So anyone who thinks that people who make more money than 250,000 should pay a higher rate than 35% is scorning the wealthy?

Never in history has any free society expected the makers to give to society so much and survived, to say nothing of prospering. The mere fact folks are talking about taking that much money from these people weakens the foundations of our great once free nation.

Or something, it is never clear to me why restoring a tax rate to what it was before is such a horror. Especially since the GOP had huge political capital and majorities in the House and Senate and could have tried to make the tax rate reductions permanent, but they decided it was best not to. So now that the rates are about to expire, just like they were written to do, now it is a crisis.

Saying that wealthy people should bear a higher proportionate tax burden is not scorning them.



Done and done.

No, of course he's not going to say "These people deserve our scorn!" But his message is clear, and his followers aren't shy in saying it. Cite: the last several years of political discussions here on BTF.

I now expect DMN to come here and tell Ray that such dogwhistle words and phrases don't actually exist.

Done and done.

You were asked if you could point to a statement that Obama made that scorned successful or wealthy people. Instead, you pointed to a statement made by someone else. That's not "done" even once.

i mentioned last week in the lounge and will share here that if you want a micro view into tea party congress folks watch for comments from congressman sean duffy

duffy is a box of rocks so he says what he is told to say. he is making noises about being willing to deal

No, of course he's not going to say "These people deserve our scorn!" But his message is clear, and his followers aren't shy in saying it.

See kids when money is everything, is all important, then asking rich people to pay more is equal to scorn.

Hell, Ray might as well parrot his mentor directly and say that tax collectors are "stealing your life".

BTW I notice that Ray's mentor hasn't posted here since the day after the election. Hope he isn't taking it too hard that the Black Panthers stole the White House from Gary Johnson.

Since 23 million unemployed leaves a gaggle of people employed, that means there are plenty of jobs out there. It is not impossible to become employed, as a great many people show.

You really can't help yourself, can you? You would love New Brunswick, our Official Provincial Attitude during my life time and before, is You're Lucky to Have a Job. Most people will directly tell you this if you ever complain about your job or lack of advancement opportunity.

Nice 9642, zenbitz.

McCoy, what in God's name are you talking about? Your anecdotal experience bears absolutely no resemblance to, well, my anecdotal experience. As an actual post-Gen X person (born 1984) I can say that my peers are not enthusiastically thrusting themselves into low-paid vocational work. With some exceptions, job satisfaction isn't just low among people my age, it's non-existent. I really want to know if you're basing this whole view on one 22 year old you know, because frankly it's baffling.

"Something they had to do to earn cash so they could go out and do stuff" could not be a better description of how people I know look at work. I could count the young people I know who like their jobs on one hand.

I'm basing it on the hundreds and hundreds of young people I have met in NYC, Philadelphia, and DC.

Being a hairdresser or a butcher isn't the same thing as operating the coffee machine at Starbucks. The first two require actual skill and craft from which one could derive real satisfaction. They also probably pay at least somewhat more, because they require actual skill and craft.

Probably not at Hostess, though as zenbitz says, if Hostess can't produce Twinkies while paying a living wage, then #### Twinkies. No job at all is effectively equivalent to one you can't live on; better in some ways. The idea that unions are bad because they advocate living wages and thereby ruin industries is weird. Why should corporations have a right to keep workers in destitution? Such an industry has ruined itself, unless it resorts to measures like those taken in the Florida tomato fields.

The whole living wage thing is a bit of a red herring though. Hostess can make twinkies and provide its workers a living wage. The problem is that in order to do that they need less workers and capital to invest in retooling. Unions tend to prohibit thus causing wages to go up while also having to pay for more employees. Also while Hostess has no inherent right to pay their employees peanuts and have their employees accept it no matter what employees don't have any inherent right to be employed by hostess for their entire life at a livable wage and again unions prohibit employment cycling. Hostess could get people to make Twinkies at costs less than what they are spending on union employees but the union prohibits that and by having a union it keeps employees anchored to the same job for many many years. That job stability also increases pressure on raising spending on employees as they demand more and more stuff. If Hostess could offer anyone who is willing to work for $12 an hour a job they could in fact get people to make Twinkies.

Hostess didn't go out of business because they weren't willing to pay market wages. Hostess wasn't willing to pay an artificial price and the unions most certainly bear part of the blame for that.

Being a hairdresser or a butcher isn't the same thing as operating the coffee machine at Starbucks. The first two require actual skill and craft from which one could derive real satisfaction. They also probably pay at least somewhat more, because they require actual skill and craft.


