Obama, Socialism, & the Great Republican Lie

[dafame]

Changed the title because I was trying to be a little too creative with the last one and it looked and sounded stupid. I'm shocked nobody said anything..LOL

Lately, due to what has been taking place in the national and state polls for the 2008 Presidential race, there's been a lot of talk about about what a prospective Obama Presidency will look like. Recently, the word that many on the far-right have been using in their summation has been "socialism". Many Reich-Wing political pundits have actually come out and made the claim that Barack Obama is a Socialist and charge that his Presidency would bring about the end of of Capitalism in the U.S.

Well let's examine this claim that Barack Obama is an advocate for the practice of Socialism in America and why this word carries such negative annotations in our society.

What is socialism? Socialism refers to an economic theory of social organization advocating social or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Asking a society whose top 1% controls more wealth than its lower 90% to carry more weight in taxes is not an example of Socialism. Nor is a nation’s government accepting responsibility that the health of its constituents is an inalienable right to be extended to all.

Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production are owned by private persons, and operated for profit and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a free market, rather than by central economic planning.

Capitalism is not bad in concept. It affords any person through the means of "entrepreneurship" (more on this later) the freedom to build a mountain from a mole. However, under the term in which we live, capitalism can be better described by using the term "pimps and ho's" with the elite (or top 1%) being the pimps and the rest of us ho's. Some of us ho's will prosper "because ho's gotta eat too", but by design there will always be a vast disparity between that the top and the bottom. This is why things in this country don't make sense. How does it make sense that the wealthiest nation in the world has the highest rate of poverty as compared against its wealth? How is it that the wealthiest nation in the world ranks 38th in life expectancy as it relates to death of natural cause?

I don't know how many of you watched Bill Maher yesterday but there was an interesting quote cited (I don't remember who made the quote) but it said something like: Capitalism can be viewed as a game of poker where a couple of the players control 90% of the chips. At a certain point the only way that the other players can remain in the game is to borrow. Once the controlling players are either no longer willing or able to lend the game ends.

What the "trickle down" theory suggest to us is that by giving those few players that control 90% of the chips even more chips so they can continue to lend chips out to the struggling players. These players will continue to struggle under this system but the game in theory can be extended a little longer.

There's another quote from Marx that reads: "Capitalism tends to improve manufacturing or technological development efficiencies. As technological innovation becomes more and more streamlined/mechanized, the need for entrepreneurship declines". "Capitalism eventually becomes a bureaucratic process of large corporations and organizations, no longer requiring entrepreneurship. As this happens, capitalism loses its primary driver (the entrepreneur) and dies out".

Capitalism (under the form in which we practice):
A. forsakes the concerns of the MAJORITY (lower 95%) in favor of the MINORITY (upper 5%)
&
B. validates the top 5% and deceives the lower 95% into worshiping an ideal that is good in its definition but evil in its application

What Senator Obama is proposing is not an end of capitalism or "the free market". What's he's proposing is adopting some ideals that one can argue could be related to socialism in nature. What he's talking about is empowering the middle class with more chips SO THE GAME CAN KEEP GOING. But the difference is that by empowering the middle class innovation and "entrepreneurship" can again be sparked in this country and new industries like (Energy Technology) can spring up. What's wrong with that if the system is broken? I won't tell you what's wrong with it but I will tell you why you think it's wrong. It's mainly this: http://www.redroom.com/video/tim-wise-creation-whiteness-clip. It's the reason that the McCain campaign has been harping on the phrase "spreading the wealth" because it taps into this mindset. It's what Tim Wise (noted above) calls the "overseer complex".

The Republican Party has been a perpetrator of this complex that teaches us to protect our ideal of enslaving ourselves to the elite without even knowing that we're doing it. What he talks about is that WE ARE ALL SLAVES under this system but the entire racist movement was designed to divert attention away from the enslavers and give the whites an enemy (blacks) to place blame on as an explanation as to why in spite of their hard work, they didn't seem to be getting ahead.

The Republican Party has demonized anything that goes against this system. The term socialist is now basically a slur not far behind terrorist and is used in a way to describe why America is so much better than every other nation (most of whom practice forms of socialism). We're not talking about a "redistribution of wealth" what we’re talking about is greed. The greed that is destroying our great nation that was founded on the principal that no man had any right over another in his pursuit of the American dream. We're not talking about socialism, what were talking about is the fact that are not living up to the principles that this country was founded upon. What we're talking about is that under these principals everyone's life should hold the same value, regardless to whether you are in the highest tax bracket and can afford the best health insurance that money can buy or if you were born into poverty and thus can't afford to protect your health. Your life.

