Walker Wins Wis Recall, Obama Wins Exit Poll

[BobD]

First we had companies that didn't want to pay their employees, along came the unions and everyone was happy until the widgets that once cost .10 cents now cost $3.50, so people stopped buying as many widgets as they once did. A wise guy thought "hey I can get widgets made overseas and only have to charge $1.00 for them!" That worked very well until all the other companies did the same thing, then when everyone had started making widgets overseas, they no longer needed the union employees here in the USA. Now we had low cost widgets that unemployed or under employed people couldn't afford unless they bought them online to avoid paying a retailers mark up and also avoid paying taxes, so the retailers had to cut their employees pay and lay off more people, while the local governments had to stop fixing roads or hiring teachers and policemen.

More or less of something doesn't make it better and you almost always get what you pay for.

 

[Bluto]

@ Rally. I have a hard time believing that NAFTA has been a net positive for Mexico. It effectively destroyed the traditional/local agrarian economy and replaced it with the Maquilas and large corporate farms (many of which are US subsidiaries if I'm not mistaken) and in turn displaced hundreds of thousand sof Mexicans while at the same time destroying their main source of sustinance and income. The policy has been a boon for the ultra wealthy and GDP, however it has been a disaster for Mexican society as a whole. As evidence see the Zapatisata rebellion as well as the recent carnage related to the drug war. The point it seems disingenuous to as some economists do take the "economic benefits" of a policy and place them in a vacuum and separate them from the havoc that they wreak on the larger society. Yeah, Mexico's economy is pretty good. Mexico as a whole not so much.

 

[Bluto]

@Buster one reason a Union made product is more expensive is because we choose for it to be. If US policy makers demanded for instance Mexico enforce its labor and environmental laws (which are pretty good on paper) and China implement some form labor and environmental laws wouldn't that pretty much even the playing field as well? I doubt either country would turn their nose and walk away from the US market.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Bluto, please tell me you are NOT going to start with the "race to the bottom" fallacy ...

 

[Buster Bluth]

@ Rally. I have a hard time believing that NAFTA has been a net positive for Mexico. It effectively destroyed the traditional/local agrarian economy and replaced it with the Maquilas and large corporate farms (many of which are US subsidiaries if I'm not mistaken) and in turn displaced hundreds of thousand sof Mexicans while at the same time destroying their main source of sustinance and income. The policy has been a boon for the ultra wealthy and GDP, however it has been a disaster for Mexican society as a whole. As evidence see the Zapatisata rebellion as well as the recent carnage related to the drug war. The point it seems disingenuous to as some economists do take the "economic benefits" of a policy and place them in a vacuum and separate them from the havoc that they wreak on the larger society. Yeah, Mexico's economy is pretty good. Mexico as a whole not so much.

GPA growth has averaged 1.8% for Mexico. It has not been good for them.

NAFTA between Canada and the US has been a homerun success I believe, but for Mexico it has not.

Of course, Mexico is where the US was in 1880. They need to go through their Workers Rights era. That is part of growing as a society. The US is wayyyy past that.

 

[Bluto]

Hey Buster. I've been to plenty of places in the US that rival the slums I've been to in Mexico and Panama. Here's a list of a few: East Bakersfield/Cottonwood Ca, Detriot, The Seventh Ward in New Orleans, parts of East Oakland, parts of South Fresno, the projects Portrero Hill in San Francisco, parts of South Philly anyhow you get the idea.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Hey Buster. I've been to plenty of places in the US that rival the slums I've been to in Mexico and Panama. Here's a list of a few: East Bakersfield/Cottonwood Ca, Detriot, The Seventh Ward in New Orleans, parts of East Oakland, parts of South Fresno, the projects Portrero Hill in San Francisco, parts of South Philly anyhow you get the idea.

Aren't those heavy liberal areas?

 

[Bluto]

Seriously...did anyone watch the video I posted? Good talkin with you all. Go Irish. Golson should start. I think ND surprises a bunch of people this year. Oh yeah I took economics. My professor looked and talked just like Ronald Reagan. Kinda weird.

 

[Bluto]

Aren't those heavy liberal areas?

Nope. California's central valley is super conservative. It has more in common with Kansas than say San francisco from a cultural perspective. The area also has double digit unemployment and the area as a whole receives the majority of the "welfare benefits" paid out throughout the entire state.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Hey Buster. I've been to plenty of places in the US that rival the slums I've been to in Mexico and Panama. Here's a list of a few: East Bakersfield/Cottonwood Ca, Detriot, The Seventh Ward in New Orleans, parts of East Oakland, parts of South Fresno, the projects Portrero Hill in San Francisco, parts of South Philly anyhow you get the idea.

What is your point?

