-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: | What is he running for??????????????????? |
|---|---|
| Date: | Wed, 11 May 2011 12:54:25 -0400 |
| From: | Kerwin, Michael Contractor <Michael.Kerwin@ssa.gov> |
| To: | 'dick thompson' <rhomp2002@earthlink.net> |
There was an error in this gadget
0
Wonder if he is thinking of running for mayor of NYC
-------- Original Message --------
-------- Original Message --------
http://www.dnainfo.com/20110511/murray-hill-gramercy/historic-bath-house-is-midtowns-newest-landmark?utm_content=rhomp2002%40earthlink.net&utm_source=VerticalResponse&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=Historic%20Bath%20House%20is%20Midtown%27s%20Newest%20Landmark&utm_campaign=Man%2C%2083%2C%20Dies%20After%20Vicious%20Beating%20in%20Village%20Homecontent
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
|
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Daily Update: Best and worst states for business (hint: largely red vs. blue states) |  |
| Best and worst states for business (hint: largely red vs. blue states) Posted: 10 May 2011 11:37 AM PDT More than 500 CEOs considered a wide range of criteria, from taxation and regulation to workforce quality and living environment, in our annual ranking of the best states for business. The charts and articles in this special report show how each state fares on the factors most essential for a business-friendly environment—as well as what states are doing to attract and retain companies in the increasingly competitive battle to win site selection. While the Lone Star State may not be perfect—many leaders would like to see improvements in its education system—it is Periclean Athens compared to California in the eyes of the 550 CEOs surveyed for Chief Executive's seventh annual report on the best and worst states in which to do business. It's the seventh time in seven years running that Texas has led the states, and the seventh year California—to no one's great surprise—ranked as worst state. But there has been some jockeying within the ranks. The Golden State was closely followed in the hall of shame by New York, Illinois, New Jersey and Michigan, with Illinois elbowing its way past New Jersey this year for the dubious distinction of third worst. Meanwhile, among the best states, Indiana jumped to sixth place from 16th in 2010, giving Hoosiers the third-biggest advance in the rankings in a single year. Wisconsin and Louisiana posted the two biggest gains since 2010, with the latter, along with Oklahoma, also showing the biggest gains over the last five years. By proactively reshaping its posture toward business taxation and regulation, Louisiana has been quietly stealing pages from the Texas playbook. read more »
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Conservative Outpost To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Michael,
Do you kiss your Mama with that Mouth?
Every time I have ever offered tangible, hard proof and evidence, you usually disappear for a day or two.
Didn't want to scare ya off.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:24 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
At 03:35 AM 5/11/2011, you wrote:--
Like most Moonbats, Tom Woods ignores most all of Gingrich's positions on a number of issues.
Like most cock-sucking apparatchiks (is that how this forum 'rolls'?), Keith offers NOTHING tangible in his fallacious effort.
Regard$,
--MJ
Much of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas Sowell
KeithInKöln
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 3:48 PM, GregfromBoston <greg.vincent@yahoo.com > wrote:
- Question still unresolved.
- Newt's book, "Gettysburg", I HIGHLY, recommend. Superb!
- On May 10, 9:33 am, plainolamerican < plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
- > like Obama, he will say anything for votes
- >
- > he's been a disgrace to his party and his family
- >
- > noQuestion stilt someone I'd like to see as potus
- >
- > On May 10, 7:57 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com > wrote:
- >
- >
- >
- > > I will be interested to see if any lefties embrace this piece, and
- > > realize whom and what the are embracing
- >
- > > On May 9, 1:03 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:> May9thNewt Gingrich, WeaselTom Woods
- > > > Check outBohis b Wenzel s brief but very sharp analysisof Newt Gingrich s weasel platform that avoids discussing spending cuts on the grounds that first we have to get things moving again, etc. All I would add to Bob s analysis is what I wrote about Gingrich inRollback: his record is horrendous. Of course, the media portrays him as some kind of strict free-marketeer, since that s the media s job: define the range of opinion in such a way as to exclude genuine friends of freedom. For if you are to the right of Newt Gingrich -- and, citizen, we have already told you Newt is as free market as they come! -- you must be some kind of extremist ! In fact, you probably don t exist. http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/newt-gingrich-weasel-2/xxx
- > > > Monday, May 9, 2011Gingrich to Announce Presidential RunPosted by Robert Wenzel at 11:38 AM
- > > > Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will officially jump into the race for the Republican presidential nomination on Wednesday with announcements on Facebook and Twitter,according to his spokesman.
- >
- > > wiThe Gingrich campaign strategy appears to be that he will run not on
- > > any principles, but more on the fact that he is not President Obama.
