Obamas plan!
- Thread starter medicineman
- Start date
medicineman
New Member
Wavels
Well-Known Member
Obama is the poster child for empty suit syndrome....the only ideas he has are recycled, proven, demonstrable failures...And he whips crowds into frenzies....hahaha
February 22, 2007 1:00 AM
Barack Obama, Control Freak
Fresh face, same old fallacies.
By Thomas Sowell
Senator Barack Obama recently said, “let’s allow our unions and their organizers to lift up this country’s middle class again.
Ironically, he said it at a time when Detroit automakers have been laying off unionized workers by the tens of thousands, while Toyota has been hiring tens of thousands of non-union American automobile workers.
Labor unions, like the government, can change prices — in this case, the price of labor — but without changing the underlying reality that prices convey.
Neither unions nor minimum-wage laws change the productivity of workers. All they can do is forbid the employer from paying less than what the government or the unions want the employer to pay.
When that is more than the labor in question produces, some workers who are perfectly capable become “unemployable” only because of wages set above the level of their productivity.
In the short run — which is what matters to politicians and to union leaders, who both get elected in the short run — workers who are already on the payroll may get a windfall gain before the market adjusts.
But, sooner or later, the chickens come home to roost. They have been coming home to roost big time in the automobile industry, where hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost over the years.
It is not that people don’t want automobiles. Toyota is selling plenty of cars made in its American factories with non-union labor.
Some claim that it is automation, rather than union wages and benefits, that is responsible for declining employment among the Detroit auto workers.
But why are automobile companies buying expensive automated machinery, except that labor has been made expensive enough to make that their next best option?
Senator Obama is being hailed as the newest and freshest face on the American political scene. But he is advocating some of the oldest fallacies, just as if it was the 1960s again, or as if he has learned nothing and forgotten nothing since then.
He thinks higher teacher pay is the answer to the abysmal failures of our education system, which is already far more expensive than the education provided in countries whose students have for decades consistently outperformed ours on international tests.
Senator Obama is for making college “affordable,” as if he has never considered that government subsidies push up tuition, just as government subsidies push up agricultural prices, the price of medical care and other prices.
He is also for “alternative fuels,” without the slightest thought about the prices of those fuels or the implications of those prices. All this is the old liberal agenda from years past, old wine in new bottles, a new face with old ideas that have been tried and failed repeatedly over the past generation.
Senator Obama is not unique among politicians who want to control prices, as if that is controlling the underlying reality behind the prices.
There is much current political interest in so-called “predatory lending” — the charging of high interest rates for loans to poor people or to people with low credit ratings.
Nothing will be easier politically than passing laws to limit interest rates or make it harder for lenders to recover their money — and nothing will cause credit to dry up faster to low-income people, forcing some of them to have to turn to illegal loan sharks, who have their own methods of collecting.
The underlying reality that politicians do not want to face is that here, too, prices convey a reality that is not subject to political control. That reality is that it is far riskier to lend to some people than to others.
That is why the price of a loan — the interest rate — is far higher to some people than to others. Far from making extra profits on riskier loans, many lenders have lost millions of dollars on such loans and some have gone bankrupt.
But politics is not about facts. It is about what politicians can get people to believe.
Thomas Sowell on Barack Obama on National Review Online
February 22, 2007 1:00 AM
Barack Obama, Control Freak
Fresh face, same old fallacies.
By Thomas Sowell
Senator Barack Obama recently said, “let’s allow our unions and their organizers to lift up this country’s middle class again.
Ironically, he said it at a time when Detroit automakers have been laying off unionized workers by the tens of thousands, while Toyota has been hiring tens of thousands of non-union American automobile workers.
Labor unions, like the government, can change prices — in this case, the price of labor — but without changing the underlying reality that prices convey.
Neither unions nor minimum-wage laws change the productivity of workers. All they can do is forbid the employer from paying less than what the government or the unions want the employer to pay.
When that is more than the labor in question produces, some workers who are perfectly capable become “unemployable” only because of wages set above the level of their productivity.
In the short run — which is what matters to politicians and to union leaders, who both get elected in the short run — workers who are already on the payroll may get a windfall gain before the market adjusts.
But, sooner or later, the chickens come home to roost. They have been coming home to roost big time in the automobile industry, where hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost over the years.
It is not that people don’t want automobiles. Toyota is selling plenty of cars made in its American factories with non-union labor.
Some claim that it is automation, rather than union wages and benefits, that is responsible for declining employment among the Detroit auto workers.
