Virginia's New Pink Dog Democrat
By Repair Man Jack Comments (103) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Wall Street Journal's Editorial Page did America a favor recently. They offered Virginia's new Senator Elect Jim Webb an "OpEd soapbox" upon which Mr. Webb revealed himself to the world as a purblind economic miope.
Senator Webb imagined he was channeling Tom Watson, as he issued his Buchananesque populist call to arms. Jon Henke over at QandO Blog argues the wellspring of Jim Webb's beliefs is someone older; with perhaps a more sinister legacy.
Webb writes all about the modern class struggle. The decline of manufacturing, the outrageous salaries of CEOs, the death of American opportunity and our declining standards of living. What Jim Webb does not talk about is how he can lift the downtrodden up. He talks the same old radical sixties talk of sticking it to the man.
It's the same old class envy schtick that makes me hate liberals. If your neighbor makes more than you do, he's obscenely rich. That justifies stealing his wealth. If your neighbor drives a nicer car, accuse him of polluting the environment. That justifies blowing up the car.
The beliefs Jim Webb espouses in his Wall Street Journal OpEd are exactly what makes liberalism such a toxic moral philosophy. It relieves individuals from any responsibility for their own plight and gives them license to take out their own poor fortune on others.
I thank The Wall Street Journal for giving Jim Webb an opportunity to speak his mind. In doing so, they allowed the man to reveal his evil, snivelling, class-envying core. Virginia will hopefully act wisely six years from now and vote out their freshly elected Pink Dog Democrat from the US Senate.
Update (20Nov06) It seems the guys at RealClear Politics disagree with my assessment of Pink Dog Jimmy. They call him good news for the Democratic Party. I guess he comes off as pretty normal compared to Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi.
Update (22Nov06) James Glassman writes for the American about Jim Webb. Unlike the record executive in The Pink FLoyd song, he doesn't nned to ask "Oh, by the way, which one's Pink?"
A lot of people didn't do what you did and take the time to listen to what Webb was saying. I will credit Senator Webb on one count. He isn't shy about who he is or what he believes.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
What Mr. Webb has done is string together a series of real problems in a manner that points to increased government regulation as a solution. This is actually a winner for him. He is offering a solution while Republicans talk of letting markets work. Letting markets work is not a solution in and of itself and its political suicide. Just ask Herbert Hoover.
What republicans need to do is offer low overhead incentives that let people buy into the system and make it work for themselves. Then they have to get on the soapbox and shout about it.
Nobody is ever going to buy the things will work out for the best line.
1) Take your advice and present a palatable list of alternatives. Henke at Qand O was part way there when he suggested asking Mr. Webb when he intended to offer up his bill in favor of school vouchers.
2) Present a rigorous debunking of Webb's class struggle rap.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
That an idiot can ask a question
That takes a wise man twenty years to answer.
Mr Webb is not an idiot but he is playing one in the wall street journal.
This is America people rise and fall socioeconomically everyday. Poor kids study hard and become doctors and lawyers, rich kids squander fortunes. It seemed so obvious it shouldn't even have to be said.
but he will balance the budget and that makes me happy. If Reagan liked him why shouldn't you? the responsibility of our government according to its founding documato "promote the general welfare" We live in a time where corporations and goverment are shifting too much responsibility and risk to the individual. Chosing not to invest in the individual is foolish as it in the end costs society more if people are allowed to fail. better to spend a small investment in them up front and gain returns in the long term. Speaking of taxes and transferpayments as stealing as you do makes you sound foolish and unpatriotic. If you want to live in a civil society you have to pay for it. If you are anti taxes you are anti american. freedom isn't free buddy.
but that doesn't mean we should all be glad O'Niell served as a Speaker of THe House.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
... that you actually think you made a point for Webb's economic views by saying that "Reagan liked him."
You are indeed very amusing.
I see someone got the Tip thing, so I'll just leave the silly tu quoque to the side.
We live in a time where corporations and goverment are shifting too much responsibility and risk to the individual.
Corporations cannot shift responsibility and risk to the individual unless the individual accepts it.
Chosing not to invest in the individual is foolish as it in the end costs society more if people are allowed to fail.
Prove this. The history of American and British capitalism suggests otherwise.
Speaking of taxes and transferpayments as stealing as you do makes you sound foolish and unpatriotic.