- >
- > > > A Gingrichsnippet:The fact is, we are not going to close the deficit and move towards a balanced budget unless we follow the policies that foster the economic growth necessary to create jobs.The first and most immediate step would be to employ the policies that encourage investment, create jobs, and reward innovation and entrepreneurship -- exactly the opposite of the Obama anti-jobs policiesAside from the attack on President Obama, the underlying message here is that Gingrich wants to balance the budget not by reducing government spending, but by increasing tax revenues through more jobs. In other words, Gingrich sees no problem with the current size of government. http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/05/gingrich-to-announce-pre...- Hide quoted text -
- >
- > - Show quoted text -
- --
- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
- For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
- * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
- * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
- * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Dear MJ: The "ritual" has been that government controls things, and
thus should control businesses. Socialism, the anti-thesis of
'freedom of property' and civil liberties, gives the 'power' to those
who want something for nothing. In the example I gave to Jonathan,
Wal-mart, on its own, decided to let employees share in the profits.
There was no government edict that money be taken from management to
be given to those who don't even work for that company, nor even have
a job. Trust me that my New Constitution will hang for TREASON any
elected official who proposes anything "social" like SS, Medicare,
Medicaid, and unemployment insurance. All of those must be privatized
EXCEPT for those too old or too sick to survive otherwise. Generally
speaking, no more than 5% of the non-employees of government should
ever get anything from government. In the case of Social Services,
such should be administered at the local and state levels, NEVER by
the federal government! — J. A. Armistead —
>
On May 11, 10:21 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Dear Jonathan: In any economic system there are good and bad points.Really?
> Capitalism is the system in which people are free to use their private property without outside interference.
> What are the 'bad points'?Executive compensation, that has sometimes been at the expense of the
> workers cranking out the products, should be based on what is fair,
> not just who the supposed leaders of the corporations are. Endorsing socialism again, huh.
> What is 'fair'? Who gets to decide? Why them?Wal-Mart
> started out giving financial incentives to the managers of the stores,
> until the wife of the founder insisted that workers would do a better
> job, and stay on those jobs longer if there was a profit sharing
> plan. A black janitor retired after forty or so years with the
> company and had several million dollars in the bank. That sort of
> fairness doesn't sound like socialism, now, does it.If you mean Walmart VOLUNTARILY and within THEIR business model utilized 'profit sharing', then no.
> But having the Government FORCE businesses to do so ... is certainly socialism.I can't speak for Donald Trump, but in order to get quality labor for
> building quality real estate properties—as he knows so well how to do—
> the compensation needs to be tops. In the long run, everyone in the
> employment hierarchy will benefit when fairness reigns for those at
> the bottom or at the top.Joe owns a business. He puts a sign in the window/on the lawn advertising that he needs employees. Pete applies for the job and agrees to wage X in exchange for task Y. Is Pete being paid fairly?
> FRANCE is currently implementing the type of socialism you are endorsing hereSalin on Sarkosy in the WSJMay 10, 2011 byPeter G. KleinAgreat op-ed from Pascal Salin, the Mises Institute's 2008 Schlarbaum Laureate, in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. Writes Pascal:[I]n his more recent statements and decisions Mr. Sarkozy seems to have tilted France even closer toward socialism than one might previously have thought possible. Last month, reiterating a theme that he first broached during his election campaign, the president declared that it is unfair that shareholders and owners get to keep all of a firm's profit, and that it would be more fair for company profits to be divided into three equal parts: one for shareholders, one for wage earners and one for reinvestment into the enterprise.This proposal suggests that Mr. Sarkozy totally fails to understand the role and nature of profit or the workings of a capitalist firm. A firm's employees, like its lenders and suppliers, receive a fixed price, their wages, in return for what they supply to the business -- their labor. This wage is guaranteed whether the firm turns a profit or not. The owners, in exchange for taking the risk of loss, receive any residual income -- that is, what is left over from the business's revenue after the wages, suppliers and the rest have been paid. Saying that it is unfair that owners get the profit is as meaningless as it would be to say that it is unfair that wage-earners get all the wages.Nevertheless, Mr. Sarkozy is now preparing to make his sense of fairness the law of the land. After some discussions about the precise features of this proposal, his government has now put forward a law that will force firms with more than 50 employees to pay them a bonus whenever profit increases from one year to the next. The precise amount of the bonus is to be negotiated with trade unions. And of course, unlike a business's owners, wage earners will share in the profit but not help bear the cost of any losses.Regard$,
> --MJ
> "There is only one boss--the customer. And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else" -- Sam Walton.
thus should control businesses. Socialism, the anti-thesis of
'freedom of property' and civil liberties, gives the 'power' to those
who want something for nothing. In the example I gave to Jonathan,
Wal-mart, on its own, decided to let employees share in the profits.