Republicans (or should I say "My Friends"), you've been fed the wrong dose of medicine. As a result you're suffering from delusions and hearing voices in your head of Fox News correspondents that are telling you that your mission is to protect these ideals. The same ideals that hurt YOU unless you become one of those that are holding most of the chips. But we all know that will never happen. None the less, like a good soldier you march into battle without even knowing who or what you're fighting for.

[Cuchulain]

Brilliant post, dafame. The poor and middle class will never get a fair deal unless we stand together and change the rules. Divide and conquer is an old REICHwing tactic.

I've mentioned Nixon's 'Southern Strategy' in other posts.
"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats." - Kevin Philips, Nixon strategist, in 1970 NYT interview
Lee Atwater, Karl Rove's hero, updated the Southern Strategy for Ronnie RAYGUN : "You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger". - Southern Politics in the 1990s by Prof. Alexander P Lamis

Of course, they have other divide and conquer startegies - guns, religion, abortion, sexuality, fear of terrorists and of course, calling any who disagree with them communists or socialists.

TY for the Tim Wise link. I hadn't heard of him before.

[dafame]

[/quote]TY for the Tim Wise link. I hadn't heard of him before.[/quote]

Thank for the reply Cuchulain. It's good to know that more an more people are starting to wake up to realize what IS, and always HAS been happening. Tim Wise is on to something huh. If Obama is elected it will provide an avenue for more people like Tim to come out and get exposure. This is the type of "TRUTH" dialog that is needed if we are ever to become ONE.

[yodajazz]

Great post Dafame. I see the word ‘socialism’ as being a very general term which often has only relative meaning. But I see the word has become what I call, a loaded code term. It has been programmed into the mind of certain segments to mean bad, without even examining the particulars of a situation. The word in use before was communism. It was programmed into the people to be the same as ‘evil’. But communism did have a specific nations who were advocating a specific form of it, like the Soviet Union, unlike the the general word ‘socialism’. Everything you say is right, from what I can see. Hopefully we work to get people de-programmed to think of specific solutions to specific problems rather than be controlled, by coded loaded trigger terms.

[hippifried]

damn pinkos

[NYBURBS]

These are steps in the direction of socialism, steps that some of us cringe at. Further, this argument that we have had anything close to a true capitalist free market is laughable. There have been enormous controls on the market for the past 80 years or so. Government has also grown exponentially under both parties, and that is counter-productive to a healthy economy.

As for this tax the 1% shit, let's get real. The actual super rich are still not going to pay their fair share as they derive their wealth through methods that involve capital gains, they have always hidden, and will continue to hide, the majority of their wealth from the income tax. Who will get kicked hard are the people pulling in 250,000 or 300,000. Oh wow look at those super elite lol. Move to NY and you will live comfortably off of that but you're not jet setting around the world.

This social nanny state has been growing for years and has it helped us out at all? I'd say no, not at all. It has made the vast majority of us poorer for it and slaves to the tax system.

Want reform? How about less laws penalizing your conduct that is not outwardly harmful towards others, so generations of people are not incarcerated for bullshit, or how about we do away with the IRS and simply reapportion taxes back onto the States and then let them decide what is the fairest way to raise their share. How about we close down all these foreign military bases and quit invading other countries, whether it be in the name of "security", or "freedom", or "humanitarian need". We could then fund a military to safeguard our nation at a small fraction of what we currently fund.

Those are just a few of the things we could do to restore sanity and independence back upon ourselves. We all need to decide if we're going to keep moving down this road of bigger government or escape it.

PS- This isn't an Anti-Obama, Pro McCain message, because that old stooge and the bulk of his party are equally (if not more so) full of shit.

[natina]

In this spellbinding lecture delivered at Mt. Holyoke College in October 2007, Tim Wise explores the related phenomena of institutional racism and white privilege, and how they continue to operate in the United States. Wise explores the problem of white denial dating back generations, and the way in which the concept of whiteness was created in the 1600s, largely as a mechanism for dividing working class persons of European descent from persons of color, for the benefit of elites.

http://www.redroom.com/video/tim-wise-creation-whiteness-clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UJlNRODZHA

http://www.speakoutnow.org/img/original/WiseDVD.jpg

[Cuchulain]

The American Dream in relation to Joe the Plumber and Obama:

'...use of the phrase "spread the wealth around." And those were the words the McCain-Palin campaign seized upon. The words are now taken to supply all the evidence anyone needs that Barack Obama was a "socialist" all along, a reckless democrat who would gladly level the deserving rich with the undeserving poor.

