tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post1824549087787224274..comments2024-03-18T21:05:49.012-05:00Comments on Give2Attain: The Balancing of FreedomsJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-25533717356587495732015-11-20T09:26:28.570-06:002015-11-20T09:26:28.570-06:00"If you artificially force wages up through m..."If you artificially force wages up through minimum wages,..."<br /><br />John, I am afraid that in pointing out the pitfalls inherent to raising the minimum wage by government fiat you have inadvertently destroyed your argument for buying American products. First you argue that we need to deport the 11 million illegal aliens who "keep wages down." But what you are pointing out is that American workers are overpriced compared to global competition. There are many workers in the world willing to work for less money and cost-conscious businesses will naturally seek them out, wherever they are. And it does not require minimum-wage laws to artificially force wages up. American workers are already overpaid compared to the world marketplace and buying American simply costs everybody more – that "regressive tax" you (quite correctly) describe.<br /><br />The solution here isn't to "artificial" anything, but to get government out of the way and let American entrepreneurship succeed. There ARE American businesses that withstand for competition very well. They tend to be the ones that invest more, innovate more, and resist government and union demands better. With less government interference, American businesses can compete with anybody and everybody would "buy American" simply to save money.jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-29260020444577769522015-11-19T18:47:15.135-06:002015-11-19T18:47:15.135-06:00Joel,
I have to agree with Jerry, you probably jus...Joel,<br />I have to agree with Jerry, you probably just called 2 of the most charitable people you communicate with regularly "selfish"...<br /><br />Now if you really want to raise wages in the USA, start working to deport the 11,000,000 illegal aliens who help keep wages down, and start telling everyone you know to Buy American.<br /><br />If you artificially force wages up through minimum wages, it just makes everything more expensive in the USA... Therefore consumers will have even more incentive to buy products and services from overseas. And it will make it harder for "Made in America" companies to keep manufacturing here and to sell overseas. All bad...<br /><br />Now for the big question, who funds the work credits, welfare, food stamps, medicaid, ACA subsidies, etc that the low income employees receive? The answer is "the people that pay income taxes". (ie the "wealthy") <br /><br />If we raise the minimum wages, who is going to pay more everyday? The answer is everyone. (it is like a regressive tax) <br /><br />Liberals seem to think that Walmart will pay more , keep the prices fixed and accept lower profits. Which of course makes no sense since us Investors would crucify them when we saw our 401Ks, IRAs, college funds, etc shrinking.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-91357625744105080982015-11-19T17:19:40.376-06:002015-11-19T17:19:40.376-06:00Joel, you have no idea to whom you are speaking. ...Joel, you have no idea to whom you are speaking. I routinely give about 15% of my income to charity, obviously beyond what taxes I pay for government to waste on so-called "eliminating poverty." I have countless volunteer hours with the homeless, the hungry, the abused and the schools.<br /><br />And you incorrectly answered the question, so let me rephrase. Why is it Walmart's responsibility to pay any particular wage whatsoever? If they offer a job at a certain wage and somebody is willing to take the job for that wage, what business is it of yours, much less government's, to DENY them the freedom to work? Why must people be shackled in poverty because government will not let them (or even require them to) work their way out of it? Really, I would like to understand how, even by your own admission, keeping people in poverty is helpful to anybody? jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-38219826378256358832015-11-19T13:58:50.390-06:002015-11-19T13:58:50.390-06:00"Why should that personal condition be someon..."Why should that personal condition be someone else's (e.g. the taxpayer) problem or responsibility?"<br /><br />I couldn't agree more. Walmart should be paying their employees enough that they don't need government assistance. Unfortunately, that is not the reality.<br /><br />"...or that recipients be subject to random drug testing."<br /><br />Which has been shown over and over and over to cost more than it saves. Aren't you FOR fiscal responsibility?<br /><br />You are free to live in your own denial that you have no culpability for anything but your own success (never mind the society that allows and helps you to do it) and no moral duty to anyone but yourself.<br /><br />Your selfishness is noted.<br /><br />Enjoy your rewards.