You Could Earn More If You Could Think Better

Flawed or outright stupid argumentation abounds online. I'm well aware "my" side perpetuates some nonsense and I'm willing to pick those instances apart. This is not one of those times. This is a time where we get to see a really, really stupid argument from the Left.

We can ignore that there's a missing "s" at the end of increase. Typing errors have nothing to do with whether an argument is a solid one or not, and Lord knows I make my own share of typing errors.

1) Let's agree for the sake of looking at this argument that "the minimum wage" hasn't been raised in years, and yet prices have continued to go up. That has nothing to do with whether or not raising the minimum wage would also increase prices. It's like asking "If shooting someone in the head kills them, how come people have been dying without being shot in the head?"

Nobody is saying that only raising the minimum wage increases prices. We are saying that raising the minimum wage is one of many things that increases prices.

2) The statement that "the minimum wage hasn't been increased in years" is misleading. There is a national minimum wage, yes. However, the minimum wage in states, counties, and cities, which is higher than the federal minimum wage in various places, has gone up.


3) Prices of some goods and services have risen due to other factors. Yes, there's supply and demand. Under that principle, most businesses will attempt to price their goods and services so as to take in the most revenue that the demand will support. However, their prices must be high enough to cover expenses, of which "wages" is just one, and also pay the owner*, otherwise they will go out of business due to not being able to pay their expenses, or they will leech off of taxpayer funding in the form of subsidies. Even if wages have not gone up, other forms of compensation (also an expense of the business) have increased, including sick pay, holiday pay, health insurance premiums, and so many more. Employee compensation, including wages, benefits, and more, is only part of the expenses a business has. It has many other employee-related expenses (training, travel, insurance), it has to pay for supplies and materials, buy/lease and maintain equipment, buy/lease and maintain space, pay for utilities (energy costs rise due to "green energy" mandates), pay for waste disposal (also rising in costs due to "green" mandates), pay taxes/fees/assessments, process much paperwork to comply with various laws, liability insurance (lawsuits!!!), on and on it goes. Many businesses have high expenses in research, development, and marketing.


And guess what? The costs of many of those things also goes up with minimum wage increases. It's not just the guy you see cutting the pizza at the take-out place. It's the people who delivered the supplies to that location and the people who picked the peppers. Other wages are pushed up as well, because if someone is making "a couple of bucks an hour more than minimum wage" he's not going to settle for now being at minimum wage as that has risen to where he is.

The effect of imposing a higher minimum wage from D.C. or your state capitol will not be limited to people working in certain jobs getting paid more. Businesses will react by raising prices, cutting employee hours, not filling vacated positions, and not expanding, or not expanding as much or as quickly. There are businesses that simply won't be started in the first place. A lot of these effects are not so easy to see but their impact is very real. If the cost of using a human is too high, machines may be used more instead of people.


Yes, raising the minimum wage increases prices.

There also is a moral principal at work here. Imagine you share a bite of something you baked with someone at work, and they like it so much they offer to pay you for you to bake for a party they have coming up. You agree to bake a certain amount and they agree to pay you a certain amount. Now imagine someone else who isn't involved in the party nor the baking steps in and says "No, that person has to pay you MORE." Why is it the intruder's responsibility to get involved? What would often happen in a scenario like that is the person interested in your baked goods would decide to call off the deal. Why is it a Senator's responsibility to interfere in compensation negotiation when one person agrees to work for another?



* Yes, owners need to get paid, too. Owners have put in their money, and often they also put in their time and expertise, taking risks and initiative. Some people apparently think owners will or should take all of the hit of the cost of higher wages, but that's not going to happen, and in most cases, it shouldn't.

Stop Demanding Big Brother Bully Your Boss

It is pathetic how people want the federal government to force itself further into everyone's life by interfering even more in the trading taking place between and employee and an employer.

We need smaller, more limited government, not to increase the powers and intrusion of the federal government.

If your employer isn't providing you what you want in your trading with them, one or more of the following is true:

1) You're a bad negotiator.

2) You haven't made yourself valuable enough to your employer.

3) Your demands are unreasonable or not feasible.

4) You chose a bad employer.

Stop demanding Big Brother bully your boss. Take responsibility for yourself.

Rights Are Not Hand-Outs, and Hand-Outs are Not Rights

Over and over again, we see politicians, academics, activists, pop artists, and media propagandists proclaiming that we have a "right" to things such as health care, education, retirement pay, mass transit, housing, a job with a "living" wage, food, abortion, and doctor-assisted suicide, all funded and/or arranged for by the government.

This is not how the people who created and adopted our Constitution saw rights.

They saw rights as something we naturally had, something coming from "nature's God", and that it was the government’s role to protect, not grant, rights.

Living as we do in a bountiful, wealthy society of hundreds of million of people, it is tempting to look around and think you deserve - and therefore have a right - to something you see around you and that you want. But again, that is not how the people who created and adopted our Constitution saw rights.

Take the right to free speech.

Your right to free speech does not mean anyone should be forced to listen to you.  They can walk way, and it wouldn't be a violation of your right to free speech. Nor does your right to free speech mean someone else has to provide you with their billboard, printer, telephone, satellite, high speed Internet line, cable, or broadcasting system for you to get your message out. You can pay them to provide those things.

