Moose and I started to discuss how a person's compensation and benefits should be determined. I of course argue that "the market" is the only real way to determine the value of anything. Since "value" varies depending on what the "buyer" thinks the person, item, service is worth. Where as Moose seems to think...
I personally am not even sure what an "objective morality" is? Though through our government our society does set social norms via employment law. Of course these are very subjective in nature, since "the people" in essence vote for or against them. Here are some questions I posed that Moose neglected to try to answer.
"It's interesting that you agree with the idea that you don't deserve time off because you're a person, but because it may be good for the company's bottom line.Now as I noted in the previous comments, I am a big fan of Employment at Will. Which simply means that the employer and employee enter into a relationship that is mutually beneficial to each of them. And when either party gets a better offer, they can sever the relationship to pursue the new course.
Yes, it's the contract. But let's not pretend that the people who pay you have based this benefit on some sort of objective morality." Moose
I personally am not even sure what an "objective morality" is? Though through our government our society does set social norms via employment law. Of course these are very subjective in nature, since "the people" in essence vote for or against them. Here are some questions I posed that Moose neglected to try to answer.
"If you could get the same apartment / home for half the price... Would you take it?
American consumers who insist that American Unions / Workers should be supported and paid well choose to buy high foreign content products and services daily, thereby weakening domestic unions, reducing the number of US jobs and lowering wages.
Are these customers just focused on their bottom line?
Or is it just how markets work?
Who is willing to pay more than they need to for a product or service? What is their rationale?" G2A
87 comments:
Markets determine prices (sometimes) not value. I often purchase things that i would pay more for if the prices were higher. That means the price and the value to me are different. Because value is an inherently subjective thing and a word that has a lot of meanings it is use presents problems in a discussion because because people using the word are rarely talking about the same thing.
As for wages, how are your wages determined? Do you bid for your job every morning on ebay before leaving the house? Does your employer bid for your labor? That's what happens in markets. Does it happen to you? It's a funny thing. Some people believe in theory to a greater degree than actual experience. They believe, for example, that markets determine wages despite clear, and objective evidence of their own experience to the contrary, on both sides of the transaction.
--Hiram
Employment at will.
Many contracts are an exchange of freedom for security. You give up freedom to do with your day what you will, in exchange for the security of a pay check. An at will contract can be to the benefit of either the employer or the worker depending on the circumstance.
Say you are a ballplayer just starting out with an at will contract. Let's say you turn out to be really good. Because you are an at will employee, you can quit your team, and play for a better one. The at will nature of the contract works the other way if the player is injured. Obviously, it's hard for me to make generalizations about at will contracts because who benefits from them is so dependent on the circumstances. I do know that many people value commitments in their agreements and for them at will contracts aren't what they prefer. If the Twins have a great pitcher, they don't want to lose him to the Yankees in the middle of the season, and for assurances on that, they are willing to bear the risk of his getting injured. The NFL takes the opposite view.
==Hiram
Trump is really changing the conventional views on this with his tariff policy. Basically, he is trying to subsidize currently noncompetitive industries with a goal of slowing or eliminating job losses. That's the objective of his tariff policy. So who pays the the subsidy? As always, the answer is that it depends. Trump is imposing tariff on parts they tell me, so the subsidies are first paid for by assemblers in this country. Secondly of course, other countries will respond to tariffs with tariffs of their own. Now they make the choice to impose tariffs on finished goods. Agricultural products are a natural target for them. So that means farmers get hit. Note that farmers also get by the higher prices for assembled goods, since those assembled goods are often farm equipment. But Trump knows the farm states well, and he knows that our farmers are willing to lose money and even go broke, as long as their losses pay for subsidies to other businesses who hopefully will go broke at a slower rate of speed.
Welcome to the brave new world of Republican economics.
--Hiram
Hiram,
You are correct that your personal judgment of the value of a good or service may be greater than the market determined value / price. That is considered a good deal by you.
Definition of value
1 : the monetary worth of something : market price
2 : a fair return or equivalent in goods, services, or money for something exchanged
3 : relative worth, utility, or importance ·a good value at the price
·the value of base stealing in baseball
·had nothing of value to say
4 : something (such as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable ·sought material values instead of human values
—W. H. Jones
5 : a numerical quantity that is assigned or is determined by calculation or measurement ·let x take on positive values·a value for the age of the earth
6 : the relative duration of a musical note
7
a : relative lightness or darkness of a color : luminosity
b : the relation of one part in a picture to another with respect to lightness and darkness
8 : denomination 2
I don't bid for my job every day, however I do need to perform to ensure...