That filthy traitor Ronald Reagan at work again, I see.
If you are anti taxes you are anti american. freedom isn't free buddy.
It was surprisingly tax-free until Woodrow Wilson decided we needed to fund European freedom.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Who is gonna pay your $10,000 and climbing Iraq war bill? oh yeah you. Pat buchanan is with me on this one.
Buchanan is an economic idiot, among other species of idiocy to which he aspires. I'm not sure I'd want to align myself with him, were I you.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Raising or cutting marginal tax rates won't effect Soc. Sec. funds directly at all, and the program will eventually run out of funding, or collapse under its own, enormous dead weight.
We could eliminate the program outright, but it's very popular, so that idea seems unlikely.
Next on the list is privatization, which would necessarily replace the government (mis)managed pile-o-money (actually, IOUs) with privately managed, individual investments of some sort. I suppose that puts things at the mercy of the market, but there are funds that invest in things like bonds. Privatisation is massively unpopular with the Democrat party, however, and has not yet won enough support within the Republican party to get it through either chamber of Congress. So, that's off the table, too. (A shame, because it really is an excellent solution, once a few caveats are properly accounted for.)
Another solution would be to increase the Soc. Sec. tax rate. This can, at best, postpone the system's eventual collapse due to bankruptcy. The lack of money will happen one way or 'tother, unless demographic changes reverse themselves.
The last option, I guess, is to cross one's fingers and do nothing, but that's not great for a whole list of reasons. It doesn't even look as productive as raising the tax rate to cover shortfall.
1) Propose no changes whatsoever.
2) Criticize the GOP for not fixing the problem.
3) Criticize any GOP plan offered to fix the problem.
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.
IME, the Democratic party will almost always oppose a Republican proposal on partisan grounds, then blame the opposition for not pushing it through. Produce the problem, prolong it, and then shuffle the blame for it onto the other guy. When possible, take credit for the eventual solution by pointing out that nothing would have happened without your support. (When things *do* happen without your support, loudly protest that the matter was railroaded over the concerns of people like you. Never mind that you'd been laying on the tracks ...)
Nice work if you can get it, I guess.
Hating Bush with a passion and fighting his almost every move, then blaming him for not living up to his "uniter not a divider" promise.
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.
Keeping social security solvent was one of his greatest errors. Signing tax increases passed by Congress (psst: On more than just the poor and middle class) was probably just behind.
No man is perfect. He was just better than many.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
The high standards of Thomas....
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Re: Corporations cannot shift responsibility and risk to the individual unless the individual accepts it.
Of course they can! If your employer cancels your health insurance you can't very well say "no" about it. But more to the point, if you think Webb is proposing old-fashioned socialist programs (you do make a point there) then why not propose non-socialist solutions? Some conservatives have started looking at those issues. I've been urging folks on this site to read Douthat and Reihan on "Sam's Club Reoublicans" and to quit acting like stereotypical Country Club Republicans. You guys are going to need to face up to the country's problems or you may have more unpleasant surprises like 2006. There are conservative but innovative solutions out there. Problem is, too few folks are willing to push them. Hence, the Dems' old-fashioned socialism (or some new, even more half-baked Ross Perot type) will win by default.
prior to cancellation of employee health ins and be given opportunity to continue coverage at their own cost.
But, I do agree with you that the GOP must address the issue of health care costs and I supported Bush's Medicare Px drug plan with its HSA's and his Soc Sec reform which he could have sold better. I like Romney's creativity on the issue and Newt's as well.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
>>>>but he will balance the budget and that makes me happy.
Oh really?
1) He showed no cinclination whatsoever to reduce government spending.
2) The function relating revenues to tax rates is parabolic, not linear. That means you don't necessarily get more revenue by jacking up the marginal rate.
3) So if
a) you don't cut spending, and
b) your revenue generation program isn't going to work. Then
c) you are not going to get within any reasonable approximation of a balanced budget by pursuing the policies advocated by Jim Webb in The Wall Street Journal.
>>>>>We live in a time where corporations and goverment are shifting too much responsibility and risk to the individual.
They are doing that because their pension plans are failing. These plans are failing precisely because the corporations assumned too much risk that should have been dispersed over individual's. One man's risk is another's personal responsibility.