You have a right to free speech because God gave you the means of communication – the physical abilities to communicate.  If you found yourself on an island where there was no government employees, no politicians, no telephone, no radio – you would still be able to talk with or sign to or write to anyone you encountered. You could believe and worship (freedom of religion) as you saw fit. You could use a rock or anything else you could get your hands on to defend yourself (right to bear arms).

You could take care of yourself, you could learn, you could store up for the future, you could build a cart or raft, you could build a hut, you could decide to make things or do things for other people in exchange for what they had to offer you, you could eat what you had access to, you could fling yourself against a boulder to kill the life within you, you could jump off of a cliff to kill yourself... HOWEVER, you could not FORCE someone else to perform surgery on you, or teach you something new, or take care of you just because you are old, or haul you around in their cart or raft, or build a hut for you, or to give you something to do and pay you whatever you want, or to go get food for you, or to perform an abortion on you, or to kill you gently – not without violating THEIR rights to choose what they want to do. You could make VOLUNTARY exchanges and arrangements with them, if they chose to be near you.  Maybe they would even CHOOSE to do some of those things for you for free.

The government is not "someone else".  It is us. It is funded by us. Now, we can collectively use force (via laws, backed up by the military, law enforcement, etc.) to FORCE a doctor to perform surgery on someone, and then pay them what we decide is fair or not pay them at all. That is possible. But that doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t make it a right.

If you look at what the founders of the U.S. put in place, you’ll find a system where our natural rights are recognized and protected, and where everything else is based on a voluntary exchange in which force need not be involved, except to expose and counter theft and other denials of natural rights - crimes which involve force or deception themselves. Health care provided by someone else is NOT a right. It is something provided on a voluntary basis by doctors, nurses, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, etc. who have put a lot of time, effort, and money into getting to the point where they can provide those services and products.

Everyone should be able to offer their services and their property to whomever they choose, for the compensation they choose. Sometimes that compensation will simply be a warm heart (that’s called charity). Whoever is offered those goods, services, and property should have the choice to refuse, or make a counter offer on the compensation, or to agree to it as-is. Likewise, if you are seeking goods, services, and property, you should be able to approach whomever you want and offer whatever you want as compensation, and go from there. That is liberty. That is freedom. That protects rights.

If you opened up a shoe store, you wouldn't want government force to be used to set your prices, determine what kinds of shoes you will sell, or to force you to sell shoes to someone, even if that person will immediately take that shoe and throw it at other people. People need shoes in the same way they need specialized health care. Why should the doctor, nurse, hospital administrator, insurance company worker, or pharmaceutical researchers be treated that way?

What most people mean when they call for "universal health care" is that they want someone wealthier than they are to be forced to provide something to them. There are wealthier people who call for such schemes, too, but almost invariably they do so because they think it will get them some personal advantage such as being able to use their connections in the government to be able to gain a monopoly or to skim money somewhere in the system. When a company that manufactures medical equipment endorses increased government involvement in medical care, you can be sure it is because they are confident that they can manipulate the system to their advantage. It is far easier to manipulate something when the power is centralized in Washington D.C. or Sacramento than when the power is with multiple organizations consisting of voluntary membership or spread among millions of families and individuals making their own choices.

Health care is not a right. It costs money, and while it certainly is a wonderful thing when a medical professional chooses to take care of someone who will not be able to provide material compensation, that professional should not be forced to work for free or less than his or her worth.

If you make voluntary plans and arrangements that provide you with what you need and want in the areas of health care, education, retirement income, transportation, housing, work/wages, and food, then good for you. Voluntary agreements (which don’t include any conspiracies to steal from, assault, or murder someone because they victim is not a volunteer) ARE something to which we have a right. Exercise those rights, instead of counting on "someone else" to take care you simply because you are alive.

Your Employer Owes You Only That To Which You've Agreed

No reasonable person with normal empathy wants someone who is simply minding their own business to needlessly suffer and die prematurely. Emotions well up when we're presented with hard cases.

"This big company that makes billions of dollars a year, pays its CEO tens of millions of dollars per year, yet has employees who are on public assistance. There was even an employee who was living in their car and died an early death in their car, undiscovered for days!"

No conservative or libertarian I know wants people to be on taxpayer assistance. Nobody with any empathy thinks someone should be living in their car and dying an early death.

In publicly traded corporations, CEO pay is up to the Board of Directors and the shareholders. While there have been companies that have tied CEO pay to the wages of employees, in general, there is no reason for most companies to do the same.

That a CEO is getting paid a high salary does not prevent you from being paid more.

It doesn't follow that the company must be doing something wrong if employees are getting taxpayer assistance or once of them is living in their car, or that some other employees have experienced homelessness or are having trouble paying their bills. Some people with very high salaries have trouble paying their bills.

March of the Communists and Criminals

May 1 comes around every year, of course. Communists march as though communism hasn't killed 100,000,000 people. Criminals march and demonstate and riot while simultaneously claiming to be living in the shadows. Those who want a communist country should move to Cuba. Our immigration policy should benefit us before the illegal alien.

Previously:

Don't Base Laws For All on Rare Hard Cases

They're Making Our Point For Us

Truly Comprehensive Immigraion Reform

Imaginary Rights

[This entry is a little dated now, but the principles behind it endure because the truth doesn't change.]