The truth is that Obama in Ohio spoke the language of American democracy, which has always included a perception that wealth is a form of power, and that stupendous inequalities of wealth produce an undemocratic inequality of power. His questioner, angry in anticipation that he could not hold onto all of the $300,000 he might hypothetically earn in a year, spoke the language of righteous self-interest; and he cited as his irrefutable authority "the American dream." If I follow that dream, said the Joe of today, hoarding the wealth of the Joe of tomorrow, why should I ever pay a higher tax?

Obama's answer was simple and Christian. Once you have been helped by a tax break to prosper and to grow relatively rich, it seems fair to give others lower down the ladder the same chance that once helped you.

We Americans suffer from a self-imposed immaturity. It goes back to the Reagan years and the dream of unregulated commerce--of great riches to which all eventually will surely rise; of a gambling society in which every citizen always wins his bet against an unbreakable bank. Joe had swallowed that dream. Obama, by contrast, with his suggestion of a small adjustment toward a graduated tax, was explaining the realism of the progressive tax that began with Theodore Roosevelt.

And yet, when Obama evokes a society in which you begin by working for someone else, pass on to work as your own boss, and end by employing others, he is going back further than Theodore Roosevelt. This was a favorite topic with Abraham Lincoln, a politician whose ideas of labor and progress were memorably captured in his Address to the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society (September 30, 1859). "The prudent, penniless beginner in the world," said Lincoln, "labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him." That the prosperous employer should assist the beginner was a natural corollary, for Lincoln, of his understanding of non-slave labor. Selfishness or, as he called it, "self-interest" was a symptom of a slavish mind, and incompatible with the high morale of democracy.'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/parable-of-the-poor-and-r_b_136623.html

I think Mr. Bromwich says it pretty well.

[NYBURBS]

Selflessness is the mindset of a moron bent on self-destruction. No rational creature acts without regard to their best interest. That does not mean you harm others or don't care, but let's not get on this sacrifice yourself for the benefit of others bullshit. That is pure evil, an evil that has been spewed by religious zealots, totalitarians, and communists (to name a few) throughout history.

Further, this is quite the manipulation going on here. Someone that makes 250,000 or 300,000 are not the ones "controlling" the wealth. That happens to be a handful of families and their income is exponentially higher than anything you (or that article) refer to. I'd agree that problems arise when too much wealth is located in just a few, but this new found tax plan isn't going to correct that. You know instead of looking for dragons to slay in the various social classes, how about we all pause to ask why anyone should pay 25, 30, 35% of their income to the government. Then pause a little longer and add up all the other fees and taxes we pay to the gov't and think about what exactly we get for all of that.

[Cuchulain]

Ah, I see. You're channeling that old bat Ayn Rand (dammit, you made me say THAT name. Now we have to dig her up and burn her - again). That explains a lot.

Listen, nobody is asking for any great sacrifice. Those that have raked in so much coin under the Bush/Cheney crime family need to start paying their fair share. Do we all pay too much? YOU BETCHA! There's plenty of waste and fraud. No argument there, but there's a cost involved with belonging to a society. You pay the cost to reap the benefits. You owe something to your fellow man, regardless of what the hatchet-faced Ms. Rand claimed. Schools and highways need to be built and kept up, etc, etc, etc.

If your 'dragons' remark meant to accuse me of waging class warfare, my response is that I didn't start it. The class war started long, long ago when some schmuck decided he could get rich by exploiting others and that he was better than them because of it. But some of us do fight back.

[NYBURBS]

Yea we all need bridges, roads, schools but the government has gone way way way beyond that. Further we don't need the federal government to provide those. My original point also still holds true, 250,000 a year is not the group running around exploiting people, neither is the 500,000 per year schmuck.

Do you really think Barack Obama is somehow going to make everything better because he cuts your taxes a little and jumps the 250,000 a year guy's up? People think this guy is the second coming of Christ. He's an intelligent, well spoken man, but he is also committed to keeping things as they are. He did not make it into the US Senate being an independent minded champion of change.