I agree and I tended to stay away from bringing up places like Starbucks or McDonalds because those corporate chain monoliths tend not to be career builders for the young that they employ. If you want to find some 25 year old who is really gung ho about making coffee or espresso you don't go to Starbucks or Green Mountain or some chain like that. You go to some boutiquey coffee shop or little neighborhood coffee shop and that is where you'll find some 25 year old coffee guru who at the moment wishes only to know everything there is to know about the coffee bean. The same thing applies to burgers. You don't go to McDonalds to find some 24 year trying to create the perfect burger or trying to find the perfect condiments for a burger.

15 to 20 years ago there simply wasn't a lot of businesses that could be so "boutiquey".

My favorite part of this is the newfangled concept of "working conditions," which used to relate to health and safety - things like chemical exposure, long hours operating heavy machinery, lack of safety procedures - and now relates to off hours on a holiday one unique day in a year.

Plenty of stores other than Walmart have these same hours, but since Walmart is a fetish of the left a controversy is manufactured.

"Walmart has done more for poor people than any ten liberals, at least nine of whom are almost guaranteed to hate Walmart."

— Thomas Sowell

...at least nine of whom are almost guaranteed to hate Walmart.

And at least six of whom shop there!

We hate the policies that lead to the low prices, but we cannot resist the lure of the low prices!

FWIW, most hair dressers in Taiwan are paid like absolute garbage, often comparable or worse than McDonalds or Star Bucks (though a small portion of well known once make a lot), but that is more of a supply issue with trade schools having stupid amount of (mostly girls) trained towards that profession.

Then again, you see the reverse for Nurses, hospital nurses are paid quite well but they simply can't find enough people... not that there isn't enough qualified once, there are, but the hospital tries to keep a bare minimum of them to save cost thus their work load is too heavy to even justify their relatively higher pay.

Wow - never saw this coming. Saxby Chambliss - "I care more about the country than a 20 year old tax pledge"

If Norquist can't hold the Chambliss' of the world, he's finished.

apparently, chambliss is being threatened by a potential challenge in the 2014 primaries. various members of georgia's legislature and one fairly prominent anti-abortion activist are lining up in consideration of it.

so, for all the talk about the democrats being on the defensive in two years, i think we might start to see signs of another cycle of self-immolation by batshit crazy wingnuts in the republican base.

Just to add my personal experience with nationalized health care - I just came back from Taiwan. I went to a dermatologist clinic for a skin condition (duh). I am not a Taiwanese citizen, but got an appointment a couple days prior without a problem. Saw a dermatologist for about 15 minutes, got a weeks worth of two drugs and two tubes of topical drugs. Total cost was $24 (American) and was all accomplished in about an hour - this included registration, taking my weight and blood pressure, doctors consultation and all four prescriptions filled.

In Quebec, there are issues with access to doctors, but that's because all doctor pay is fee-based-per-visit/procedure and they are all independent operators with a very, very strong association that restricts the number of doctors so that the working doctors can generate more money from takin more visits. Easy affordable access to care in Quebec means someone is sitting in their office not making money, so there's where the difficulty to access lies -- the fact that the physicians manipulate the access to maximize the income for those that are already practicing in Quebec. And this manifests itself in the elective, non-urgent procedures.

"Walmart has done more for poor people than any ten liberals, at least nine of whom are almost guaranteed to hate Walmart." — Thomas Sowell

When I want reasonable, thoughtful thinking, I turn to a man who has compared Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler.

"Walmart has done more for to create poor people than any ten liberals, at least nine of whom are almost guaranteed to hate Walmart."

— Thomas Sowell

FTFY. Buying a POS Chinese lawnchair every two years for $7 is not cheaper than paying $20 for a good one that lasts for a decade. There is no argument that will convice me that Walmart (whose founding family is worth more than the lowest 41% of the US population, as someone pointed out upthread) is good for the US or the world. Which is why I NEVER shop there, despite the fact one is located direclty across the street from my office. Since I don't shop there, I can criticize it all I want.

"Walmart has done more for poor people than any ten liberals,

Take that Jesus, you wuss.

"Walmart has done more for poor people than any ten liberals, at least nine of whom are almost guaranteed to hate Walmart."

— Thomas Sowell

When I want reasonable, thoughtful thinking, I turn to a man who has compared Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler.