Leftists love to say something they want is a "right". They think merely stating that something is a right should end debate.

In recent years, we've heard a lot from Leftists and those they've bamboozled that homosexual couples have a "right to marry" and that "marriage equality" is a "right".

Discussions about these matters need to be clear about what is being addressed: Are we talking about the freedom to have a ceremony and share lives? Or are we talking about getting a state-issued "marriage" license?

I personally know homosexual couples who "married" years before any country or state starting calling such pairings "marriage". Were my homosexual friends lying about getting married? That seems to be the implication of marriage neutering advocates, including those in the MSM, who refer to laws including the bride+groom requirement as "bans on gay marriage". However, what neuterists are referring to is not a basic freedom of association, but getting a state-issued license, often in violation of the freedom of association and the right to vote. There is a right for two (or more) people of whatever sex to personally associate with each other as they wish. There is not a right to force the rest of us to license such relationships and call it marriage.

Where do marriage neutering advocates get this notion that state-licensed marriage ia a right? They usually cite Loving v. Virginia, but while that is an effective emotional manipulation, logically the connection doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The right to marry is not enumerated in the Constitution, but the Constitution exists to tell government what it CAN do, and not to list all of our rights. Oh, but look. Our founding documents and the discussion surrounding their adoption indicate that we have property rights, free enterprise rights, freedom of religion, the right to associate – or not – with whomever we want.  Those seem to me to be in conflict with the "right" to force other people who have voted to keep marriage licensing to instead neuter those licenses so that they are no longer marriage licenses but "any two people of age, not closely related and neither of whom is currently married to other" licenses. The people who wrote and adopted the Constitution and all of the Amendments did so with no thought whatsoever that a brideless or groomless pairing must be licensed by states. Also, it appears that individuals and their private businesses should not be forced to participate in ceremonies they do not support.

It brings me once again to the larger question of rights. What are rights and where do they come from?  Not all freedoms and entitlements are rights. Quite often, laws that some people think give them rights are actually infringing on the rights of others. A "right" to own a slave in America violated the rights of the person enslaved against their will. Our founders maintained that rights come from God (or Nature, for those of you who get queasy at the thought of God), not the government. The government exists to protect our existing rights, and should be limited to as not to infringe on our rights. That was the thinking.  It was the kind of thinking that looked as rights as something that never obligate others without their consent or without a crime being committed.  But these days, it seems like things become "rights" simply because someone wants them to be.

We have the right to free speech because we were born with the ability to communicate. We only have the right to marry in so far as we can find someone willing to be our spouse and something willing to perform the wedding.

Legislating For Feelings

In the ideals of American tradition, our laws have been meant to protect our God-given personal rights (such as freedom of speech and religion), protect property, and facilitate and protect honest trade. Where our laws erred is when they sought to infringe upon these things, such as with slavery.  Ideally, someone should be free to do with their property and run their business as they choose, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

In order to rectify past injustices, we implemented laws that prevented employers and landlords from discriminating against people on personal characteristics such as “race”.  But this idea has grown into a nefarious, Orwellian situation where we are now in the disturbing position of passing laws and, even worse - suffering court decisions overturning laws – in an attempt to protect feelings, to keep one person from offending another, to affirm choices in personal behavior that bring nothing productive to general society.

How did we let ourselves be ruled like there is a right not to be offended, or a right to public affirmation of personal choices that should not be society’s concern, especially when these things infringe upon clearly recognized rights to freedom of speech and religion?

I often hear that “freedom of religion doesn’t give you the excuse to perpetrate bigotry”. While some marriage neutering advocates would disagree, I don’t promote bigotry, either in law or personal interaction. However, I do believe that if a gay man wanted to open a business and staff it entirely with other gay men, he should be allowed to do so (without tax funding, of course). Protecting property rights does not mean supporting bigotry. Neither is noticing that there is a difference between the sexes and it is that difference that makes marriage marriage, and also behooves us to license marriage as a state.

When people exercise their rights, sometimes they will do things with which we disagree. Sometimes, someone will be offended, or their feelings will be hurt. That is the price of liberty. As long as someone isn’t harming the physical person of another, slandering or libeling them, or destroying or stealing their property or defrauding them, they should be allowed to do what they want with themselves and their property – including offend someone.

As far as bride+groom marriage licensing hurting the feelings of some gay people – that’s something they should learn to live with or get over. Licenses are issued by the people of a state, and are a privilege – not a right. Like all licenses, we issue marriage licenses for a specific reason, for a specific purpose, and that isn't because we think it is a great idea that this particular couple is planning a life together or that we can see they are in love. We don't issue driver's licenses based on how much we think the person will enjoy driving. A gay person can choose to obtain a marriage license the same way a straight person can. That most gay people do not want to enter in to traditional marriage does not morally obligate the state to change the licensing, despite what any court has ruled.

Finally, just because you have the freedom to do something doesn’t mean you have the right to do something. There can’t be a legitimate right to do what is wrong – only a freedom to do so. And if that wrong infringes on the rights of another, then the freedom to do it will either be curtailed or the action met with legal consequences.

Ideally, anyway.

Lester Doesn't Understand Money or Economics

Have you seen this making the social networking rounds?

"B. Lester" apparently has no clue about money or economics, or is deliberately playing on the envy of others.