My perceived value > My perceived cost.
If not there is a chance that I will lose my job.
Just as the company needs to continue to ensure...
I value work /compensation > I perceive the cost of going elsewhere
If not they have to start advertising, interviewing and training again.
Personally, I think Liberals should love Trump's tariffs.
They are additional tax revenues that should put positive pressure on wages and create more jobs in the USA.
Of course, they will also drive up consumer prices...
There's no assurance that the tariffs will create more jobs in the USA. Harley-Davidson is offshoring production to get around them, for instance.
the monetary worth of something : market price
This is why value is such a problematic concept. Is the author right? Is the worth of something the same thing as it's price? Does worth mean what you pay for something? Or what you would be willing to pay for something? Lots of things have multiple prices. Does it's worth to you change? Isn't the concept of value troubled enough with combining it with worth?
The description of your employment relationship is of course not a market oriented one.
Trump's views on tariffs do have generally more appeal to liberals than conservatives. He very much ate our lunch during the election of 2016. And his views on tariffs which mean significant losses among Republican donors are the one area where he is facing at least nominal opposition within the party.
Generally speaking the kind of economic isolationism Trump favors would depress business conditions overall. If business is good, it will be less good than it could have been. If business is bad, these measures will make it worse. Some people will hurt, others benefit. Trump may feel that they help him with certain swing voting constituencies who can give him a plurality in certain states. That is one way to look at his election victory in 2016.
By not participating in the global economy, we risk falling behind as other economies expand more quickly and as they capture markets we are abandoning.
--Hiram
Something people are thinking about now is whether the damage Trump is doing to our country and it's interests throughout the world are short term or long term. Bear in mind, that we are n't a world that values at will agreements. We look for commitments and commitments are expected of us. Trump differs from this of course, but he is a con man whose commitments aren't expected to last any longer than the next train's departure. Others will have to clean up his messes.
--Hiram
I think value is a simple concept. Maybe you are having a hard time with it because you want the market value / price to match your perceived value for something. I am okay with different people thinking different things are worth more or less.
I mean Laurie thinks a low skilled teenager sitting in a desk is worth more than $7.25 per hour. And she thinks a huge BB star is worth less than $10 million per year. We are all free to have our opinions, but ultimately the market will determine what someone is paid. (unless the government intervenes)
Of course my employment relationship is a market oriented one. They offer and I accept or decline. They honor their promises or I walk. I honor my promises or I get fired.
As for "not participating" in a global market, tariffs don't block participation... They just increase the costs of doing so.
I am not sure if Trump is doing any damage or not. I mean if the NATO countries were not honoring the funding agreement, thankfully he is calling them on it. I know that Europe had a number of regulatory hurdles that made it challenging for us to sell there. Not sure about how their tariffs compared to ours...
I think value is a simple concept.
Well yes, but that's because you identify it with price.
Hey, if tariffs don't affect world markets, what's the point?
Trump feels the military support European countries receive from us is something they should pay for. That makes our military a force of mercenaries. And if they are putting their lives on the line for the money, it just isn't worth it.
--Hiram
In terms of specific damage I was thinking of North Korea. Mr. Un, like his predecessors is in a position of delicate balance between China, the south, and Japan. His dealing with Trump enhances his prestige with his partners at no cost to him. They will be able to lengthen his leash. And with questions being raised about the nature of America's commitment in the region, our friends will be forced to move more closer to people we used to see as adversaries. And bear in mind, none of these are at will arrangements. At will security commitments are no security at all.
--Hiram
Again you are confusing market value with your perceived value. (ie "it just isn't worth it") I mean I would never buy a painting for thousands of dollars... But that does not mean the painting can not be worth millions of dollars. Maybe you should change your phrase to "I personally do not think it is worth that much".
I did not say that "tariffs don't affect world markets". I said "tariffs don't block participation... They just increase the costs of doing so." They may encourage consumers to change their buying habits, or encourage companies to build plants in different countries.
I mean if Trump put a 20% tariff on Toyota Prius cars, Toyota may move production to the states or consumers may buy a Chevy Volt instead. Either way American workers win.