I can't think of a sadder example of the Obama Derangement Syndrome than Thomas Sowell. The same man who wrote first rate studies such as Black Education: Myths and Tragedies, Ethnic America, Knowledge and Decisions, and Affirmative Action Around the World is now going around comparing Obama to pretty much every Godwin in history, and comparing crowds at Obama rallies to the crowds at Godwin's Nuremburg rallies. The only explanation I can think of is that once he got picked up by the right wing think tanks, his opinions have become more and more narrowcast over the years, as he keeps himself firmly within their bubble. There are countless other examples of formerly sane and rational people becoming unhinged as they get older (Sowell is now 82), but given the relative dearth of serious African American conservative intellectuals with any name recognition beyond academia, IMO this is a particularly sad case.

The only explanation I can think of is that once he got picked up by the right wing think tanks, his opinions have become more and more narrowcast over the years, as he keeps himself firmly within their bubble.

Maybe he just like the checks. I don't think there's one in ten Dittohead "pundits" who truly believe the bunkum they profess. The Ann Coulter in this clip from "The Boondocks" probably has more in common with the real off-screen Coulter than the harpy who appears on Fox News.

Maybe he just like the checks. I don't think there's one in ten Dittohead "pundits" who truly believe the bunkum they profess. The Ann Coulter in this clip from "The Boondocks" probably has more in common with the real off-screen Coulter than the harpy who appears on Fox News.

I dunno, I'm almost as cynical as you are about these characters, but unlike a clown like Coulter, Sowell actually has written some worthwhile books, and didn't begin by being a schtick artist. The tone of his earlier writing, especially his books, has little or nothing in common with the bilge he's writing about Obama.

IMO the best rule of thumb is that 100% of the radio and TV wingnuts are a mixture of cynicism and theatrics, but that most of the right wing print columnists** are like Sowell, in that they weren't always as obsessed with Obama (and with that whole idiotic "socialism" line) as they are today, but that there's something about the water they're swimming in that makes them lose a bit more of it each year. OTOH unlike the cases of the O'Reillys and the Coulters and the Limbaughs, I think there's more to it than just the checks.

And it's not a universal pattern, either. Buckley and Goldwater got saner as they aged, others like Frum remain conservative but independent of faction, and writers like Brooks and Gerson don't engage in the sort of unhinged rhetoric that guys like Krauthammer and Will do. Much as it may seem from the outside sometimes, they're not really all alike.

**Not counting the ones who write for the Moonie paper, since their target audience has always been their fellow loons.

FTFY. Buying a POS Chinese lawnchair every two years for $7 is not cheaper than paying $20 for a good one that lasts for a decade. There is no argument that will convice me that Walmart (whose founding family is worth more than the lowest 41% of the US population, as someone pointed out upthread) is good for the US or the world. Which is why I NEVER shop there, despite the fact one is located direclty across the street from my office. Since I don't shop there, I can criticize it all I want.

So let us say that theoretically you could buy a $20 lawnchair and have it last a decade. How many Americans do you think that would employ if you only had to buy a chair once every ten years? Furthermore if chairs that last a decade are the new in thing what makes you think that China can't come out with a chair that lasts a decade for $12?

Cheap Imported products are not as bad as a lot of people make them out to be. Trying to argue that cheap product manaufacturing should come back to America has been a losing argument for at least 70 years now.

I dunno, I'm almost as cynical as you are about these characters, but unlike a clown like Coulter, Sowell actually has written some worthwhile books, and didn't begin by being a schtick artist.

She's a joke now, but Coulter actually had a serious legal career at the outset, and even at the beginning of her foray into legal commentary, she was a serious commentor on con law issues. Then she became a loon. (Which I'm convinced is an act to make money, like Rush Limbaugh or Al Gore, but whatever.) But she did not begin by being a schtick artist. That only happened within the last 15 years, believe it or not.

And it's not a universal pattern, either. Buckley and Goldwater got saner as they aged, others like Frum remain conservative but independent of faction, and writers like Brooks and Gerson don't engage in the sort of unhinged rhetoric that guys like Krauthammer and Will do. Much as it may seem from the outside sometimes, they're not really all alike.

So as people agree with you, they become "saner" and more "hinged." Got it.

So let us say that theoretically you could buy a $20 lawnchair and have it last a decade. How many Americans do you think that would employ if you only had to buy a chair once every ten years?

That's the $640,000,000,000 question about the future of the American economy. If only there were a simple answer to it.

I dunno, I'm almost as cynical as you are about these characters, but unlike a clown like Coulter, Sowell actually has written some worthwhile books, and didn't begin by being a schtick artist.