>>>>Chosing not to invest in the individual is foolish as it in the end costs society more if people are allowed to fail.
Our government has truly limited ability in preventing people from failing. Most of these investments in individuals take the form of Single Payer Systems to provide what are viewed as Public Goods such as healthcare and education. Two problems arise when we take that approach.
1) The people getting paid figure out pretty fast that they can just lobby Congress for bigger piles of money to solve "education gaps" and "Health care crises" and thereby get themselves made more and more and more to provide the same level of care or service.
2) We can only control our own return on investment for these services. You can invest as much of other people's cash in my healthcare all you want. If I chose to take abounch of C-Notes and use them to snort cocaine or buy and consume 800 Papa John's pizzas every month, investing more cash in my well-being is a fool's errand.
The same is true of education. It's rather pointless to give Junior a Student Loan, if he spends his time at Old Ivy U. drunk and sleeping in; rather than attending his classes.
>>>>Speaking of taxes and transferpayments as stealing as you do makes you sound foolish and unpatriotic.
Well Nanny-Nanny Boo-Hoo to you as well!
>>>>>If you want to live in a civil society you have to pay for it.
If you call your response to my posting civil, I shouldn't be paying any more for our societies civility than they cahrge over at Wal-mart.
>>>>If you are anti taxes you are anti american.
Go tell that to The Boston Tea Party.
>>>>>freedom isn't free buddy.
In case you haven't figured it out by now, you and I are in no way buddies.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
We are buddies cause were all american's and were all in this thing together. We all want to fight terrorism, keep the country safe etc. we just have different ideas about how things should get done. You made way too many points for me to address them all So i'll pick one
You note that companies took on too much risk now they are trying to avoid paying the consequences. nobody was putting a gun to their heads when they did that. the little guy has enough responsibility he doesn't need any more heaped on him.
1) I apologize to you for my comment that we weren't buddies. Your complaint on that is legitimate.
2) On the personal responsibility bit. Do you REALLY want a corporate CEO or a politician controlling your pension plan? That could have a 50-year lifecycle. Corporate CEOs and sometimes government big-shots, often have the life expectancy of a may-fly hatch.
I don't think of having the responsibility to save for my responsibility as entirely onerous. I think of it as empowering. If I sent all that cash to the gubbermint, either Conrad Burns or, if recent news is accurate, Harry Reid, could just feed it straight to Jackie A and his Indian Gaming deals and I'd have no defense.
If I control the money, and DC never touches it, I keep the power. I control my own future, not some guy in Washington who looks down an all us freaks out in "Jesus-Land."
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
He thinks that you, me and most of the rest of this weblog are un-American for wanting lower taxes being anti-tax.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
all the money that was put into those pension funds in lieu of pay. the corporations have a responsibility to pay that money out. now going forward? i dunno my company has a 401 k matching plan. Will it work who knows? Will it be as secure as a defined benefit plan? no way. I agree with you ireesponsible people shouldn't get a free ride but no one is really getiig a free ride. and again i'm sorry about the hyperbole
i dunno my company has a 401 k matching plan. Will it work who knows?
You take the 401(k) with you when you leave your employer. You decide how much to contribute to the 401(k). You decide how the 401(k) money is invested. So you should know if "it will work" or not. Take some personal responsibility. The fact that you don't know this shows me you haven't bothered to become even casually acquainted with the facts regarding your own retirement plan.
Will it be as secure as a defined benefit plan? no way.
Uhh... "yes way"... it is much more secure. You own that money. You can take it out now if you wish. The defined benefit plan is simply a promise to deliver something at a much later date IF the company is still around to do so and IF you are an employee long enough to qualify and IF they don't change the details of the plan. There's no guarantee on any of that. It is totally outside your control.
all the money that was put into those pension funds in lieu of pay. the corporations have a responsibility to pay that money out.
Companies can go bankrupt just as individuals can. If they go bankrupt, they can shed those pension liabilities in court if they get a judge to agree to it. In that case, the government takes over and pays some (but not all) of the benefits. The retiree eats the rest. Bankruptcy isn't just a nice place that everybody wants to go just to save a few bucks on pension obligations. It pretty much wipes out the owners in the process.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
...since Uncle Sam owns a printing press, he can always make good on your 1-2% loan to him.