As for Korea... Past methods were failing abysmally... He developed missiles and nuclear bombs under Bush and Obama's watch... Changing strategy and tactics may be okay...
Past methods were failing abysmally..
So that was a reason to give them what they want?
Again you are confusing market value with your perceived value. (ie "it just isn't worth it")
Value is subjective. Perception plays a large role in it.
Let's not kid ourselves. We are imposing tariffs to block imports. They are a subsidy to domestic manufacturers. They are there to divert money from new and thriving industries, to one's that are failing. The whole point of them is to make us less competitive.
--Hiram
I hate to play the "what if..." game, but...
What if Barack Obama asserted that his assurance on the pending denuclearization of North Korea was the fact that Kim Jong-Un shook his hand, as Donald Trump did yesterday?
I can only imagine the mocking and ridiculing that would occur on this very blog of that notion.
What if Barack Obama asserted that his assurance on the pending denuclearization of North Korea was the fact that Kim Jong-Un shook his hand, as Donald Trump did yesterday?
Obviously if Obama had tried what Trump is doing, the sky would have fallen in on him. The howling from Republicans would have been heard all through Maryland, and Democrats would have distanced themselves from Obama as well. I think the interesting question is the next one. Why, exactly, are Republicans quite willing, eager in fact, to trust our nation and our future to a man of doubtful loyalties? One they must suspect deep in their hearts is in the pay of Russia. What is it about our nation that has brought us to this dangerous pass?
--Hiram
I seem to remember Obama opening the relations with Cuba and the sky did not fall. In fact I think I supported that.
Please also remember G2A Trump has another tantrum.
I don't know if what Trump did is better or worse, however I know that what Obama did accomplished nothing.
The question is, will opening up relations with North Korea hurt us?
A lot of what is happening has to do with the slowing of our nation's decline. Trump understands this as well as anyone. He sees a steel industry fading away, so he subsidizes it, asking our farmers to bear the costs of keeping a dying industry alive. But as my Republican friends love to point out, nothing is free. And stuff has both short and long term costs. Much as we like, we don't live in an at will world where there are no commitments and people are free to do what they want on the spur of the moment. Nations, like people, want and need security. And the grim reality is if they don't get it from us, if our support really is something that is bought and sold daily on ebay, they will look elsewhere.
--Hiram
"I seem to remember Obama opening the relations with Cuba and the sky did not fall. In fact I think I supported that."
Sure, but Cuba you know, actually did stuff (released political prisoners, somewhat liberalized laws regarding freedom of speech, encouraged and accepted American private investment). Obama didn't merely shake Raul Castro's hand and declare victory.
Based on this, it looks like Cuba got a Lot and gave little, and I am fine with that since it was and is a stupid stalemate.
Kind of like why the US has 10's of thousands of troops stationed in South Korea ~55 years after a war...
Hiram,
As for the "Decline of America", I agree that we are getting softer and more self centered each decade... Hopefully the Conservatives can stop to slide...
Another related link
"Kind of like why the US has 10's of thousands of troops stationed in South Korea ~55 years after a war..."
No formal peace treaty has been signed to end the Korean War. The two Korean leaders stated in April that they would sign such a treaty, but the North Koreans pulled out of talks on that topic scheduled for May.
Sort of like how the North Koreans promised a month ago to work towards denuclearization and sealed it with a handshake, but have instead gone back to upgrading their nuclear facilities.
It does fascinate me how folks on the Left and Right can be so dissatisfied with our country when we are living in such a wonderful time of history.
Just think:
- No major wars
- Great medication and healthcare is available
- Excellent free education is available
- The truly disabled are cared for
- Birth control is readily available
- and much more....
And people on both sides preach and proclaim doom and gloom. :-(
I can't imagine what my Grand Parents would have had to say as they:
- sent their brothers to die in WW I
- watched friends die early from health issues
- cared for their disabled family members at home
- farmed with horse drawn equipment
- did not have electricity or indoor plumbing
How did we as a nation get so soft and needy?
Sean,
The North Koreans have done that for decades...
Nothing new...
"The North Koreans have done that for decades..."
Yes, that's why you praising Trump for his Korea policy makes no sense. It hasn't produced anything!
"No major wars"
We fundamentally reordered much of our society following 9/11.