[PapaGrande]

You are right Obama is not a socialist, he is a fascist.

[Cuchulain]

Yea we all need bridges, roads, schools but the government has gone way way way beyond that. Further we don't need the federal government to provide those. My original point also still holds true, 250,000 a year is not the group running around exploiting people, neither is the 500,000 per year schmuck.

Do you really think Barack Obama is somehow going to make everything better because he cuts your taxes a little and jumps the 250,000 a year guy's up? People think this guy is the second coming of Christ. He's an intelligent, well spoken man, but he is also committed to keeping things as they are. He did not make it into the US Senate being an independent minded champion of change.

Re your second paragraph. I agree with you. I don't think Obama is the messiah. He's way too tame for me. He's sure as hell no FDR. Yes, I know - you think FDR was the worst president ever. Imo, he was the best. I'm voting for Obama simply because he's a wee bit closer to FDR than the Rethugnicans are.

As for your first paragraph, I think we need more than roads, bridges and schools and I think a central govt. is the best way to provide these things evenly. We need nationwide regulations and agencies to make sure they are enforced.

Let's say we shrink the federal government down to a nub, small enough to "drown it in a bathtub", as that evil prick Neal Boortz said. We'll throw all regulatory and protective responsibilities back to the individual states. What would happen? Well...

Every pollution-spewing, employee-exploiting corporation would congregate in those red states with the least amount of regulation. People would work 10 hours per day, 6 days per week for maybe $5/hour with no unions, safety protections, healthcare, pensions, vacations or job security and they'd be paid in 'company scrip'. They would rent their hovels from the company and buy their groceries at a company store. Their kids would go to voucher schools where they would learn 'creation science' and shop, until they were 12 or so, when they would have to quit school and go to work to add to their families' meager income. Food would not be safe to eat. Water would not be safe to drink. The air would not be safe to breathe.

Eventually, the 'better' states, the ones who kept some measure of environmental and worker protections, would have to ease these regs in order to attract jobs.

I can see it now - America marching backwards, backwards into the era of feudalism, with corporations as king and workers as serfs who would be afraid to dissent in fear of starvation.

[yodajazz]

Yea we all need bridges, roads, schools but the government has gone way way way beyond that. Further we don't need the federal government to provide those. My original point also still holds true, 250,000 a year is not the group running around exploiting people, neither is the 500,000 per year schmuck.

Do you really think Barack Obama is somehow going to make everything better because he cuts your taxes a little and jumps the 250,000 a year guy's up? People think this guy is the second coming of Christ. He's an intelligent, well spoken man, but he is also committed to keeping things as they are. He did not make it into the US Senate being an independent minded champion of change.

Okay, let’s talk about these $250, 000 to $500, 000 a year people. That’s not enough to be set for life. I would assume that they would have to do something to maintain that income. Any thing that they do would be helped, by having skilled and educated people to hold jobs and to be consumers of goods and services. Many people are helped by education grants. And what good is making a half million, if you are killed in an elevator accident, after your small government cuts back on safety inspections. I could think of dozen of examples like food, medicine, cars and others that the government helps to enforce safety. They are supposed to be providing oversight to your banks, and to insurance companies to carry reserves to cover payouts, etc. When you pay taxes, things that benefits the greater society usually help you also. Here’s an example, you own a company and you pay your employee so little they qualify for Medicaid. Those employees could then use government paid health care to provide you with a healthier and more stable work force. And think of it this way, Medicaid helps poorer people but the money goes directly to doctors, clinics and nurses.

Ancient wisdom from the Bible, says; “As you give, so shall you receive.” The concept of money is that it circulates. Domestic government programs go straight into the economy. The progressive tax system has served the US well in the past 95 years. It certainly did not stop us from becoming the richest economy in the world.

P.S. while I was writing this Chuchulain made another post. I am trying to say the same thing he said in the post above.

[PapaGrande]

Yea we all need bridges, roads, schools but the government has gone way way way beyond that. Further we don't need the federal government to provide those. My original point also still holds true, 250,000 a year is not the group running around exploiting people, neither is the 500,000 per year schmuck.

Do you really think Barack Obama is somehow going to make everything better because he cuts your taxes a little and jumps the 250,000 a year guy's up? People think this guy is the second coming of Christ. He's an intelligent, well spoken man, but he is also committed to keeping things as they are. He did not make it into the US Senate being an independent minded champion of change.