But why are automobile companies buying expensive automated machinery, except that labor has been made expensive enough to make that their next best option?
Senator Obama is being hailed as the newest and freshest face on the American political scene. But he is advocating some of the oldest fallacies, just as if it was the 1960s again, or as if he has learned nothing and forgotten nothing since then.
He thinks higher teacher pay is the answer to the abysmal failures of our education system, which is already far more expensive than the education provided in countries whose students have for decades consistently outperformed ours on international tests.
Senator Obama is for making college “affordable,” as if he has never considered that government subsidies push up tuition, just as government subsidies push up agricultural prices, the price of medical care and other prices.
He is also for “alternative fuels,” without the slightest thought about the prices of those fuels or the implications of those prices. All this is the old liberal agenda from years past, old wine in new bottles, a new face with old ideas that have been tried and failed repeatedly over the past generation.
Senator Obama is not unique among politicians who want to control prices, as if that is controlling the underlying reality behind the prices.
There is much current political interest in so-called “predatory lending” — the charging of high interest rates for loans to poor people or to people with low credit ratings.
Nothing will be easier politically than passing laws to limit interest rates or make it harder for lenders to recover their money — and nothing will cause credit to dry up faster to low-income people, forcing some of them to have to turn to illegal loan sharks, who have their own methods of collecting.
The underlying reality that politicians do not want to face is that here, too, prices convey a reality that is not subject to political control. That reality is that it is far riskier to lend to some people than to others.
That is why the price of a loan — the interest rate — is far higher to some people than to others. Far from making extra profits on riskier loans, many lenders have lost millions of dollars on such loans and some have gone bankrupt.
But politics is not about facts. It is about what politicians can get people to believe.
Thomas Sowell on Barack Obama on National Review Online
medicineman
New Member
Some claim that it is automation, rather than union wages and benefits, that is responsible for declining employment among the Detroit auto workers.
The largest expense to auto makers in producing automobiles is the cost of medical coverage for the workers. It costs more per car for medical insurance than for steel. This is another reason for single payer medical. Maybe if we had a good single payer system, the US auto makers could compete!
The largest expense to auto makers in producing automobiles is the cost of medical coverage for the workers. It costs more per car for medical insurance than for steel. This is another reason for single payer medical. Maybe if we had a good single payer system, the US auto makers could compete!
medicineman
New Member
I'm not an economist, but the cost of medical is rising faster than a Viagra hard on, and it is the greedy HMOs and Insurance companies that are raising prices and blaming them on malpractice insurance, So my contention is to get rid of all the insurance companies and have a government backed insurance plan for all insurances, singlepayer medical and homeowners based on risk and assesed value, auto paid with your registration fees and is no fault, and you cannot sue for damages, with a 100,000 cap on injury compensation. The details need to be clarified, this is just a primer. In case you haven't noticed, what we have now isn't working.
medicineman
New Member
Then, why can't he figure out a way to fix the broken medical system. A medical system is not working if it doesn't cover everyone in the country. It may be working for the wealthy, but the middle class are being priced out of the market, plus all the plant closures etc. that have left millions without any insurance. Tell your brilliant economist to come up with a plan that will not only benefit the rich, but will cover everyone with medical care. Hey anyone that is rich can get medical care, even in the poorest countries, that is nothing to brag about, this society needs to step up and provide the basic necessities of life to everyone. A JOB first off, quit sending them away and bringing illegals to work for less. Then a comprehensive single payer medical plan. Expand social security to make people keep paying into it no matter how much they make, no cut off like it is now. that alone would make SS solvent way beyond the current projections. Nationalize the insurance companies and send all CEOs that were making over a million a year to Labor camps and make them do heavy labor for 5 fricken years, then they might know what it is like to be a worker. All politicians are to go to the labor camps as well, 1 year for Democrats, 5-10 for republicans, depends on how far right they were. Federal judges, Death penalty! Governors, Make the punisment fit the crimes, but no less than 1 year in a labor camp. All rich persons with a net worth over 1 million, 5 years in a labor camp and forfiture of all their property down to 2 hundred grand. Now there are a few more people I have issues with like cops and prosecutors, mean bosses and such, they would all be sent on a scale of from one year to ten depending on how fucked they were. I'm not sure where you would fit on this list, but I'm pretty sure you'd be in the 1-5 category~LOL~ Yes, I have a plan even though your esteemed economist seems to have none, all hot air I suppose, like some I could name, but I won't in an effort to keep the peace.
medicineman
New Member
Yeah, I figured you wouldn't know what a society was, And the why is because it is the right thing to do! Society: 1; Companionship 2;a voluntary association of persons for common ends. 3; a part of a community bound together by common interests and standards. In other words people that can get along with each other by helping one another to belong to the comman interests and supporting the less able. I realize this is beyond your comprehension, but you did ask. {Mirriam Webster}
Here's a question for you: Why do you only pick one line out of everyone of my posts and ask a question or try and make me prove the point of that one line. Why dont you just read the whole thread and ask a generalized question about the whole?