There was no government edict that money be taken from management to
be given to those who don't even work for that company, nor even have
a job. Trust me that my New Constitution will hang for TREASON any
elected official who proposes anything "social" like SS, Medicare,
Medicaid, and unemployment insurance. All of those must be privatized
EXCEPT for those too old or too sick to survive otherwise. Generally
speaking, no more than 5% of the non-employees of government should
ever get anything from government. In the case of Social Services,
such should be administered at the local and state levels, NEVER by
the federal government! — J. A. Armistead —
>
On May 11, 10:21 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Dear Jonathan: In any economic system there are good and bad points.Really?
> Capitalism is the system in which people are free to use their private property without outside interference.
> What are the 'bad points'?Executive compensation, that has sometimes been at the expense of the
> workers cranking out the products, should be based on what is fair,
> not just who the supposed leaders of the corporations are. Endorsing socialism again, huh.
> What is 'fair'? Who gets to decide? Why them?Wal-Mart
> started out giving financial incentives to the managers of the stores,
> until the wife of the founder insisted that workers would do a better
> job, and stay on those jobs longer if there was a profit sharing
> plan. A black janitor retired after forty or so years with the
> company and had several million dollars in the bank. That sort of
> fairness doesn't sound like socialism, now, does it.If you mean Walmart VOLUNTARILY and within THEIR business model utilized 'profit sharing', then no.
> But having the Government FORCE businesses to do so ... is certainly socialism.I can't speak for Donald Trump, but in order to get quality labor for
> building quality real estate properties—as he knows so well how to do—
> the compensation needs to be tops. In the long run, everyone in the
> employment hierarchy will benefit when fairness reigns for those at
> the bottom or at the top.Joe owns a business. He puts a sign in the window/on the lawn advertising that he needs employees. Pete applies for the job and agrees to wage X in exchange for task Y. Is Pete being paid fairly?
> FRANCE is currently implementing the type of socialism you are endorsing hereSalin on Sarkosy in the WSJMay 10, 2011 byPeter G. KleinAgreat op-ed from Pascal Salin, the Mises Institute's 2008 Schlarbaum Laureate, in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. Writes Pascal:[I]n his more recent statements and decisions Mr. Sarkozy seems to have tilted France even closer toward socialism than one might previously have thought possible. Last month, reiterating a theme that he first broached during his election campaign, the president declared that it is unfair that shareholders and owners get to keep all of a firm's profit, and that it would be more fair for company profits to be divided into three equal parts: one for shareholders, one for wage earners and one for reinvestment into the enterprise.This proposal suggests that Mr. Sarkozy totally fails to understand the role and nature of profit or the workings of a capitalist firm. A firm's employees, like its lenders and suppliers, receive a fixed price, their wages, in return for what they supply to the business -- their labor. This wage is guaranteed whether the firm turns a profit or not. The owners, in exchange for taking the risk of loss, receive any residual income -- that is, what is left over from the business's revenue after the wages, suppliers and the rest have been paid. Saying that it is unfair that owners get the profit is as meaningless as it would be to say that it is unfair that wage-earners get all the wages.Nevertheless, Mr. Sarkozy is now preparing to make his sense of fairness the law of the land. After some discussions about the precise features of this proposal, his government has now put forward a law that will force firms with more than 50 employees to pay them a bonus whenever profit increases from one year to the next. The precise amount of the bonus is to be negotiated with trade unions. And of course, unlike a business's owners, wage earners will share in the profit but not help bear the cost of any losses.Regard$,
> --MJ
> "There is only one boss--the customer. And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else" -- Sam Walton.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
MJ, Johnathon and the world of fairness need to go the next step......
--
Mark M. Kahle H.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
It is ABSOLUTELY UNFAIR that the public should pay one cent more than the actual cost
of a product. Why is there a "profit". All a "Profit does is to rip off the consumer.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:21 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
--Dear Jonathan: In any economic system there are good and bad points.
Really?
Capitalism is the system in which people are free to use their private property without outside interference.
What are the 'bad points'?
Executive compensation, that has sometimes been at the expense of the
workers cranking out the products, should be based on what is fair,
not just who the supposed leaders of the corporations are.
Endorsing socialism again, huh.
What is 'fair'? Who gets to decide? Why them?
