extremism is bad.

highsea
12 Jan 10,, 21:21
I get all the liberal bashing but how do you explain the gdp per capita away when comparing supposed conservative bastions with the North east or west coast? How do you explain Washington D.C. being the highest, when they actually produce next to nothing?

astralis
12 Jan 10,, 21:23
highsea,


It's conservative ideology that sends the money directly to the people of the State, rather than bloating the government and giving handouts to select groups in the form of "services".

sure. but is that the engine of alaskan growth, or is it the natural resources?


Well, they aren't stupid- they know enough to exploit their resources and milk the US for the money...

actually, i would argue they are; sending their students to theological universities, building huge palaces, hiring filipino workers...wait until their resources run out, a la yemen.


The US can't be compared to Singapore or Hong Kong any more than you can compare Juneau Alaska to New York City. Those places don't have any natural resources to speak of.

And I'm not advocating exporting our raw materials, I'm advocating using what we have to create jobs, boost our economic output, reduce our trade deficits, and make life better for the people in those States that have the resources to exploit.

right, they don't have natural resources to speak of, and yet they still do well in the global economy. i agree there is room for raw material development, but that's not the basis for a long-term sustainable economy.


Your way is to import all those things and leave our own resources untouched.

As if that's a superior economic model...

like i said, resourceless societies such as japan, taiwan, hk, singapore all manage to do well. it only makes sense to touch our own resources if it is economically efficient, which given the low cost of raw materials, often isn't.


And I don't have to show how big those industries are to the entire US economy, it's enough that they are a significant piece of the economy of those States.

And as long as the US needs energy and lumber for construction, it makes more sense to use what we have before importing it.


you need to read up on your free-trade; shek can help :)


One of Obama's first acts was to reverse an order by Bush for selective logging in part of Oregon's National Forest. One stroke of his pen put 5,000 people out of work. I'll tell them you said to quit whining and go get a high-tech job...

boo hoo. by the argument, why don't we log the whole dam' forest, and give another 5,000 people jobs?

astralis
12 Jan 10,, 21:24
roosvelt,


Do you think the people of the country were better off before Unionism or would be better off today if we hadn't allowed it?

unions had their constructive role back in the early-mid 1900s. it is no longer relevant in today's much more mobile, information-oriented society.

gunnut
12 Jan 10,, 21:30
roosvelt,



unions had their constructive role back in the early-mid 1900s. it is no longer relevant in today's much more mobile, information-oriented society.

Whoa, mark this day on the calender. I found something I agree with astralis on. :biggrin:

astralis
12 Jan 10,, 21:32
highsea,


How do you explain Washington D.C. being the highest, when they actually produce next to nothing?

for that matter, how do you explain NYC's financial sector, which moves around money but produces nothing tangible?

seriously, past completely missing the whole "services/non-tangible goods provide economic benefit" section of econ 101, there is still the issue of government-- in effect wealth redistribution, which is not always a bad thing. government research, worker education programs, and national defense, which is the ultimate good necessary for a free-market economy.

astralis
12 Jan 10,, 21:44
gunnut,


Whoa, mark this day on the calender. I found something I agree with astralis on.

dude, i don't know why you're so surprised. :)

in general, i am for a fairly low tax rate, reduced government social spending, and free trade. however, it's not good to hold to these positions like holy writ; that every time an economy sours, it is because somehow these commandmants have been violated. the free market is too complicated for that.

finally, i also believe there is room for intelligent governance-- that the government *can* play an useful, economically productive role.

highsea
12 Jan 10,, 22:35
...for that matter, how do you explain NYC's financial sector, which moves around money but produces nothing tangible?A den of thieves. When banks stopped providing financial services and shifted to creating "products" to trade among themselves, well we all saw the results of that little experiment.

And since the US Congress has been bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs and friends, so there isn't any good way to correct the situation. We can throw out one set of bums, but that just means we have to throw the other set back in.

seriously, past completely missing the whole "services/non-tangible goods provide economic benefit" section of econ 101, there is still the issue of government-- in effect wealth redistribution, which is not always a bad thing. government research, worker education programs, and national defense, which is the ultimate good necessary for a free-market economy.Taxation and redistribution aren't equal, even if you try to define them that way. There is no Marxist language in the US Constitution.

Sure, there are things the Federal Gov't needs to do, and taxes need to be levied to enable that. But the less you do at the Federal level, the better imo.

Let the States be the incubators of ideas.

astralis
13 Jan 10,, 14:02
highsea,


A den of thieves. When banks stopped providing financial services and shifted to creating "products" to trade among themselves, well we all saw the results of that little experiment.


considering that not all of NYC was in the derivatives industry-- and that it still represents a major sector of the US economy (and was, even during the Glass-Steagall Act)...i would say you're off in your assessment of the finance field. but hey, to each his own.


Taxation and redistribution aren't equal, even if you try to define them that way. There is no Marxist language in the US Constitution.


no kidding, but taxes ARE wealth redistribution. you're fooling yourself to think otherwise.


]Let the States be the incubators of ideas.

that means turning over most control of the federal budget to the states; good luck with your Articles of Confederation movement.

Roosveltrepub
13 Jan 10,, 19:55
Let the States be the incubators of ideas.

Are there any advanced economies which successfully operate this way? Which States have had major roles in providing support for new Ideas and what were they? I couldn't come up with any the federal goverment hadnt invested many multis of the $ amount on.

highsea
13 Jan 10,, 20:29
...no kidding, but taxes ARE wealth redistribution. you're fooling yourself to think otherwise.Taxes do NOT have to be redistributive by nature. Sales taxes can be assessed without favoring one group over another, and revenues can be used equally for the benefit of all. Example: National defense.

Yes, the US engages in wealth distribution via taxation, and I never said we don't. I said such language does not exist in the Constitution. The Gov't does it anyway. The Congress uses the tax code for social engineering all the time. Example: Earned Income Tax Credit, Cash for Clunkers, Home Buyer Credit, etc.

You equate the two.

You said:

there is still the issue of government-- in effect wealth redistribution, which is not always a bad thing. government research, worker education programs, and national defense, which is the ultimate good necessary for a free-market economy.Your definition defines anything that involves money as wealth redistribution. It is not. The problem with making such a broad definition of something is that you render the term meaningless. By your definition, all commerce is wealth redistribution. If I go buy a pack of gum, that is wealth redistribution.

You have said this many times here- not just this thread. The purpose of Gov't is to redistribute wealth. Sometimes you add an example: "for the purposes of National defense" or some other. Doesn't matter, you slur the meaning of the phrase, and you insert your opinion of what the Gov't is for to suit your subjective worldview.

The purpose of Gov't is defined in the Constitution. If it ain't in there, it's not the purpose of Gov't.

If Boeing sells a tanker to the Air Force, that is not redistribution of wealth.

The phrase redistribution of wealth specifically refers to when assets are seized from one entity and redistributed to another entity in order to achieve economic equality

Redistribution: Definition from Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/income-redistribution)
Taxation and redistribution are not the same thing. Providing for the Common Defense doesn't even imply redistribution.
that means turning over most control of the federal budget to the states; good luck with your Articles of Confederation movement.I'd be happy to see the US Constitution restored, thank you very much.

highsea
13 Jan 10,, 21:05
...boo hoo. by the argument, why don't we log the whole dam' forest, and give another 5,000 people jobs?False dichotomy, but your contempt for those families affected is noted.

Roosveltrepub
13 Jan 10,, 21:13
Well with the concentration of wealth in this country you would be hard pressed to prove the point our government is creating or trying to create some socialist utopia through a massive redistribution of wealth. Hell, hedge fund managers get taxed at half my rate when you figure in SS and medicare taxes. My bonus was taxed at 40 percent you think BOA bonuses are taxed at that rate?

highsea
13 Jan 10,, 21:39
Well with the concentration of wealth in this country you would be hard pressed to prove the point our government is creating or trying to create some socialist utopia through a massive redistribution of wealth. Hell, hedge fund managers get taxed at half my rate when you figure in SS and medicare taxes. My bonus was taxed at 40 percent you think BOA bonuses are taxed at that rate?Well, most of the time you seem to support redistribution, and now you complain about your marginal tax rate.

In any case, you haven't paid off your legislators like they have.

There's a good article on that at Mother Jones. Take a look at the kind of money you would be getting if you were a member of the Senate Banking Committee or House Financial Services. Shumer has such a war chest that he's stopped taking contributions for himself, it all goes to the DCSS.

extra credit: Do you know how George Soros made his billions?

astralis
13 Jan 10,, 22:35
highsea,


Taxes do NOT have to be redistributive by nature. Sales taxes can be assessed without favoring one group over another, and revenues can be used equally for the benefit of all. Example: National defense.

...

Your definition defines anything that involves money as wealth redistribution. It is not.



that is STILL redistribution; in other words, government taking away your money by law/general consent, or failing that, implied force, to do with it as it would. your sales tax may go to something you might not agree with. thus, redistributive.


If Boeing sells a tanker to the Air Force, that is not redistribution of wealth.

sure it is. we are, in effect, paying the government to do things on behalf of the general public that individuals not wealthy cannot do on their own. in rome, for instance, the wealthy had their own police/military/firefighting force. they often resisted government attempts to enact a general military/police, using much the same arguments re: taking away of their rights.


False dichotomy, but your contempt for those families affected is noted.

nice try at flamebait. why don't you take a vacation.

highsea
15 Jan 10,, 20:17
...that is STILL redistribution; in other words, government taking away your money by law/general consent, or failing that, implied force, to do with it as it would. your sales tax may go to something you might not agree with. thus, redistributive.It doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. If it's not for the purpose of creating some sort of economic effect- either progressive (example:Marxism) or regressive (example:Feudalism) it's not redistributive. It's simply a tax.

They can impose a sales tax and use it to paint all Gov't buildings purple if they want. I wouldn't agree with it, but it's not a redistribution of wealth.

sure it is. we are, in effect, paying the government to do things on behalf of the general public that individuals not wealthy cannot do on their own. in rome, for instance, the wealthy had their own police/military/firefighting force. they often resisted government attempts to enact a general military/police, using much the same arguments re: taking away of their rights.That's not the argument I used. I am not arguing that the Gov't is denying me rights under the Constitution by providing for the National Defense.

You are arguing that it is a redistribution of wealth, but you haven't shown how it benefits one class of citizen at the expense of another.

In fact, it's just the opposite- all citizens benefit equally. Taxation for National defense is neither progressive nor regressive, therefore it's not redistribution.

astralis
16 Jan 10,, 06:08
highsea,


it's not redistributive. It's simply a tax.

i see where we are speaking past each other. i'm looking at it from a broader point of view than you.

in my definition, all taxes are redistributive in some form because the basis of a tax is the government using consent/force to take money away from you towards another ends. it need not be strictly progressive or regressive economically.

taking your example of national defense-- the liberal, for instance, would argue that some of the military commitments he is unwillingly paying for do not make him more secure (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/iraq_anniversary.html). the crazier type of liberal (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=War_profiteering) would argue that his tax money is being distributed away towards the military-industrial complex. thus, perception of benefit changes depending on view.

given that we have a range of political viewpoints, all whom think some portion of federal spending (no matter in which area) is a waste, i'd say it is accurate to say that all taxes are redistributive.