There probably are people out there who literally hoard cash and keep in in their home, or wherever. Some of them are "black market" operators. (Some ignorant people think I'm talking about the slave trade.) However, these aren't the people who end up on the cover of Forbes.

The people who make the cover of Forbes as role models do not hoard cash. If they did, they wouldn't be such successful people. No, these people have built up wealth by helping to provide goods and services that people want. Even if they had stashed all of their money in a bank, they would still be helping others because the bank would be using that money.

Rich people have not impoverished this union. On the contrary, as they build wealth, they help others to build wealth as well. It is up to others, rich, middle-class, or poor, to decide whether or not they want to buy what the wealthy person is selling, or whether or not they want to work for the wealthy person, or invest in the wealthy person's business. That is all voluntary. The poor person's dollar is not taken away against his will. The exception is when a government goes beyond Constitutional mandate and spends taxpayer money on something it isn't supposed to. Even then, since the poor do not pay federal income taxes, the poor person's dollar is not taken away. On the contrary, the "poor" in this union are provided with housing, food, health care, education, military/fire/police protection, recreation, transportation, sanitation and so many other things, largely or entirely paid for by others.

Almost all of the people who circulate this picture would be considered as "hoarding cash" when compared to most of the world, yet they whine and moan about other people doing even better than they have. Being angry at others is a lot easier than working hard, making good choices, and being a success. The problem is, electing legislators who keep forcibly redistributing a wealthy person's earnings or keep borrowing to provide us with goodies is not sustainable. That is impoverishing this union. Free your mind from hate-filled Leftist dung and think, indeed.

What Are You Going to Do For Me, Bernie?

My dad came from very modest means. His father told him he was spending too much time on his studies and not enough helping with work, which mean working with his hands. My father was the first in his family to go to college, because some of his teachers strongly encouraged him to fill out scholarship paperwork. He graduated from a university and moved for work.

My mother came from a middle-class family. She went to a university, graduated, and went to work.

My parents met working (someone people should never do now thanks to sexual harassment issues). They dated and, before very long, they married - they didn't shack up for years and pop out children outside of wedlock. My mother had avoided getting pregnant before she married. My father had avoided impregnating before he married. But they wanted children and my mother was not going to abandon her children to daycare.

My father decided he needed to earn more money if he was going to support a wife and children, and that meant getting more education. He worked during the day and went to school at night. He completed his studies and changed careers, and subsequently worked his ass off, keeping his nose clean in the process as he climbed a career ladder. My parents started to have children and bought house that was a good place to raise a family, and they added on to the house as needed as the family grew.

We didn’t live a flashy life. My parents did not spend money frivolously. They emphasized good character and effective studying. We went to public schools. They avoided turning us in to entitled narcissists. We never were encouraged to have anger towards anyone who had more wealth than our family nor seek anything from the government.

I studied hard. I kept my nose clean. I avoided substance abuse and fornicating and putting myself at risk of deadly diseases or knocking a girl up. I was active in a sport, had hobbies, and got a job while still in high school.

Then I went to an affordable university. I never once walked out of class in protest, vandalized or trespassed or assaulted anyone while there, never shouted down any speakers, and I kept working at my job through my full-time studies. I graduated and immediately began working at my job full-time, but also took on some side jobs. After a few years of pounding the pavement, (because I knew I needed to make more money), I was hired in a career-potential job. I also kept my old job, working it part time, and still took on some side jobs. I was working my ass off. I was bringing in much more income than my living expenses, because I lived modestly, drove a used car, practiced good financial habits, avoided crime and substance abuse, and avoiding getting any women knocked up.

I invested my money.

Largely paying for the festivities myself, I married a woman with shared values and goals who’d also been financially responsible, avoided crime and substance abuse, and was never knocked up.  Despite significant challenges, she’d graduated from a university in four years and had gone to work full-time in skilled profession. Like me, she had avoided shacking up with anyone.

I dropped the part-time job and my wife reduced her work hours so we could actually BE married rather than living like mere roommates.

We lived modestly.

When we went ahead with our plans to start a family, as she had insisted and I agreed, she quit her job. We “splurged” on a new minivan by paying cash for it and selling off another vehicle. When market conditions were in our favor, we bought a house so our family would have a stable and otherwise suitable place to grow.

We continue to live modestly. Because we save and invest for our future, there are a many things we want to do NOW that we can’t. Our investments are entirely voluntary. We CHOOSE to invest in certain businesses. The people who work for those businesses ASKED for their jobs, and agreed to take them at the compensation that was offered. The people who buy the products and services of those businesses do so voluntarily. The only exception is when Big Government gets involved.

Now Senator Bernie Sanders, and other people who talk like him, want to punish me and my family. If not directly, they will punish me by attacking, plundering, and restricting the companies in which I invest, to buy votes from a lot of people who have lived beyond their means, who went to schools they couldn’t afford and, often, misbehaved while there, who have frittered away their money and health on substance abuse, who have stolen and assaulted, who’ve been popping out kids out of wedlock.

Why do you want to punish me, Bernie?

What are you going to do for ME Bernie?

Actually, you know what? I don’t want a President who does things for me, other than doing things for the Union of which I’m a citizen. I want a President who seeks to protect the Union from foreign enemies, who’ll prosecute interstate crime, who will veto legislation that does more harm than good, and who will make appointments/nominations of individuals who truly respect the Constitution. I don’t want a President to be my Daddy or Gandaddy or to promise me goodies.