Wal-Mart
started out giving financial incentives to the managers of the stores,
until the wife of the founder insisted that workers would do a better
job, and stay on those jobs longer if there was a profit sharing
plan. A black janitor retired after forty or so years with the
company and had several million dollars in the bank. That sort of
fairness doesn't sound like socialism, now, does it.
If you mean Walmart VOLUNTARILY and within THEIR business model utilized 'profit sharing', then no.
But having the Government FORCE businesses to do so ... is certainly socialism.
I can't speak for Donald Trump, but in order to get quality labor for
building quality real estate properties—as he knows so well how to do—
the compensation needs to be tops. In the long run, everyone in the
employment hierarchy will benefit when fairness reigns for those at
the bottom or at the top.
Joe owns a business. He puts a sign in the window/on the lawn advertising that he needs employees. Pete applies for the job and agrees to wage X in exchange for task Y. Is Pete being paid fairly?
FRANCE is currently implementing the type of socialism you are endorsing here
Regard$,
- Salin on Sarkosy in the WSJ
- May 10, 2011 by Peter G. Klein
- A great op-ed from Pascal Salin, the Mises Institute's 2008 Schlarbaum Laureate, in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. Writes Pascal:
- [I]n his more recent statements and decisions Mr. Sarkozy seems to have tilted France even closer toward socialism than one might previously have thought possible. Last month, reiterating a theme that he first broached during his election campaign, the president declared that it is unfair that shareholders and owners get to keep all of a firm's profit, and that it would be more fair for company profits to be divided into three equal parts: one for shareholders, one for wage earners and one for reinvestment into the enterprise.
- This proposal suggests that Mr. Sarkozy totally fails to understand the role and nature of profit or the workings of a capitalist firm. A firm's employees, like its lenders and suppliers, receive a fixed price, their wages, in return for what they supply to the business -- their labor. This wage is guaranteed whether the firm turns a profit or not. The owners, in exchange for taking the risk of loss, receive any residual income -- that is, what is left over from the business's revenue after the wages, suppliers and the rest have been paid. Saying that it is unfair that owners get the profit is as meaningless as it would be to say that it is unfair that wage-earners get all the wages.
- Nevertheless, Mr. Sarkozy is now preparing to make his sense of fairness the law of the land. After some discussions about the precise features of this proposal, his government has now put forward a law that will force firms with more than 50 employees to pay them a bonus whenever profit increases from one year to the next. The precise amount of the bonus is to be negotiated with trade unions. And of course, unlike a business's owners, wage earners will share in the profit but not help bear the cost of any losses.
--MJ
"There is only one boss--the customer. And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else" -- Sam Walton.
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Mark M. Kahle H.
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
[[ This is perfect. ]]
| |
| Posted: 11 May 2011 04:08 AM PDT
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Toonhole To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
At 03:35 AM 5/11/2011, you wrote:
Like most cock-sucking apparatchiks (is that how this forum 'rolls'?), Keith offers NOTHING tangible in his fallacious effort.
Regard$,
--MJ
Much of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas Sowell
Like most Moonbats, Tom Woods ignores most all of Gingrich's positions on a number of issues.
Like most cock-sucking apparatchiks (is that how this forum 'rolls'?), Keith offers NOTHING tangible in his fallacious effort.
Regard$,
--MJ
Much of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas Sowell
KeithInKöln
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 3:48 PM, GregfromBoston <greg.vincent@yahoo.com > wrote:
- Question still unresolved.
- Newt's book, "Gettysburg", I HIGHLY, recommend. Superb!
- On May 10, 9:33 am, plainolamerican < plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
- > like Obama, he will say anything for votes
- >
- > he's been a disgrace to his party and his family
- >
- > noQuestion stilt someone I'd like to see as potus
- >
- > On May 10, 7:57 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com > wrote:
- >
- >
- >
- > > I will be interested to see if any lefties embrace this piece, and
- > > realize whom and what the are embracing
- >
- > > On May 9, 1:03 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:> May9thNewt Gingrich, WeaselTom Woods
- > > > Check outBohis b Wenzel s brief but very sharp analysisof Newt Gingrich s weasel platform that avoids discussing spending cuts on the grounds that first we have to get things moving again, etc. All I would add to Bob s analysis is what I wrote about Gingrich inRollback: his record is horrendous. Of course, the media portrays him as some kind of strict free-marketeer, since that s the media s job: define the range of opinion in such a way as to exclude genuine friends of freedom. For if you are to the right of Newt Gingrich -- and, citizen, we have already told you Newt is as free market as they come! -- you must be some kind of extremist ! In fact, you probably don t exist. http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/newt-gingrich-weasel-2/xxx
- > > > Monday, May 9, 2011Gingrich to Announce Presidential RunPosted by Robert Wenzel at 11:38 AM
- > > > Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will officially jump into the race for the Republican presidential nomination on Wednesday with announcements on Facebook and Twitter,according to his spokesman.