ErrantVenture11
16 Jan 10,, 14:23
My how a thread can morph...

Bluesman
25 Oct 11,, 03:17
After all you WABbits read this most excellent article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/10/21/the-red-state-in-your-future/), I would also insist that you go back through this thread, and read what I wrote, waaaaay back thar, and THEN, once and for all, tell me you either see what I've been saying, and am now positively confirmed in, or whether you are STILL a proud Democrat that thinks they know dammit about governance and political philosophy.

WHO HERE DOESN'T SEE IT YET? WHO? DEFEND YOURSELVES, because the evidence is in, you're WRONG, I'm RIGHT, and just WHY are you being so damned stupid, after it is so blindingly clear by now?

Red Team
25 Oct 11,, 03:33
So the "premise" of the article is if everyone's doing it why aren't you? Hmm I can't quite put my finger on who did this last time....

Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union#Politics)
Nazi Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany)

It takes sound policy proposals to convince real Independents, not majority allure. And neither all of Congress, nor any Republican presidential candidate, nor Obama's indecision are convincing me and any of my fellow independents flat. I remember a time when left and right compromised...I believe it was called the 90s?

Bluesman
25 Oct 11,, 04:02
So the "premise" of the article is if everyone's doing it why aren't you? Hmm I can't quite put my finger on who did this last time....

Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union#Politics)
Nazi Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany)

It takes sound policy proposals to convince real Independents, not majority allure. And neither all of Congress, nor any Republican presidential candidate, nor Obama's indecision are convincing me and any of my fellow independents flat. I remember a time when left and right compromised...I believe it was called the 90s?

No, genius, the point was that the states have functioned as the laboratories that they were supposed to be, and the experiment's results are all pointing to the same exact conclusion. YOU know, the way evidence is supposed to work? Get it? It has been duplicated a thousand times, and the facts are as clear as they can possibly get: LIBERALISM IS MADE OF FAIL. The closer you can get to conservatism the better; the redder your state is, the more successful it'll be.

THAT, Mr. Team (may I call you Red?), is now past any sort of a doubt, EXCEPT to the Left. They can't and never could follow a simple premise if it conflicts with what they just have to believe, no matter what the Real World demonstrates...again and again and again.

And how you came to the conclusion that populism and totalitarianism are what I'm boosting is anybody's guess.

Red Team
25 Oct 11,, 04:58
No, genius, the point was that the states have functioned as the laboratories that they were supposed to be, and the experiment's results are all pointing to the same exact conclusion. YOU know, the way evidence is supposed to work? Get it? It has been duplicated a thousand times, and the facts are as clear as they can possibly get: LIBERALISM IS MADE OF FAIL. The closer you can get to conservatism the better; the redder your state is, the more successful it'll be.

THAT, Mr. Team (may I call you Red?), is now past any sort of a doubt, EXCEPT to the Left. They can't and never could follow a simple premise if it conflicts with what they just have to believe, no matter what the Real World demonstrates...again and again and again.

And how you came to the conclusion that populism and totalitarianism are what I'm boosting is anybody's guess.

You may call me Red if you wish Mr. Blueman :)

Now to satisfy my current restlessness I shall explain my reasoning:

The premise of the article to my understanding was about the "failure of liberalistic policy" and the resulting switch over to "better red than dead", it then began to go into some predictions into more states going red as a result of the previously said principle. I connect this principle as being part of the "majority allure" effect, in which I used the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany not as a direct comparison but as a point-maker to the very real dangers of the said effect.

I have always been for the individual pursuit of information rather than relying on potentially biased secondhand accounts. As what better way to gain understanding than to pursue it yourself? States should choose to be red or blue based on their individual needs, and their people's own sensibly formulated views on policy, not because it's some kind of new "fashion craze." Same would apply if it were the other way around.

Now I do not have time to discuss my said stances on politics (it would take some time and I unfortunately am trying very hard to get some sleep...sorry) but rest assured I have had my fair share of both liberal and conservative influences from my continuing college education (I have a good balance of conservative/liberal professors). I always appreciate strong perspectives from an individual as long as those views leave room for open mindedness.

PS: I happen to enjoy Orwell's work. Currently reading Animal Farm right now.

Officer of Engineers
25 Oct 11,, 05:47
PS: I happen to enjoy Orwell's work. Currently reading Animal Farm right now.George Orwell got an overinflated ego and therefore, an overimaginative mind. What he took for blind obiedence was in fact, disdain and deliberate ignorance of his authority. He read his role wrong and therefore, mis-interrupt his worldviews wrong.

I don't care how you try to brainwash the masses, 1+1 still equals 2 no matter where you are on earth. The fact that he tries to convince you that 1+1=3 ignores just how well the human being can lied to his idiotic masters.

bonehead
25 Oct 11,, 06:43
No, genius, the point was that the states have functioned as the laboratories that they were supposed to be, and the experiment's results are all pointing to the same exact conclusion. YOU know, the way evidence is supposed to work? Get it? It has been duplicated a thousand times, and the facts are as clear as they can possibly get: LIBERALISM IS MADE OF FAIL. The closer you can get to conservatism the better; the redder your state is, the more successful it'll be.

THAT, Mr. Team (may I call you Red?), is now past any sort of a doubt, EXCEPT to the Left. They can't and never could follow a simple premise if it conflicts with what they just have to believe, no matter what the Real World demonstrates...again and again and again.

And how you came to the conclusion that populism and totalitarianism are what I'm boosting is anybody's guess.

Kind of curious as to how you measure success. According to America's wealthiest (and poorest) states - Sep. 16, 2010 (http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/16/news/economy/Americas_wealthiest_states/index.htm) the 10 poorest states are mostly conservative while the 10 wealthiest states are....more liberal,except for Utah.
Conservative states also do poorly when poverty is looked at. Percent below poverty level statistics - states compared - Statemaster (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_per_bel_pov_lev-economy-percent-below-poverty-level)

Now the Heritage foundation says that marriage is the greatest weapon against poverty. Since the states that have the highest levels of poverty are primarily conservative it looks like conservatives like to fool around but are not into the responsibility of marriage. If the poverty rates are so high there must be a corresponding correlation of higher rates of unwed mothers. To me, having a large number of unwed mothers is a social failure. Marriage: America (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Marriage-America-s-Greatest-Weapon-Against-Child-Poverty).

I am not defending liberalism by any means as their problems are as big and many as you have so vehemently and correctly pointed out already. However, I see the problem with America as much bigger than a "liberal/conservative" thing. I believe you and I have already covered this ground before so for the interest of this thread, again I ask. How do you measure how successful a state is?

Red Team
25 Oct 11,, 14:08
George Orwell got an overinflated ego and therefore, an overimaginative mind. What he took for blind obiedence was in fact, disdain and deliberate ignorance of his authority. He read his role wrong and therefore, mis-interrupt his worldviews wrong.

I don't care how you try to brainwash the masses, 1+1 still equals 2 no matter where you are on earth. The fact that he tries to convince you that 1+1=3 ignores just how well the human being can lied to his idiotic masters.

Well I don't really know how or when he ever came to that conclusion, if it's on Animal Farm I haven't read it. But I have seen such an idea mentioned in philosophy, especially in deductive rationalism with Rene Descartes and his Meditations. I believe the point was to say that one cannot take everything on face value, no matter how obvious or clear it may seem. You must continue to skepticize and scrutinize with your tools of logic, until you are personally certain for or against it.

Roosveltrepub
26 Oct 11,, 14:47
I've got to say I live in Unionized CT and I'll take it over non union TX any day. My taxes are higher but my pay is a third higher as well and my schools are better, there is more access to higher education and although we may not have jobs in a lot of chemical plants we do have a lot of high end manufacturing that is high value added so profitable and well paying and we seem to be a place corporations like to settle in more than conservative dreamboat TX

bonehead
26 Oct 11,, 17:16
Man I wish Shek was still around.
Why do Republican states receive more Federal money than they give if they are conservative? | Answerbag (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/2051834)

My question to him would be. Why would the republicans want smaller government and corresponding expenditures when they get more of federal dollars per capita sent to their states. Makes me wonder how well those republican states would do if/when government really shrinks and cuts off the federal milk and honey.

USSWisconsin
26 Oct 11,, 18:01
interesting link with median income for all states (2009)

Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)

Answer to bluesman - No the Democratic party has lost me, a while ago - and the Republican party isn't impressing me either. In the election I am sure I will have to decide between bad and worse.

Parihaka
26 Oct 11,, 18:45
Man I wish Shek was still around.
Why do Republican states receive more Federal money than they give if they are conservative? | Answerbag (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/2051834)

My question to him would be. Why would the republicans want smaller government and corresponding expenditures when they get more of federal dollars per capita sent to their states. Makes me wonder how well those republican states would do if/when government really shrinks and cuts off the federal milk and honey.

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20110806_WOC321.png

gunnut
26 Oct 11,, 20:02
Man I wish Shek was still around.
Why do Republican states receive more Federal money than they give if they are conservative? | Answerbag (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/2051834)

My question to him would be. Why would the republicans want smaller government and corresponding expenditures when they get more of federal dollars per capita sent to their states. Makes me wonder how well those republican states would do if/when government really shrinks and cuts off the federal milk and honey.

My answer would be in the form of this question: Why would the liberals formulate policies that send more money from the rich liberal states to the poor conservative states?

highsea
26 Oct 11,, 20:40
My answer would be in the form of this question: Why would the liberals formulate policies that send more money from the rich liberal states to the poor conservative states?A better question would be why do they complain about it? It's the progressivism they all say they want more of, that leads to that result.

I would measure a state's success by the opportunities available to it's residents. 4 of the top 5 highest unemployment states are liberal states. Washington D.C. has the highest per capita income of anywhere, but it still has unemployment over 11%. Michigan, California, and Nevada are even higher.

Of the lowest unemployment rates, 3 of the top 5 are conservative states. If you expand it to the lowest-rate 10 states, 7 out of 10 are conservative states, depending on how you classify Virginia.

A person looking for economic opportunity would be better off in North or South Dakota, than say Illinois or Michigan.

Looking at per-capita income alone isn't the whole picture. Cost of living makes a difference. A person in Alabama that makes 38K a year is living better than a person in Manhattan that makes 90K.

astralis
26 Oct 11,, 21:24
highsea,


I would measure a state's success by the opportunities available to it's residents. 4 of the top 5 highest unemployment states are liberal states. Washington D.C. has the highest per capita income of anywhere, but it still has unemployment over 11%. Michigan, California, and Nevada are even higher.


i don't think that's necessarily a good indicator of "state success", either. a recession will obviously hit economic nodes/urbanized areas harder; conversely, the boom/recovery will also be greater in those areas. state success is probably better measured by a range of measurements.


A person looking for economic opportunity would be better off in North or South Dakota, than say Illinois or Michigan.


which then begs the question, why aren't people/immigrants going in droves to either location vice, New York or SF.