A conservative portfolio of stocks & bonds could be an alternative investment that might have a risk of a -5% return some years, +15% in others, averaging 8% over a person's working career.
Yes, Uncle Sam's deal is more "secure". That other deal confuses and frightens me.
A sign hangs in my daughter's high school math class: "The lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math." Social security, same deal.
...that if Uncle Sam did just crank up the printing press, your repayment would be way less in terms of value than you dished out.
that is exactly what will happen. No other way to pay that incredible amount of debt.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
If we loan billions to third-world nations, we are told we should "forgive" the debt out of "fairness". We've got this huge debt to foreign countries. How 'bout they forgive us out of fairness so that we can afford to take care of old folks and feed the hungry and so on. Where's Bono when you need him? Oh wait, he's probably busy avoiding Irish taxes at the moment.
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.
for most people anyway.
That reminds me. Are the Dems immigration reforms going to push for all these illegals to get back credit from the SS system that they didn't pay into?
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.
if they are here illegally that is the price of admission as i see it. Now i'm not going to wax all lou dobs onya here but enforcement on the business owners end seems pretty lax lately. but i think we know that the best way to stop illegal immigration is to do what we can to keep mexico and south america from being such a hell hole.
My home is surrounded by...the rest of the world, much of which are hell holes and many hellish people ride or walk by my home. But they don't come in my home or walk in my yard. Why? Not because I have paid them not to or fixed the rest of the world so that they need not walk in my yard or into my home.
You see, I have a fence and locks!
Now, I know other people that don't have fences who live on lots, the traversing of which is convenient for pedestrians, and sure enough, they walk thru. Why? No fence.
How many n Koreans have escaped to south Korea across the fence since 1953?
not many
certainly not 5% of the population
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
but these pension plans saddle our manufacturers like albatrosses. Part of the reason that American automobile manufacturers are so uncompetitive is that one of the single largest outlays of money per-car is paying money to those the companies no longer employs. We simply cannot compete with more flexible plants in other parts of the world that have lower labor costs, even if their salaries are themselves relatively high. What's the solution? A tariff wall? Brilliant; let's start driving up prices faster than wages and see how that helps the little guy. Corporate villification? Yes, the way to induce inward investment is to demonize companies and sic the tax men on them. Economics is fraught with paradoxes, and the worst thing that can possibly happen is for someone to step forward pretending to hold all the answers.
That is their whole problem. The hourly labor cost for GM (including legacy costs) is almost $100 per hour, compared to little more than 1/3 of that for Toyota. (I got these figures from a WSJ article a while back... sorry, no link.) It is a wonder they are doing as well as they are with that kind of competitive disadvantage. Bankruptcy is the only way out that I can see. It's probably only a matter of time.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
about him will be that he favors military pork to build naval bases and ships that he would never dare use to kill people or break things given his pre-911 world view that favored allowing Saddam to defy us post-911 by violating a ceasefire Americans died to achieve. Webb, a paper tiger Marxist.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
if you want to vote for a guy who likes spending $$$ on the military, but never actually deploying anywhere.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
The Ten Commandments, Commandment 10, Exodus 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
It's amazing how uniformly the Democrats' agenda lines up in direct contradiction to Biblical precepts time and time again. Jim Webb obviously did not understand John F. Kennedy when he said, "a rising tide lifts all ships."
Jim Webb is an idiot and the Club for Growth needs to contract a candidate to take him out in 6 years. This guy has got to go. George Allen should have obviously stuck to the issues and stayed away from personal attacks. If he'd done that, he would have soundly thumped Jim Webb. I hope that James Warner retires and George Allen wins his seat. Then we need someone like Gov. Gilmore or maybe even Ed Gillespie to knock out Jim Webb.
He's not even in the Senate yet and he has got to go!
Particularly the verses before 31. Even leaving aside the rather rude suggestion that your side has a monopoly on charity and selflessness...
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Matthew 25: "You shall give all of your money to the government and the government shall tell you how much you need back, redistributing the rest of it as it sees fit."
Oh wait...no...it doesn't say that at all.
It instead talks about taking PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY in caring for the weak, poor, and oppressed - not sluffing it off to a government entity. So, see...increased taxes cause individual people to be less empowered to take on the mission that Matthew 25 directs us to because we have fewer resources left out of our earnings, and the government does a lousy job of it because it was never designed to be a charity. I think I read once that we spend $40,000 for every person on welfare - but the people on welfare only see a fraction of that, of course.