The best thing a candidate for POTUS can say in response to “What are you going to do for me?” is “The same thing I’m going to do for everyone else; try to protect you from foreign enemies and limit government."

The President is not there to solve every problem. The federal government shouldn't even try to solves every problem. Some problems can't be solved. Some things some people call problems aren't problems at all, or are problems of their own making.

Stop looking for a politicians to clean up messes you've made. Stop trying to hire someone to be your bully to take from those who have produced. Make something of yourself.

News Flash! Rich People Know How to Make Money!

Capitalism is Unavoidable

Capitalism is a system in which people use the resources they have to create more resources. As long as the Sun is shining, this will continue to be possible. There is nothing wrong with this. It is a good thing.

The more freedom people have to make voluntary transactions, the more ambition, perseverance, innovation, thrift, and accomplishment will be rewarded.


Rich People Know How to Make Money, and That's Good

Free market capitalism often means that rich people continue to make more than poor people. What's the alternative, really? The alternative is that the rich people stop making money. That would be disastrous, including for the poor. Yes, if a person has one dollar and another has ten, the person with ten dollars is going to have eleven dollars and the other is going to have $1.10 if they both make a 10% return on their investment. What is the problem with that???

Of course the rich are getting richer. That is because, first of all, they are still doing the things that made them rich in the first place. If they got rich in high-paying jobs, and they are still in those jobs – SURPRISE! – they are still getting paid. Secondly, almost all of them invest their money in ways that will earn even more money. That is good, because it means they are investing in companies and ventures in ways that allow other people to earn a living and perhaps get rich, too, and it is paying off. Thirdly, they tend to have good financial habits, such as not spending more money than they make.

George Carlin, Economist?

I have no idea if George Carlin, who was often a very funny man, said this or not. It doesn't really matter. The Left circulates this, thinking it is oh-so-clever.

I am for limited, Constitutional government.  Most people would classify me as a conservative. I most certainly do not want to "give the rich more money." The rich earn their own money. What I am against is taking, by force, even more money from the rich to waste on ineffective, inefficient crap that isn't even Constitutional in the first place or out of some sense of envy.

Perhaps the quote is being circulated in reference to capital gains, which is where some rich people are making most of their money? In that case, we're talking about gains made on investments. That income isn't taxed at the same rate as wages or salary because: 1) most of the time, it was already taxed as wages or salary before it was invested in the first place; 2) it was taxed again already since corporations pay taxes; 3) we want to encourage investment; 4) when the tax rate on capital gains is raised, actual revenue collected decreases.

That is because yes, people lose their incentive to take the risk of investing in ways that will subject them to higher capital gains tax rates. Rich people have choices about what to do with their money.

Meanwhile, many poor people do lose their incentive to be productive and work to earn money if they're getting hand-outs. If someone can get food, housing, clothing, medical care, education, recreation, entertainment, transportation, fire protection, police protection, and so much more without ever working, many of people will choose not to work.

It is ridiculous to compare letting rich people keep they money they've earned (rather than taxing them even more) to increasing hand-outs to people who choose not to work or not to advance their place in life.

Also, in general, rich people and poor people do not handle money the same way, or react to money to the same way. That is why many of the rich are rich in the first place, and why many of the poor are poor in the first place. Not all, but for the most part.

If you were to take, at random, ten rich individuals and ten poor individuals and even out their net worth and liquid cash, not so long down the line from doing that, most of the formerly rich individuals would be much better off that most of the formerly poor. That is because the rich do the things they do, and the poor people do the things they do.

The Left is always looking for ways to take money from productive people who put money to good use and give it to strangers who piss it away.

Does the Christian Left Bear False Witness?

The Christian Left, eh?

Oh, yes, how could I have missed it all of these years?!?

The Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ According to St. Karl, Chapter 5 Verse 1:

And Jesus said, "Go convince the Romans to take a percentage, whether 15 or 35 percent, from the more wealthy half of the people, from the faithful and unfaithful alike, and have the Romans keep a portion for themselves, then have them distribute the rest to other people for their foor purchases, both those who honor their bodies and those who abuse their bodies alike, those who have saved and those who have not, those who have worked and those who have chosen not to." - (NLV - New Leftist Version)

Hey, doesn't the Bible say something about bearing false witness? Of course, that is assuming the "Christian Left" actually cares what the Bible says.

There are no children starving in the United States of America as a result of Congress refusing to raise taxes on "the rich", who are being taxed plenty.

The fact is, most of the "poor" children in this union are fat. Plenty are obese.

If there are any starving children here, it is entirely because their parents or guardians are neglectful. That is not the responsibility of Congress. We have various taxpayer programs already, including school meals (breakfast in addition to lunch) and many private charities that provide food.

It is not Congress' responsibility, either Constitutionally or morally, to make sure every kid is getting fed (and the kids are getting fed.)  But Jesus did tell His followers to care for the poor directly. He didn't tell them to go strip other people of their money.

The Christian Left is spending spending money on all sorts of things, like getting this image out, that they could be giving to starving children. I happen to know that the person who reposted this picture for me to see spends a lot of money on booze and entertainment. Every dollar they have spent on those things, and the computer, etc. they use could have gone to feeding a starving kid.