Cost of living makes a difference. A person in Alabama that makes 38K a year is living better than a person in Manhattan that makes 90K.

cost of living does make a difference-- but on the other hand, absolute differences also make...a difference.

ie a guy in new york can easily choose to live in flushing or brooklyn and dramatically reduce his cost of living, and work in manhattan...all the while enjoying a range of entertainment/food/etc options that a guy living in alabama simply would not have easy access to no matter what type of salary he makes.

and i'd argue that getting the higher salary in alabama is considerably harder than reducing the cost of living in NYC!

bonehead
27 Oct 11,, 00:16
I've got to say I live in Unionized CT and I'll take it over non union TX any day. My taxes are higher but my pay is a third higher as well and my schools are better, there is more access to higher education and although we may not have jobs in a lot of chemical plants we do have a lot of high end manufacturing that is high value added so profitable and well paying and we seem to be a place corporations like to settle in more than conservative dreamboat TX

Well, that and you can still drink the water and breath the air without risking death.

bonehead
27 Oct 11,, 00:17
My answer would be in the form of this question: Why would the liberals formulate policies that send more money from the rich liberal states to the poor conservative states?

What makes you think it was the liberals that formulated said policies.

bonehead
27 Oct 11,, 00:24
A better question would be why do they complain about it? It's the progressivism they all say they want more of, that leads to that result.

I would measure a state's success by the opportunities available to it's residents. 4 of the top 5 highest unemployment states are liberal states. Washington D.C. has the highest per capita income of anywhere, but it still has unemployment over 11%. Michigan, California, and Nevada are even higher.

Of the lowest unemployment rates, 3 of the top 5 are conservative states. If you expand it to the lowest-rate 10 states, 7 out of 10 are conservative states, depending on how you classify Virginia.

A person looking for economic opportunity would be better off in North or South Dakota, than say Illinois or Michigan.

Looking at per-capita income alone isn't the whole picture. Cost of living makes a difference. A person in Alabama that makes 38K a year is living better than a person in Manhattan that makes 90K.
Until recent history ND SD and Wyoming (3 of the top 5) really didn't have much opportunities. Little work for low pay. Only the recent oil boom has changed that. Now the cost of living in those states is skyrocketing. Mostly due to the lack of housing and services for all the newcomers.

gunnut
27 Oct 11,, 00:47
What makes you think it was the liberals that formulated said policies.

Conservatives like to tax the rich and give to the poor?

Red Team
27 Oct 11,, 00:59
Conservatives like to tax the rich and give to the poor?

Really? No seriously, my recent view of conservatives have been pro-corporation/pro-rich and anti-welfare...not that I mind conservatives. :biggrin:

gunnut
27 Oct 11,, 01:43
Really? No seriously, my recent view of conservatives have been pro-corporation/pro-rich and anti-welfare...not that I mind conservatives. :biggrin:

I'm not sure. That's why I asked.

Red Team
27 Oct 11,, 01:46
I'm not sure. That's why I asked.

Ah. Um, did I inadvertently answer your question? :redface:

bonehead
27 Oct 11,, 02:18
Conservatives like to tax the rich and give to the poor?

If they thought it would make Obama a single term president they would do so in a heartbeat. But no. thats not what I was getting at. Even so it took years to make things the way they are and at times republicans were also in charge.

Some conservative congressmen had to add some pork to some bill that would send some money to his state. Sucking on the teat then biting the hand as it were. If the conservative states are really serious about smaller/leaner government the least they could do is stop accepting the government's money. As soon as they do that we can talk about the conservatives desire for a smaller government. Until they can back away from the governmental trough, its all talk and rhetoric. Using the excuse, "the democrats made me do it", well....that dog don't hunt.

DOR
27 Oct 11,, 15:21
If they thought it would make Obama a single term president they would do so in a heartbeat.

Isn't that the entire problem?

Seriously, all partisan politics aside (and, I count myself among the MOST Democratic partisan around here), isn't is the case that we are in a situation today where the hope of winning office has obscured the best interests of the nation?

Serious responses only, if you please.

bonehead
27 Oct 11,, 16:25
Isn't that the entire problem?

Seriously, all partisan politics aside (and, I count myself among the MOST Democratic partisan around here), isn't is the case that we are in a situation today where the hope of winning office has obscured the best interests of the nation?

Serious responses only, if you please.

Been that way for quite some time DOR. Each side has been brainwashed into believing that the other(their fellow Americans) is THE worse enemy of the state. Want further proof? ask Bluesman straight up how he feels about democrats. He won't pull any punches, nor is he alone in his beliefs. Hell, Politics has taken over religion as the most volatile subject.

dalem
27 Oct 11,, 18:40
So I'm brainwashed now? I didn't arrive at my conclusions by logic and analysis?

-dale

gunnut
27 Oct 11,, 18:52
If they thought it would make Obama a single term president they would do so in a heartbeat. But no. thats not what I was getting at. Even so it took years to make things the way they are and at times republicans were also in charge.

Some conservative congressmen had to add some pork to some bill that would send some money to his state. Sucking on the teat then biting the hand as it were. If the conservative states are really serious about smaller/leaner government the least they could do is stop accepting the government's money. As soon as they do that we can talk about the conservatives desire for a smaller government. Until they can back away from the governmental trough, its all talk and rhetoric. Using the excuse, "the democrats made me do it", well....that dog don't hunt.

OK, then why don't the congressman from liberal states, like CA and NY, ask for more stuff?

How much is pork? Really? Compared to the handouts given by the actual legislations? How much money do the DOE and HHS give to the states?

Why do the republican congressmen ask for pork? Because he's selling his vote. He's being a capitalist. He gets pork for his constituents to secure re-election. Again, he's being a capitalist.

If the democrats are the true compassionate people who care about the down-trodden, the less fortunate, the have-nots, they wouldn't need to buy republican votes. They would tax their own states and give the money without strings attached to the poor conservative states.

bonehead
27 Oct 11,, 20:07
So I'm brainwashed now? I didn't arrive at my conclusions by logic and analysis?

-dale

Sorry to bruise your ego Dale but as long as you believe either the democrats or the republicans can save this country you are but a pawn in the game and thats right where they want you. As long as you support one or the other you will see short term victories and defeats but the long term prognosis is that not much will change other than the fact that this country is spiraling downwards. What was that definition of insanity? doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. If you really want the results you seek, your going to have to ditch the republican/democrat thing and do something differently.

dalem
27 Oct 11,, 20:10
Sorry to bruise your ego Dale but as long as you believe either the democrats or the republicans can save this country you are but a pawn in the game and thats right where they want you. As long as you support one or the other you will see short term victories and defeats but the long term prognosis is that not much will change other than the fact that this country is spiraling downwards. What was that definition of insanity? doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. If you really want the results you seek, your going to have to ditch the republican/democrat thing and do something differently.

Hmm. How do we know that it is not you who has been brainwashed by the "burn it all down and start over" crowd though? What makes you right and me wrong?

-dale

bonehead
27 Oct 11,, 20:19
OK, then why don't the congressman from liberal states, like CA and NY, ask for more stuff?

How much is pork? Really? Compared to the handouts given by the actual legislations? How much money do the DOE and HHS give to the states?

Why do the republican congressmen ask for pork? Because he's selling his vote. He's being a capitalist. He gets pork for his constituents to secure re-election. Again, he's being a capitalist.

If the democrats are the true compassionate people who care about the down-trodden, the less fortunate, the have-nots, they wouldn't need to buy republican votes. They would tax their own states and give the money without strings attached to the poor conservative states.

Yes, actual legislation is used as well. All those extras are considered "pork" to me.

"Because he is selling his vote" Thanks gunnut. You just helped prove my point that republicans are really no better than democrats. Both sides of the same coin. You see if the republicans really cared about principals the congressmen could represent their constituents without any vote selling and still get re-elected.

Please, I implore you not to fall into the rhetoric BS that if you criticize republicans you have to support democrats because that does not describe me one iota. Both sides have been bought out and are useless to this country. One side pays lip service to business while the other supposedly fights for the poor. Neither is the case. Both sides pander to the ultra rich. The rest is but smoke and mirrors.

bonehead
27 Oct 11,, 20:24
Hmm. How do we know that it is not you who has been brainwashed by the "burn it all down and start over" crowd though? What makes you right and me wrong?

-dale

Ok. We have been doing this system for several decades. Is this country getting progressively better or worse? If you see the country as getting better over the last decades then it looks like you are right. If not, then you have to concede I have a point. One more thing, remember that Obama is a result of the current system.

highsea
27 Oct 11,, 20:37
Compare North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska, to Oregon, Washington, and California past 20 years...

Unemployment in the U.S. - Google Public Data Explorer (http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=state&idim=state:ST380000:ST410000:ST310000:ST530000:ST0 60000:ST460000&ifdim=state&tstart=633427200000&tend=1317106800000&hl=en&dl=en&uniSize=0.035&iconSize=0.5&icfg)

gunnut
27 Oct 11,, 21:59
Yes, actual legislation is used as well. All those extras are considered "pork" to me.

"Because he is selling his vote" Thanks gunnut. You just helped prove my point that republicans are really no better than democrats. Both sides of the same coin. You see if the republicans really cared about principals the congressmen could represent their constituents without any vote selling and still get re-elected.

Please, I implore you not to fall into the rhetoric BS that if you criticize republicans you have to support democrats because that does not describe me one iota. Both sides have been bought out and are useless to this country. One side pays lip service to business while the other supposedly fights for the poor. Neither is the case. Both sides pander to the ultra rich. The rest is but smoke and mirrors.

But if you believe the republicans to be corrupt, then "selling their vote" is exactly what they would do.

Do not mistaken republicans with "conservatives." Conservatives want small government. Not all republicans are conservatives. It's the same exact reason I will not vote for Romney, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Huntsman, and Christie.

bonehead
27 Oct 11,, 22:06
Compare North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska, to Oregon, Washington, and California past 20 years...

Unemployment in the U.S. - Google Public Data Explorer (http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=state&idim=state:ST380000:ST410000:ST310000:ST530000:ST0 60000:ST460000&ifdim=state&tstart=633427200000&tend=1317106800000&hl=en&dl=en&uniSize=0.035&iconSize=0.5&icfg)

There's a bit more to it than that highsea. Not much manufacturing in those states and its primarily the demise of the manufacturing sector that has been the driving force of higher unemployment. Mostly farming which is historically low unemployment and resource extraction which has far smaller boons and busts as manufacturing states. Then there is the weather. Try comparing living under a bridge in ND to a more temperate climate of the pacific coast. Then you may find why not many people stay and hang out in N.Dakota to collect unemployment. Very little illegals competing for jobs and if I am not mistaken things were so bad in Nebraska and N Dakota ie lack of opportunities, that they had to give away free land to bolster the population.

bonehead
27 Oct 11,, 22:23
But if you believe the republicans to be corrupt, then "selling their vote" is exactly what they would do.

Do not mistaken republicans with "conservatives." Conservatives want small government. Not all republicans are conservatives. It's the same exact reason I will not vote for Romney, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Huntsman, and Christie.