 

[Bluto]

You said it's BS that the US is on the path to becoming a 3rd world country. Parts of it I have been to are already there.

 

[Buster Bluth]

You said it's BS that the US is on the path to becoming a 3rd world country. Parts of it I have been to are already there.

Your insinuation is horribly ignorant. It may be the most ignorant thing I've read in 2012.

I don't even know how to respond to it. I don't even know if it's worth one.

 

[Bluto]

Side note. A Christian missionary friend of mine said he was "astonished" at the ammount of and depth of poverty he saw when his church group traveled across the country for several months a year or two ago.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Bluto, please answer my question in post #179. Everyone please answer! I'm very interested in what you would do.

 

[Bluto]

Your insinuation is horribly ignorant. It may be the most ignorant thing I've read in 2012.

I don't even know how to respond to it. I don't even know if it's worth one.

I'm not insinuating anything. I'm stating what I saw and experienced. I spent a month in El Charillo in Panama in 2005 when I went to the Seventh Ward a few months back the two places looked and felt pretty much the same.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Aren't those heavy liberal areas?

Yeah, as are some of the wealthiest and most well-educated zip codes in the country. The idea that inner-city neighborhoods are poor because they vote democrat is about as stupid of a thing as a person could say. They vote for democrats because they are poor and democrats generally support programs intended to help impoverished people. They are just voting their self interest, like everybody else (except all of the working class people in flyover country).

/wishing I had just continued to ignore this thread

//vowing not to be involved in this horrible, embarrassing conversation

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Yeah, as are some of the wealthiest and most well-educated zip codes in the country. The idea that inner-city neighborhoods are poor because they vote democrat is about as stupid of a thing as a person could say. They vote for democrats because they are poor and democrats generally support programs intended to help impoverished people. They are just voting their self interest, like everybody else (except all of the working class people in flyover country).

/wishing I had just continued to ignore this thread

//vowing not to be involved in this horrible, embarrassing conversation

Exactly. They vote for democrats because they are more inclined to give handouts while republicans are more likely not too and instead encourage acquiring a job.

Give a man a fish, feed him once. Teach a man to fish, feed him for life.

 

[Rhode Irish]

OK, fine. One last thing. The problem with private-sector unions is that they are so shortsighted. When labor and management go to "war" in collective bargaining, nobody can possibly "win" - unions fail to recognize that the livelihood of their members is entirely dependent upon the viability and success of the company for which those members work. The adversarial approach to collective bargaining has destroyed entire industries in America.

As for public-sector unions, I have already made my opinion on that subject known earlier in this thread.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

OK, fine. One last thing. The problem with private-sector unions is that they are so shortsighted. When labor and management go to "war" in collective bargaining, nobody can possibly "win" - unions fail to recognize that the livelihood of their members is entirely dependent upon the viability and success of the company for which those members work. The adversarial approach to collective bargaining has destroyed entire industries in America.

I agree with this.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Exactly. They vote for democrats because they are more inclined to give handouts while republicans are more likely not too and instead encourage acquiring a job.

Give a man a fish, feed him once. Teach a man to fish, feed him for life.

Yeah, I mean this is obviously the way stupid people feel about it. For every anecdote you can come up with where a person is making a conscious choice to live in complete poverty because the government won't allow them to starve to death when they could easily find work, there are thousands and thousands of people who are unable to work for whatever reason.

If we are going to have a capitalistic society that produces winners, we have to accept that the system will also produce losers. On the macro level it is unavoidable.

If we want to have the type of system that allows for great winners, it is our moral responsibility to take care of the losers produced by that same system as a cost of doing business.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Yeah, I mean this is obviously the way stupid people feel about it. For every anecdote you can come up with where a person is making a conscious choice to live in complete poverty because the government won't allow them to starve to death when they could easily find work, there are thousands and thousands of people who are unable to work for whatever reason.

If we are going to have a capitalistic society that produces winners, we have to accept that the system will also produce losers. On the macro level it is unavoidable.

If we want to have the type of system that allows for great winners, it is our moral responsibility to take care of the losers produced by that same system as a cost of doing business.

Cool thanks for the personal attack.

I'd rather have a private, charitable organizations to help the needy instead of the bloated government we have now. But that's just me, being a conservative I'm more inclined in donating to charity instead of have the government "do it for me".

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

 

[Redbar]

Exactly. Taxation is to fund an adequate government, not a method of redistributing wealth.

The Federal government in particular is out of control, whole departments need to be abolished.

This is why our country is heading towards a cliff. It is all this us versus them mentality. Nothing good can come from a person with a D after their name in the eyes of Rs and vice versa.