When "the rich" can invest and donate their money, rather than sending it down the federal government drain, they help more of the poor eat well, and rise up from being poor so that they, in turn, can help others.

Elizabeth Warren Can’t See the Forest Through the Trees Planted by Capitalists

Elizabeth Warren certainly is popular with my Leftist connections on Facebook. They proudly copy and pasted her comments:

I hear all this, you know, 'Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No.

Yes, it is class warfare to target the "rich" – by definition.

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own -- nobody.

Well, no, there isn't, because someone else has to buy the good and services provided by the rich. The fact is, nobody really does ANYTHING on their own, but we still need to have boundaries. There still needs to be some level of personal autonomy, private property and ownership, and personal responsibility. Should Warren be elected to Senate, she will not have done it on her own, yet she will not be forced to let more than a third of her votes be cast by someone else.

You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.

The rich paid for those roads, too. All of us - who buy gas, anyway - paid for those roads, all of us can use them. Even the people who don't buy gas.

You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.

Property owners, a group which definitely includes the rich, paid to educate them. But I'm for separation of state and school anyway.

You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for.

Again, the rich pay for them, too – more so than other people.

You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory -- and hire someone to protect against this -- because of the work the rest of us did.

Uh, is there a factory that doesn't have private security?

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless -- keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

And why does that have to be through the hands of D.C. politicians? Who is it that is funding charities, anyway?

No doubt unwittingly, Elizabeth Warren actually makes our point for us – that by letting free markets work, people who build wealth employ other people to mutual benefit. The wealthy got wealthy, in part, through providing jobs.

The people the wealthy hired were compensated as agreed. The customers who bought the goods or services provided by the wealthy were given that for which they paid. Now, people like Warren want to ignore the fact that the mutual, voluntary transactions were completed and use government force to make the wealthy pay more not only to those already compensated for their work, but to uninvolved people who refuse to work at all.

Are we to believe that someone who studied hard and stayed clean and involved through high school, college, and medical school to become a doctor and works long and odd hours saving lives and then practices good financial habits has less right to enjoy the fruits of her labors and risks than someone who goofed off, dropped out, abused substances, caused trouble, watches the clock at his entry-level job to make sure that he never appears to be working a minute more than 40 hours per week (minus breaks), and blows his money?

All of the things Warren lists have been available to all. It is the wealthy that used them in ways valued most by society.

You can find some good responses to Warren here, here, and here.

Epic Stupidity From Being Liberal

This is the kind of crap that "Being Liberal" (which is really Being Leftist) spreads on Facebook. And I have to ask... "Really?" If this was true, then you could spend your own money on your own health. You don't need to ship your money off to Washington, D.C., to someone who doesn't know you, to make your decisions and spend your money for you. You... can... do... it... yourself. Also, if you want to spend your money on someone else's health, you can still do that without involving the government.

No, what these people really want is to force people who have been high earners (and really, the high earners of the future) to pay for the health insurance of strangers today, including those who loaf around all day and abuse their bodies. Or worse, they want the strangers to spend the money on them. But "Hey, I want to be generous with someone else's money" or "I'm selfish, entitled brat" doesn't sound so good. So they spout this ridiculous statement.

Well guess what? Want to do that? Pass a Constitutional Amendment that makes it Constitutional.

Otherwise, see my national health care plan.

Substitute other things to see just how ridiculous Being Liberal is in spreading this crap. "Who asked for free dinner? I want MY gov't to spend MY taxes on MY food." Some Leftists are asking, "Yeah, what's your point?" Sad.

Letters to LAT

The letters printed in the Los Angeles Times can sometimes be insightful, sometimes an indicator of societal decay.

Rosemary Hagerott of Sierra Madre had a great letter:

I agree with your subheadline's characterization of what the president said in his State of the Union address: "Obama says all must pay 'fair share' of taxes."

I'd like him to start by collecting taxes from the nearly half of Americans who pay no federal income tax.

Right on!

And how about all those Americans who don't file tax reports? And how about all those who earn most of their money "under the table" and report very low income?

Such is a problem with income taxes.

Once he addresses this issue, I might listen to him about the "rich" paying their fair share. Right now, the "rich" are the only group of taxpayers paying their "fair share."

And when did it become anathema in this country to achieve the American dream by becoming rich?

When too many people decided it was better to slack off, make poor choices, and let Big Brother take care of them. And then link to blogs like this and complain about it rather than learning from the simple steps to avoid poverty.

Eugene Sison of San Dimas may have Bush Derangement Syndrome:

It has been said that men such as Obama must be "twice as good" as the George W. Bushes of the world to succeed at the same job.

Huh? It this a racial reference? If so, Obama only has to be 50% better.

So, as president, Obama listed his administration's accomplishments: preventing a second Great Depression while saving the auto industry, ending the Iraq war while getting Osama bin Laden, passing healthcare reform while reining in Wall Street. Two words came to mind: Mission accomplished.

Obama's stimulus effort made things worse.

He didn't save the auto industry - he bailed out American Big Labor.
Pulling troops out of Iraq was made possible by the decisions of the Bush administration in addition to all of the hard work of the military and contractors.
Yes, it is good that he kept up the pursuit of OBL, and didn't wimp out when it came time to kill OBL.