Conservatism does not equate to republicans but they are a major driving force within the party are they not? Otherwise Romney would have won the nomination by now. Instead the more conservative aspects of the party are throwing up one conservative after another in the hopes that one may defeat Romney in the primaries. Incase Romney ultimately wins the primaries I suspect you would hold your nose and vote for him over another 4 years of Obama.
Selling their vote is something you admitted to. I simply agreed to it. One thing I know is that you either have principals or you don't. If the republican congressmen voted strictly on principals and retained their office then great. If they really have to sell their votes then they are no better than those on the other side of the isle. In the meantime the "conservative" states are bringing home a lot of Federal bacon aren't they?

gunnut
27 Oct 11,, 22:37
Conservatism does not equate to republicans but they are a major driving force within the party are they not? Otherwise Romney would have won the nomination by now. Instead the more conservative aspects of the party are throwing up one conservative after another in the hopes that one may defeat Romney in the primaries. Incase Romney ultimately wins the primaries I suspect you would hold your nose and vote for him over another 4 years of Obama.

Nope. I would not hold my nose to vote for anyone if I don't like him. I did not vote for McCain. I didn't vote for Obama either. I voted for Bob Barr.


Selling their vote is something you admitted to. I simply agreed to it. One thing I know is that you either have principals or you don't. If the republican congressmen voted strictly on principals and retained their office then great. If they really have to sell their votes then they are no better than those on the other side of the isle. In the meantime the "conservative" states are bringing home a lot of Federal bacon aren't they?

Sure the "conservative" states are bring home a lot of pork. Why shouldn't they? The democrats set up the system to do that.

A lot of democrats are bitter about this, yet they have no problem with taking money from the rich to redistribute to the poor. Somehow it's ok if the government does it to individuals but not ok of one state does this to another.:rolleyes:

Both sides are hypocrites. The republicans taking the money and the democrats complaining about it.

JAD_333
27 Oct 11,, 22:53
Ok. We have been doing this system for several decades. Is this country getting progressively better or worse? If you see the country as getting better over the last decades then it looks like you are right. If not, then you have to concede I have a point. One more thing, remember that Obama is a result of the current system.

I was arguing with a liberal friend of mine the other day pretty hot and heavy and we were throwing back and forth all the things wrong with the country and who is to blame and finally we broke down laughing. You know, she said, despite it all, this is a great country we live in. How many places on the globe can you criticize politicians and make fun of them and not be threatened with arrest and imprisonment?

But there are a lot of people who think things have never been so bad as they are now, economically, politically, and criminally. They think the country is going to pieces. They've lost faith in our system. God knows what they'll do out of desperation. But I know one thing they haven't done and it's obvious; they haven't studied our history and how this country had been through some major low points of unbelievable corruption and financial chicanery. Each time, the people pulled out their greatest weapon, the vote, and brought in new legislators to fix things. It's time to stop whining and pointing fingers, start politicking. Whether you are a Republican, Democrat or Libertarian, if you want to fix what's broke in government, we need to listen to each other. As for taking a liberal or conservative approach to lawmaking that's where we can differ. That's not mechanics; that's philosophy.

highsea
27 Oct 11,, 23:27
There's a bit more to it than that highsea.Irrelevant. It was you who offered up median household income as the measure of success.

I simply offered another way to look at it. As I said: D.C. is as wealthy as it gets, yet has (and always has had) very high unemployment.

If you want a microcosm of the "haves and have nots" look no farther than our nation's capital.


Not much manufacturing in those states and its primarily the demise of the manufacturing sector that has been the driving force of higher unemployment. Nonsense. It's the housing crash and resulting (gov't created) recession that drove unemployment levels up.

The loss of manufacturing jobs is what has pushed up the so-called "income inequality", but we have been shedding manufacturing jobs for 30 years. We've had full employment as recently as a few years ago, from 1995 to 2008 it only went above 6% once, and most years was under 5% nationally.

bonehead
27 Oct 11,, 23:55
Irrelevant. It was you who offered up median household income as the measure of success.

I simply offered another way to look at it. As I said: D.C. is as wealthy as it gets, yet has (and always has had) very high unemployment.

If you want a microcosm of the "haves and have nots" look no farther than our nation's capital.

Nonsense. It's the housing crash and resulting (gov't created) recession that drove unemployment levels up.

The loss of manufacturing jobs is what has pushed up the so-called "income inequality", but we have been shedding manufacturing jobs for 30 years. We've had full employment as recently as a few years ago, from 1995 to 2008 it only went above 6% once, and most years was under 5% nationally.

So you are seriously trying to argue that a state that has 5% unemployment looking for 100 jobs is more successful than a state that has 7% looking for thousands of job openings?

I call BS on using D.C. as an example. Last time I checked it was not a state. God help me, California is so you can bash me on that. D.C. is a great example of an extension of our government's corruption though.

The housing crash was made much worse because of the people who lost their jobs and no longer could afford their mortgages. As the better paying manufacturing jobs were lost over the last few decades many people were pushed closer to the cliff. For many, the housing crash was simply the last straw.

highsea
28 Oct 11,, 00:27
So you are seriously trying to argue that a state that has 5% unemployment looking for 100 jobs is more successful than a state that has 7% looking for thousands of job openings?That makes no sense. States don't look for jobs, people do. Lower unemployment rate translates into fewer applicants per job opening, better wages for the same job.

That's why ND is where the opportunities are right now. BTW, the oil boom really only came in over the past 5 years. That's when horizontal drilling and fracking became economical.


I call BS on using D.C. as an example. Last time I checked it was not a state. God help me, California is so you can bash me on that. D.C. is a great example of an extension of our government's corruption though.D.C. is a good example of why your measure (median household income) isn't a good one. I could just as easily use NJ,CT, or WA as examples. All are in your top 10, but all have high unemployment. All have high cost of living, which means the money you do earn doesn't go as far.


The housing crash was made much worse because of the people who lost their jobs and no longer could afford their mortgages. As the better paying manufacturing jobs were lost over the last few decades many people were pushed closer to the cliff. For many, the housing crash was simply the last straw.Irrelevent. Someone who lost their manufacturing job 10 or 20 years ago had either already moved into something more affordable or paid it off.

Loss of mfg. jobs had nothing to do with this recession or the housing collapse.

bonehead
28 Oct 11,, 01:22
I was arguing with a liberal friend of mine the other day pretty hot and heavy and we were throwing back and forth all the things wrong with the country and who is to blame and finally we broke down laughing. You know, she said, despite it all, this is a great country we live in. How many places on the globe can you criticize politicians and make fun of them and not be threatened with arrest and imprisonment?

But there are a lot of people who think things have never been so bad as they are now, economically, politically, and criminally. They think the country is going to pieces. They've lost faith in our system. God knows what they'll do out of desperation. But I know one thing they haven't done and it's obvious; they haven't studied our history and how this country had been through some major low points of unbelievable corruption and financial chicanery. Each time, the people pulled out their greatest weapon, the vote, and brought in new legislators to fix things. It's time to stop whining and pointing fingers, start politicking. Whether you are a Republican, Democrat or Libertarian, if you want to fix what's broke in government, we need to listen to each other. As for taking a liberal or conservative approach to lawmaking that's where we can differ. That's not mechanics; that's philosophy.

Yeah I hear you. Its nice to discuss volatile viewpoints without getting everyone's panties in a bunch but I see it getting rarer these days which tells me that more people are really worried about current events and where our country is heading. Things get more personal as individuals start to feel the pinch.

I am more pessimistic than you however, Our "leaders" have stopped listening to each other and show no signs of reversing that trend. At this stage of the game I doubt the vote has the impact it once had. They have taken for granted a set voter base and are only out for a few independent votes to carry the day. Furthermore, the vote has lost out to the dollar. If you want a congressman to vote your way, a suitcase of cash or a promise of a ridiculously high-paying job in the future speaks much louder than a vote every 4 years. Even then, if you vote one out only to replace him with one just like him what have you gained?

bonehead
28 Oct 11,, 01:42
That makes no sense. States don't look for jobs, people do. Lower unemployment rate translates into fewer applicants per job opening, better wages for the same job.

That's why ND is where the opportunities are right now. BTW, the oil boom really only came in over the past 5 years. That's when horizontal drilling and fracking became economical.

D.C. is a good example of why your measure (median household income) isn't a good one. I could just as easily use NJ,CT, or WA as examples. All are in your top 10, but all have high unemployment. All have high cost of living, which means the money you do earn doesn't go as far.

Irrelevent. Someone who lost their manufacturing job 10 or 20 years ago had either already moved into something more affordable or paid it off.

Loss of mfg. jobs had nothing to do with this recession or the housing collapse.

Ok highsea, If lower unemployment means higher wages for the same job why is the median income of N.D. lower than Washington.

Until the oil boom the population of N.D. was rising at only half the rate of the rest of the country. Most likely because of lack of opportunities. Lets be honest. N.D. never had a lot of people there to begin with and until the recent boom people had no reason to go there which is why they had to give away free land to get people to move there.

Have to disagree with you on the manufacturing jobs. Many people are still holding out for them to return. In the mean time they take whatever they can get which brings them closer to the brink as far as affording their mortgage. I know several who list their occupation as "logger" even though they haven't done that in decades. Even today some homes in my neighborhood are empty. The people who lived there could have weathered out the housing crisis just fine....as long as they kept their jobs, but that didn't happen. You simply can't take a good portion of the middle class and stick them into lower class and expect all to be fine in the housing market.

highsea
28 Oct 11,, 01:58
Ok highsea, If lower unemployment means higher wages for the same job why is the median income of N.D. lower than Washington.Because Boeing and Microsoft are in Washington?

Cost of living in North Dakota is a hell of a lot less than Washington.


Double your salary in the middle of nowhere, North Dakota

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Believe it or not, a place exists where companies are hiring like crazy, and you can make $15 an hour serving tacos, $25 an hour waiting tables and $80,000 a year driving trucks.

You just have to move to North Dakota. Specifically, to one of the tiny towns surrounding the oil-rich Bakken formation, estimated to hold anywhere between 4 billion and 24 billion barrels of oil.

Oil companies have only recently discovered ways to tap this reserve. And along with the manpower needed to extract the oil, the town is now scrambling to find workers to support the new rush of labor.

Watford City is at the center of the Bakken formation. While it is home to less than 3,000 permanent residents, there are about 6,500 people there right now, as job hunters relocate to seek out high-paying jobs.

Aaron Pelton, the owner of Outlaws Bar & Grill in Watford, said his sales have been nearly doubling every year -- and it's only getting busier. Servers at his restaurant make about $25 an hour when tips are factored in, and kitchen staff employees make around $15 an hour.

Surprise six-figure salaries
Vickie McMullen and her husband were living in one of the poorest cities in North Carolina, and they knew they needed to move to dig themselves out of debt. When they looked online earlier this year and saw the number of high-paying job opportunities in Williston, North Dakota -- less than 50 miles from Watford -- they knew it was the place to jumpstart their lives.