Re your second paragraph. I agree with you. I don't think Obama is the messiah. He's way too tame for me. He's sure as hell no FDR. Yes, I know - you think FDR was the worst president ever. Imo, he was the best. I'm voting for Obama simply because he's a wee bit closer to FDR than the Rethugnicans are.

As for your first paragraph, I think we need more than roads, bridges and schools and I think a central govt. is the best way to provide these things evenly. We need nationwide regulations and agencies to make sure they are enforced.

Let's say we shrink the federal government down to a nub, small enough to "drown it in a bathtub", as that evil prick Neal Boortz said. We'll throw all regulatory and protective responsibilities back to the individual states. What would happen? Well...

Every pollution-spewing, employee-exploiting corporation would congregate in those red states with the least amount of regulation. People would work 10 hours per day, 6 days per week for maybe $5/hour with no unions, safety protections, healthcare, pensions, vacations or job security and they'd be paid in 'company scrip'. They would rent their hovels from the company and buy their groceries at a company store. Their kids would go to voucher schools where they would learn 'creation science' and shop, until they were 12 or so, when they would have to quit school and go to work to add to their families' meager income. Food would not be safe to eat. Water would not be safe to drink. The air would not be safe to breathe.

Eventually, the 'better' states, the ones who kept some measure of environmental and worker protections, would have to ease these regs in order to attract jobs.

I can see it now - America marching backwards, backwards into the era of feudalism, with corporations as king and workers as serfs who would be afraid to dissent in fear of starvation.

This is so full of economic fallacies it would probably take me a week just to reply.

A few questions that might get that squeaky wheel in your head turning. Why is it that any company in America exceeds any government regulation at all right now? Why don't we all make minimum wage? Why don't all companies meet the absolute minimum requirements for whatever their industry is and nothing more? For example, why do car companies put in safety features that are not required by law? Why would 72,542 companies pay Underwriters Laboratories Inc. a private (not government) if not specifically required by law? and OMG, how can we possible trust a non-government voluntary certification program!!!!!!!!

[NYBURBS]

Re your second paragraph. I agree with you. I don't think Obama is the messiah. He's way too tame for me. He's sure as hell no FDR. Yes, I know - you think FDR was the worst president ever. Imo, he was the best. I'm voting for Obama simply because he's a wee bit closer to FDR than the Rethugnicans are.

As for your first paragraph, I think we need more than roads, bridges and schools and I think a central govt. is the best way to provide these things evenly. We need nationwide regulations and agencies to make sure they are enforced.

Let's say we shrink the federal government down to a nub, small enough to "drown it in a bathtub", as that evil prick Neal Boortz said. We'll throw all regulatory and protective responsibilities back to the individual states. What would happen? Well...

Every pollution-spewing, employee-exploiting corporation would congregate in those red states with the least amount of regulation. People would work 10 hours per day, 6 days per week for maybe $5/hour with no unions, safety protections, healthcare, pensions, vacations or job security and they'd be paid in 'company scrip'. They would rent their hovels from the company and buy their groceries at a company store. Their kids would go to voucher schools where they would learn 'creation science' and shop, until they were 12 or so, when they would have to quit school and go to work to add to their families' meager income. Food would not be safe to eat. Water would not be safe to drink. The air would not be safe to breathe.

Eventually, the 'better' states, the ones who kept some measure of environmental and worker protections, would have to ease these regs in order to attract jobs.

I can see it now - America marching backwards, backwards into the era of feudalism, with corporations as king and workers as serfs who would be afraid to dissent in fear of starvation.

Well, we're all entitled to our own view points, but you and I are certainly at different ends of the spectrum. I firmly believe that what you advocate is guaranteed tyranny. I can see why you liked FDR, but of course you already know my feelings, that he lived about 12 years too long.

As for your other contentions, I again have to disagree. Government regulations do not magically make the situation better. For example minimum wage still isn't enough to live on, but when we artificially set one it simply raises the overall cost of goods and fucks those you were looking to help in the first place.

If you want the federal government to have additional powers (such as to regulate environmental concerns) then it should be done properly, through amendment. This policy of usurpation, starting with your boy FDR, only leads to hostility and political instability. What you have one court "grant" can and will eventually be taken back by another court.

PS- I'm no fan of corporatism, in fact if anything that is something far closer to your socialist ideology than my free market one.