- >
- > > wiThe Gingrich campaign strategy appears to be that he will run not on
- > > any principles, but more on the fact that he is not President Obama.
- >
- > > > A Gingrichsnippet:The fact is, we are not going to close the deficit and move towards a balanced budget unless we follow the policies that foster the economic growth necessary to create jobs.The first and most immediate step would be to employ the policies that encourage investment, create jobs, and reward innovation and entrepreneurship -- exactly the opposite of the Obama anti-jobs policiesAside from the attack on President Obama, the underlying message here is that Gingrich wants to balance the budget not by reducing government spending, but by increasing tax revenues through more jobs. In other words, Gingrich sees no problem with the current size of government. http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/05/gingrich-to-announce-pre...- Hide quoted text -
- >
- > - Show quoted text -
- --
- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
- For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
- * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
- * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
- * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Dear Jonathan: In any economic system there are good and bad points.
Really?
Capitalism is the system in which people are free to use their private property without outside interference.
What are the 'bad points'?
Executive compensation, that has sometimes been at the expense of the
workers cranking out the products, should be based on what is fair,
not just who the supposed leaders of the corporations are.
Endorsing socialism again, huh.
What is 'fair'? Who gets to decide? Why them?
Wal-Mart
started out giving financial incentives to the managers of the stores,
until the wife of the founder insisted that workers would do a better
job, and stay on those jobs longer if there was a profit sharing
plan. A black janitor retired after forty or so years with the
company and had several million dollars in the bank. That sort of
fairness doesn't sound like socialism, now, does it.
If you mean Walmart VOLUNTARILY and within THEIR business model utilized 'profit sharing', then no.
But having the Government FORCE businesses to do so ... is certainly socialism.
I can't speak for Donald Trump, but in order to get quality labor for
building quality real estate properties—as he knows so well how to do—
the compensation needs to be tops. In the long run, everyone in the
employment hierarchy will benefit when fairness reigns for those at
the bottom or at the top.
Joe owns a business. He puts a sign in the window/on the lawn advertising that he needs employees. Pete applies for the job and agrees to wage X in exchange for task Y. Is Pete being paid fairly?
FRANCE is currently implementing the type of socialism you are endorsing here
- Salin on Sarkosy in the WSJ
- May 10, 2011 by Peter G. Klein
- A great op-ed from Pascal Salin, the Mises Institute's 2008 Schlarbaum Laureate, in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. Writes Pascal:
- [I]n his more recent statements and decisions Mr. Sarkozy seems to have tilted France even closer toward socialism than one might previously have thought possible. Last month, reiterating a theme that he first broached during his election campaign, the president declared that it is unfair that shareholders and owners get to keep all of a firm's profit, and that it would be more fair for company profits to be divided into three equal parts: one for shareholders, one for wage earners and one for reinvestment into the enterprise.
- This proposal suggests that Mr. Sarkozy totally fails to understand the role and nature of profit or the workings of a capitalist firm. A firm's employees, like its lenders and suppliers, receive a fixed price, their wages, in return for what they supply to the business -- their labor. This wage is guaranteed whether the firm turns a profit or not. The owners, in exchange for taking the risk of loss, receive any residual income -- that is, what is left over from the business's revenue after the wages, suppliers and the rest have been paid. Saying that it is unfair that owners get the profit is as meaningless as it would be to say that it is unfair that wage-earners get all the wages.
- Nevertheless, Mr. Sarkozy is now preparing to make his sense of fairness the law of the land. After some discussions about the precise features of this proposal, his government has now put forward a law that will force firms with more than 50 employees to pay them a bonus whenever profit increases from one year to the next. The precise amount of the bonus is to be negotiated with trade unions. And of course, unlike a business's owners, wage earners will share in the profit but not help bear the cost of any losses.
- This proposal suggests that Mr. Sarkozy totally fails to understand the role and nature of profit or the workings of a capitalist firm. A firm's employees, like its lenders and suppliers, receive a fixed price, their wages, in return for what they supply to the business -- their labor. This wage is guaranteed whether the firm turns a profit or not. The owners, in exchange for taking the risk of loss, receive any residual income -- that is, what is left over from the business's revenue after the wages, suppliers and the rest have been paid. Saying that it is unfair that owners get the profit is as meaningless as it would be to say that it is unfair that wage-earners get all the wages.