McMullen now works as a nanny in exchange for housing. Her husband, who worked on behavior management programs for a school system in North Carolina where he took home about $1,600 a month, found a job working in the oilfields where he makes that same amount of money in one week -- adding up to an annual salary of about $77,000.

"We want to be debt-free, so we came here to play catch-up," said McMullen. "But when I came here, I thought I was on Mars. It's just so crazy that the rest of the country has no jobs, and here's this one place that doesn't have enough people to fill all the jobs."

Where jobs are booming
With oil companies paying top dollar to the new onslaught of workers they need -- doling out average salaries of $70,000, and more than $100,000 including over-time -- other local businesses are boosting their pay to compete.

Entry level jobs everywhere from restaurants and grocery stores to convenience stores and local banks pay a minimum of $12 per hour, according to the McKenzie County Job Development Authority. Truck drivers make an average of $70,000 to $80,000 a year.

Taco John's, a Western fast-food chain, has increased its pay from $8.50 an hour to $15 an hour in Williston to hold on to its workers during its busiest shifts. It's also trying to keep pace with competitors, including the Subway and Hardee's down the street, said general manager Christie Smith. The Taco John's currently has more than 15 open positions and Smith said she has only turned down one applicant this year, "because he just looked too scruffy."

If a Taco John's employee refers a friend for a job, and that friend is hired and works there at least six weeks, the employee is given a $100 bonus, and the new employee gets $150.

Heather McLaren and her boyfriend came to Watford from Fargo about a year ago. She makes $10 an hour at a local gas station and convenience store, and her boyfriend works in farming and makes $15 an hour -- up from $9.75 an hour in Fargo.

Oil boom brings high-paying jobs to North Dakota - Sep. 28, 2011 (http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/28/pf/north_dakota_jobs/index.htm)




Until the oil boom the population of N.D. was rising at only half the rate of the rest of the country. Most likely because of lack of opportunities. Lets be honest. N.D. never had a lot of people there to begin with and until the recent boom people had no reason to go there which is why they had to give away free land to get people to move there.So? There are opportunities today. Their unemployment rate has always been lower than the left coast, I already posted the comparison.


Have to disagree with you on the manufacturing jobs. Many people are still holding out for them to return. In the mean time they take whatever they can get which brings them closer to the brink as far as affording their mortgage. I know several who list their occupation as "logger" even though they haven't done that in decades. Even today some homes in my neighborhood are empty. The people who lived there could have weathered out the housing crisis just fine....as long as they kept their jobs, but that didn't happen. You simply can't take a good portion of the middle class and stick them into lower class and expect all to be fine in the housing market.No logging, thank the liberals for that too. See my comments on that subject, page 2 of this thread.

Tell your friends that there are jobs in North Dakota if they want to work...

dalem
28 Oct 11,, 02:09
Ok. We have been doing this system for several decades. Is this country getting progressively better or worse? If you see the country as getting better over the last decades then it looks like you are right. If not, then you have to concede I have a point. One more thing, remember that Obama is a result of the current system.

Actually, I think that, even granting its limitations and corruptions, our current system can produce "good" progress (i.e. progress *I* like) if the main movers and shakers adopt conserative-ish ideas, and the Republican party is more likely to do that, and actually doing it right now to boot.

Why would I want a system where we the people are not free to elect an arrogant ignorant leftist as president? I'm a citizen, not a babysitter.

-dale

DOR
28 Oct 11,, 02:23
bonehead, highsea,



its primarily the demise of the manufacturing sector that has been the driving force of higher unemployment.

and,


we have been shedding manufacturing jobs for 30 years.

Slightly longer than that. Try, 68 years, and counting.

Manufacturing employment as a share of total employment peaked in August 1943 at 34.6%. Ever since then the ratio has declined.

Manufacturing production employment
as a percent of total employment,
in August of the year cited:

1943 _ _ 34.6%
1953 _ _ 27.0%
1963 _ _ 21.4%
1973 _ _ 18.6%
1983 _ _ 13.6%
1993 _ _ 10.9%
2003 _ _ _7.8%
2011_ _ _ 6.3%

Source: Bureau of Labor Standards (bls.gov)


America is a service economy, as indicated by those North Dakota jobs.
Trying to “revive” manufacturing is a fool’s game.

bonehead
28 Oct 11,, 02:28
Because Boeing and Microsoft are in Washington?

Cost of living in North Dakota is a hell of a lot less than Washington.




So? There are opportunities today. Their unemployment rate has always been lower than the left coast, I already posted the comparison.

No logging, thank the liberals for that too. See my comments on that subject, page 2 of this thread.

Tell your friends that there are jobs in North Dakota if they want to work...

I worked in both states. After the jobs (construction) I walked away with far more money after working in Redmond. But then I stayed out of the high end districts too.

All my friends are working. Ironically its the more conservative types that are clinging to the logging or bust mantra. What killed logging was the move to harvesters and the over cutting in the 70's and 80's. You could remove all the restrictions today and the logging boom would be for a few years at best then completely die as the board foot of timber just isn't out there anymore.

I saw that link elsewhere and that is what is currently happening. When I was there in the 90's there were only a handful of jobs and advancement was nonexistent. People were happy to work the counter for tips because if they didn't like that job there was basically nothing else. Because of the oil boom things have changed radically. However the change has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal. Its because there is the state is sitting on a huge amount of oil the country needs.

highsea
28 Oct 11,, 02:47
...However the change has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal. Its because there is the state is sitting on a huge amount of oil the country needs.It's a question of using the resources a State has available. In North Dakota it's energy. In Washington and Oregon it's timber. Those jobs in the woods pay well and are good honest work. Not a damn thing wrong with them.

It does have to do with liberal/conservative, at least in my lifetime/experience. I've watched the timber industry go kaput in the PacNW. I've seen all the resource based industries in Alaska come under attack, from fishing and oil to timber and mining.

The US needs all those resources. not just the oil in N.D.

BTW, I'm about the last guy in the world you should be trying to lecture about hanging on to manufacturing. Jesus I'm the fucking last of the mohecans.

RollingWave
28 Oct 11,, 04:56
bonehead, highsea,




and,



Slightly longer than that. Try, 68 years, and counting.

Manufacturing employment as a share of total employment peaked in August 1943 at 34.6%. Ever since then the ratio has declined.

Manufacturing production employment
as a percent of total employment,
in August of the year cited:

1943 _ _ 34.6%
1953 _ _ 27.0%
1963 _ _ 21.4%
1973 _ _ 18.6%
1983 _ _ 13.6%
1993 _ _ 10.9%
2003 _ _ _7.8%
2011_ _ _ 6.3%

Source: Bureau of Labor Standards (bls.gov)


America is a service economy, as indicated by those North Dakota jobs.
Trying to “revive” manufacturing is a fool’s game.

I knew it, FDR! another Dem ;)

Seriously though, de-manufacturization is common across all developed country.

If the US wants to seriously revive it's manufacturing, it's gotta well.. become more like China, and I doubt any voters would really go for that.

They could start by removing minimum wage standards... that'll probably kill votes faster than Obama killed the economy that was already killed a few months before he took office. :)

On a more serious note, the US could try a comprimise on the whole illegal immigrant thing by allowing Latin Americans to work in certain industries well below minimum wage on visas, on the grounds that the employer either needs to hire domestic workers in equal purportion to the increase in visa workers and/or paying additional taxes / fees based on how many you use. that works alright in Taiwan. where there's been a large number of S.E Asian workers on assembly line for ages, but unemployement is still fairly low.

Me? I would call myself a fiscal conservative, espeically in real life , I would support a fiscal conservative party, which quite frankly neither of them are. at least the Dem don' seem to be pretending to be it as much. and was the last party to actually have a reasonablly fisically responsible President. I find it quite amusing that the party crying about balance budget is also for raising military spending and cutting taxes.

DOR
28 Oct 11,, 09:20
If the US wants to seriously revive it's manufacturing, it's gotta well.. become more like China, and I doubt any voters would really go for that.

Or, invest in education and research and use the advantages America has that China doesn't.

Makes no sense at all to try and compete with China, India, Brazil, Bangladesh, Indonesia or a dozen other lower cost economies.

Julie
28 Oct 11,, 13:15
Or, invest in education and research and use the advantages America has that China doesn't.

Makes no sense at all to try and compete with China, India, Brazil, Bangladesh, Indonesia or a dozen other lower cost economies.Then who does that leave to compete with? Would that mean the US is uncompetitive?

Doktor
28 Oct 11,, 13:20
Or, invest in education and research and use the advantages America has that China doesn't.

Makes no sense at all to try and compete with China, India, Brazil, Bangladesh, Indonesia or a dozen other lower cost economies.

The Germans disagree with you wholehearthly ;)

astralis
28 Oct 11,, 13:46
julie,


Then who does that leave to compete with? Would that mean the US is uncompetitive?

US should be competing with other advanced "post-industrials", ie a dedicated push to move up the value chain vice trying to move down.

doktor,


The Germans disagree with you wholehearthly

they don't produce the same things as the developing countries listed. and that's the point-- use US technological know-how to produce items that are far more expense to reproduce elsewhere.

also, the US needs a real vocational system; not everyone is suited for college, and this shows with the number of "communications" and "ethnic studies" degrees we have out there.

Albany Rifles
28 Oct 11,, 14:02
"...not everyone is suited for college, and this shows with the number of "communications" and "ethnic studies" degrees we have out there."

As well as sports management and Civil War history!

Seriously, we need to look at a form of national service (I know, this is probably not the thread!). College and/or Vo Tech is the pay off.

bigross86
28 Oct 11,, 14:43
julie,



US should be competing with other advanced "post-industrials", ie a dedicated push to move up the value chain vice trying to move down.

doktor,



they don't produce the same things as the developing countries listed. and that's the point-- use US technological know-how to produce items that are far more expense to reproduce elsewhere.

also, the US needs a real vocational system; not everyone is suited for college, and this shows with the number of "communications" and "ethnic studies" degrees we have out there.

I dunno how to take that remark, since I'm studying communications myself, but I plan on putting my degree to good use. I'm taking a whole crapload of courses that deal with the internet and social networking, and I hope to take that and work in pro-Israel advocacy when I finish my degree. Let's face it, communications is one of the few degrees out there, if not the only one, that studies social networking and applications seriously

bigross86
28 Oct 11,, 14:43
"...not everyone is suited for college, and this shows with the number of "communications" and "ethnic studies" degrees we have out there."

As well as sports management and Civil War history!

Seriously, we need to look at a form of national service (I know, this is probably not the thread!). College and/or Vo Tech is the pay off.