"Great medication and healthcare is available"
Not to everyone.
"Excellent free education is available"
Aren't you the guy who always complains about our schools?
"The truly disabled are cared for"
Not always.
"Birth control is readily available"
Just as long as you don't work for Hobby Lobby. Oh, and even if you work for anybody else, the Trump SCOTUS will be working on that over the coming years.
Which "praise" was that?
You mean when I said the past strategy and tactics did not work... So something else may be worth a try?
I am not sure that would be consider praise in many circles.
I realize that you want to attack and vilify Trump for pretty much anything he says or does... However some of his actions are not necessarily bad... Just as not everything Obama did was bad...
It is only the tribe members who choose to think that way. :-(
Sean,
You are correct... The world is not perfect by any means...
However it is much better than it ever was... Unfortunately too many people are focused on the few weeds and not on the multitude of flowers.
A strange side discussion...
At one point about 10 years ago I was seriously thinking about divorcing my wife, I was fixated on all the terrible things about our marriage and her. (ie couldn't be me... :-))
Then one day being the analyst I am, I had an epiphany to create a list of everything good and challenging about her and our relationship. Of course the "good list" dwarfed the "challenging list" and from then on I chose to focus on the "good list" most of the time.
This does not mean that life is perfect in any way, those challenges still exist and we keep working to address them.
However it does mean that I am much happier and more pleasant to be around.
My advice as always is to read The Anatomy of Peace and Leadership and Self Deception
Conflict and Collusion
"I realize that you want to attack and vilify Trump for pretty much anything he says or does."
Actually, I don't want to do that at all. I wish he would do good things that I wouldn't have to attack or vilify. Unfortunately, he leaves me little recourse based on his actions.
As a candidate, he talked about things that were legitimately populist and could have been supported. His administration has had seemingly dozens of "Infrastructure Weeks", but produced no infrastructure bill. This could have been a quick bipartisan win, but nope.
As a candidate, he talked about his distrust of the current campaign finance system, his hatred of PACS, and the corruption of lobbyists. "Drain the Swamp!", he said. As President? Swampier than ever.
As a candidate, he often talked about the need to raise the minimum wage. President Trump seems to have forgotten that.
As a candidate (and even as President), he vowed that his tax plan would either be neutral or raise taxes on the wealthy. We know how that turned out.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Something terrible has happened to our country. And we can't allow it to be normalized. Now an unfit and unelected president is trying to dictate our political and social agenda for the next forty years. This is profoundly wrong.
--Hiram
For cripes sake, the guy pardoned people today who set fire to federal lands in order to cover evidence that they had poached deer and almost recklessly killed four Bureau of Land Management employees.
Hiram's right. It's entirely possible that by this time next week, this President will have both started the process of unraveling NATO *and* given his approval of Russia's annexation of Crimea.
I agree that this pardon was a bad choice.
And yet this seems like a reasonable comment...
"Well, I have a solution. Tell people not to come to our country illegally. That's the solution. Don't come to our country illegally. Come like other people do. Come legally."
"Is that what you're saying? You're punishing the children?" a reporter followed up.
"I'm saying this very simply: We have laws. We have borders. Don't come to our country illegally. It's not a good thing," Trump replied. "
Hiram,
Trump was legally elected per the rules of our country and states... Therefore he has the legal authority to nominate our next SCOTUS justice...
Maybe next time the DEMs will nominate a better candidate or develop a platform that is more popular across the whole country... Not just beneficial to the urban centers.
Are you thinking if you deny this, it may change?
"And yet this seems like a reasonable comment..."
It's not reasonable, it's stupid. Telling people to just follow the law isn't a solution in and of itself because we know that some people will break the law. So the question is, what do you do then? How do you respond?
"Trump was legally elected per the rules of our country and states... Therefore he has the legal authority to nominate our next SCOTUS justice..."
Tell that to Barack Obama and Merrick Garland.
Apparently expedited removal and hiring more judges...
Why are you so happy to encourage illegal border violations by minimizing the consequences?
I was fine with throwing the adults in jail and sending the kids to foster care or other relatives. Though I knew it was a political land mine. And they should have tracked the kids better.
Again, what the Senate did was apparently legal... Holding of dealing with Garland. No court case was even filed as far as I know.