<br /><br />JoelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-27070994756149707242015-11-19T13:02:52.245-06:002015-11-19T13:02:52.245-06:00Let's take a look at John's idea here in m...Let's take a look at John's idea here in more specifics. There was a time when welfare was called "AFDC" or Aid to Families with Dependent Children-- widows and orphans, in other words. The premise was that with no "man in the house" there wasn't any income in the home and Momma and the kiddies were starving. This was government's way of keeping that from happening on a broad scale that, /allegedly/, private charity could not or would not do. Now, part of the "deal" was that, every so often, a "case worker" would show up at the door, ask how the family was doing, etc., and look to see if there WAS a man in the house, in which case the welfare check STOPPED. The kids were HIS responsibility, not the taxpayers'. LBJ ended that "oppressive" requirement. <br /><br />At other times, reformers have offered such changes to welfare law as refusing added payments for children born while on welfare (on the theory there WAS a man in the house, sometime), or that mothers can only get welfare if they name the father of the baby (who can then be dunned for child support), that recipients sign up for work or job training, or that recipients be subject to random drug testing. In EVERY case, Democrats and liberals have fought against these modest reforms that would have placed some small responsibility on welfare recipients to help themselves a bit. It seems their intention is to INCREASE dependency on government rather than moving people OUT of poverty. <br /><br />Keeping people in poverty while spending vast amounts of other people's money hardly seems the moral and freedom-enhancing thing to do.jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-86424708697079769062015-11-19T12:45:08.228-06:002015-11-19T12:45:08.228-06:00Oh, Joel, your ability to put everything in neat l...Oh, Joel, your ability to put everything in neat little boxes exceeds even my own. Why are only Republicans warmongers, climate deniers, heartless and cruel, greedy and, basically, not real human beings like YOU are? I still want to know, how much income does one need to make before one ceases to be human and becomes one of "them"? How much of our income must we cede to GOVERNMENT (NOT to the poor who need it) before we are absolved of the crime of having taken responsibility for ourselves and succeeded to a modest degree? Because I have to tell you, if that's your scoring system, most Democrats fail miserably. <br /><br />But lest you question my morality for not wanting hard-earned cash from my family stolen to preserve welfare queens in poverty, let me answer your first two questions. <br /><br />Actually, the first one answers itself. Paying people to do nothing not only fails to create wealth, but actually detracts from the total wealth of the country. It is like eating the seed corn. But to suggest that government welfare helps people out of poverty and into productivity is simply blind to reality. The War on Poverty is over, and Poverty won. Since the start of this "war" we have spent TRILLIONS of dollars, yet we have the same or MORE people in poverty then we did when we started. That is total, abject and horrible failure, one of those failings being the moral one. <br /><br />And the second one begs the question. Why should someone working 40 hours per week be in poverty? Let us just say it is not because they are working 40 hours per week. Why should that personal condition be someone else's (e.g. the taxpayer) problem or responsibility? Which is the moral stance, to provide for yourself or to steal from another? To offer true charity, or to be extorted?jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-59771505692043853592015-11-19T12:13:58.478-06:002015-11-19T12:13:58.478-06:00Now I am a farm boy at heart so let me tell you ab...Now I am a farm boy at heart so let me tell you about mice. If you want to prevent them from destroying your equipment/building, you must ensure there is no food source in the equipment or building. If there is free food and shelter, it attracts them and they procreate like crazy until the food source will not support them all. Now humans are not mice, however the basic theory holds.<br /><br />For people to make good choices and take positive actions, there need to be rewards and negative consequences that encourage the desired behavior. This is why people who work hard in school, wait until they are older and married to have children, stay married, save and invest, etc make more money and have greater wealth.<br /><br />What you desire is for the people who make the above noted good choices to share ever more of the rewards from their good choices with those who make bad choices. Which will reduce the negative consequences of making bad choices and reduce the rewards of making good choices.<br /><br />How does this make sense to you?<br /><br />The solution to reducing poverty and the achievement gap is to help the poor folks understand that children are expensive and a lot of work. Not to pay them when they have more children, thus promoting even more generational poverty. :-)<br /><br />By the way, history shows that if you give American consumers more money... They will often spend it on foreign products and services items. Thus reducing their domestic incomes further...Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-81126896691215655232015-11-19T08:37:18.068-06:002015-11-19T08:37:18.068-06:00Do you not think that people living in poverty are...Do you not think that people living in poverty are a severe drain on the productivity and economy of our country? Spending money to help them rise out of it, if done right, would see a huge ROI.<br /><br />Tell me again why someone working 40 hours a week in the richest country in the history of history should be living in poverty.<br /><br />If you think there is ANY good reason why this should happen, I have to question your morality.<br /><br />You like to put everything in neat little boxes and categories and utterly fail at seeing that EVERYTHING and EVERYONE are interconnected. But you're not alone. It's a Conservative and Republican hallmark. It explains why they're the first to call for war, why they don't understand climate science, why they fight against health care and education for everyone, why they prefer tax cuts for the wealthy, but not the consumers who drive the economy. The list is long, but it all comes back to the failure to see web of connectedness.