True, not the thread, but I do wholeheartedly agree that a form of national service is a must

astralis
28 Oct 11,, 15:04
BR,


I dunno how to take that remark, since I'm studying communications myself, but I plan on putting my degree to good use. I'm taking a whole crapload of courses that deal with the internet and social networking, and I hope to take that and work in pro-Israel advocacy when I finish my degree. Let's face it, communications is one of the few degrees out there, if not the only one, that studies social networking and applications seriously

don't take it personally. SOME comm degrees are desirable; it's when everyone goes there because it is seen as easier than the hard sciences that it becomes a problem.

and it's serious in the US-- when 3x the number of college grads plan to be artists rather than scientists, there's a fundamental issue to the future of science literacy in the US.

and i'm saying this as a poli sci/history major! (although i do have a minor in biology, lol.)

bigross86
28 Oct 11,, 15:12
BR,



don't take it personally. SOME comm degrees are desirable; it's when everyone goes there because it is seen as easier than the hard sciences that it becomes a problem.

and it's serious in the US-- when 3x the number of college grads plan to be artists rather than scientists, there's a fundamental issue to the future of science literacy in the US.

and i'm saying this as a poli sci/history major! (although i do have a minor in biology, lol.)

Hell, I started out in Economics, just realized that me and numbers don't get along that well together. I did try it, though, and it ended up costing me a semester.

I'm no artist and no scientist, just trying to find something I'm relatively good at and trying to translate that into making a living

Bigfella
28 Oct 11,, 15:49
The Germans disagree with you wholehearthly ;)

Germany is trying to compete on labour costs? I thought they were evil child eating socialists who allowed unions & paid good wages & such. I got the impression Germany was rather good at making high quality thingies, especially niche capabilities. Did I miss something?

Tarek Morgen
28 Oct 11,, 15:55
I don't eat children. Too much cartilage, not enough meat.

Bigfella
28 Oct 11,, 15:57
I don't eat children. Too much cartilage, not enough meat.

You date vampires. You don't get a vote.

Tarek Morgen
28 Oct 11,, 16:00
why does everyone remember the wannabe vampire? It is the last psycho one that really scared me.

Mihais
28 Oct 11,, 16:01
Thor's hammer man!!Wth happened this time?

Tarek Morgen
28 Oct 11,, 16:10
Thor's hammer man!!Wth happened this time?


still the same "last psycho girl. (The one who tried to kill me). I haven't been in a serious relationship ever since. I did go on a few dates but every girl seemed a bit..too risky. (among them: A girl that claimed to a descendant of Vlad the third..or his half brother to be exact. Another woman who told me on the second date that she is still married to a guy currently awaiting trial for attempted manslaughter. The one girl that seemed to be normal was so boring that I could not bring myself to spend even another minute with her)

bigross86
28 Oct 11,, 16:30
Well, there's your problem right there, the normal chicks bore you

Bigfella
28 Oct 11,, 16:30
still the same "last psycho girl. (The one who tried to kill me). I haven't been in a serious relationship ever since. I did go on a few dates but every girl seemed a bit..too risky. (among them: A girl that claimed to a descendant of Vlad the third..or his half brother to be exact. Another woman who told me on the second date that she is still married to a guy currently awaiting trial for attempted manslaughter. The one girl that seemed to be normal was so boring that I could not bring myself to spend even another minute with her)

You have missed a true calling in comedy writing. This stuff is just gold. You must emit some pherremone that is especially attractive to lunatics. I suspect the problem you will have now is that you are so conditioned to barking mad women that normal ones will seem too boring to endure. Oh, if it makes you feel any better telling us about Vlad the Impaler girl means we might not just focus on Vampire girl. I'm afraid 'psycho tried to kill me' girl is not all that memorable in such company ( of course, we weren't the ones being attacked :)).

bigross86
28 Oct 11,, 16:49
Well, it all pretty much depends on why she was trying to kill him. Tarek, have you been a bad boy?

bonehead
28 Oct 11,, 16:52
I knew it, FDR! another Dem ;)

Seriously though, de-manufacturization is common across all developed country.

If the US wants to seriously revive it's manufacturing, it's gotta well.. become more like China, and I doubt any voters would really go for that.

They could start by removing minimum wage standards... that'll probably kill votes faster than Obama killed the economy that was already killed a few months before he took office. :)

On a more serious note, the US could try a comprimise on the whole illegal immigrant thing by allowing Latin Americans to work in certain industries well below minimum wage on visas, on the grounds that the employer either needs to hire domestic workers in equal purportion to the increase in visa workers and/or paying additional taxes / fees based on how many you use. that works alright in Taiwan. where there's been a large number of S.E Asian workers on assembly line for ages, but unemployement is still fairly low.

Me? I would call myself a fiscal conservative, espeically in real life , I would support a fiscal conservative party, which quite frankly neither of them are. at least the Dem don' seem to be pretending to be it as much. and was the last party to actually have a reasonablly fisically responsible President. I find it quite amusing that the party crying about balance budget is also for raising military spending and cutting taxes.

There is no need to compete for the low end market. That is where the U.S. failed...by lowering the bar. What we ned to do is focus on the high end quality products that other countries can't produce. We also need to manufacture what we invent instead of giving it all away and have it made by the lowest bidder.

Tarek Morgen
28 Oct 11,, 16:55
Well, it all pretty much depends on why she was trying to kill him. Tarek, have you been a bad boy?

She tried to smach my face with a glass bottle while shouting "I'll kill you!" because I refused to beat her up

That is the short version. The longer one would also go into her bipolar personality disorder and such..but I am sure that this thread once had an actual topic.

Mihais
28 Oct 11,, 17:13
Yeah,lefties.Bugger them,talk about something interesting

USSWisconsin
28 Oct 11,, 17:21
She tried to smach my face with a glass bottle while shouting "I'll kill you!" because I refused to beat her up

That is the short version. The longer one would also go into her bipolar personality disorder and such..but I am sure that this thread once had an actual topic.

Did she have teams of horses, stout ropes and a pole erected in the courtyard? Yikes! I thought the women in my life were crazy - the Vlad the Impaler thing is much more "interesting" than a mere vampire.

bigross86
28 Oct 11,, 18:47
She tried to smach my face with a glass bottle while shouting "I'll kill you!" because I refused to beat her up

That is the short version. The longer one would also go into her bipolar personality disorder and such..but I am sure that this thread once had an actual topic.

How the hell did that situation and topic of discussion even come up?!

YellowFever
28 Oct 11,, 19:13
Well, it all pretty much depends on why she was trying to kill him. Tarek, have you been a bad boy?

He's the admin.

You don't really need an excuse to try to hurt him or wish him ill....

highsea
28 Oct 11,, 20:04
...America is a service economy, as indicated by those North Dakota jobs.
Trying to “revive” manufacturing is a fool’s game.Geez that's great news. So all that the high-unemployment states need to do is train up a bunch of highly skilled taco vendors.

Our problems are solved. :rolleyes:

Julie
28 Oct 11,, 21:01
Geez that's great news. So all that the high-unemployment states need to do is train up a bunch of highly skilled taco vendors.

Our problems are solved. :rolleyes:LOL...:biggrin: That is about the size of it. ;)

Julie
28 Oct 11,, 21:03
How the hell did that situation and topic of discussion even come up?!He's a mouse and a vampire magnet....go figure. :rolleyes:

Parihaka
28 Oct 11,, 21:08
I dunno how to take that remark, since I'm studying communications myself, but I plan on putting my degree to good use. I'm taking a whole crapload of courses that deal with the internet and social networking, and I hope to take that and work in pro-Israel advocacy when I finish my degree. Let's face it, communications is one of the few degrees out there, if not the only one, that studies social networking and applications seriously

Heh, don't worry about it. As someone working in the 'communications' industry, we need you, if for nothing else, to make the coffee.
Seriously, within ten years a single 'in the closet' hub, linked to your phone as remote, will be playing on demand programmes, movies, web-links-news etc on high quality paper-thin screens in every room in your house, including what you currently love, skype. Want to have a chat with Tankie while you're in the shower? Not a problem. Upload your high-speed car drive through Tel Aviv in real time HQ to your 'friends'? Press record.
I've spent 30 years on the creative/technician sides and at the moment I'm standing in the middle of it watching the capabilities role out and just going 'wow'.
Nobody really understands the implications of technology on what is going to be 'communicated' in the future and how people will choose what to access and what their own input will be. We're just beginning to move out of passive audiences and into audiences as players. There's gold in them thar hills.

Most of the people I work with think it's cool that I can send a programme for broadcast and webcast at the same time simply by pressing a 'button' and leaving my servers to do the rest :rolleyes::I was planning for multiple platforms like that 10 years ago.
When I find myself at the cutting edge of technical possibilities, thinking in terms of five to ten years ahead of what my clients (read marketing industry) are even aware of as a possibility, there's something seriously wrong with the current crop of communications managers.

highsea
28 Oct 11,, 21:45
LOL...:biggrin: That is about the size of it. ;)Cuz you know Julie, those SERVICE jobs are COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of ACTUALLY FUCKING PRODUCING something.

All those oil workers are just leaching off of the fabulous North Dakota SERVICE industry. I'm pretty sure the only reason they are even there at all is because of that great SERVICE industry infrastructure in North Dakota.

You should go out tomorrow and enroll your daughter in Taco Bell University.

That's the future- you want her to have the very best education for the 21st century economy you know...

Julie
28 Oct 11,, 22:10
Cuz you know Julie, those SERVICE jobs are COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of ACTUALLY FUCKING PRODUCING something.

All those oil workers are just leaching off of the fabulous North Dakota SERVICE industry. I'm pretty sure the only reason they are even there at all is because of that great SERVICE industry infrastructure in North Dakota.

You should go out tomorrow and enroll your daughter in Taco Bell University.

That's the future- you want her to have the very best education for the 21st century economy you know...LMAO...:biggrin:

My daughter has already served the SERVICE industry at McDonalds for the past year and a half, and she put in her two-week notice last week cuz she had all she can take of the SERVICE industry. She called me and related the news to me on her break at work, and informed me she can do better. I said and that would be.....she said, "working for you of course.." :slap:

She said she realized she can work for me in half the time making as much or more money. And this is the girl who had the highest math score on her SAT than any school in this county.....go figure.

highsea
28 Oct 11,, 22:16
...And this is the girl who had the highest math score on her SAT than any school in this county.....go figure.Yeah, well she did the math on that McDonalds job, lol.

Good for her.

Put her to work, make her earn every penny, and you might have someone to take over for you in a few years.

bonehead
28 Oct 11,, 23:56
Awe. Thats not a real job. Thats nepotism.

Julie, sounds like your daughter has started on the bottom and is working her way up. She will appreciate the better jobs that come her way in the future because she knows first hand what the bottom tier jobs are all about.

bonehead
29 Oct 11,, 00:01
Back to the liberal paradise:
Highsea, I finally put money down for a holster from Ted Blocker. I might pick up a couple of belts too when I go back and pick up the holster.

highsea
29 Oct 11,, 01:06
...Highsea, I finally put money down for a holster from Ted Blocker. I might pick up a couple of belts too when I go back and pick up the holster.Think you made a good choice. Let us know how it works out.

I was going to have him make one for my Sig, but I was in too big a hurry, lol. Bought a Galco online instead. Think I'm going to have him make an IWB rig for my Beretta though.