Again if the DEMs want to get back in control, they need to accept that they are failing... And change their platform instead of complaining about the rules of the game.
Who would have thought that all your talk of principles and values really comes down to "the ends justify the means" when the rubber hits the road?
Oh give me a break... I simply believe in law and order... If one plays within the rules and wins, more power to them.
Where I am still uncertain...
Why are you so happy to encourage illegal border violations by minimizing the consequences?
Why are you so happy to encourage illegal border violations by minimizing the consequences?
Because I know it's going to happen, and the are more serious things to worry about. America has benefited beyond reason from immigration and continues to do so. There are issues and concerns of course, but we can deal with them.
Trump thinks a Muslim ban makes us more secure. But none of the countries from which the 9-11 hijackers came from have ever been on his list of banned nations. All of them were here legally, and most of them would been here under a merit standard such as he has advocated. What Trump is advocating is a varnished form of racism.
Sure what the Senate did was legal. If it hadn't been, someone would have called the cops and had them arrested.
--Hiram
I did take a minute to look over my G2A Principles and I see nothing there about allowing and encouraging people to enter our country without back ground checks, searches and or permission.
Hiram,
You seem to be confusing legal and illegal immigration again...
Most of us like and welcome legal immigrants...
It is the ones who ignore our laws and cross the border without permission that we disapprove of.
CNN What is It Like in the Banned Countries
"Why are you so happy to encourage illegal border violations by minimizing the consequences?"
If we're detaining families, we should detain them together. Damaging children is not a demonstration of toughness.
"I simply believe in law and order."
Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump are free to engage in all sorts of ethically questionable behavior because it's legal, yet you shame honestly struggling poor people all the time. I see how this works.
Sean,
If a citizen is caught breaking the law and is held without bail due to their being a flight risk... They do not get to take the kids with them into the clink...
The kids are placed with other family or placed with social services. Why should these criminals be treated differently? (ie they are "breaking into" our country without permission and against the law)
As for holding them all in some form of "immigration camp"... It sounds like the judge will not let it happen, though it seems like a reasonable alternative.
I am happy to shame Trump and McConnell on a regular basis. Trump for his lies, and McConnell for his holding out on Garland and forcing through the new guy. But the reality is that we are a nation of law and order, if you don't like something you need to get the law changed.
As for shaming "honestly struggling poor people"... I hope I don't do that very often. For examples of who I will happily shame and try to stop... See below...
___
Moose,
Do you truly believe that 3 out of 100 people are not milking the system?
I mean just consider:
- the people on welfare with more kids than they can afford to raise
- people who are just lazy
- people striving to steal your identity
- people shop lifting
- people committing credit card fraud
- people who are addicted to gambling, drugs, etc
- people who are gang members and committing worse crimes
- people trying to avoid paying their bills
Do you think all these folks are above trying to fraudulently apply for Medicaid, food stamps, etc?
"If a citizen is caught breaking the law and is held without bail due to their being a flight risk... They do not get to take the kids with them into the clink...
The kids are placed with other family or placed with social services. Why should these criminals be treated differently?"
The nature of the alleged crime is different, for starters.
And to back up those numbers I provided this link.
Politifact 29% of Citizens are Criminals
And we wonder why our country is struggling in some ways...
Sean,
How is the crime different?
- a desperate burglar breaks into your home and takes your money
- a desperate illegal breaks into the country and takes some one's money / job
Either way an American citizen loses...
Not to mention the possibility that the illegal may:
- be a criminal
- be smuggling
- be a terrorist
- etc
I just can think of no reason why people support minimizing the consequences and therefore encouraging the practice???
For all your talk about "law and order", you voted for the guy who is going to have his foundation shut down over a decade-plus of self-dealing and corruption and has left literally hundreds of lawsuits in his wake over the years.
"How is the crime different?"
It's a lot different, actually. If you can't see that, I'm not sure it's worth my time trying to explain it.
"Not to mention the possibility that the illegal may:
- be a criminal"
The scaremongering here isn't going to work. I know what the data actually says.
"I just can think of no reason why people support minimizing the consequences and therefore encouraging the practice???"
Let's just shoot the children, then. Maximum consequences!
Even with Trump's many many many flaws... And I do whole heartedly agree that he is a deeply flawed individual. I do not think he has a criminal record. Though only time will tell.
So breaking into an American's home and taking a citizens money is bad...
