Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Don't Think About It, Just Vote

Ed52 Wrote: Dec 11, 2014 11:57 AM
The leaders who want to increase minimum wage believe that those who work for that will stay at that level forever, or until the Lords & Ladies Bountiful deign to increase the minimum wage again. Most of these critters are either politicians or administrators of not-for-profits; people who have no need (or ability) to find a real job in the competitive marketplace. Raising the minimum wage also affects the prices of those goods and services provided by minimum wage workers - a lot of which is consumed by low income people. Fast food, *-Mart, food processors, food stores, etc.- all need employees and will raise prices accordingly. Politicians love to proclaim ideas that sound good but have no sound basis in practical logic. Increasing the minimum wage will initiate a multiplier effect that will, in the short run, raise prices, reduce volume and, in turn, reduce scheduled hours and jobs. In the long run it will increase automation and reduce job slots. I wouldn't be surprised to see fast food adopt an classic automat format with card swipes instead of coin slots. Also, as the good-hearted liberals kept improving benefits without consideration of predictable "unintended consequences" there have developed situations where a recipient taking a low paying job suffers a huge loss of benefits and a lot lower total income.
In response to:

Crippling Children By Selling Them Racism

Ed52 Wrote: Dec 11, 2014 11:51 AM
Throughout recent decades other minorities of various skin hues have found success and have improved their lot despite the sluggish economy. They did this through hard work, perseverance, without any fear of being accused of "acting white" and without "leaders" getting in their way by defining approved and proper methods for achieving success. Only the black population has been held back by community pressure succumbing to the validation process expounded by hate-mongers using taunts of "oreo" or "traitor" - the equivalent of the pre-60's oppression of those "uppity" individuals who were not a "credit to their race".
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -- C. S. Lewis
In response to:

An Open Letter to Liberal CEOs

Ed52 Wrote: Dec 10, 2014 11:18 AM
And if you are retailer considering offering free recharging services to electric car owners you should also offer me free gas or an overall discount on purchases for not using your electricity. But that's only if you want my business
In response to:

What's Rule of Law?

Ed52 Wrote: Dec 10, 2014 11:09 AM
Creating equitable laws implies removing the social engineering aspects of Congressional power - Congress Critters would be greatly diminished if they couldn't bribe people to support favored businesses because of tax credits, transfer money from producers to favored voters or be bribed by business interests. Our Fearless Leaders really believe they are more equal.
Government meddling in real-life, complex systems always leads to disaster. Insurance has always been a situation wherein payments are made to a pool and benefits paid out to the people who won the bet they made that something bad will happen to them. The difference with ACA is that most of the choices as to what pool and what bad things to bet on have been taken away. The ACA is another example of (a) a nanny-state deciding that individuals are not capable of performing in their own self-interest because they have no appreciation for the government's concept of what that self-interest is and (b) a government program designed to treat the symptoms of health care cross funding (created by Medicaid & Medicare) without addressing the true problem, thus creating more symptoms and more inadequate solutions. Illogically, Obamacare was developed without meaningful input from practicing providers and assumes an adequate number of them will continue to practice - increasing their time and work load to maintain their income under reduced reimbursement schedules and increased reporting requirements. Meanwhile, by hampering economic growth and expanding government “entitlement” programs they have created an increased dependence on government largess and institutionalized a huge voting bloc supporting those actions. Political rhetoric converted a third party's unwillingness to pay for something into the equivalent to depriving a person the ability to acquire that something. In the past, employee coverage did not cover cosmetic surgery so a co-worker paid for it himself. This was an expression of freedom of choice – diverting personal resources for personal reasons. Obviously, this is a concept anathema to our current government. This attitude, with an underlying desire to establish “single-payer” for health care, will lead to further debacles as the populace increasing believes such a plan will cover “everything” medical. Most people, when they hear “single payer” expect that everything will be covered with minimal co-pay and deductible. They are wrong but admitting it is not conducive to political survival.
In response to:

December 7, 2014: Hillary’s Day of Infamy

Ed52 Wrote: Dec 09, 2014 11:03 AM
There is a historical basis for hope. We have long elected presidents based on a combination of (a) least worst and (b) don't vote for the person whose primary message is "It's my turn". Campaigns based on "Their guy is a lot worse than me" succeed when public perception is manipulated to make that appear true. Reason & logic is is often overwhelmed by reaction & feelings. Most candidates who have run on the premise “It's my turn!” have lost. Examples: Humphrey, Mondale, Gore, Dole, McCain.
Hey! You're using science in a logical and practical way. That is an inherently unfair method when refuting those who are politically correct and choose only to recognize broad concepts that support their delusional mental constructs.
Reality & Logic do not play a large part in new and enlightened programs designed by politicians notorious for meaning well and trying hard. By "design" I mean thrown together in a delusional haze of mass hallucination. Good intentions do not replace the practical real-world knowledge acquired by those who have had real jobs wherein actions and decisions determine fate and losses are for-real.
Your archaic outlook can probably be blamed on your parents they most likely thought parenting involved developing children into adults. Because of that you were brain-washed into believing that working is good, responsibilities are to be taken seriously, there are absolutes in this world, life should be lived on purpose and your success is dependent on your own actions. I hope I have cleared up some of your confusion.
Interpretation of the next politically correct ukase from the thought police: Since we no longer apply the racist(?) term "illegal" to "undocumented workers" (apparently even those who are unemployed are workers), we must henceforth twist language and logic so the acceptable label for those who were formerly referred to as "drug pushers" is now "unlicensed pharmacists". Obviously there were and are racist reasons they have not attended pharmacy school and it is recognized by every right-thinking person that it is society's fault they could not fulfill their dream through traditional pathways. Besides, they are performing a great service by (a) keeping large portions of the population dependent on big government and (b) creating a lot of jobs in the non-profit sector.
Previous 11 - 20 Next