Doktor
29 Oct 11,, 01:39
LMAO...:biggrin:

My daughter has already served the SERVICE industry at McDonalds for the past year and a half, and she put in her two-week notice last week cuz she had all she can take of the SERVICE industry. She called me and related the news to me on her break at work, and informed me she can do better. I said and that would be.....she said, "working for you of course.." :slap:

She said she realized she can work for me in half the time making as much or more money. And this is the girl who had the highest math score on her SAT than any school in this county.....go figure.

Well... she did the math, 4 hours with mom, pays more then 8 hours with Ronald :biggrin:

Doktor
29 Oct 11,, 02:20
Germany is trying to compete on labour costs? I thought they were evil child eating socialists who allowed unions & paid good wages & such. I got the impression Germany was rather good at making high quality thingies, especially niche capabilities. Did I miss something?

My remark was to RW and DOR saying that revivng production will lead USA to be more like China.

Julie
29 Oct 11,, 02:21
Well... she did the math, 4 hours with mom, pays more then 8 hours with Ronald :biggrin:Yeah, well, on the other hand, I don't know if I can work with her. She can be very demanding, and well, ... pushy. :frown: I also don't recall asking her to work for me, but for now I guess I'm stuck with it. :slap:

highsea
29 Oct 11,, 03:18
Yeah, well, on the other hand, I don't know if I can work with her. She can be very demanding, and well, ... pushy. :frown: I also don't recall asking her to work for me, but for now I guess I'm stuck with it. :slap:Very difficult working for/with family. I've never really been successful at it. Tried to bring my nephew in for a while, just didn't work out.

'cept deckhanding for my dad, of which I had no choice and no rights and almost no pay, lol. That worked out pretty good for dad...;)

dalem
29 Oct 11,, 06:27
.
You should go out tomorrow and enroll your daughter in Taco Bell University.


"In the 21st, all universities are Taco Bell."

-dale

dalem
29 Oct 11,, 06:28
Back to the liberal paradise:
Highsea, I finally put money down for a holster from Ted Blocker. I might pick up a couple of belts too when I go back and pick up the holster.

I'm still getting used to my new High Noon shoulder rig. Feels frikkin weird, how do police detectives wear that thing all day?

-dale

RollingWave
29 Oct 11,, 06:59
My remark was to RW and DOR saying that revivng production will lead USA to be more like China.

Ahhh, but the problem is that developing super high end manufacturing (which the USA is still leading anyway), it doesn't create nearly as much job compare to the capital invested. That's one of the key issue we're seeing here in the USA, a highly automated factory requires much fewer workers, and most of them would need to be pretty well trained people. As other people noted no matter what we do education wise it's simply not possible to have everyone (or even most people) being a well educated / trained professional.

Of course that's one way to go too, but you'd then have to accept a fairly high unemployement rate as the norm until education trends catch up (and if anyone keep track of trend over the last few decades you'd quickly realize that education trend usually always catch up just when said trend is living out it's usefulness) . Or you could try to widen you country's range of busniess models so that the so called sunset industries leave your country at a slower rate. reducing the structural unemployement issue .

Such as ... lowering / removing minimum wage, and/or generally lowering the bar on various regulations. You'd having many more people working at a lower wage, but that beats having 10%-15% of your workforce being unemployed and/or given up looking right?


Though I'd guess that's probably a difficult legislation to sell, then the real alternative comprimise like I said, would be to systematically legalized foreign labor on a larger scale so you can keep a lot more different industries afloat (like say... farmers in the Southern states, which if the current trend keeps going is about to go extinct pretty soon) which would at the least bring in a big previously black market aspect of the US economy back into the light.

Doktor
29 Oct 11,, 08:05
Germany doesn't produce high tech?

bonehead
29 Oct 11,, 18:01
Germany doesn't produce high tech?

That would surprise the hell out of Intel...and me. I helped install a lot of fab tools from Germany in the cleanroom. One was gold plated on the inside. Everyone that happened to see it couldn't help but pause and awe. Something about that shiny gold color that talks to our souls.

bonehead
29 Oct 11,, 18:10
I'm still getting used to my new High Noon shoulder rig. Feels frikkin weird, how do police detectives wear that thing all day?

-dale

That would be a huge step up from my current "uncle mikes". Keep experimenting with it until you find a sweet spot. Once you get it adjusted to the sweet spot you will soon forget your wearing it. If by chance you still can't find the sweet spot you may have to look for a different harness or carry gun. For me the shoulder rig is the only way to go. I never feel comfortable packing anywhere else.

USSWisconsin
29 Oct 11,, 18:24
That would be a huge step up from my current "uncle mikes". Keep experimenting with it until you find a sweet spot. Once you get it adjusted to the sweet spot you will soon forget your wearing it. If by chance you still can't find the sweet spot you may have to look for a different harness or carry gun. For me the shoulder rig is the only way to go. I never feel comfortable packing anywhere else.

I feel the same way - a shoulder harness is my favorite. Don't like ankle carry and fanny pack carry is too slow to get at in a situation where the carry would be needed.

Also thanks for the post about cleanrooms - it brings back some fond memories - many a long day/night spent there (over a decade ago now) in the presence of such awesome sights.

bonehead
30 Oct 11,, 03:04
I feel the same way - a shoulder harness is my favorite. Don't like ankle carry and fanny pack carry is too slow to get at in a situation where the carry would be needed.

Also thanks for the post about cleanrooms - it brings back some fond memories - many a long day/night spent there (over a decade ago now) in the presence of such awesome sights.

I'm glad we have to wear hoods in the fab. I'd look pretty stupid walking around with my mouth open in awe all the time. If it didn't take so long to do anything at Intel it would be my favorite place to work hands down. I am doing 4x10's there now. When things pick up it will be 6x10's, maybe more. Add a 3 hour commute and its a long week for me.

Parihaka
30 Oct 11,, 22:14
Anyway, back on topic....






THE ICEBERG (http://pjmedia.com/ejectejecteject/)

July 2nd, 2010 - 12:05 pmI know there is a fair amount of dread out there right now. We’re ramping down one war, and ramping up another; the threat of total financial collapse seems actually possible; the moral decay and loss of decency in much of society is endemic and spreading… Good Lord, we’re seeing famine, pestilence and death… lions and lambs lying down together, plagues of frogs from the skies! – and no one seems to know exactly what is happening.

And a lot of people are starting to think that it’s hopeless. My friends, it’s not hopeless. It’s dire! But it’s not hopeless. It’s never hopeless.

You see, people have been here before. Not us, but other people. The great conceit of the modern age is that this is, in fact, a modern age. But it isn’t.

Let’s start at the top: with Barack Obama. Is he:

A. A Muslim-sympathizing, neo-Marxist true believer, who sees America and Capitalism as the principle barrier to fairness and world peace?

Or B, is he merely an empty suit, an unwitting pawn of much larger, hidden forces?

Or C, simply a self-obsessed, incompetent narcissist who happened to be at the right place at the right time.

I’ve given this a lot of careful thought, and I think the real answer is yes.

He is a product of his time; a product of a civilization that has been dynamic and successful long enough for its prosperity to feel inevitable and indestructible. It’s not even really his fault. It has always been pretty clear from his record who he is and what he believes, and we elected him because the country was in the mood for a “progressive” president.

But Progressivism is not progressive – it’s ancient. Cyclical. It’s circular. It is, in fact, the symptom and the eventual cause of impending collapse.

In fact, in all of human history, there has been only one genuinely progressive, genuinely liberating idea: a lightning bolt across the pages of history – the why in 1776, the how in 1787 – the idea of limited government, god-given rights, personal liberty and rule by the vast collective wisdom and industry of the common man, and not by the bored, pampered and self-hating elites that have run everything before and since. This is a once-in-history idea. This is why we have to conserve it. We have to conserve this fundamentally liberal idea.

I said that what we today call Progressivism is in fact ancient and circular. Don’t believe me? Well, the great roman orator Cicero, speaking in defense of his friend Sestius, around 55 BC, said – quote:

“Gaius gracchus proposed a grain law. The people were delighted with it because it provided an abundance of food without work. The good men, however, fought against it because they thought the masses would be attracted away from hard work and toward idleness, and they saw the state treasury would be exhausted.”

When a society – after generations of hard work, sacrifice and hardship – reaches a certain level of prosperity, “Progressives” like Bill Maher, Janeane Garofolo, Rosie O’Donnell and Gaius Gracchus – that last Progressive died in 121 BC – assume that the prosperity is endless, and push for more and more people to get more and more goods and services for less and less work. Why? Because – as today, in America, as with the British Empire, the French Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Ottomans, the Mongols, Rome, Greece, Eqypt, Babylon… They do it for political power. They live for political power. This “Progressivism” is ancient, recurring, tyrannical and ruinous.

And we voted for it. Just like the Romans did.

We can see from Cicero that throughout history, the disease is always the same – too much security and prosperity breeds laziness, narcissism, resentment and entitlement.

So if this is the cycle of civilization, and we see these same recurring signs around us in abundance today – how can there be any hope?

There’s hope because we are Americans. We’re different. Not genetically – although we are in fact the world’s mutts and that is an enormous strength. No, we are different, unique and exceptional culturally – because unlike the Babylonians, the Eqyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Mongols, the Turks, the Spanish, the French, The British and all the rest – we have actually done it. We have created the political tools to limit power and reward hard work, and we have lived with them for almost a quarter millennia. It is only by restoring and strengthening these truly progressive, but now-called conservative ideals that we can break the cycle of history.

How?

Well, first, we have to know how we got into this mess in the first place.



This time around – our cycle – the rot began to take hold in America due primary to a group called The Frankfurt School. Keep in mind that the Frankfurt school is merely a product of where they appear on this great wheel of history – there have been dozens of civilizations that had their own “Frankfurt schools” in languages now lost to history.

But right after World War One, in Frankfurt, Germany the Institute for Social Research – they wanted to call themselves the “Institute for Marxism” but that was too on the nose – was left wondering why the world communist revolution — predicted as a certainty by Marxist social science – was not leading to the international revolution of the proletariat, the actual common working man.

And they figured out that capitalism – damn it! – was providing enough comfort and material gain, enough of an increase in the working man’s standard of living – that it just simply wasn’t going to happen. Ever.

Now, one kind of person might look at this and say, hooray! People’s lives are getting better – guess we weren’t needed after all.

But not these guys. These guys felt they had to bring heaven to earth.

And so they asked themselves: if the vanguard of the revolution wasn’t going to be the worker, then who would it be? And the answer they came up with was: the dispossessed.

The Neo-Marxist revolution would not attack the capitalist economy – that was too successful. The target of the new Marxist revolution would be the Culture.

Marxist philosophers like Antonia Gramsci, and later, Saul Alinski – personal hero to such present-day fellow travelers as Chris Matthews, Hillary Clinton and, of course, The President of the United States – started to create narratives – stories – about America. This rapidly evolved into a philosophy called “Critical Theory” and the idea of Critical Theory was to attack the dominant culture – that would be us – from all sides, simultaneously.

For instance, Black Americans would be told that their labor built the entire country, while White Americans merely sat back and essentially stole everything. Black slave labor did build the cotton economies of the Southern Confederacy, but the entire Confederacy had less factory capacity than New York City alone.