She's a joke now, but Coulter actually had a serious legal career at the outset, and even at the beginning of her foray into legal commentary, she was a serious commentor on con law issues.

Maybe so, but what did she ever publish that was remotely comparable to the depth of Thomas Sowell's? The fact that I was only dimly aware of a few references to her past (sane) life doesn't mean anything, but a quick search on Amazon doesn't come up with anything beyond the stuff we all know too well. Whereas with Sowell you can come up with many titles that manage to express an empirically conservative POV quite nicely without comparing Democrats to mass murdering dictators.

And it's not a universal pattern, either. Buckley and Goldwater got saner as they aged, others like Frum remain conservative but independent of faction, and writers like Brooks and Gerson don't engage in the sort of unhinged rhetoric that guys like Krauthammer and Will do. Much as it may seem from the outside sometimes, they're not really all alike.

So as people agree with you, they become "saner" and more "hinged." Got it.

What, you think that I agree with three writers who supported Mitt Romney in an election that IMO provided one of the clearest choices in my lifetime? Get real.

The difference is that Frum, Brooks and Gerson make the case for conservatism without having to resort to an endless series of strawmen and boogeymen in order to do so. You might actually take the time to read some of the writings of the people I've referred to above before pressing your autopilot button.

That's the $640,000,000,000 question

It's an intriguing question about human economic behavior in general. I'm sure as hell not keeping anybody in Japan employed by driving my fabulously reliable 1999 Honda Civic. (Or to be more precise, anybody in Canada, where it was assembled.)

People who make and sell truly durable goods are choosing one strategy: they're banking on a population that grows and becomes better off, so that there will be a market for high-quality stuff for decades to come. Foisting some piece of crap on people requires different assumptions and shorter views.

Both strategies can coexist in the same economy, and I reckon they always have. ("These pyramids last 5,000 years." "These pyramids will save you 100,000 ephods.")

And it should be noted that this dynamic has very little to do with China per se. I've had my Chinese cellphone for four years of flipping, dropping, shaking, texting and otherwise every-moment use, and even the tiny little wisp of barely-attached plastic that you open to insert the charger plug still works like it did in 2008. Everybody has cheap Chinese products in their home and everybody has superbly-made, indestructible Chinese products. It depends on the strategy of the manufacturer, not where the factory is.

That only happened within the last 15 years, believe it or not.

Only within the last 15 years? Like it was only yesterday that for one brief shining moment she showed she had a brain, and the continuing dumbassness of the last 15 years can be waved away like an insignificant gnat.

Only within the last 15 years? Like it was only yesterday that for one brief shining moment she showed she had a brain, and the continuing dumbassness of the last 15 years can be waved away like an insignificant gnat.

This is where political discussions get silly. Cheap shots like this designed to marginalize the speaker. I was responding to Andy's comment that Coulter "didn't begin by being a schtick artist." Go scratch, Morty.

So let us say that theoretically you could buy a $20 lawnchair and have it last a decade. How many Americans do you think that would employ if you only had to buy a chair once every ten years?

Luddite.

This is where political discussions get silly. Cheap shots like this designed to marginalize the speaker. I was responding to Andy's comment that Coulter "didn't begin by being a schtick artist." Go scratch, Morty.

No, they begin silly when someone attempts to defend the indefensible because of some extreme outlier moment that has no bearing as to the person in question's present standing. Who knows and who gives a #### whether Coutler was level-headed years ago for one ephemeral moment? Well, you do because you will go to absurd lengths to defend the indefensible irrelevantly.

No, they begin silly when someone attempts to defend the indefensible because of some extreme outlier moment that has no bearing as to the person in question's present standing. Who knows and who gives a #### whether Coutler was level-headed years ago for one ephemeral moment? Well, you do because you will go to absurd lengths to defend the indefensible irrelevantly.

I was responding to a narrow point Andy made. In the same response, I called Coulter a joke and a loon. WTF?

Can someone help here?

Can someone help here?

Ray it is a rare moment but yeah it was clear you were just saying Coulter did not start as a joke, but she is there now. You were not in any way defending her.

EDIT: To be clear the rare moment is me defending Ray.

Ray it is a rare moment but yeah it was clear you were just saying Coulter did not start as a joke, but she is there now. You were not in any way defending her.

Yeah, Ray wasn't defending Coulter in any way beyond noting that she wasn't necessarily always a total loon.

But unlike Sowell, Krauthammer and Will, Coulter's derangement syndrome emerged from the moment she became a public figure. It didn't incubate within her for several decades before blossoming forth in full flower, the way it did for those other three. So despite whatever academic accomplishment she might be able to claim, she's still in the category of Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity rather than in a category with Sowell, Krauthammer and Will.