The perversion of liberalism on this issue (because there are many liberal perversions) is that it takes a beautiful act of charitable humanitarianism and turns it into an ugly beast of entitlement. And the charitable humanitarianism borne of individual responsibility instead is better at meeting the needs of the poor and needy than the tyranny of the collectivist entitlement regime.
Read Matthew 25, indeed.
you folks only want the full force of government to "act christian" when it inviolves private behavior of which you disapprove. But when it comes down to brass tacks you can't think that we all as a society together and in an organized way (ie through tax structure)should act christian. You gotta crack that thing open folks.
the idea that about 50% of Americans pay $0.00 in federal taxes, or get a rebate on taxes not paid on wages not earned by way of EITC, is just not right. Theft, comes to mind. Certainly covetousness.
When I look at my pay stub and the federal/state/local taxes I don't have any problem in saying that I'm doing my bit.
And you guys are only interested in the government acting Christian when it involves taking money from people who are working and doing BIG THINGS with it. When it comes to the rest of the Big 10 (Commandments not the sports league) you really aren't all that interested.
...as a Democrat, it's a good idea for you not to broad-brush in your turn. "We folks" don't act in that fashion at all; "we folks" are, in fact, a fairly divergent group of people with overlapping opinions, agendas and concerns. And I'm personally fascinated to find out precisely what private behavior I as a member of "we folks" wants the full force of government to "act christian" upon.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
The bar of the law should be set, and I believe is generally set, at the lowest level that can be tolerated by a civilized society to maintain law and order and generally run society smoothly.
This has nothing to do with economic policy. The only function of economic policy should be to grow society's wealth and lift as many people as high up the economic latter as it possibly can. Who cares if one day the discrepency between the poor and wealthy is so great that the wealthy have spaceships for intergallactic travel while the poor are barely able to afford a new Ferrari for their 16-year old son who is a new driver? Who cares? Those who covet. And the wisdom of the ages tells us that this is a very, very corrosive motive that is so terrible that it is one of the 10 "Thou Shalt Nots." That's big. Very big.
Socialist wealth redistribution tactics, however, not only destroy wealth, but they are not in keeping with Biblical precepts. In fact, if not diametrically opposed to them, socialism at least frustrates attempt to follow the guidance offered by the Bible.
The Bible preaches that we should take personal responsibility upon ourselves to care for the poor and needy. This can be achieved through networks and organizations of other willing donors who also take personal responsibility. However, to levy taxes and force others who are not so inclined is to violate their right to exercise their God-given free will because some in society feel entitled to break the 10th Commandment and so deeply covet other people's property. That is absolutely revolting.
It is not in keeping with the vision of conservatism to have a limited government to have government to act as a charity. The government should have a very limited social safety net, refund us the rest of the money, and then let us engage in charitable giving of our own free will and accord instead of by government edict. It will probably lead to much more being done with many fewer dollars because private charities can be much more innovative than the government can be.
...and social program spending has increased the size of its dependent (and, therefore, politically supportive) bureaucracy without doing a thing to fight poverty. As Ez mentioned, most of the money intended to meet the needs of the poor goes not to the poor but to the bureaucracy providing social services to the poor.
--
"I will guarantee you that John Kerry will be president of the United States." - Nancy Pelosi
...if you're having trouble making ends meet.
Or you could stop waiting for your entitled trickle-down and get to work finding a way to move up the ladder to capitalize on that upward wealth distribution.
LOL, indeed.
--
"I will guarantee you that John Kerry will be president of the United States." - Nancy Pelosi
Letting people keep more of what they earn is not redistributing wealth upward.
However, if you're talking about farm and industrial subsidies, then...don't get me started. My blood boils just thinking about all of the subsidies to corporate, industrial, and agricultural interests that the government hands out each year.
You have to look at it from his perspective: all property belongs to the government. The government, through it's benevolence, has seen fit to allow you to use your house, car, and even some of "your" money (for now). If the government decides it wants to have some of it's property back, who are you to complain? You're just lucky they let you use it for as long as you did.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
kind of thing along with a tax structure that weighs heavily and dispropotionately on the middle class in favor of the rich and corporations.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
5 "So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me," says the LORD Almighty."