Healthcare reform? He inserted the federal government into private health insurance matters and is creating an new dependency program.

What exactly has he done to "Wall Street"? Wall Street PAID FOR OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN.

What a bunch of hooey.

In response to an item in the Business section, "How the wealthy get tax breaks," Business, Jan. 24, Anthony Maenza of Oceanside wrote:

If a criminal stole 35% of my money last week and 15% this week, would The Times write that the criminal's actions this week helped to increase my wealth? If not, then how does The Times justify writing that "wealthy people grow even wealthier with the help of the tax code"?

Because the article wasn't about subsidies given to the rich but instead about the wealthy keeping a larger share of their own money, one must conclude that The Times believes the money belongs to the government, which then favors the wealthy by letting them have a disproportionate amount of said government's money.

How about mentioning the earned income tax credit, which "refunds" unpaid taxes to the poor — taxes paid by others (likely the wealthy)? That would be honest journalism.

Perfect.

Al Barrett of Santa Monica is clueless, and so must be right at home in the People's Republic of Monica ("Santa" should be banned for being religious.):

Keeping Mit Romney's income tax rate no higher than 15% is necessary to help him create jobs, according to some economics experts.

Hey genius, that the personal tax rate on capital gains, which is investment income. The money used to invest has already been taxed, and the profits are taxed again before they are paid to Romney (and elderly widows), who then have to pay taxes on the money AGAIN.

It doesn't seem to be working.

Actually, Romney's efforts have created a heckuva lot of jobs. Jobs NOT dependent on taxes, unlike so many "green" jobs.

Apparently, high school economics courses need to be required and improved.

Taxing the Kardashians

Sounds like a Ryan Seacrest-backed reality show.

Yes, Kim Kardashian can pay more in taxes and still live a good life. And I'm assuming that she's being targeted because people make the assumption that she doesn't deserve all of the money she has. Her talent seems to be... keeping people interested enough in her for long enough for her to make money doing things like talking on taped, edited video.

But are most of "the rich" anything like Kim Kardashian? Most of them have put in long hours and extra days of hard work on a consistent basis for years and years. Most of them have undertaken significant risks - not for the sake of being risky, but on the chance that it would pay off by providing goods or services for which people would be willing to pay. Most of them have created great jobs, great investments, and/or useful goods or services for many people. Their hard work and creativity have paid off, and they are rich.

But since so many of the loudest people in Hollywood either directly call for higher taxes or verbally and financially support politicians who do, how about we put a surcharge on wedding sponsorships (like from Kardashian's "wedding"), and earnings from acting in, directing, or producing feature films and television shows? That would mean Kim Kardashian would pay more, right? I'm sure the unions, such as the Screen Actors Guild, would be ever so helpful in making this happen.

Adam Carolla Tells It Like It Is Re: Occupy

LA Times Attempts to Help the Occupy Whiners

It should come as no surprise that Big Labor is getting involved in the Whine and Do Nothing Productive Sessions... otherwise known as Occupy Wall Street or Occupy ____. Here's E. Scott Reckard's report in the Los Angeles Times.

Protesters spent their fourth night camping outside Los Angeles City Hall, disrupted a bankers conference at a Newport Beach yacht club and demonstrated outside a financial executive's Bel Air home.

And what does that accomplish? Imagine the howls and shrieks of "inciting violence" and "violation of privacy" if TEA Partiers showed up outside of someone’s house. Where's the New Tone of Civility?

Protests on the West Coast have drawn an assortment of activists, from college students

= grown people dependent on their parents and taxpayers

to anarchists

= potheads, essentially.

to ordinary Americans worried about the economy. They have no single organizer, and instead are made up of individual groups focused on what they see as the banking industry's role in the growing divide between America's rich and poor.

"The banks engineered the country's financial collapse and then profited from it," said Joe Briones, 29, a film major at L.A. City College who is helping to run the Occupy LA social media feed from the City Hall protests.

Let's assume the banks profited from it. If they did, it was only by the aid of a government that should have been more limited. There's the real problem – government needs to be limited and run per the instructions provided by the Constitution.

The bankers listened as protesters accused them of causing the economic meltdown by peddling bad loans,

Per federal government pressure. And what about the people who took out those loans?

accepting government bailouts and then doing little to compensate for the damage inflicted.

Evidence, please?

Robert Hawkes at 9:34 PM October 4, 2011:

"Corporate greed" brought us the light bulb, hybrid cars, the proliferation of the Internet, renewable energy sources, the decentralization of journalism as exemplified in this blog, and whatever device you're reading this on. American businesses are also the greatest benefactors to worldwide relief and other charitable organizations.

Of course, there have been abuses as well, such as the recent bailouts, and what is generally referred to as "corporate welfare."

Though I respect their right to peaceful protest, I find Occupy Wallstreet's blanket labeling of all corporations as "evil" and "greedy" to be disingenuous and misleading.

Thank you, Robert Hawkes.

Here's Michael Muskal's article.

Those who think that the ongoing Occupy Wall Street movement is just a traffic annoyance with nowhere to go should remember that the same was said at one time about protest movements around the world throughout history, including the tea party movement in the United States.

Yes, but these are just whiners. And with the SEUI providing the only semblance of organization, it just becomes another tool for protecting the entrenched government workers at the expense of others.