Unions were a necessity back when they were formed. Workers were being treated like crap. We now have laws in place that protect workers. Unions have become far too powerful and have the power to hinder the economy. For a business to succeed it needs to have the power to be flexible and to be able to adapt. Unions hinder this. Unions hate trade because they know that they will lose the comparative advantage to other countries in their fields. I study International trade and every single model we use ends up with a POSITIVE net welfare increase when free trade is used. Unions have skewed wages and benefits. You can argue that higher wages lead to more prosperity, but at the same time more wages = more demand which = higher prices. Money doesn't go as far.

If Unions are so great, why is membership plummeting overall when workers are no longer FORCED to join to maintain a job?


http://www.johnwcooper.com/right-to-work-laws/right-to-work-laws.pdf <<-- Great Read.

Somebody payed attention when they went over talking points.

 

[magogian]

Cool thanks for the personal attack.

I'd rather have a private, charitable organizations to help the needy instead of the bloated government we have now. But that's just me, being a conservative I'm more inclined in donating to charity instead of have the government "do it for me".

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

I love that info. I've seen a few other more recent studies making similar points, but I can't find my links to them off-hand.

Consistent with your article, they show: Conservatives are far more generous with their money (even when controlling for income) and time as compared to liberals.

That fact right there is perhaps the most damning to the entire liberal enterprise.

For all the huffing, puffing, and rhetotical platitudes about helping the poor, liberals really just want someone else to help the poor. Speaking in generalities, giving doesn't begin at home if you are liberal. It begins at someone else's home.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Cool thanks for the personal attack.

I'd rather have a private, charitable organizations to help the needy instead of the bloated government we have now. But that's just me, being a conservative I'm more inclined in donating to charity instead of have the government "do it for me".

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

The idea that the well being of the least fortunate among us should be subject to the whims of the most fortunate is morally reprehensible, not to mention totally impractical. If you want a system that creates winners and losers by its nature, that system has to include a backstop for the losers which should be viewed basically as overhead.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Everyone should watch these:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4MArzSSF7WU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3p1sW9aIQ-Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-pCfJOj8QSo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Seriously guys, watch these. The course, and particularly these lectures, are astounding.

 

[BGIF]

The idea that the well being of the least fortunate among us should be subject to the whims of the most fortunate is morally reprehensible, not to mention totally impractical. If you want a system that creates winners and losers by its nature, that system has to include a backstop for the losers which should be viewed basically as overhead.

Just like winning Attorneys share their winnings with the losing Attorneys, right?


BTW, how many of the "A"s you earned in Law School did you give to the least fortunate student that only got "C"s?

 

[Ndaccountant]

The idea that the well being of the least fortunate among us should be subject to the whims of the most fortunate is morally reprehensible, not to mention totally impractical. If you want a system that creates winners and losers by its nature, that system has to include a backstop for the losers which should be viewed basically as overhead.

Well, one could argue that having excess money morally obligates you to help those out. Additionally, one could argue thru utilitarianism that personally donating time and money is the preferred approach since donating directly results in a greater benefit that having it go thru the wash cycles of government where it inevitably shrinks.

Additionally, one could argue that the role of government today (which uses some taxes as charity to redistribute wealth) has increased the problem. The problem has grown simply because people now view taxes as charity. This, in the mind of many taxpayers, relieves the individual of the moral obligation to donate because he/she believe they already have.

 

[Redbar]

The idea that the well being of the least fortunate among us should be subject to the whims of the most fortunate is morally reprehensible, not to mention totally impractical. If you want a system that creates winners and losers by its nature, that system has to include a backstop for the losers which should be viewed basically as overhead.

Reps! The system does create winners and losers and as some have said it is the government's job to insure the competition is fair. Problem is the government has done a terrible job of late of insuring fairness. Equity in this government is achieved by two opposing forces, each powerful in their own right, checking one's ambition with the other. Tear down the unions and who checks corporate power? We are also talking about limiting corporate liability so it won't be the courts, and with these user agreements we all sign before we do ANYTHING including visit most websites we may be agreeing away our right to that recourse anyway. I believe Brutus listed earlier some parts of the nation that Rally inquired were more liberal in demographic. I know one of those areas extremely well and while I don't know that they are more liberal, they certainly are more something else. Which may have been closer to what Rally really meant.

 

[magogian]

The system does create winners and losers and as some have said it is the government's job to insure the competition is fair. Problem is the government has done a terrible job of late of insuring fairness. .

How illuminating and troubling. I bet you consider Harrison Bergeron to represent your idyllic society. Harrison Bergeron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Redbar]

How could this government promote fairness? With Citizens United, super PAC's and the sheer cost of getting elected, this government is for sale. As someone who has seen firsthand the benefits of access, believe me the guys at the bottom want fair, the guys at the top want advantage. Why else would you contribute a small fortune to the process. It is a quid pro quo. Very few people contribute large sums of money and expect no specific input on a specific policy, law or approach.