I support Ray's position on Morty.

I support Ray's position on Morty.

I like having Morty around. His posts often make me think, agree, disagree, or flat don't understand what he is getting at.

I like having Morty around. His posts often make me think, agree, disagree, or flat don't understand what he is getting at.

Hell, I've been at Morty's throat too many times to count, but AFAIC in the end he's one of the more valuable posters we've got. Unlike some people, he doesn't duck questions, and he doesn't evade the points you're making even when he seems to have painted himself into a corner. And besides, what good is it just to be around people who always agree with you?

OTOH anyone who thinks screwball a la Lubitsch is the highest form of comedy has seriously got a screw loose somewhere. (smile)

@9659 what about barristas that put those little hearts and leaves in your espresso foam? Talentless hacks?

If you think intentionally shoddy, resource-wasting crap-goods are essential to the survival of capitalism, then maybe capitalism isn't working out so hot.

To clarify, I am not against capitalism (or not against free markets, anyway), but a line of thinking consisting of "if we bought nice chairs instead of #### ones (and nice lamps, and nice fans, and nice kitchenware, etc) things would come falling down because there wouldn't be enough busy work for people to earn the right to exist in society by drawing a pittance of a paycheck" is not really one that comes across as supportive of capitalism.

If you think intentionally shoddy, resource-wasting crap-goods are essential to the survival of capitalism, then maybe capitalism isn't working out so hot.

To clarify, I am not against capitalism (or not against free markets, anyway), but a line of thinking consisting of "if we bought nice chairs instead of #### ones (and nice lamps, and nice fans, and nice kitchenware, etc) things would come falling down because there wouldn't be enough busy work for people to earn the right to exist in society by drawing a pittance of a paycheck" is not really one that comes across as supportive of capitalism.

Um, no. 2 points. One, is that the amount of jobs that would be created in America by manufacturing "quality" lawnchairs would be extremely minimal due to demand and two, the Chinese or some other foreign manufacturer could build a "quality" lawnchair at a lower price than an American made lawnchair thus making it futile to even bother trying to do it.

As I and others have said the notion that foreign cheap goods are shoddy and that somehow American made goods are superior is comically wrong.

As I and others have said the notion that foreign cheap goods are shoddy and that somehow American made goods are superior is comically wrong.

I remember in the 60's (and probably in the 50's, but I was too young then) when "Made in Japan" was a punchline for something being cheap and shoddy. Around the time that Sony and Honda were cleaning our clocks in manufacturing highly-demanded, well-made high-quality products, the joke turned around on itslef, a la Back to the Future III

As I and others have said the notion that foreign cheap goods are shoddy and that somehow American made goods are superior is comically wrong.

The idea that many foreign cheap goods are not shoddy has nothing at all to do with the fact that there are still a lot of foreign cheap goods that are indeed shoddy.

Not to mention dangerous, as the numerous reports of toxic products coming out of China attest.

frackingpalooza


http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/23/business/america-shale-gas-ferguson-stevens/index.html?c=homepage-t

The idea that many foreign cheap goods are not shoddy has nothing at all to do with the fact that there are still a lot of foreign cheap goods that are indeed shoddy.

So? For some oddball reason it is believed that if they were made in America those shoddy items wouldn't be shoddy is wrong. The Chinese are not making cheap "shoddy" goods because they don't know how to make better items but because the market is demanding "shoddy" goods and if there was no China and all goods had to be made in America they would still be "shoddy" goods. The only difference is that they would cost more.

Not to mention dangerous, as the numerous reports of toxic products coming out of China attest.

Yep, America the land of the safe products.

Yep, America the land of the safe products.

Compared to China? Yes. The quality control and regulations around many of the Chinese factories is horrific. I have friends who do import and basically you have to really do a whole bunch of extra QC work around Chinese goods, especially from a factory you have not worked with before.

There are many good ones, but there are many fly-by-night make a quick buck places there and the distance and lack of good regulatory mechanisms make it very bad.

bitter

that is old, old news. i have been working with asian plants since the early 90's. what you have in china is no different than other countries providing low cost manufacturing.

many chinese plants have extraordinary quality control relative to what you can find in many other places including the u.s.

your friends must be working in the promotional products industry. that's a hotbed of issues be it in china, vietnam or anywhere else where cheap cr9p is being made for no good purpose other than to be handed out a lame conference in las vegas or orlando