<br /><br />JoelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-32321398454798177192015-11-18T21:45:46.509-06:002015-11-18T21:45:46.509-06:00Liberals think that they can write laws that defy ...Liberals think that they can write laws that defy the laws of physics, chemistry, economics and human nature.jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-14987514307615246842015-11-18T21:44:17.993-06:002015-11-18T21:44:17.993-06:00"Poverty hurts everyone, but I don't expe..."Poverty hurts everyone, but I don't expect Conservatives to understand that." <br />--Joel<br /><br />I don't think poverty hurts me in the least, because I choose not to participate. I am hurt, however, by government's ham-fisted attempt to fix it. If you want to say the WAR on Poverty hurts everyone, I'll agree with you. Not only that, but Poverty is winning. <br /><br />You know, the great liberal delusion is that they can fix problems with the wave of the magic wand of government control and government money. Indeed, the federal government could mandate $15/hour tomorrow. Then they could mandate that everybody had to have a job. Then they could raise the minwage to $100/hour and poverty would be gone! And then the fairies would dance around the unicorn poop.jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-1791458446622377472015-11-18T14:28:12.993-06:002015-11-18T14:28:12.993-06:00I think your first comment is going to become my n...I think your first comment is going to become my next post. It is a fascinating concept.<br /><br />Regarding your second, I am all for mandatory birth control until an adult passes high school, passes a parenting skills test and proves they have the necessary resources to raise child. I am even happy if the government pays for the long acting birth control.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-66940164583970637322015-11-18T14:08:12.931-06:002015-11-18T14:08:12.931-06:00"If you want to reduce poverty and the achiev..."If you want to reduce poverty and the achievement gap, you would help figure out how to stop poor single people from having kids."<br /><br />Education. Of all kinds (including comprehensive sex education). Paid for by the government. But Conservatives are against that, too.<br /><br />I'm all for fewer abortions and fewer children born into poverty. I disagree that banning abortion and putting up barriers to education will help achieve that goal.<br /><br />Joel<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-40162912927946397532015-11-18T14:02:25.169-06:002015-11-18T14:02:25.169-06:00"The idea that he wants to set the target as ..."The idea that he wants to set the target as one income per household is very sad."<br /><br />This is nonsense. It USED to be that families lived quite well off of one income...and the families were larger then. And with the cost of child care these days, it's hardly a benefit most times for both parents to be working.<br /><br />If income had kept up with inflation, we wouldn't even be talking about this, but Corporate America has colluded with the Government to keep their taxes down while suppressing wages at the same time their employees have become more productive.<br /><br />JoelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-14186529602263147402015-11-18T12:30:02.636-06:002015-11-18T12:30:02.636-06:00I found this statement by Bernie disturbing. "...I found this <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-debate-transcript-clinton-sanders-omalley-in-iowa/" rel="nofollow">statement by Bernie</a> disturbing. "It is not a radical idea to say that a single mom should be earning enough money to take care of her kids."<br /><br />The idea that he wants to set the target as one income per household is very sad. The reality is that it took 2 adults to make the baby(ies) and there should be 2 Parents to raise the child.<br /><br />"BERNIE SANDERS:<br /><br />Let me say this-- you know, no public policy doesn't have in some cases negative consequences. But at the end of the day what you have right now are millions of Americans working two or three jobs because that wages that they are earning are just too low. Real inflation accounted for wages has declined precipitously over the years. So I believe that in fact this country needs to move toward a living wage.<br /><br /> It is not a radical idea to say that if somebody works 40 hours a week that person should not be living in poverty. It is not a radical idea to say that a single mom should be earning enough money to take care of her kids. So I believe that over the next few years, not tomorrow, that over the next few years we have got to move the minimum wage to a living wage $15.00 bucks an hour. And I apologize to nobody."Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-67335636533834592232015-11-18T12:21:45.006-06:002015-11-18T12:21:45.006-06:00Joel,
In summary, you want the woman to have all o...Joel,<br />In summary, you want the woman to have all of the rights of being a Parent with none of the Responsibilities / Consequences.<br /><br />You want her to be free to participate in poorly protected sex, be free to kill the resulting child up to the time of delivery, the freedom to have others pay for the costs of child birth, food, diapers, housing, healthcare, etc.<br /><br />What do you think the negative consequence should be of a woman having poorly protected sex and conceiving a baby (or multiple babies)? If you want to reduce poverty and the achievement gap, you would help figure out how to stop poor single people from having kids.<br /><br />We both a agree that the man should pay child support. As far as I know he does not get welfare for Fathering a child.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-89627971762349479542015-11-18T12:12:24.686-06:002015-11-18T12:12:24.686-06:00Joel,
Why are you fighting Roe v Wade?