[yodajazz]

Yea we all need bridges, roads, schools but the government has gone way way way beyond that. Further we don't need the federal government to provide those. My original point also still holds true, 250,000 a year is not the group running around exploiting people, neither is the 500,000 per year schmuck.

Do you really think Barack Obama is somehow going to make everything better because he cuts your taxes a little and jumps the 250,000 a year guy's up? People think this guy is the second coming of Christ. He's an intelligent, well spoken man, but he is also committed to keeping things as they are. He did not make it into the US Senate being an independent minded champion of change.

Re your second paragraph. I agree with you. I don't think Obama is the messiah. He's way too tame for me. He's sure as hell no FDR. Yes, I know - you think FDR was the worst president ever. Imo, he was the best. I'm voting for Obama simply because he's a wee bit closer to FDR than the Rethugnicans are.

As for your first paragraph, I think we need more than roads, bridges and schools and I think a central govt. is the best way to provide these things evenly. We need nationwide regulations and agencies to make sure they are enforced.

Let's say we shrink the federal government down to a nub, small enough to "drown it in a bathtub", as that evil prick Neal Boortz said. We'll throw all regulatory and protective responsibilities back to the individual states. What would happen? Well...

Every pollution-spewing, employee-exploiting corporation would congregate in those red states with the least amount of regulation. People would work 10 hours per day, 6 days per week for maybe $5/hour with no unions, safety protections, healthcare, pensions, vacations or job security and they'd be paid in 'company scrip'. They would rent their hovels from the company and buy their groceries at a company store. Their kids would go to voucher schools where they would learn 'creation science' and shop, until they were 12 or so, when they would have to quit school and go to work to add to their families' meager income. Food would not be safe to eat. Water would not be safe to drink. The air would not be safe to breathe.

Eventually, the 'better' states, the ones who kept some measure of environmental and worker protections, would have to ease these regs in order to attract jobs.

I can see it now - America marching backwards, backwards into the era of feudalism, with corporations as king and workers as serfs who would be afraid to dissent in fear of starvation.

This is so full of economic fallacies it would probably take me a week just to reply.

A few questions that might get that squeaky wheel in your head turning. Why is it that any company in America exceeds any government regulation at all right now? Why don't we all make minimum wage? Why don't all companies meet the absolute minimum requirements for whatever their industry is and nothing more? For example, why do car companies put in safety features that are not required by law? Why would 72,542 companies pay Underwriters Laboratories Inc. a private (not government) if not specifically required by law? and OMG, how can we possible trust a non-government voluntary certification program!!!!!!!!

Companies do put out products that exceed regulations because its good for business. But companies also cut corners because its also good for business in the short run. I read an article that said, over 4,000 people were killed in work related accidents in 2006. If that is true it is comparable to the amount of people killed in 9/11. If it justified to wage war for our safety for 9/11, is justifiable to spend money for our safety in the workplace? And a government workplace safety inspection, could actually help protect the company’s liability by certifying the workplace is safe.

As for economics I have heard numerous times that the wealthiest 10 have gotten a greater share of the total wealth over some years ago. I see this reflected in the job market, home foreclosures and car sales, among other things. I agree with Chuchulain’s economic view because I see it reflected in my own community.

And by the way, I credit labor and labor unions with raising the wages of workers.

[NYBURBS]

Labor unions are mobbed up rackets that have fucked many of the people they were developed to represent. I'm not telling you that no good has come from them, just that they aren't the end all and be all. Further people are free to associate with whom they want, but then business owners should be just as free to chose who they associate with.

A smart company does what is in its best interest. If they engage in bad safety practices then there is the civil suit that can be turned to. As for throwing around numbers of deaths, that can be so misleading. 4,000 people out of a country of over 300 million. Do you know what a minuscule fraction that is. Let's say in fact that the work force is only 150,000,000 people, well 4,000 accidental deaths is 0.0026666666% of that total. Whereas the number of vehicle deaths in 2006 was 2.79% of the overall population (yea so out of 300,000,000 people).

Further I am not saying that there isn't a need for basic regulations, like fire safety based ones for example. How many people can be in a room, how many exits there are, but you don't need the federal government for that. Our nation is far too large to have a central government dictate all of these provisions. As for the argument that this will convince businesses to locate to "red states", well nothing currently stops states from having stricter regulations. Some do have higher wage laws, environmental standards, etc, yet I don't see this massive rush to relocate from one state to another.

[Cuchulain]

This is so full of economic fallacies it would probably take me a week just to reply.