But breaking into America and taking a citizens money/job is okay...
I am not trying to scare anyone, I am simply noting that smugglers are criminals. And if they are smuggling drugs, sex slaves, indentured workers, etc that is a big issue.
And one knows there is a lot of money involved to be digging so many tunnels.
Why would you recommend hurting the blameless children? It is their parent(s) who risked the child's life by subjecting them to the high risks of being trafficked.
Do you think we shoot the children of other criminals, instead of turning them over to family or social services?
We’re living in an age of minority rule
here is another opportunity for you to lecture why this is a good thing. I would prefer to live in a democracy.
It has been a long day...
I will leave it at "what are the DEMs doing wrong that they can only win urban centers and really dependent rural areas"...
Why can't they win the voters from the heartland of America?
Are they willing to moderate their platform to represent all these "salt of the earth" voters?
Or are they going to stick with the welfare platform?
Did I do good?
why do only those voters matter to you? Why can't the GOP win votes in urban areas? Why do they keep losing by millions of votes for president and senate candidates? Why did the get fewer votes in 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections?
Laurie,
Every vote matters to me, however our system was wisely setup to ensure that the States (ie regions) of the country also had a voice. I only mention the DEM failure because they are complaining about their lack of influence at this time in our country.
If they truly want to win the game, they need to play by its rules. That means they need to expand their appeal beyond the urban areas.
As for the GOP, they have proven quite successfully that they do not need the urban vote to be successful in this game.
If the DEMs truly want to change the rules of the game, first they need to convince people in many regions that the change will be beneficial.
Here are some interesting pieces.
CityLab DEMs Too Much Power in Cities
Trends in Affiliation
"Voters in urban counties have long aligned more with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, and this Democratic advantage has grown over time. Today, twice as many urban voters identify as Democrats or lean Democratic (62%) as affiliate with the GOP or lean Republican.
Overall, those who live in suburban counties are about evenly divided in their partisan loyalties (47% Democratic, 45% Republican), little changed over the last two decades.
Voters in rural areas have moved in a more Republican direction over the last several years. From 1999 to 2009, rural voters were about equally divided in their partisan leanings. Today, there is a 16-percentage-point advantage for the GOP among rural voters.
While there are racial and ethnic differences in the makeup of rural, suburban and urban areas, this overall pattern of geographic divergence is also seen among whites. Among rural whites, the GOP enjoyed a roughly 10-percentage-point advantage throughout much of the 2000s; the GOP advantage among rural white voters is now 24 percentage points (58% to 34%). At the same time, while urban white voters were roughly evenly divided in their political preferences for much of the last two decades, in recent years the Democratic Party has enjoyed a double-digit partisan advantage: Today, 54% of white urban voters are Democrats or lean Democratic, while 41% identify with the GOP or lean Republican."
Some More:
Forbes Why I will not become a DEM
"In most of America’s biggest cities, there has been no partisan competition for generations. Absent a partisan alternative, no force can dislodge the grubbing political rentiers that have burrowed into the Democratic party’s spine. Those rentiers will continue to complicate the Democrats’ efforts nationwide. Democrats in other parts of the country might run their local organizations differently from the Chicago/New York/San Francisco model, but they lack the influence or will to successfully challenge that model. When intra-party conflicts emerge, the patronage ethic wins.
What’s needed is a political force responsive to the needs of struggling communities that isn’t intent on bleeding them dry. In other words, a model premised on older Republican ideas of individual rights and respect for commerce, the kind of urban Republican model championed by figures like Jackie Robinson, George Romney and Jack Kemp. Nothing in that mold is visible in either party. If it ever exists again, someone will have to build it from the ground up, in new local parties all over the country.
In the meantime, programs conceived in the hope of providing opportunity to struggling low income families will be handed to corporations to fund their projects in wealthy neighborhoods. Chicago’s South Side will keep getting poorer while giving nearly 100% of its votes to Democrats. Eventually, property prices there be low enough to draw in affluent white gentrifiers. A Democratic patronage machine will feed itself first. Once sated, scraps will remain for those who demonstrate sufficient loyalty. In struggling neighborhoods in Chicago, Hartford or Philadelphia, ordinary people do their best to make a way for their families despite Democratic promises and Republican bigotry. They deserve better."
That last one reminded me of the DEM Public School shell game...