- May 10, 2011 by Peter G. Klein
--MJ
"There is only one boss--the customer. And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else" -- Sam Walton.
Tuesday, May 10, 2010
The Coming Fiscal Train Wreck
by Jacob G. Hornberger
A New York Times editorial today provides a perfect example of the statist thinking that has produced the out-of-control federal spending and massive debt that now threaten the United States with bankruptcy.
The editorial points out that several state governors refused the U.S. government's offer of billions of dollars to fund mass transit programs. Among them was Florida Governor Rick Scott, who rejected a $2.4 billion grant with the expectation that it would help alleviate the nation's fiscal problems.
Now, wouldn't you think that that would be an admirable thing to do, especially given the enormous fiscal problems facing the federal government?
Not according the Times. They consider Scott to be a dolt. The editorial said that he "thoughtlessly" rejected the money and that Scott's belief that the rejection would help relieve the federal government's fiscal problems was "nonsense," especially since U.S. officials simply turned around and gave the money to officials in the Northeast to improve rail service there.
Imagine that: Due to its enormous spending and borrowing, the federal government is traveling down the road to national bankruptcy, just like Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and other countries. So, here come offers by a few states to save the U.S. government billions of dollars.
Wouldn't you think that U.S. officials would be happy about saving so much money? Nope. They just turned around and gave the money to officials in other states, who eagerly accepted them. And good for them, according to the editorial board at the New York Times.
The Times also brought up the standard canard that comes with federal projects: that they supposedly create jobs. You've no doubt seen the signs next to some federal public-works project in your locale: "Jobs for Your Community."
So, according to the Times, not only did those state governors fail to save the federal government any money, they also cost their states jobs.
Oh, it gets worse. The Times also pointed out that the rejected monies "stimulate the economy." Thus, the implication is that by trying to save the federal government some money, the governors have actually damaged the nation's economy.
Do you see why this country is in a world of financial and economic hurt, thanks to the statists?
In pointing to "jobs" and "stimulus," the Times falls for one of the oldest economic fallacies, one that was described in the 19th century by the French economist Frederic Bastiat and then again in the 20th century by the American economist Henry Hazlitt.
Bastiat and Hazlitt described the fallacy in terms of "what is seen and unseen" with government spending. When billions of dollars in federal grant money flow into a state, U.S. officials love to call people's attention to the project itself, along with all the jobs and stimulus the project has brought into the community. That's what is seen.
Needless to say, statists never focus on what is unseen: the jobs and stimulus that never were permitted to come into existence because people had their monies taxed from them and spent on the government's public-works project.
Let's say you have an income of $40,000 and that there is no income tax. You spend, invest, or donate all of your money, which obviously has a positive effect on the areas where you put your money. If you buy a car, that means more jobs and stimulus in the car industry. If you invest, that means more jobs and stimulus in the investment arena. If you donate to your church, that means more jobs and stimulus there.
Let's assume, however, that the federal government seizes $10,000 of your income to fund its rail project. That's now $10,000 less that you have to spend, invest, or donate the way you want. That obviously means less jobs and less stimulus in the car industry, the investment arena, or your church.
At the end of its editorial, the Times mocks those states that turned down the federal government's free money. The governors "will have to defend them [their "shopworn principles"] to their voters when the public hears the passenger trains whistling from the next state over."
Meanwhile, many statists continue to assure us that everything is fine notwithstanding the federal government's out-of-control spending, borrowing, and inflation. They don't want know that the light at the end of the tunnel is the oncoming locomotive whose whistle they're hearing.
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-05-10.asp
Reflections by Comrade Fidel
The men who executed Bin Laden did not act on their own: they were following orders from the US Government. They had gone through a rigorous selection process and were trained to accomplish special missions. It is known that the US President can even communicate with a soldier in combat.
A few hours after accomplishing that mission in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad, home to the most prestigious military academy of that country as well as important combat units, the White House offered the world's public opinion a carefully drafted version about the death of Osama Bin Laden, the chief of Al Qaeda.
Of course, the world and the international media focused their attention on the issue, thus pushing all other public news into the background.
The US TV networks broadcast the President's carefully drafted speech and showed images of the public's reaction.
It was obvious that the world realized how sensitive the matter was. Pakistan is a country of 171 841 000 inhabitants –where the US and NATO have been carrying out a devastating war for ten years now- that has nuclear weapons and is a traditional ally of the United States.
There is no doubt that this Muslim country can not agree with the bloody war that the United States and its allies are waging against Afghanistan, another Muslim country with which it shares the troublesome and mountainous border traced by the British colonial empire. Common tribes live on both sides of the demarcation line.