Surely not for a master of the arcane art of economics such as yourself. After all, you're smarter and better informed than Paul Krugman, right?

Why don't we all make minimum wage? Unions. When unions finally began to achieve some real power in the early to mid 20th century, wages, benefits and conditions improved for non-union workers as well. After much blood and hardship, laws were passed to protect workers' right to organize. Unions were able to get further legislation passed that protected everybody. 'Unions - the people who brought you weekends'

As for your other questions - a) fear of being sued and b) safety is a selling point

There was a bit of tongue-in-cheek in my Apocalyptic scenario. You chose to ignore that, so I'll try and answer it straight. Union rights, as well as wages, benefits and conditions for all workers have been chipped away at since that corporate stooge Reagan got elected. Likewise for enviro regs. The process accelerated when the Repubs got control of the WH and Congress., spurred on by lobbyists with visions of golden parachutes dancing in their heads. Watch the Congessional battles over OSHA's budget on CSPAN sometime. I remind you that lobbyists have actually been writing legislation for Bush and the repubs. Bush appointed industry insiders to run govt. agencies that were supposed to keep an eye on things, and edited reports from those agencies at the behest of business.

State govt doesn't have the financial resources or, frankly, the brainpower the fed govt does. State officials aren't under the same media glare as fed officials. It's a lot easier for corporations to 'buy' legislation (or legislators) on the state level than on the federal one.

So they get some legislation passed making it harder for them to be sued - less reason to worry about product safety, right? As wages deteriorate, will workers be able to afford to worry about product safety, or will they buy the cheapest goods they can get? It's happening right now with Chinese junk sold at Walmart. Same for worker and enviro protections. A slow, steady erosion and no place for workers to turn for help. 'United we bargain, divided we beg'. Companies will go to where they can make the most profit and lobby like hell to get the best deal they can when they get there. Businesses relocate to other countries with weaker regs all the time. Why wouldn't the same thing happen from state to state w/out federal regulations to prevent it?

Here's a question for your own squeaky wheel. Why did all the working conditions in my little scenario exist prior to the rise of unions and regulation?

[Cuchulain]

Labor unions are mobbed up rackets

I've been a member of one of the strongest construction industry unions for 30 years. When you dismiss them as 'mobbed up rackets' you do them a disservice and insult all my union brothers and sisters. When you say that "I'm not telling you that no good has come from them", you damn them with faint praise. I've worked in the gang and as a foreman, general foreman and supervisor. I've also spent time working directly for the Local Union in both an elected and an appointed position. If workers hadn't banded together to bargain as a unit, we would have NEVER had any say in our workplace. I'm not going to try to list all the great things unions have accomplished for American workers. I'm sure you're aware of them - or maybe not. That's what google is for :) .


150,000,000 people, well 4,000 accidental deaths is 0.0026666666%

Not bad odds, unless you're one of the 4000. Are you suggesting that there is an acceptable industrial deathrate?


I don't see this massive rush to relocate from one state to another.

It's been going on for years, as companies flee to 'right to work' states to escape unions.

[NYBURBS]

I've been a member of one of the strongest construction industry unions for 30 years. When you dismiss them as 'mobbed up rackets' you do them a disservice and insult all my union brothers and sisters. When you say that "I'm not telling you that no good has come from them", you damn them with faint praise. I've worked in the gang and as a foreman, general foreman and supervisor. I've also spent time working directly for the Local Union in both an elected and an appointed position. If workers hadn't banded together to bargain as a unit, we would have NEVER had any say in our workplace. I'm not going to try to list all the great things unions have accomplished for American workers. I'm sure you're aware of them - or maybe not. That's what google is for :) .
Not bad odds, unless you're one of the 4000. Are you suggesting that there is an acceptable industrial deathrate?
It's been going on for years, as companies flee to 'right to work' states to escape unions.

I was a member of a union also, and I was less then impressed with it. That is not saying I disavow your right to associate with whom you choose, but I think it is undeniable that there is a high level of crime and corruption within the unions (especially the trade unions). Btw I noticed that even with all the praise you place upon your union you never once explicitly deny my claim that they tend to suffer from gross corruption or mob influence.

As for the odds, yea it's more or less acceptable. Death is a part of life, shit happens every day. There are people that probably die each year due to accidentally dropping appliances into bathtubs yet I do not advocate banning appliances nor bathtubs. Just as we do not ban cars from the road. Not allowing 300 people into a room meant for 50 is one thing, going on a legislative crusade to try and prevent every conceivable accident is a whole different ball game. There are civil torts to redress private wrongs.