ViRedd
New Member
1; Companionship 2;a voluntary association of persons for common ends. 3; a part of a community bound together by common interests and standards. In other words people that can get along with each other by helping one another to belong to the comman interests and supporting the less able"
This is a GREAT answer, Med. And, did you notice that government isn't in the equasion? That was the point of my asking the question. Please notice the words "voluntary association" in your answer, with the emphasis on voluntary. The problem is ... the liberal's have made an attempt to rearrange the words "voluntary association" in the dictionary to suit their own agenda, to that of "forced association," with Big Brother (them) in control.
Here's a question for you: Why do you only pick one line out of everyone of my posts and ask a question or try and make me prove the point of that one line. Why dont you just read the whole thread and ask a generalized question about the whole?
Well, I do read your posts in their entirety .. almost every time. When I see something that just glares out at me and begs for clarification, I ask the questions. You see, I never ask in an effort to make you look foolish or anything like that ... I just want two things in asking ... 1. A look into your thinking. 2. Clarification of your statements or thoughts. Both of these things allow me to better understand your positions. AND ... if I disagree with those positions, I refute them with my own thoughts. You, of course, have the right to refute mine.
"Yeah, I figured you wouldn't know what a society was..."
"I realize this is beyond your comprehension..."
Now, take a look at the two comments you've made above. These are personal attacks, maybe mild, but personal attacks, none the less. These are the types of comments that do not belong in positive political discourse. These are the types of comments that lead to, and escalate to, all out disruption here in the forum.
Now, I'm asking again ... let's you and I bury the hatchet and let by-gones, be by-gones. Let's start anew with the realization that you and I are 180 degrees out of sync politically AND most importantly, agree to respect each other's right to an opinion.
Are you up for the bigger game, Med?
Vi
This is a GREAT answer, Med. And, did you notice that government isn't in the equasion? That was the point of my asking the question. Please notice the words "voluntary association" in your answer, with the emphasis on voluntary. The problem is ... the liberal's have made an attempt to rearrange the words "voluntary association" in the dictionary to suit their own agenda, to that of "forced association," with Big Brother (them) in control.
Here's a question for you: Why do you only pick one line out of everyone of my posts and ask a question or try and make me prove the point of that one line. Why dont you just read the whole thread and ask a generalized question about the whole?
Well, I do read your posts in their entirety .. almost every time. When I see something that just glares out at me and begs for clarification, I ask the questions. You see, I never ask in an effort to make you look foolish or anything like that ... I just want two things in asking ... 1. A look into your thinking. 2. Clarification of your statements or thoughts. Both of these things allow me to better understand your positions. AND ... if I disagree with those positions, I refute them with my own thoughts. You, of course, have the right to refute mine.
"Yeah, I figured you wouldn't know what a society was..."
"I realize this is beyond your comprehension..."
Now, take a look at the two comments you've made above. These are personal attacks, maybe mild, but personal attacks, none the less. These are the types of comments that do not belong in positive political discourse. These are the types of comments that lead to, and escalate to, all out disruption here in the forum.
Now, I'm asking again ... let's you and I bury the hatchet and let by-gones, be by-gones. Let's start anew with the realization that you and I are 180 degrees out of sync politically AND most importantly, agree to respect each other's right to an opinion.
Are you up for the bigger game, Med?
Vi
trentcannon
Well-Known Member
...hehe...
medicineman
New Member
I'll try anything once, but it won't be easy, you really know how to piss a poor boy off!
ViRedd
New Member
*lol* ... Me tinks yer not such a bad sort ... even though you're proud of that little dinky of yours.
Vi
medicineman
New Member
Come on, you know you e-mailed me that self portrait, I wondered why, I aready knew you were one.~LOL~*lol* ... Me tinks yer not such a bad sort ... even though you're proud of that little dinky of yours.
Vi
medicineman
New Member
And your point is?