The American press itself understood that the President was concealing almost the entire information.
The western news agencies –ANSA, AFP, AP, REUTERS and EFE- the press and important websites have published interesting reports about the incident.
The New York Times asserts that facts differed greatly from the official version announced on Tuesday by the White House and top intelligence officials, according to which Bin Laden's death –who they finally recognized was unarmed, although they said he 'resisted'- had occurred in the middle of an intense gun battle.
But, according to the New York daily, "the raid, though chaotic and bloody, was extremely one-sided, with a force of more than 20 Navy SEAL members quickly dispatching the handful of men protecting Bin Laden."
The New York Times states that "the only shots fired by those in the compound came at the beginning of the operation, exactly when Bin Laden's trusted courier, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, opened fire from behind the door of the guesthouse adjacent to the house where Bin Laden was hiding."
"After the SEAL members shot and killed Mr. Kuwaiti and a woman in the guesthouse, the Americans were never fired upon again", the newspaper states based on reports from said sources, whose identity was not revealed….
On Tuesday, the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, in an account of events, had asserted that in the early hours of Monday morning, the US commando "were engaged in a firefight throughout the operation."
Leon E. Panetta, the director of the C.I.A., said, "there were some firefights that were going on" as these US elite military were clearing the upper floors of the residential compound where Bin Laden was hiding.
However, the newspaper asserts that, although Bin Laden had not raised any weapon when he was gunned down, the commandos that found him in one of the rooms "saw Osama bin Laden with an AK-47 and a Makarov pistol in arm's reach."
Today, May 6, news continue to pour in.
From Washington, one of the agencies reports that a sole gunman had shot against the US forces. It continues to report that, on Sunday evening, "several helicopters ferry 79 commandos towards Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, north of Islamabad, flying low to avoid detection by radar, as Pakistan has not been told of the raid in advance.
"Two helicopters deliver more than 20 US Navy SEALs to the residence, which has four-to-six meter walls covered with barbed wire. One of the choppers, a MH-60 Blackhawk apparently modified to evade radar, is out of commission due to "mechanical failure," according to initial reports from US officials.
"One group of commandos moves toward a smaller guest house next to the compound's main building. Bin Laden's trusted courier opens fire and is shot and killed, along with his wife.
The courier is the only man at the compound who fires on the Americans, contrary to earlier accounts from the White House that described a firefight throughout the nearly 40-minute operation.
"…Another US special forces team enters the main three-story house."
"… They encounter the courier's brother…who was shot and killed", according to a US official who offered no further details. According to NBC news, the man "has one hand behind his back" when the team entered the room, "causing the SEALs to suspect he may have a gun, which turns out not to be the case.
"
The commandos move up the stairs and in one of the rooms meet up with Bin Laden's adult son, Khalid, who is also killed…"
"On the top floor, they find Bin Laden and his wife in the bedroom. She reportedly tries to move between her husband and the commandos, and is shot in the leg. Bin Laden, who gives no signal of surrender, is shot in the head, and some media say he is also struck in the chest. Earlier versions of the raid said Bin Laden "resisted" and that he had used his wife as a human shield, but the White House later acknowledges those details are incorrect.
"President Barack Obama, following events from the White House, is told the SEALs have tentatively identified Bin Laden. A Time magazine report, based on an interview with CIA Director Leon Panetta, suggests Bin Laden was killed less than 25 minutes into the raid.
-"In Bin Laden's room, the US team finds an AK-47 assault rifle and a 9 mm Russian pistol. Other weapons are discovered in the compound, but no further details are given.
"The special forces find cash and telephone numbers sown into Bin Laden's clothing..."
"The Navy SEALs hauled away everything that could offer a lead to further information: note pads, the five computers, 10 hard drives and more than 100 storage devices (CDs, DVDs, USB).
"…The U.S. team destroys the downed helicopter after moving the women and children in the compound to a safe area.
"…Thirty eight minutes after the start of the raid, U.S. helicopters fly away, carrying away the corpse of Bin Laden."
The AP published information of political and also human interest:
"One of three wives living with Osama Bin Laden told Pakistani interrogators she had been staying in the Al-Qaeda chief's hideout for five years, and could be a key source of information about how he avoided capture for so long, a Pakistani intelligence official said Friday."
"Bin Laden's wife, identified as Yemeni-born Amal Ahmed Abdullfattah, said she never left the upper floors of the house the entire time she was there.