They say they want more money to help the kids...
Then they give the Teachers a raise, additional job protections, etc and the unluckiest kids end up with squat...
Then they blame the kid's problems on low funding and the game starts all over...
I mean how else can the most expensive schools in the state do so poorly... :-(
This is pretty interesting, where one shops matters.
And these folks seem to want to right off the white working class folks.
These folks have a slightly different twist.
Even with Trump's many many many flaws... And I do whole heartedly agree that he is a deeply flawed individual. I do not think he has a criminal recor
But surely you must suspect. What I get a kick out of although I really shouldn't is how Trump wants to think those two FBI agents he doesn't like were the only ones in the FBI who thought he was a crook. I really doubt there is anyone in the FBI who doesn't think Donald is a crook. I mean is pretty obvious really.
--Hiram
And yet one is presumably innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...
Unless you want to go back to the days of mob justice.
And yet one is presumably innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...
Sure. But I am not in a court of law. People rarely are, yet they still get to vote and appear on tv.
Fox News is fond of saying America elected Donald Trump. They are wrong of course, America elected Hillary Clinton, it was the electoral college who elected Donald Trump. That America didn't want a thug for president is something we can all take pride in. But a thug and a criminal is our president nonetheless and that's a reality all of us have to deal with.
--HIram
"Why would you recommend hurting the blameless children?"
That's exactly the point of the family separation policy.
This administration is so corrupt that the President hired a guy last week as his communications director who lost his last job over a decade-long effort to protect two serial sexual harassers and it was barely even a story.
Or... Are we protecting children by removing them from parent(s) who risk the child(rens) lives by dragging them along on this illegal effort?
What would you do if a burglar brought their child along on a home robbery?
"What would you do if a burglar brought their child along on a home robbery?"
I'm not accepting your frame here, sorry.
Why not?
Do you believe that illegal workers do not depress wages and job opportunities for legal workers? (ie take from our most challenged workers)
Is the whole economic concept of increased supply drives down prices bogus?
Or do you just believe that crossing the border without back ground checks, authorization, searches, etc should be legal, therefore to do so is not a crime in your perception of the situation?
From my perception, dragging children on a dangerous multi-country trek to illegally enter a country to take jobs from the legal workers is a crime or multiple crimes.
No matter if they did it "with good intentions".
Would you encourage a burglar to keep breaking into homes so they can send their child to a private school?
You can keep using the burglar analogy all you want, but I ain't biting.
So if they are not burglars... What are they?
Here are what I think are simple facts:
They knowingly violate the US Border
They take jobs that could be done by Legal Workers
Therefore citizens and companies can pay less
The child(ren) are exposed to significant risks on the road
Please remember that these are not the folks who turn themselves in at the border check points... These are the people who seek to avoid those check points because they know what they are doing is against the law.
"I mean if the NATO countries were not honoring the funding agreement, thankfully he is calling them on it."
I want to go back to this one. The 2% of GDP standard doesn't actually take effect until 2024, so no one actually is falling short at this point.
"Do you believe that illegal workers do not depress wages and job opportunities for legal workers?"
Why are you placing the blame on people looking to improve their situation? You're constantly trying to tell the less fortunate that they need to work, save, etc. etc. blah blah blah. I guess they should only do it the way you think is right.
Place the blame where it belongs: with the people who hire them.
Color me ever more bored with your lame arguments and false analogies.
Moose
I am happy to go after all guilty parties who are breaking our laws...
Why aren’t you?
Sure you are.
Moose
Moose,
Can you provide any sources to justify your comment?
From my perspective, I support:
- mandatory E Verify
- fining companies
- etc
I only question how we want to punish private citizens who hire lawn services, maids, etc.
Trump has run roughshod over the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
How do you suggest he be punished?
Moose
Please provide me examples...
He has written many executive orders and the courts have blocked or allowed them where appropriate. I must be missing the "run roughshod" over...
Please remember that the GOPers thoughts Obama was "running roughshod" over the Constitution... And the courts resolved those issues also.
One word: Emoluments
Moose
And that issue is in the courts... Remember innocent until proven guilty...
Patheos Lawsuit Continues
CNBC Trump Money Making
I am fine with Trump being ousted or put in jail if he is found guilty.
I think Pence will be fine as a President. :-)
Post a Comment