Further, international trade agreements such as NAFTA have done far more to cripple industry here than any type of internal free market. I was not a fan of globalism then and nor am I now. Yet your boy Obama likes globalism, so does McCain, just ponder what your wages will look like in another few international trade agreements. I'm a firm believer in national sovereignty, I just think that internally less government is better government.

PS- I am not opposed to safety regulations in the workplace, I just think the federal government has no right to impose them under the Constitution. It is a matter for the states. Apparently the Supreme Court agreed with that stance also until Comrade Roosevelt came along in the 1930s.

[Cuchulain]

I was a member of a union also, and I was less then impressed with it. That is not saying I disavow your right to associate with whom you choose, but I think it is undeniable that there is a high level of crime and corruption within the unions (especially the trade unions). Btw I noticed that even with all the praise you place upon your union you never once explicitly deny my claim that they tend to suffer from gross corruption or mob influence.

As for the odds, yea it's more or less acceptable. Death is a part of life, shit happens every day. There are people that probably die each year due to accidentally dropping appliances into bathtubs yet I do not advocate banning appliances nor bathtubs. Just as we do not ban cars from the road. Not allowing 300 people into a room meant for 50 is one thing, going on a legislative crusade to try and prevent every conceivable accident is a whole different ball game. There are civil torts to redress private wrongs.

Further, international trade agreements such as NAFTA have done far more to cripple industry here than any type of internal free market. I was not a fan of globalism then and nor am I now. Yet your boy Obama likes globalism, so does McCain, just ponder what your wages will look like in another few international trade agreements. I'm a firm believer in national sovereignty, I just think that internally less government is better government.


I've read news stories about 2 trade unions accused of 'gross corruption or mob influence'. I'm not a member of those unions, so I can't really comment. I have worked with many people in those unions and I can say they are much better off because of their union membership. There are shady characters in all walks of life. I certainly wouldn't compare union corruption to what we've seen on Wall Street or in the WH lately or to what I've seen in company offices over the years. I've never seen much that could be called corruption at the Local Union level because our members, who are pretty well informed, wouldn't tolerate it. When our guys have a beef, they speak up fast and loud. Ignoring all the good that unions have done by accusing them of corruption is a cheap tactic, like saying Obama knew Bill Ayers.

Describing work related deaths as 'shit happens' is pretty cold, lad - and pretty damned offensive too. But I see it would be a waste of time to go off on a 'profits over people' tirade. I'll just say that civil torts are cold comfort to a dead man.

NAFTA sucks. Clinton was another 'lesser of two evils' for me. Obama says he will insist on enforceable labor and enviro protections in all trade deals. We'll see. They don't really affect my union's niche, but they certainly have hurt American workers on the whole. I'm proud of the Dems for refusing a trade agreement with those bastards in Columbia.

I understand that you're a true believer, but for most of those screaming for 'smaller govt' (Repubs), it's just code for no regulation. They have no more regard for the Constitution than George Bush does.

Oh, and three cheers for comrade Roosevelt. (I couldn't resist)

[chefmike]

Oh, and three cheers for comrade Roosevelt. (I couldn't resist)

Hip, hip, hooray!!

[qeuqheeg222]

farm subsidies,non market based real estate appraisals,tariffs,and mad cow boycotts of beef dont sream out free market to me..neither does nixon tampering with the inflation indexes....these schisters and accountants will try to get blood from a stone and the republicans go along regardless of the correctness of the position..as long as the rich fuks stay rich...mortgage backed securities....and talk about a mobbed up racket(unions) what the fuck you think insurance is????

[NYBURBS]

farm subsidies,non market based real estate appraisals,tariffs,and mad cow boycotts of beef dont sream out free market to me..neither does nixon tampering with the inflation indexes....these schisters and accountants will try to get blood from a stone and the republicans go along regardless of the correctness of the position..as long as the rich fuks stay rich...mortgage backed securities....and talk about a mobbed up racket(unions) what the fuck you think insurance is????

Do you think I'm going to argue with you about farm subsidies and the like? I'm no proponent of that type of bullshit either. Turn off the the whole "if he says something bad about dems he must be a repub" approach, because its misplaced in this instance. There's people on both sides of that bench that are trying to fuck everyone else and I have zero use for em.