What is yo...Joel,<br />Why are you fighting Roe v Wade?<br /><br />What is your rationale that a Mother should be able disconnect the life support from her 24+ week old viable baby purely at her discretion?<br /><br />Where are the rights of the viable baby protected in your philosophy?<br /><br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade" rel="nofollow">SCOTUS had to weigh the rights of the Mom against the rights of the Baby</a> and they came up with the happy medium called viability. As the law sits, the baby has no rights until after it's heart has been beating for ~3 months...Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-6150909991210501252015-11-18T11:32:41.540-06:002015-11-18T11:32:41.540-06:00Poverty hurts everyone, but I don't expect Con...Poverty hurts everyone, but I don't expect Conservatives to understand that.<br /><br />Joel<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-25852466515089373372015-11-18T10:04:47.853-06:002015-11-18T10:04:47.853-06:00So, the woman has autonomy. Fine. Then she made ...So, the woman has autonomy. Fine. Then she made her bed, lay in it, conceived and birthed 5 kids, all on her own. Complete freedom. Now, suddenly, those kids are MY financial responsibility? Where's MY autonomy and freedom?jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-39377872359681144922015-11-18T09:53:22.637-06:002015-11-18T09:53:22.637-06:00So a woman has autonomy except when the government...So a woman has autonomy except when the government says she doesn't.<br />And I thought you folks were FOR individual freedom.<br /><br />JoelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-56228495311410991932015-11-18T09:37:06.895-06:002015-11-18T09:37:06.895-06:00Based on Roe v Wade, the woman has to put the life...Based on Roe v Wade, the woman has to put the life safing needs of the human baby before her own wants after the viability date unless their child threatens her life.<br /><br />I don't think the Father gets any rights to their shared creation until their child is born. Mostly he is given a financial obligation if it can be proven that the child is his.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-1039189564086154832015-11-18T09:09:15.322-06:002015-11-18T09:09:15.322-06:00Interesting how this abortion analogy keeps provin...Interesting how this abortion analogy keeps proving apt. Is it murder, attempted murder, assault or some other crime, or even immoral to withdraw "life support" (government welfare) from a welfare recipient? Is it less or more wrong to not provide alcoholics with alcohol than welfare to welfare queens?jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-85843659963629474672015-11-18T08:33:06.939-06:002015-11-18T08:33:06.939-06:00The question remains: When does a person give up a...The question remains: When does a person give up autonomous control?<br /><br />JoelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-40921272167755660122015-11-17T18:06:18.899-06:002015-11-17T18:06:18.899-06:00Pretty much looks like it. Unless special circumst...<a href="http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1164/ajrccm.162.6.1-00#.VkvAKXarSM8" rel="nofollow">Pretty much looks like it.</a> Unless special circumstances are in place. (ie terminal, brain dead, etc)Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-37831608289749002532015-11-17T15:17:36.045-06:002015-11-17T15:17:36.045-06:00Is it murder to withdraw life support from a born ...Is it murder to withdraw life support from a born person?<br /><br />JoelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-7294125472720866062015-11-17T15:05:31.427-06:002015-11-17T15:05:31.427-06:00Because to withdraw life support from an unborn pe...Because to withdraw life support from an unborn person is murder.<br /><br />That is why Roe v Wade defined the concept of viability. One week it is a tumor and the next it is an unborn person.<br /><br />One day the Mom can have it scraped out, the next she can't.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.com