Excuse me, but the prevailing market rate is not "defrauding laborers" of their wages. Defrauding a laborer is to promise them a wage and then not pay it in full.
It's so funny when liberals start to talk about things that they don't understand...like the Bible. LOL. Honestly, it's this type of textual interpretation by liberals that gives us indefensible Supreme Court decisions like Roe, Kelo, and Hamdan. LOL
soundslike opressing the fatherless to me. and not raising the minimum wage is depriving people of their livelyhood. You all want to be called christians without actially acting as such. remember faith without works is dead. thats from james
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
With an odd penchant for quoting the King James version. You might consider the context of that quote. You might also consider a more accurate translation, albeit none match the sheer power of that prose.
James I: Good for buggery, being a Catholic on a Protestant throne, and some of the most moving mistranslations in the history of man.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
And assign you some homework. This is easier than most assignments we give out, though. Your only assignment is to go and read this, in its entirety, before you post a single other comment on this thread. You will, however, have to demonstrate that you have read and accurately understood the piece. Cheers.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
That's an interesting argument. lol. I would say, hey...they gave a job to the fatherless to those who earn minimum wage who truly are.
On the other hand, since a high percentage of those earning minimum wage are under 18 and working part time jobs and the like, I'd imagine that many of them actually have fathers. And I don't really think that they're being oppressed. In fact, I think that they're being given opportunity. Seizing opportunity isn't always a smooth ride paved with riches, though.
"Faith without works is dead" quoth waitingforvizzini. Well..works forced to be performed by government edict are require no faith at all. Merely fear for being prosecuted for noncompliance. :-)
You failed to complete your homework assignment. You must have been under the impression that it was optional. It wasn't.
Blam.
If you'd like another go, you may compose a 500-word essay for your new homework assignment, and submit it via the contact form.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
You don't want him to write you 500 words on any topic. He was born allergic to the indentations that denote the occurance of a new paragraph.
Thus, parsing his nuggets of infinite wisdom to determine where one blinding flash of brilliant prose melds into yet another, require the gimlet eye of Kate Turabian.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
but sad that you confuse the poor with the idle. There are many rich people who do no work. But most poor people contrary to your depiction of them do in fact work and work hard. in america we are (theoretically) blessed with equal rights but not equal abilities or circumstances. there are larger forces at work that in many cases have a great bearing on the individuals ability to suceed. often these may conspire with a personal disaster or calamity to cause one to fail. My side says hey let the strenght of society give this brother a hand up. you say let him be for it is his own fault he is poor. let it be his punishment. or let private charity sustain him. but this is not so private charity is not and never has been sufficient to stave off poverty. the great society and social security did infact make mesurable gains against poverty. if capitalism is to work and i belive it can and should there should be a lubricant to keep the engine of the economy from breaking. And that is where regulation comes in. where social services come in. They keep the worker able to work, healthy enough to work smart enough to work transpoertation to work a place to come home from after work.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Which is exactly what you get, when you raise the minimum wage.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
NIV version,
13"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? 14Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'
I think most of our liberal friends would strongly dispute the right to pay what the worker agreed to work for and even more strongly dispute the right to do what you want with your own money.
{Note, I am aware that this is a parable explaining that those who come to the lord late will receive the same reward as those who come early, but the litteral reading just fits too well....}
*********************************************************
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
...is the fact that Republican initiatives (e.g. IRA's, 401-k's and ESOP plans) have co-opted the "worker class" and made them part owners in corporate America.
This has been a great thing for society, and for the Republican Party. Nothing correlates as strongly as a predictor of Republican voting habits than equity ownership in a corporation.
The CEO compensation figures Webb casts about are doubtless inclusive of stock options. CEOs have been rewarded by being allowed to share in the owners' profits.
For the most part, the people that have enjoyed prosperity in American society have done so, not because they were born lucky, or cheated, or won the lottery, but because they studied hard, worked hard and created or provided something of value.
Article in Fortune re politics of money and class in the US.
Link and excerpts follow.
Today's lower upper class is seething about the ultrawealthy.
By Matt Miller, Fortune columnist
Here's my outlandish theory: that economic resentment at the bottom
of the top 1 percent of America's income distribution is the new wild
card in public life. Ordinary workers won't rise up against ultras
because they take it as given that "the rich get richer."