Here's Kate Linthicum's article about City of Los Angeles councilmembers going to get face time after their meeting.

Before leaving Tuesday, Garcetti told the protesters: "Stay as long as you need, we're here to support you." A spokeswoman for Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said he plans to visit the encampment Wednesday.

He may be looking for a date.

maineman1 at 7:18 AM October 5, 2011:

Our "free market system" is bankrupt.

Our redistributionist government schemes are bankrupt.

We need to address the predatory capitalism that preys on the middle class and the poor.

What does that mean? Don't like what a company does? Don't buy their products or services, don't invest in them, and don't work for them.

Financial reform is vital to combat the effects of consolidation, conglomeration, "too big to fail," unfair labor practices and environmental predators.

So you are against efficiency and cooperation? Which unfair labor practices are you talking about – the ones where union members agree to compensation, and then claim they need more, taken by force through the government? What environmental predators?

US banks, investment firms, hedge funds and others must be regulated and conform to new US standards and ethics of market behavior.

They are regulated, and some of that regulation has done a lot to make the mess.

Income and profits above certain thresholds would be taxed heavily.

Why? Who decides what the right amount is?

Banks should act less like a casino; taking in the money from the rubes, and placing bets on bets.

So, do you protest casinos? The lottery?

They have taken federal money generated by US taxpayers and have invested in schemes that have stolen billions from those same taxpayers.

How did they get "federal money"? Through Big Government.

Here's the paper's editorial, pretending this is just like the TEA Party, only with ideology the Left supports.

We too find it hard to get especially worked up over a series of small demonstrations in a handful of cities, including Los Angeles, involving mostly disaffected people who have trouble expressing what it is they're against. But isn't that how the "tea party" started out?

No, it isn't. The TEA Party started to say we've been Taxed Enough Already and that the federal government shouldn't be throwing around money we don't have.

The political left has been searching for the last couple of years to find an answer to the tea party.

Impossible, because they support enlarging and centralizing government.

Limiting government and being productive citizens is the way to go. Nobody owes you a job with all of the benefits and pay level you want. What are you doing for your neighbor? What good or service are you providing in enough abundance to meet the needs of others in exchange for them providing goods and services that meet your needs?

Occupy Reality For a Change

I went to the website of the Los Angeles faction of these “stuck in 1968” wanna-be Occupy Wall Street protesters, and there wasn’t even a clear, prominent statement of what it is they want. Here's a Los Angeles Times article from a few days ago by Tina Susman, much of it about how they are unorganized and haven’t listed clear demands.

How about some specific demands, a long-term strategy, maybe even … office space?

So far the group, which generally defines itself as anti-greed, has none of those.

So, it's really a bunch of whiny crybabies and potheads who, surprise, have a tough time dealing with reality, isn't it?

The protest, which evolved from a network of individuals and groups galvanized by the demonstrations in Egypt last winter, has moved far beyond what it was on Sept. 17, when police barricaded the streets outside the Stock Exchange to prevent a march there to protest corporate greed.

The Egyptians were not protesting corporate greed. These people have a life so good and they don't even know it.

Harried commuters seem to barely notice the mishmash of humanity a few feet away as they rush down the sidewalks skirting the park.

Those are the people who are being productive.

Protest numbers vary as people drift in and out of the park. Some live in the area and come by for a few hours each day or week. Others stay there around the clock, their sleeping bags, guitars and clothing bundles spread on the ground. On Wednesday, they included a sleepy-eyed young man in a rumpled T-shirt cuddling a pet rat, and a woman who pranced about in her underwear.

Not enough circuses.

There are committees, including one for finance, food and comfort, which ensures that anyone who needs blankets, dry clothing or perhaps a hug gets it.

Did they make the clothing and blankets themselves? Or did someone get paid to make them? If someone got paid to make them, do these protesters realize the irony?

There are twice-daily meetings called general assemblies, where anyone can make a brief announcement. The assemblies draw everyone together in a tight huddle. To avoid violating a ban on bullhorns, the crowd obediently repeats in unison every phrase uttered by the main speaker, to ensure everyone hears.

Yes... to ensure that everyone... hears.

On its website, Occupy Wall Street describes itself as a "leaderless resistance movement" drawn from people of all backgrounds and political persuasions.

Resistance to what?

"The one thing we all have in common is that we are the 99 percent that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1 percent," the website says.

What does that mean? Examples???

Signs cited in the story include:

"End financial aid to Israel"

Fine by me, as long as all taxpayer financial aid to foreign countries is ended. In fact, I don't want the federal government giving anyone money unless they are performing a Constitutionally assigned task.

"End greed, end poverty, end war"

You can't end greed. You can’t even do it if you fascists get in control. Poverty is best alleviated through free markets. Want to end war? Go to the terrorists and tell them.

"No death penalty"

I agree on the condition that people first stop murdering.

"Tired of racism."

So am I. Should the NAACP be disbanded? Let's end race-based preferences and race-segregated dorms in higher education.

Don't like the way a corporation is run? You are free to not work for it, free not to invest in it, and free not to buy its goods or services. Don't like corporate influence in politics? Keeping government at a Constitutionally-instructed scope would mean corporations would not be able to get taxpayer funds unduly nor stifle competition. The more we cede power to government and centralize that power in D.C., the easier it is for the wealthy to manipulate the system to their advantage.