Nonetheless, many black Americans today have been taught that all of this belongs to them and not the truth, which is that that they were, and are, an integral and essential part of the group effort that built this country together.

Likewise, women are told that we live in an evil patriarchy, where all men are tyrants and potential rapists, determined to keep them in a form of domestic slavery, instead of being their partners and helpmates and husbands and protectors.

Gays are told not that this is one of the most inclusive and forgiving societies in the history of the world, but rather home to knuckle-dragging, murdering Neanderthals – when in plain sight, across the seas, one and a half billion Muslims routinely hang or stone or crush to death innocent people merely because of their sexual practices.

And on and on.

And when you try to argue against this social weapon of theirs, this Narrative, this lie that they tell again and again, well then, prepare for their counter-attack, which is called Political Correctness – the attempt to put the argument out of bounds before it can be had.

They use terms like Hate Speech and Racism. They want to put our arguments and rebuttals out of bounds so that they don’t have to hear them or deal with them. They have to exclude those arguments because if they don’t, those arguments are going to kick their asses and they know it.

And by the way: charges of Racism only work on decent people. You go up to a Klansman or a Nazi and call them a racist, and they say “duh!” Of course they’re racists. They’re proud of being racists. But you go up to someone who is not a racist, a person who finds racism appalling and disgusting, and tell them what they are saying is racism – even when it not only isn’t racism, but is in fact the opposite of racism– well, they’ll shut up. Mission Accomplished.

The objectives of the Frankfurt School, of Gramsci and Alinski in their assault on the culture, were laid out in detail and were very clear: Eliminate not only the voice, but the very idea of reason. Destroy history. Delegitimize shared morality. Medicate instead of discipline children. Promote the idea that problems are so complex that only elitists, experts and academics can discuss, let alone solve them. A later pair of American Marxist philosophers developed what became known as the Cloward-Piven strategy: overwhelm America’s social systems – welfare, health care, immigration, etc. by telling people they were owed things, and by intentionally overwhelming them, cause them to collapse – leaving nothing but smoking wreckage, and no where to turn but to the government.

But above all, for this Frankfurt school strategy to work, it needed to foster resentment, envy, hopelessness and despair.

And it’s been spectacularly successful.

My fellow Americans… we are in an information war, a battle of narratives, and if that analysis is true then you and I are the last best hope of the last best hope. We are, together, soldiers in this narrative war for America and for civilization.

So can we win?

Of course we can win!



Let me tell you where we are right now. We’re on the Titanic. Now hang on! There are some amazing things about that night that not many people know about. Things that give me hope.

Some people know that if the lookouts aboard Titanic had spotted the iceberg as little as five or six seconds earlier, Titanic would have been able miss that wall of ice by a few feet and would have survived to come home.

But very few people know that if those lookouts had spotted that iceberg only five or six seconds later — Titanic still would have survived. You see, Titanic was designed to remain afloat with up to five or her forward watertight compartments flooded – but not six. Had the lookout on Titanic seen that iceberg only a few seconds later, she would have hit it straight-on. It would have crumpled the bow, and a few hundred people would have been killed in the collision – but she would have stayed afloat, and instead of 1,490 people drowning in those icy waters, she would have limped home to New York, been refitted and repaired, and continued to do what she was built to do: bring people to America – to freedom. She represented what was best in us: vision, industry, ingenuity and hard work. That ship deserved to come home.

Some people misinterpret this to mean that there were a few seconds where Titanic could have been saved. It’s just the opposite. There were only a few seconds – ten or fifteen seconds – where Titanic could have been sunk. That iceberg went right down the side of the ship, staving in compartment after compartment. Progressivism is doing the same thing to our culture: flooding academia…movies…television…news media…comedy…music…government policy… damaging and flooding, one by one, the social institutions that kept this ship of freedom, ingenuity and prosperity afloat.

Like an iceberg, the danger from progressivism lies beneath the surface: the slow erosion of the work ethic, the fostering of division and resentment and unearned entitlement, the abandonment of the entire idea of decency and morality – all of this beneath the placid surface of simply claiming to help people.

My friends, it far too late to avoid this ancient iceberg, this giant dark wall that has sunk civilization after civilization under the calm disguise of compassion and concern. We cannot steer around it. If we are to avoid that fate, there is only one option left.

We need to ram the iceberg. We need to hit it head-on. We need to put in all the power we have – all of the power – and go right at the heart of that monster. Because everyone talks about what the iceberg did to Titanic, but no one talks about what Titanic did to the iceberg.

You see, I know something critical about this iceberg out in front of us, and that is this: that iceberg is hollow. It’s hollow.

Even the people who believe in it most strongly know it’s a lie. That’s why they have to lie to you about what they believe. They know, in their heart of hearts, that this philosophy has been the ruin of civilization in every one of the countless times it has been applied. They know – consciously or not – that in the last century alone their ideas have cost the lives of no less than 150 million people executed, or starved to death, to bring this paradise to earth.

And unlike the brave and selfless men and women that daily risk, and often give their lives in defense of freedom for their fellow man, these people believe in nothing greater than the sound of their own voice and are willing to die for nothing.

What would Bill Maher, or Janeane Garofolo, or Rosie O’Donnel be willing to give their own lives for? Nothing. Nothing.

It’s hollow. That iceberg is hollow. And we need to ram it, and we need to ram it now. It’s going to crush the front of our ship, and severely damage us as a culture – but we will survive. And by surviving, we can repair the damage and make ourselves better than we were.

We, for the first time in human history, have an example of what a free society looks like. We, for the first time in history, are children of the only real progressives in all of human history. And we, for the first time in history, have the technology that allows common people to talk to each other, to encourage and inform each other, and to make an end run around the suicidal elites and their suicidal, dying media organs.

We can do it. And we’re gonna do it. We are going to whip these communists out of their boots. And starting next time, we’ll start figuring out exactly how.

bonehead
31 Oct 11,, 01:10
And where the front runners want to return to:
Studies challenge wisdom of GOP candidates' plans - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/studies-challenge-wisdom-gop-candidates-plans-124434243.html)

We already bailed out the rich to the tune of a trillion dollars. How many jobs did they create with all that money? Yet they sing the same old tune. "give us more and we will...snicker....create some jobs".

DOR
31 Oct 11,, 02:17
Speaking of clean rooms, I visited a joint venture contact lens company in Beijing many years ago, and was taken through the progressive steps to the clean room. Discard surplus jackets; air blast; cap and booties; another air blast; etc.

We got into the cleanest of the clean rooms, and looked around at all the very impressive stuff going on.

At least, it seemed impressive until I noticed a window was open.
To the outside.

Ah, well.

bonehead
31 Oct 11,, 02:20
Open to the outside? Son, thats no cleanroom no matter how well its pressurized.

JAD_333
31 Oct 11,, 12:32
Anyway, back on topic....

Author?

Tarek Morgen
31 Oct 11,, 13:22
Bill Whittle

Bigfella
31 Oct 11,, 14:50
The moment I see anyone refer the the 'Frankfurt School' I know they are either a rare philosphical genius or full of shit. Having met one or two such geniuses (I used to know a guy hired in to a major University's pol.sci faculty because he was the only guy who actually understood any of this turgid crap) I feel safe in saying the author above is not one of them. Option two beckons. The 'Frankfurt School' are practically the ideal villan for American conservative writers. They are marxist (already pretty bad), they are European (foreign, elitest & completely unaware that Americans are the specialist special people ever) and they are so opaque & dense that they can be made to say or be anything that suits the author because he or she can be damned sure that even on the if one of their readers actually picks up a copy (wildly unlikely), they will either be unable to understand it, or unable to dispute the assumptions the conservative author has made. Just one more cardboard cutout villan made to serve a dangerously simpistic worldview.

Embarrassingly bad ahistorical tripe.

bigross86
31 Oct 11,, 17:27
Why do you find the use of Frankfurt School rare? They taught it to us in our first semester in "Intro to Mass Communications". Them and a whole buttload of other Neo-Marxist morons

Parihaka
31 Oct 11,, 21:30
The moment I see anyone refer the the 'Frankfurt School' I know they are either a rare philosphical genius or full of shit. Having met one or two such geniuses (I used to know a guy hired in to a major University's pol.sci faculty because he was the only guy who actually understood any of this turgid crap) I feel safe in saying the author above is not one of them. Option two beckons. The 'Frankfurt School' are practically the ideal villan for American conservative writers. They are marxist (already pretty bad), they are European (foreign, elitest & completely unaware that Americans are the specialist special people ever) and they are so opaque & dense that they can be made to say or be anything that suits the author because he or she can be damned sure that even on the if one of their readers actually picks up a copy (wildly unlikely), they will either be unable to understand it, or unable to dispute the assumptions the conservative author has made. Just one more cardboard cutout villan made to serve a dangerously simpistic worldview.

Embarrassingly bad ahistorical tripe.

Oh I don't know, he seems to have Lasch's critique of them down pat




The Authoritarian Personality had a tremendous influence on Hofstadter and other liberal intellectuals, because it showed them how to conduct political criticism in psychiatric categories, to make those categories bear the weight of political criticism. This procedure excused them from the difficult work of judgment and argumentation. Instead of arguing with opponents, they simply dismissed them on psychiatric grounds

DOR
01 Nov 11,, 02:13
Open to the outside? Son, thats no cleanroom no matter how well its pressurized.

So we all noticed.

Bigfella
01 Nov 11,, 05:14
Why do you find the use of Frankfurt School rare? They taught it to us in our first semester in "Intro to Mass Communications". Them and a whole buttload of other Neo-Marxist morons

That isn't actually what I said. Re-read.

Bigfella
01 Nov 11,, 05:19
Oh I don't know, he seems to have Lasch's critique of them down pat

Actually, he seems to be trying his own variation - rather than dismissing the people he disagrees with as mentally ill he conflates them all into enemies of civilization. It reads like a slightly polished version of 'the eternal jew' with the sinister jew replaced by the ever present progressive/liberal/marxist tearing down civilization throughout history. That of course, is no coincidence.

bigross86
01 Nov 11,, 07:19
That isn't actually what I said. Re-read.

So next time I use Frankfurt school, will I be a rare genius or full of shit? I had plenty opportunity to use it in classes last year, I'll look for something to use it for this year also

Bigfella
01 Nov 11,, 07:33
So next time I use Frankfurt school, will I be a rare genius or full of shit? I had plenty opportunity to use it in classes last year, I'll look for something to use it for this year also

Most likely, and probably no.2. Like a lot of obscure philosophical writing it is largely used to make yourself look clever or other people stupid (or on the case of our author, sinister). If you have actually done a comprehensive reading of the works of all the major Frankfurt School authors & actually understand them (as opposed to reading critiques or the occasional chapter) then you might crack it for category 1. It belongs in the realm of the obscure.

Roosveltrepub
03 Nov 11,, 06:09
Open to the outside? Son, thats no cleanroom no matter how well its pressurized.

I'm prety sure that was a cooment on the lack of actual process controls