But the hopes and dreams of today's educated class are based on the
idea that market capitalism is a meritocracy. The unreachable success
of the superrich shreds those dreams....
Lower uppers are doctors, accountants, engineers, lawyers. At
companies they're mostly executives above the rank of VP but below
the CEO. Their comrades include well-fed members of the media (and
even Fortune columnists who earn their living as consultants).
Lower uppers are professionals who by dint of schooling, hard work
and luck are living better than 99 percent of the humans who have
ever walked the planet. They're also people who can't help but notice
how many folks with credentials like theirs are living in Gatsby-
esque splendor they'll never enjoy...
There's only so much of this a smart, vocal elite can take before the
seams burst - and a bilious reaction against unmerited privilege
starts oozing from every pore. Especially when it's clear to lower
uppers that many ultras are reaping the rewards of rigged systems:
CEOs who preside over tumbling stock prices, hedge fund managers who
barely beat the market....
It may seem far-fetched to think a revolt against extreme inequality
will be led by posh professionals. But the conversations above
suggest there's a potent political opening for a "comeuppance
agenda."...
Eliot Spitzer, an ultra by birth (like F.D.R.), has shown the power
of turning against the sleazy self-dealing of his class. Once
Spitzer's crusades against greed sweep him into the New York
governor's mansion next month, imitators may follow. Shame as a
strategy to constrain avarice may come back into fashion.
I don't agree with Webb, but he's able to pull elite support by feeding off this sentiment.
In my experience they tend to skew hard to the left in their politics. Maybe my sample is biased (NYC), but the Randian view of the wealthy looks like a fairytale. These people prefer control to money as such.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
and they demand that the gubbermint protect it for them.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
My guess is, once you take into account cost of living, these 'fairly rich' who are lefties will be found in the places you'd expect to find lefties: New York, Boston, Washington, Seattle, etc.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
It may be a question of one trend feeding another. The "hot coasts" attract both the sizzling new industries where fortunes can be made and also have the academic, legal and entertainment infrastructures where liberals hang out. So the newly super rich bid up condominiums, co-ops, vacation homes, private school tuition, etc. and money facilitates their dominance of civic institutions. The merely affluent, who tend to be professionals whose work supports the super rich, are jealous and alienated.
So what if the merely affluent live extremely pleasant lives? The green-eyed monster explains a lot with this crowd.
coming after the death of Dr. Friedman is very sad.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
but makaka. Allen just opens his mouth and the next thing you know, Webb wins and lucky guys like me and my fellow 1%'ers may have to pay a few more bucks come April.
Darn it all
You should really be a bit smarter than that. If I was a Senator, and I wanted to lose my red state seat to a dem, all I would have to do is call a press conference to announce that yes, I am a a racist and yes, my IQ is below 80. It's almost like he wanted to lose.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
1 hr 13 min
I'm guessing Dr Rock doesn't last the morning. Any takers?
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
your outside tormentors all you want or you can do something to demand more from your candidates.
Dr Rock
WAPO
Bad apples indeed.
The fact is that Allen's seat was his to lose and we have nobody to blame but Allen for that. Not the press who reported what was, a huge story about a racist senator.
It's like Captain Ahab blaming Moby Dick for eating his pal. You can't blame nature for being nature and you can't get revenge on it. The press will eat a story like that because it is there, and tender and juicy and meaty, and maybe if you can't swim well, you shouldn't taunt the killer wales.
this is really quite simple. You're a guest here. We welcome any and all who are willing and able to debate - and that means getting beyond tossing stink-bombs and displaying a spectacular lack of historical and factual knowledge, such as found in your entirely content free initial diary entry.
In other words, welcome to RedState, we all hope you enjoy your RedState Experience™ and we hope you can stay a while.
But don't crap on the carpets. The owners don't like that, and you ain't one of them.
Kosher?
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
are in his head. Unless Streiff is comatose, he's a short-timer.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
I'm glad your IQ is higher than 80 and you bring no bias to the discussion whatsoever. It's a pleasure to have a MENSA Boy like yourself in our presence.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
Moe went Boomstick™ on him.
He's probably off writing his How I Got Banned at RedState by Speaking Power to Truth diary as we speak.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
was my first thought before I read Webb's piece. After I read it: Dead on.
_________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes