The real difference between the left and the right

124»

Replies

  • You made a stupid statement, didn't like the retort, so now resort to a different question.

    Me: We could pretend that every employer in the country could get together and agree to pay next to nothing, but that wouldn't be the market either.

    You: This is what they are doing now. The minimum wage is the only thing preventing them from paying less.


    Clearly, this isn't what they are doing now.

    Now, you want to say that $15 an hour is "next to nothing?"
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,387 Senior Member
    No that is not what I want to say and the minimum wage is $7.25 not $15.00. But the classic Republican argument is that only the market should dictate a minimum wage and that the social safety net keeps people from taking low paying jobs. So if you guys had your way people would be forced to get paid next to nothing or starve and actually it would be both.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,387 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    yes. You keep asking me which liberals hold the positions of the charter members of the progressive movement.

    If no one holds those positions how is it the goals of the movement? You keep ignoring that one of the pillars of the progressive movement is TR who was quite clearly a capitalist.

    This is no different than arguing that the conservative movement opposes the abolition of slavery.

    BTW I don't believe I have to point this out but my comments about slavery in this thread are clearly hyperbole taking laissez faire capitalism to the extreme.

    So I guess if you are actually engaging in hyperbole and do not really believe that liberals want to destroy democracy, then I apologize for missing that point.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

  • So I guess if you are actually engaging in hyperbole and do not really believe that liberals want to destroy democracy, then I apologize for missing that point.

    There's no need to apologize. I can hang. But I never said that. I said the progressive movement--and I was never talking about modern liberals; you keep bringing them up--was openly hostile to constitutional government and indifferent to democracy. This is a matter of historical record.

    But since we're on the subject, let's talk about what modern liberalism represents. To me, it presents itself mostly as a cultural critique (trumpkins, yeehawdists, etc). John Stewart's entire project was dedicated to pointing out the stupidity at the center of the GOP and the conservative movement. But it is splitting a very fine hair to critique the GOP for stupidity without also taking the voters to task, who quite frankly hold positions that plenty of liberals believe to be awful or misguided. I see very little interest in labor or the inequality of wealth or Market excess on the part of modern liberals. I'll grant that you and Sanders seem to be the exception to that. Even Pio, who is a labor lawyer, expends a lot of energy talking about what idiots the Proles are. You and Bernie Sanders aren't the drivers of left-liberal opinion. That honor goes to Salon, the New Republic, the Nation, the NYT, the Atlantic, etc.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,387 Senior Member
    I would also like to note that I did not engage in this conversation until it diverted wildly from the original article. I actually found much to agree with in the The Week's article. I do think it is crazy for Bernie to be arguing for things he could never pass. It was not until you started once again accusing liberals of believing in **** we clearly have not believed in during the last half century that I became engaged.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,387 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    There's no need to apologize. I can hang. But I never said that. I said the progressive movement--and I was never talking about modern liberals; you keep bring them up--was openly hostile to constitutional government and indifferent to democracy. This is a matter of historical record.

    Your title was "The real difference between the left and the right" **** does that title have to do with what people believed in 1920? Hell even liberals in the 1920's believe in the superiority of the white race and sodomy laws. That has no impact on the reality in which we currently reside.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,387 Senior Member
    BTW the first article was difficult if not impossible for me to read as it kept referencing articles and sources I have never read.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,387 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    There's no need to apologize. I can hang. But I never said that. I said the progressive movement--and I was never talking about modern liberals; you keep bringing them up--was openly hostile to constitutional government and indifferent to democracy. This is a matter of historical record.

    But since we're on the subject, let's talk about what modern liberalism represents. To me, it presents itself mostly as a cultural critique (trumpkins, yeehawdists, etc). John Stewart's entire project was dedicated to pointing out the stupidity at the center of the GOP and the conservative movement. But it is splitting a very fine hair to critique the GOP for stupidity without also taking the voters to task, who quite frankly hold positions that plenty of liberals believe to be awful or misguided. I see very little interest in labor or the inequality of wealth or Market excess on the part of modern liberals. I'll grant that you and Sanders seem to be the exception to that. Even Pio, who is a labor lawyer, expends a lot of energy talking about what idiots the Proles are. You and Bernie Sanders aren't the drivers of left-liberal opinion. That honor goes to Salon, the New Republic, the Nation, the NYT, the Atlantic, etc.

    OK I get it now, you don't have a sense of humor. You are also confusing John Stewart as a leader of the liberal movement. He is no more a leader than Will Rogers was.

    So if Salon, the New Republic are the drivers of liberal opinion, then Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican party.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,387 Senior Member
    Someone bought me a subscription to the Nation and quite frankly I found their constant accusations against Clinton as a ultra-conservative so annoying I stopped reading it and threw most of them out unread.

    If you really want to know who my driver of opinion is, though I often disagree, read Rachel Maddow. She spends plenty of time talking about the interests of labor, the inequality of wealth and Market excess. She is also the first one to report about Flint. I would also think that many liberals would agree that she is a powerful voice in the progressive movement.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • No that is not what I want to say

    I can't be held responsible for what you want to say.

    So if you guys had your way people would be forced to get paid next to nothing or starve and actually it would be both.

    The Republican argument (or just about anybody that took Econ 1 except for Krugman who now repudiates his own book) is simple. Anybody who gets paid $7.25 per hour is worth $7.25 per hour. Removing the minimum wage wouldn't lower their income - because if they weren't worth $7.25 in the open market, they wouldn't be working now. The minimum wage however, does prevent an employer from hiring an additional employee that might only be worth $6.25. It is inefficient not to put that guy to work.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,387 Senior Member
    I guarantee you that the guy making $7.25 would be making $6.25 if that was the minimum wage.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • I guarantee you that the guy making $7.25 would be making $6.25 if that was the minimum wage.

    If you had him working for you at $6.25, but I can make good money paying him $7.25, why wouldn't I pay him $6.50 to come to work for me? And why wouldn't you pay him $6.75 to come back and work for you? And so on, until it was no longer economically sensible to pay him more?
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,387 Senior Member
    Why would you pay him $6.50 if you can pay him $6.25? Was he making $7.25 before the minimum was raised? Like you said 4% make the minimum regardless. If unemployment among minimum wage workers is high there is no incentive. You can always replace that employee at $6.25. The only way the market favors employees is if unemployment is at 0%. Funny how whenever we get below 5% somehow corporations always tank the economy.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • Why would you pay him $6.50 if you can pay him $6.25?

    Because you would pay him more.
    You can always replace that employee at $6.25.

    Why would I replace him? Why not just add the new employee at $6.25 if he's profitable at that level?
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,387 Senior Member
    Why would I pay him more? I can get someone just as skilled for $6.25.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,586 Senior Member
    Why would I pay him more? I can get someone just as skilled for $6.25.
    NOW you're getting it. :)
  • I would also like to note that I did not engage in this conversation until it diverted wildly from the original article. I actually found much to agree with in the The Week's article. I do think it is crazy for Bernie to be arguing for things he could never pass. It was not until you started once again accusing liberals of believing in **** we clearly have not believed in during the last half century that I became engaged.

    That's the thing though. This conversation HASN'T diverted wildly from the original article. The progressive movement, Bernie, Sanders, the efficacy of markets . . .these debates all take place in the context of the larger debate of whether human nature is a constant. If it is, then relying on economic theory makes sense. If it isn't, if human history really does progress with a capital P, then the progressive movement makes a certain amount of sense. This is why I stand by my assertion that all political debates proceed from this original premise and the assumptions that come with the premise.
  • OK I get it now, you don't have a sense of humor. You are also confusing John Stewart as a leader of the liberal movement. He is no more a leader than Will Rogers was.

    This might be true of people your age. I think plenty of the under 30 crowd relied on Stewart to work out the zeitgeist. And I have a great sense of humor.
    So if Salon, the New Republic are the drivers of liberal opinion, then Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican party.

    I didn't say leader. I said opinion driver. Certainly Rush Limbaugh drives conservative opinion.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,387 Senior Member
    How many young people first of all even vote? Most think that elections are just a big conspiracy theory. They may read Salon, but more Reddit than anything else and nobody except some liberal arts professors read The Nation.
    This is why I stand by my assertion that all political debates proceed from this original premise and the assumptions that come with the premise.

    And again I ask why bring up eugenics or the scopes trial, if no one subscribes to those opinions, how are they part of the debate?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

  • And again I ask why bring up eugenics or the scopes trial, if no one subscribes to those opinions, how are they part of the debate?

    They were part of the debate for a long time, and the underlying assumptions that brought them to the fore continue to animate debates to this day, especially on the left. The primacy of "science," the idea of progress, being on the right side of history, etc. Eugenics in particular is a self-evident program of social reform.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,387 Senior Member
    In what way does eugenics animate the debate coming from the left? Eugenics was at best pseudoscience.

    If anything it is people here from the right that continually suggest that poor blacks have a genetic predisposition to violence and laziness.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • If you're missing my point, you are doing so deliberately, because I think I've been fairly clear about it.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.