"She and Bin Laden's other two wives are being interrogated in Pakistan after they were taken into custody following Monday's American raid on Bin Laden's compound in the town of Abbottabad. Pakistani authorities are also holding eight or nine children who were found there after the U.S. commandos left.
"Given shifting and incomplete accounts from U.S. officials about what happened during the raid, testimony from Bin Laden's wives may be significant in unveiling details about the operation.
"Their accounts could also help show how Bin Laden spent his time and managed to stay hidden, living in a large house close to a military academy in a garrison town, a two-and-a-half hours' drive from the capital, Islamabad.
"The Pakistani official said CIA officers had not been given access to the women in custody."
"The proximity of Bin Laden's hideout to the military garrison and the Pakistani capital has also raised suspicions in Washington that Bin Laden may have been protected by Pakistani security forces while on the run."
The EFE news agency inquired what Pakistan citizens thought about that.
According to that agency, 66 per cent of Pakistanis do not believe that the US Special Forces killed Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda; they think they killed another person, according to a joint poll ran by the British demoscopic institute, YouGov, and Polis, from Cambridge University.
The poll was said to have been carried out among Internet users, who usually have a higher educational level, in three big cities: Karachi, Islamabad and Lahore. The poll excluded rural demographic groups, which makes results to be all the more surprising, according to researchers.
Reportedly, 75 per cent of those polled said they also disapproved the violation of Pakistan's sovereignty by the United States during the operation to capture and kill Bin Laden.
It was also reported that less than three fourths of those polled do not believe Bin Laden approved the 9/11 attacks against the United States, which justified the US invasion in Afghanistan and the war against Islamic terrorism.
According to the poll, 74 per cent think that Washington's government does not have any respect for Islam and considers itself at war with the Islamic world; 70 per cent disapproves the Pakistani policy of accepting US economic aid.
Eighty six per cent are said to oppose also to the fact that the Pakistani government may in the future –and criticized the possibility that they may have done in the past- authorize attacks using drones against military groups.
Sixty one per cent of the Pakistanis who were interrogated said they sympathized with the Taliban or believed they could represent respectable viewpoints, against only 21 per cent who are radically opposed to them.
Reuters equally published some interesting reports:
"One of Osama bin Laden's wives told Pakistani interrogators that the Al Qaeda leader and his family had been living for five years in the compound where he was killed by U.S. forces this week, a security official said on Friday.
"The official, who identified the woman as Amal Ahmed Abdulfattah, the youngest of Bin Laden's three wives, told Reuters she was wounded in the raid.
"The security official said Abdulfattah told investigators: 'We have been living there for the past five years'."
"Pakistani security forces took between 15 and 16 people into custody from the compound after U.S. forces removed Bin Laden's body, said the security official. Those detained included Bin Laden's three wives and several children."
According to a report published by ANSA, a US drone killed today no less than 15 persons in Waziristan, north of Pakistan. Others were seriously injured. But, who would care about those daily killings in that country?
However, I ask myself one question: Why is there so much coincidence between the assassination that was carried out at Abbottabad and the attempt to simultaneously assassinate Gaddafi?
One of Gaddafi's youngest sons, who was not involved with political issues, Sarif al Arab, was accompanied by his little son and two little cousins at the house where he lived; Gaddafi and his wife had visited him shortly before the attacks launched by NATO bombers. The house was destroyed; Sarif al Arab and the three kids were killed. Gaddafi and his wife had left shortly before the attack. That was an unprecedented event. But the world has hardly known about that.
Was it a mere chance that such an event coincided with the attack against Osama Bin Laden's refuge, which was perfectly known by the US government, which kept a close watch on it?
News released today by Vatican City reported as follows:
"May 6 (ANSA) - Giovanni Innocenzo Martinelli, Apostolic Vicar of Tripoli, said today to the Vatican's agency FIDES: 'I certainly do not want to interfere with the political activity of anyone, but I have the duty to declare that the bombings on Libya are immoral'.
"I am surprised that statements were made on the fact that I should deal only with spiritual matters and that the bombings have been authorized by the UN. The UN, NATO or the European Union doesn't have the moral authority to decide to bomb Libya, he said."
"Let me stress that bombing is not dictated my moral or social conscience of the West or humanity in general. Bombing is always an immoral act."
Another news published by ANSA on May 6 reports that the governments of China and Russia expressed their deep concern about the war in Libya and said they will work together to call for a cease fire.
According to the Chinese Foreign Minister Jechi Yang, they strongly believed that the most important goal was to achieve an immediate cease fire.
Truly worrying events are happening.
Fidel Castro Ruz
May 6, 2011
8:17 p.m.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
