In a matter of weeks, many of you will be handed a college degree. On this day of anointment, no doubt many of you will reject the traditional career paths that white collars have been traditionally groomed for. Many of you, sensing the futility of acquiring a decent job in today’s gloomy market, will opt instead to devote yourself to altruistic, humanitarian causes.
For those of your bent, there is a burgeoning source of jobs (or callings) in the nonprofit arena. With such a job, you may not enjoy a hefty salary, but you will assuredly be able to bask in the social status that these positions seem to automatically earn. Or, if you’re like the president’s wife, you might possibly be able to enjoy both the sainthood from working for a nonprofit and the extravagant salary of a Wall Street tycoon.
But whatever you end up doing, I must submit a note of caution to the next generation of do-gooders. The first point that must be soberly attended to is one which is often overlooked. You see, many people assume that by becoming a do-gooder, they naturally and inevitably become agents of good.
This is hopelessly mistaken. It is important to remember that the road to hell is most often paved by those with good intentions. Nowadays, it is distressingly difficult to find a true black hearted villain. Yet still the world is without respite in turmoil and agony over the trouble that people cause one another.
Evil abounds, but self-admitted evil-doers do not. How is this? We must come to grips with the fact that a great deal of evil is perpetrated not by the evil-doer or even the disinterested, but by those with the purest of intentions and the noblest of motives. For even these can use the wrong means to achieve their objectives.
This observation may offend sensibilities, but it is difficult to deny the evidence. After all, consider all the evils which humans have committed against one another — crimes of murder, rapine, fraud, etc. Even a limited accounting of all the atrocities committed by man against man will quickly illuminate the statistical impossibility that villains are always to blame. There simply aren’t enough scoundrels to accomplish the job.
The second point which cannot be hardly overemphasized is that the vocation of humanitarian is not for everyone. In fact, it is probably best reserved for only a very few.
Over the course of history, society has generally suffered only a minority of the population to act as professional humanitarians. After all, the career humanitarian is a unique breed. The humanitarian seeks alms for the poor and must, in turn, seek alms for himself to continue his alms-seeking vocation. And from whom does the humanitarian seek alms?
From those with the means to give alms, naturally. This is a neglected portion of society, I’m afraid. Of course, there are those of enormous means who make sensational headlines with their giving, but I don’t speak of those. I refer to the bedrock of society, the backbone of industry, the ordinary people of means who, prompted by religious or moral convictions, give humble amounts out of our marginal surplus.
It’s ordinary people like this who are the unsung heroes of every despairing and humbled person. For it is vital to recognize that the humanitarian is necessarily limited and defined in his efforts to promote good by those who are able to give. A world inhabited only by humanitarians of the usual variety would quickly whither from lack of production.
Those who enable the generous habits of humanitarians are part of productive society, and their roles is at least as important, if not essentially much more so, than the humanitarian’s. They go to work and make money; their earnings are not considered donations but payment for productive, meaningful labor; they are, in a word, capitalists. They are society’s true humanitarians.
Jeremy Hicks is a 2008 political science graduate, the founder of the Cal Poly Libertarian Club and a Mustang Daily political columnist.
Jeremy, I’ve hated your column for two years and yet I think I’m going to miss it. Wish the Daily had more columnists who knew how to work the analogy.
Matty
One fallacy is being made in this article.The non sequiturs
fallacy because people are not going to be handed a diploma and end up rejecting the traditional career path that white collars have been traditionally groomed for. People go college to get a degree to make money at the end of the day. The conclusion does not fallow the premise. People do not generally go to school to become a humanitarian.
I will not miss the absurd generalities of Jeremy’s column which should have been more appropriately called: "Jeremy’s Petard". Turn the fan on when you leave Jeremy will ya?
Origin of petard:
1590–1600; < MF, equiv. to pet(er) to break wind (deriv. of pet < L pēditum a breaking wind, orig. neut. of ptp. of pēdere to break wind) + -ard -ard
Jeremy-
I havent read you much this year but I like what you have to say. Its similar to the old saying, “give a man a fish….teach him to fish…” Creating a business is providing sustainable humanitarian good to your employees in a sense. Whereas just giving away resources ie food and money, is not sustainable although is a more realistic way to contribute to humanitarian causes for most. Nice article.
Jason-
When I was about three and someone said something I didn’t agree with, I would retort with snotty comebacks and name calling without ever addressing the issues of disagreement…..you remind of that three year old.
L
Jer-
Nice article as usual.
Jeremy,
I’m going to miss your articles. They are a hilarious and tragic look into the life of someone who is incredibly sheltered, and as someone in another letter wrote they smack of “white priviledge.”
You’re quite adept at taking pages out of the Big Book of Libertarianism, conflating them with your own distorted version of reality, and coming up with fantasy scenarios like the one you’ve painted in this article. There are many, many of ways for people to be humanitarians without, as you’ve somehow managed to delude yourself into thinking they do, begging from those with money to support their efforts. Again, this probably stems from your lack of exposure to humanitarianism, poverty, and people outside your social class.
Joe
Umm Joe, I dont think you read the article or comprehended what it was saying. How can humanitarians give aid or money to those in need unless, A) They raise the money through capitalistic means (selling a product, offering a service, or working for the money) or B) getting it from those who do the first for them. There is no possible way for them to do their great works without getting the money and materials from those who produce them and give of them willingly. Again, your views probably stem from lack of logical thinking.
Will,
Lack of logical thinking is exposed through simple/incomplete analysis of systems.
Read my post below.
Joe-
The point Jeremy was making was that capitalists are humanitarians in the sense that they provide unending rewards to their employees by establishing a business and making a product/service people want.
He wasn’t begrudging charitable gifts or organizations, he was promoting capitalists in a different light than the "greedy" and "evil" white old men that the media and unions characterize them as.
If you knew anything about libertarians you would know they respect, admire, and would much rather live in a world abundant in charities than abundant in government.
Take a chill pill.
Jeremy,
When is the last time that you volunteered your time to a “not-so-true” humanitarian cause?
It is true that money comes from capitalists (where else would it come from?). I hope that you understand that people that give money away to “humanitarian” organizations are people that have enough money to not worry about the next day’s meal. Some of these people have been caught up in a system that leaves them with no option but to submit themselves in a world of work where they are not truly happy, doing something that might affect somebody else negatively, yet they are making bank which fulfills their tummies and those of their children. These people resort to agencies performing “humanitarian” work to fill like they are giving back to the community/world and thus feel happy about themselves. Most of them do not follow up on those organizations or do not to the required research to see what is the exact help that will be provided with their money. They just click away the donation and boom, relieve.
However, these people, your true humanitarians, need a bridge. Alas, your not-so-true humanitarians. Without them, if you planted cash the trees would not bear fruits. However, sometimes just good intentions do not do the trick and can lead to negative consequences (ie: alienation).
Here is a rough idea of my description of TRUE humanitarians. The true humanitarians are those global citizens who are capable of understand others’ problems and working with them in order to find a solution, a balance, alternative ways to improve their lives, redefine “progress” and “development” depending on the area, etc, etc.
If these humanitarians are trying to fix other problems using capitalistic ways, then money will be needed, however if you are approaching to solve something in a sustainable manner—long-term planning, with the resources available around the area, and in harmony with the earth—then many things could be achieved without resourcing to using the precious capitalistic money. Yes, the TRUE humanitarians would go for the second option.
On the other hand, in the case of the US, you could potentially start something like a for-profit/non-profit organization. The for-profit side would be in charge in working with those who have enough money to pay for services (i.e. energy audits for energy conservation) and this would raise money for the non-profit side to work towards bettering the lives of those without the means (i.e. free workshops for low-income and minorities on how to perform these audits).
Every region of the world needs to be addressed differently. This is why you need the right people with the right ideas to work along those who are suffering due to a natural catastrophe, civil war fueled by puppet governments, pollution, desertification, etc, to provide local and sustainable solutions.
I hope you get the picture, capitalists are not TRUE humanitarians. TRUE humanitarians are those who give their time to listen and work with other in order to preserve others’ cultures, they help bring clean water, affordable food, and shelter to that area.
Yes that is true, in order to do those things they need resources and materials (although probably substantially less) They need money for air fares to send advisers that can help the people, they need electricity to send the emails calling people to action to help these people, and so on. Maybe calling the capitalists the true humanitarians is a bit of a stretch but you have to admit that those who donate the capital made through the system have a damn big part in making these great people able to help.
Totally true, however, how much better would the world be if none of our jobs had bad consequences, yes very idealistic, so let’s bring it down a notch. What if most of the jobs out there caused more true good (happiness as a mean to increase social interactions to start caring for each other rather than materialistic goods) than bad (pollution, excessive spending, gluttony, greed, envy, etc)?
If this were the case, then people around the US and around the world would be less dependent on such things as foreign aid and “humanitarian” organizations.
What needs to happen is a modification of the capitalist system to include the human and environmental factor into their businesses. This way some businesses would start acting as humanitarian organizations providing solutions for problems as well as sustaining their own work through business.
Now, this could be added to my earlier definition of the TRUE humanitarian [in a capitalist society].
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions then the grease on that road is the benevolence of LIbertarians for the working man.
Jeremy’s world shows the necessity for unions lol. In China and India their capitalism includes sweat shops and child labor but their intentions are good! The commies sit back and count their dollars and muse capitalism is good. And Jeremy said amen brother!
Hell is where the party’s at Jason.
Beautiful thought Jorge. But can never happen because greed can not be eradicated by good deeds or force.
But it can and will be by higher taxes and a cradle-to-grave nanny state that creates fewer incentives for people to innovate and work in order to make a buck.
If you get what you want and greed is eradicated, then who will farm the crops? Farmers only farm to make a buck and ranchers only herd cattle to get paid.
Aren’t you earning a college education to obtain a better job and be rewarded accordingly? If so, you are greedy! But don’t hate yourself just yet, your education will lead to a more productive society (in one fashion or another) which will raise the standard of living for everyone…so you’re kind of a hero for investing in yourself and being self-interested. THANK YOU!
The Constitution of the United States gives the congress authority to raise taxes as it sees fit. If the people don\’t like it they vote their congressmen out of office. Conservative capitalists were literally thrown out of power in 06 and 08 and the job will be finished in 2010. Stab the supply siders in the eye with Unions America! Spread the wealth around! Long may the Democratic Party rule! Public healthcare in June! Rosie Scenerio? If the Democratic Party doesn’t get a spine yes.
There is a reason libertarianism isn’t considered a sustainable ideology in this country. I’m just surprised the Mustang Daily would allow such hatred for altruism. I appreciate your sensibility Jorge.
Since when is the belief in freedom considered hatred?
I find it ironic that someone who is most likely pro-choice when it comes to the murdering of children would be anti-choice when it comes to how people spend their own earnings.
If you beleive in universal healthcare and other government ran entities then feel free to contribute at your own discretion…you don’t need to mandate that everyone else contribute to what will undoubtedly be another government catastrophe ie amtrak, the post office, medicare, social security.
Jason-
You fit the character of wesley mouch exactly as described in the book Atlas Shrugged. I know you dont have an open mind so you would never be open to the idea of reading the entire book but I encourage you to at least google his character and read the description.
Oh and yes by all means cheer on those great unions, the sames ones that bankrupted GM, Chrysler, the state of CA and many more to come….yes they are the saviors of this country, not those greedy producers that provide them with jobs.
“If you get what you want and greed is eradicated, then who will farm the crops?”
IF greed was eradicated, as you said, the farmers/ranchers would be doing it for alternative reasons than greed (being that it was eradicated). What exactly is your argument here..?
Kay-
I apologize in advance for what I imagine will be a lengthy response…history has shown that the masses of people do not work efficiently for very long or at all for that matter when they are not allowed to serve their own self interests. Countries like the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, East Germany, etc demonstrated that a system which strips away all incentives to work will fail. People are greedy, they want things and are willing to work to obtain certain possessions and when they are barred from obtaining those things they will not work. I’m uncertain what angle you’re asking the question from, but I challenge you to find any society that is 1st world and also not greedy.
Jason believes that greed is an evil that needs to be ended by any means necessary, but he fails to see the unintended consequences of what would happen if people stopped being greedy. The farmers would not farm more than enough to feed themselves if they would not be compensated for it. Would you work an assembly line and build cars if you were not compensated? Of course not, no one would, and that is the problem. No one would produce anything more than they needed b/c they would have no incentive.
I do not look at greed as being evil (although in some cases it clearly is ie Enron, Madoff) but greed is really what drives the economy and makes things work.
I imagine that someday you want to afford a nicer house than what you currently live in (that is a form of greed) so you will work to obtain money to buy that house. Your work will provide a service or a product for someone that they otherwise would not have had had you not been greedy. And thats the beauty of capitalism, unless you provide a meaningful product or service, you can’t get what you want; so because you want something you will provide the work necessary….this is what Jason can’t see.
What do you think?
Bastiat-
The problem here lies with the definition of greed. Jason, I feel seems to be assuming the greed is the desire for massive amounts of money, and the drive to do anything to get it, which I believe is a bad thing. Many people see capitalism as the driving force to this particular type of greed, and unfortunately I feel that the driving force of America is the pursuit of money. However, I think greed comes in many forms, the desire for a nice home, good social status, nice “stuff”, etc. This kind of “greed” isn’t bad since it allows for the support of healthy family conditions (for those so inclined). What would happen if the emphasis in the business world is not just a linear pursuit of money, but instead (something Bastiat eluded to later) a cradle-to-cradle scenario where financial success is a side-effect of such incentives like health care packages, paid-vacations, and a pursuit of something that won’t make the most money but the most difference for the future (like sustainable technology, break-through medicines, etc.)
Ceranna-
I hear what you’re saying and you’re on the right track but your logic is a bit upside-down from being correct.
Let me ask you this:
Pretend you are the CEO of a pharma company and your objective is like all CEOs, to maximize the longterm profitability of the firm. Do you think the best way to do this is to produce poor quality drugs that don’t help many people? or Produce high quality drugs that provide the most benefit to the most people? Obviously the answer is #2. So the CEO in her pursuit to make a lot of money will try to produce the best possible drugs with the biggest breakthrough potential and will concentrate R&D in those areas. You want to help the most people b/c the more people that your drug benefits, the more people that will buy your drug and thus increase your profits.
The above scenario is true for alternative energy. Every alternative energy CEO is trying to make the most efficient system possible to gain the most customers and thereby maximize profits.
To take this a bit further, you as a CEO would want the best people working for your company right? So in order to attract the best talent you would offer higher salaries and better health benefits than your competitors to make sure that your competitors don’t get the best talent.
So when you say that you think financial success should be a side-effect of doing good things, its actually good things like innovations, standard of living, etc that are side-effects of capitalism (hence Jeremy’s article) which are cause by the desire to be financially successful.
And in case I wasn’t able to clearly articulate these thoughts, just look at the standard of living for the US (arguably the most capitalist/greedy society in the world) and compare it to other countries. Even the poorest of the poor here are better off than the vast majority everywhere else which is a direct effect of our capitalist structure.
Bastiat-
Actually that was pretty much exactly what I was trying to communicate, except on one point. The problem that I see with saying capitalists are the true humanitarians is that financial success and good side-effects don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand. Look back in history at the Industrial Revolution; yes, many benefits like modern standards of living were a direct cause of it, but there was also horrendous situations also like pollution. Not to long ago a vaccine was developed in a pharmaceutical company called Chiron that was able to prevent the spreading of HIV. The catch? It was only effective in young girls. The company, deciding that this wasn’t a large enough market for profitability, stopped further research into this vaccine. This is a problem that I see with most large corporations, particularly in America, the emphasis on profits that are "green" only. Perhaps the next big transformation of society would be for companies willing to see more ‘Cradle-to-Cradle’ production, better work environment, etc as incentives in and of themselves.
Atlas Shrugged. The conservatives bible. A godless piece of idol worship. Bastiat you constantly amaze me at how wrong you can be so many times on so many subjects. How Ironic that the character Rand left out of the book so represents the Republican Party lol. Father Amadeus, a character devoted to good which meant by extension he knew what was good. She dropped him she said, "because it was impossible to make such a character convincing."
America dropped the Republican Party like a Ayn Rand rag doll down the bottomless pit of hell it was born out of.
Atlas Shrugged wasn’t supposed to represent any party, it was written to illustrate what happens to a society when government bureaucrats run industries by choosing the winners and losers and writing ill-conceived pieces of legislation; it was written to illustrate that when government removes individual property rights, innovation dies and the economy along with it. Instead of representing the Republican party it more closely resembles what is occurring in the present day…but regardless, you do admit that you are much like the character wesley mouch right?
And which subjects were I so wrong about? You still never answered why you’re attempting to earn a college degree?
Ah Bastiat the Republicans one sided view on society is so absurdly inane, so devoid of reason and so full of idol worship that to give it respect is to diminish common decency. How hapless the common man would be if the Republican logic ruled the day! The Republican ideology really has no place in a civil society but is a perverse abberation, a diversion, an obfuscation, a religion of demons. Thankfully America bitchslapped the stupid conservative ideology into the minorty so soundly that the only thing that could change the landscape back to the wretched condition it was pre 06 and 08 would be the desire of the Republican Party that America suffer another 9/11 so they could blame Democrats and retake the reigns of power. May that day never happen again for the sake of the children.
Jason-
Two Points:
#1 Once again you failed to address any issue being raised during our discussion. You, once again, ramble about how distraught the GOP is as if I (being a libertarian or a strict constructionist) would actually care.
#2 You write as if the current state of Democrat ideology in practice is beyond reproach. When you examine how well a cradle to grave mentality and entitlements for everyone has worked in CA, NY and IL, you will find that contrary to your ignorance, states which pride themselves on liberal philosophies are all on the verge of economic collapse.
Now its your turn. If you wish to carry on this discussion please address the issues I raised as I have addressed yours. Also, a reply to the reason behind your pursuance of a college degree would be appreciated in order to highlight the abundance of greed even in your life.
Bastiat, You are Mr. Collins in Pride and Predjudice and the rich are YOUR Lady Catherine de Bourgh. You constantly prattle on about the generosity of the rich to the poor as Mr Collins prattled on to EVERYONE about Lady Catherine de Bourgh’s generosity in condescending to those below her station. To discuss anything with you Bastiat is to insult those whose labor built America. So long live Unions! May the Democratic Party be the majority for 40 years and Public Healthcare in June!! And most importantly because there always be a Republican lurking in the shadows somewhere in America greed can never be eradicated but the heavy hand of regulation must be its master so nothing like the 8 years of Bush ever happens again! And may that laughingstock Republican Bob Barr be the LIbertarian presidential candidate every future election as long as he can draw God’s air.
Seig Heil Jason… May the democrats have a 40 year Reich… because that is exactly how you sound in that post…
Jason-
You failed to address anything in my post but, once again, continued to ramble on about the GOP so I’m this conversation can no longer continue because you have not contributed anything to it.
But I will leave you with two more points:
#1 Unions are largely responsible for the fall of GM, Chrysler, and the financial viability of state and local governments.
#2 Your precious liberal ideology was crushed in the European elections that just took place yesterday.
Republicans need to be put in re-education camps kind of like what they used to do to children trapped in cults ruled by those who taught them, “you gonna believe me or your lying eyes?” Educating that wicked habit of re-writting history to conform to their twisted Republican ideology. And Bastiat I rightly mock and rightly ridicule Republicans and you are offended…interesting…William one of the signs of a Republican is they have no sense of humor or their humor is really really warped…interesting…anyway, long live Unions! May the Democratic Party be the majority for 40 years and Public Healthcare in June!! And most importantly regulation of the financial industry like never before to undo the horrendous damage done by wicked supply side conservatives!
Hey Jason I have to agree w/ Bastiat (obviously not his/her real name) when he mentions that you really never refute anything he says.
I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on why states like CA, NY, and IL are in such serious financial trouble despite being arguably the most liberal states in the union esp considering their legislatures and governors (sorry but Arny is far from a fiscal conservative) are dominated by dems?
And you never mention why unions are so great. They do have a poor track record Gm, Chrysler, the Public Unions, for being responsible for those entities downfalls….what are your thoughts?
E
Eric,
Although your attempt to corner Jason into answering any direct questions is appreciated, he will not play a long.
People like Jason spew ignorance and close-minded rants without ever logically or quantitatively supporting their claims.
Unions brought major companies and States to their knees and have contributed to their own demise through unreasonable compensation demands which has led to companies outsourcing work instead of paying above-market wages for below-market quality.
Don’t waste your time with him as I have.
PS Bastiat is the name of a French Revolutionist that wrote many works including (my favorite) The Law. Good reading if you have a chance.
You see Eric I was waiting for the real Bastiat to stand up and as one can see from his last post the hateful one revealed his ugly head. I hate the Republican/conservative/LIbertarian ideology but as far as Bastiat individually I don’t hate like Bastiat and his ilk. And considering Republicans/conservative/LIbertarians on this right wing Mustang Daily site have used my name before to post hate as if I was saying it I can no longer take them seriously. So I mock the Republican/conservative/LIbertarian ideology and they take it personal but thats not my problem lol! As far as your post Eric, considering you repeated the idiotic rational of Bastiat regarding Unions being the sole cause of the decline of different car makers how does one start responding to the stupitity of that statement?! All Bastiat is doing is repeating Republican talking points regarding Unions out of one side of his mouth while denying he is a Republican out of the other side lol. The broader question is why do Republicans/conservative/LIbertarians hate the middle class that Unions helped to create and working Americans so much? Evidence? Just look how absurd the statement is by Bastiat Eric that states governed by liberals are the only states having problems and that Unions are the sole cause of the decline of certain automobiles! The stupidity of those two statements are of such astounding scope they have to be mocked! And will continue to be mocked if one with an ideology as absurd as Jeremy’s LIbertarian takes his place.
Jason-
I’m surprised you still havent answered the questions?
By not even addressing point-blank questions your position looks very weak and/or inexplicable otherwise you would’ve answered in a timely manner.
Now that we’ve managed to bring unions into the discussion, I suppose its relevant to mention that the SEIU (home healthcare workers) are demonstrating in front of Assemblyman Blakeslee’s office, and presumably other state lawmakers. For those of you not aware, this union successfully lobbied the federal government to withhold federal stimulus funds earmarked for California until their recent pay cut is rescinded.
You’d think holding us hostage would be sufficient, but they have the gall to turn around and plead to Joe taxpayer as if they are helpless. I saw no sign indicating they were associated with SEIU, but I think we can safely assume this is the case. Clearly only a greedy corporatist would decry modern unions as detrimental to society.
Correction: The Obama administration backed off of threats to withhold the stimulus funding on the 20th of May.
Gosh Eric you can’t read? No wait don’t tell me, you only read Republican?
Jason-
Gosh apparently I can’t or maybe its because you never really answer anything.
Lets try to make it easier. CA is by far in the biggest mess of all the states yet they are the most liberal, with the highest taxes in the union. Please defend why (when following a liberal ideology) CA is in the mess it is.
Second, Toyota and Honda are non-unionized and have produced higher quality products than GM or Chrysler and did not require a bailout to survive. If unions are so essential, then why are the unionized car companies struggling so much more than the non-unionized ones?
Well Eric unless you live in a cave you know that California is not ruled by liberals but by a minority Republican party who has absolute control over what bills get passed or not. It takes a majority in California and unfortunately California is not a Democratic majority state. You do understand that don’t you? That the reason budgets aren’t passed in California is because the Republicans can refuse to make a majority and if any Republican joins with the Democratic Party to pass a budget the Republicans will punish them severely? Do you understand that Eric? It happened recently. Were you paying attention to that or listening to Savage instead?
And the last time I looked at the car companies it was not the Unions that determined what kind of cars were made by the big three. Foreign car companies have been making more fuel effecient cars for a long time. The likes of GM and Chrysler were making low mileage tanks and now America is paying for their lack of vision. Read up on Cheney and Bush who mocked those who called for higher CAFE standards in the early 2000’s. Those who called for the auto makers to have vision were ridiculed by Republicans and today we are paying for it dearly. But you go ahead and live in your Republican nightmare dream and watch America go the way of all empires who thought they were infallible. THE UNIONS CREATED THE MIDDLE CLASS IN AMERICA THAT THE REPUBLICANS HAVE COMMITTED THEMSELVES TO DESTROY IT!. REPUBLICANS ARE THE NERO OF OUR DAY WATCHING ROME BURN. Poor poor Republican Eric, a member of the party of doom.
Jason-
Wow so much anger for someone that is SO open minded.
Facts are facts Jason. CA is the highest taxed state in the union (when income and sales taxes are both considered) yet we have the most debt. If the Dems had their way they would increase the taxes even more to solve the problem instead of reducing spending to pace inflation and population growth.
You are right though on GM and Chrysler, management didn’t go in the direction of Toyota and Honda with the production of smaller fuel efficient cars. But even if they had, their costs would still have been $2000 greater per car sold on average than Toyota or Honda b/c of the UAW’s above-market pension plans. That is a cost structure that cant compete so they should have gone bankrupt along time ago.
How do you reconcile Obama giving upwards of $50 billion of taxpayer money to a corporation only valued at a fraction of that? That is pure fascism when business and government collude.
And in response to your cafe standard comment, Honda and Toyota bet that people would want fuel efficient cars more than huge SUVs and Trucks without government telling them what to do. They bet right and yet the government subsidizes the worst automaker in our country bc they were incapable of making the right bet on their own.
Also, Unions make up a staggering (sarcasm) 12% of the U.S. workforce and havent seen their numbers grow in a twenty-five years. Yet over that time the standard of living has increased dramatically. Unions are pricing themselves out of jobs which is why they are irrelevant in today’s culture – oh expect when they contribute to a President’s campaign and he rewards them with taxpayer money. Unions can’t build the middle-class without a job so maybe you should be thanking the people that can still afford to pay them above-market wages.
E
Just out of curiosity is this Jason Lindo?
For ever dollar each state pays the federal gov’t this is the amount they get back. Look down the list to California Eric, for every dollar we gave Bush and Cheney we only got .77 cents back. Now lets look at the Republican states who hate liberals: Lets tell Idaho to give us a dime of every dollar of our welfare payment to them to us. Wyoming give us a dime of every dollar of our welfare paid to you. Mississippi, Georgia, ALASKA, you folk can give us .25 cents of every dollar of our welfare BACK! It won’t take long Eric for California to be healthy again if we stop giving welfare to Republicans.
New Mexico $2.03
Mississippi $2.02
Alaska $1.84
Louisiana $1.78
West Virginia $1.76
North Dakota $1.68
Alabama $1.66
South Dakota $1.53
Kentucky $1.51
Virginia $1.51
Montana $1.47
Hawaii $1.44
Maine $1.41
Arkansas $1.41
Oklahoma $1.36
South Carolina $1.35
Missouri $1.32
Maryland $1.30
Tennessee $1.27
Idaho $1.21
Arizona $1.19
Kansas $1.12
Wyoming $1.11
Iowa $1.10
Nebraska $1.10
Vermont $1.08
North Carolina $1.08
Pennsylvania $1.07
Utah $1.07 29
Indiana $1.05
Ohio $1.05
Georgia $1.01
Rhode Island $1.00
Florida $0.97
Texas $0.94
Oregon $0.93
Michigan $0.92
Washington $0.88
Wisconsin $0.86
Massachusetts $0.82
Colorado $0.81
New York $0.79
California $0.78
Delaware $0.77
Illinois $0.75
Minnesota $0.72
New Hampshire $0.71
Connecticut $0.69
Nevada $0.65
New Jersey $0.61
Jason Lindo,
Haha I am not Bastiat but I do know you personally and I must say that you come off as much more intelligent in person than you do on here.
The stats you listed are true but don’t explain why CA is in the mess it is or any of the other blue states. Those states don’t give more by choice, the Fed Gov taxes the highest earners more. So in rural farm lands where the wages are lower than in the financial district of SF, the Fed gov won’t take as much. Yet those states still get highways built, funding for schools etc.
So even if the fed didnt collect a penny, CA would still have the highest tax rates and still be in the biggest debt. Its not like the money that went to the Fed Gov would all of the sudden go to the state gov.CA does their own finances and prepares their own budget.
Also Jason, a square is a square and a rectangle but a rectangle is only a rectangle no matter how much you try to change the vernacular (big word – go look it up) of this country, a rectangle will always be different than a square.
btw Eric are you Bastiat?
As usual you continue to be wrong on everything Eric LOL. I am not Lindo (so you can stop kissing yourself in the mirror). But you say and respond exactly like Bastiat and Fred and whoever that unethical boy or girl was who used my name on another column. But I have one number for your benifit Eric, 50 billion. Thats the estimated amount the state of California paid to George W Bush/Dick the torturers Cheney in 2002 as we have every year of his pathetic presidency! Eric this is easy math for you, would just one years 50 BILLION dollars get California out of economic trouble. I’m asking you to be honest Eric ok? How about 400 BILLION Eric, if we demanded the Republican states poney up our tax dollars paid to them during the Bush/Cheney fiasco? What would that do for California’s economic health? But you go ahead and believe your poopoo Eric LOL. Eric, it would be nice if you thought for yourself instead of just repeating Republican talking points in all your posts. Thats all you’ve done here. Name one thing Republicans have done in the last 20 years that has been successful? Iraq, failure. Afganistan, failure. Bush tax cuts, failure! If Clintons tax increases on the wealthy would have been left in place America would have breezed through the Bush/Cheney caused economic crisis we’re in now! The Republicans blew through 10 PLUS TRILLION dollars ERIC in the 6 years they controlled the House, Senate and Presidency and SC in the 2000s! But your Republican montra blah blah blah blah blah ect…
May I speak for Jason Lindo and say LOL!
Mr. Lindo-
You caught me, I am Fred, Bastiat, Liam, Mike, william, kay jorge, conner and yea I was even “jason” that one time. Sometimes I even make someone up to argue with them in an effort to throw you off.
Look just b/c more than one person disagrees with you doesn’t mean they all must be the same person. Many of your points are easily refutable and I imagine liberals would take offense at some of your tirades.
I don’t know where you pulled the $50 billion number from but just calm down for two moments and think logically. States create their own budgets complete with spending plans and taxes to pay for it. States do this completely aside from what the Fed gov does so a state’s incapability of balancing their own budget is completely separate from any money that taxpayers within a state are taxed by the federal gov. Does this make sense?
In other words, if CA taxpayers had not given one penny to the fed gov in the last eight years, CA would currently still be in debt $15+ billion dollars b/c it is the state that spent more money than it took in. Your argument doesn’t hold water. Sorry
You’ve been shown the facts above Eric. Because you cannot understand facts is not my issue to deal with but yours. The absurdity of your assumptions have been disputed powerfully with a simple list of Republican states who are mooching off Democratic states and you have the audacity to say the Democratic ones can not deal responsibly with their budgets burdened as it were by Republican greed? The hypocricy of the Republican mind is ASTOUNDING!!!!!
I do not dispute that CA receives less federal aid from the Fed Gov than it’s taxpayers send to the Fed Gov.
A state’s tax contributions to the federal government however, has absolutely nothing to do with a state’s budget shortfalls. When budgeting for the fiscal year a state does not bother to calculate how much it’s citizens will pay in Federal taxes, a state is only concerned w/ state taxes and state spending.
You have been shown logic and truth. Because you cannot understand facts is not my issue to deal with but yours. I never provided you with assumptions and therefore you cannot dispute what has not been stated, "powerfully" or otherwise.
Given that CA’s state budget has NOTHING to do with the federal tax dollars, I will ask one more time. Why is it that a state that embodies every liberal ideology in the book and is controlled by a strong majority of liberals in both houses, that has the highest tax rate in the nation, is in such disarray?
Eric are you embarrassed or what!? Republican states get welfare payments from Democratic states and Republican states STILL cannot balance THEIR budgets! You should be concerned with cleaning your own house before you stick your nose in anothers. That simple truth is taught to children at a young age but Republicans ignore it to the American peoples peril. Even today.
Federal dollars has nothing to do with state budgets. Good try at making a coherent statement though.
Please notice you have yet to address the question of CA.
I am not surprised you can’t see the connection Eric, considering who you are listening to. You can’t see the connectin because you have been listening to those living off gov’t welfare way too long! Republicans need cult like deprograming to be able to think for themselves lol!
I can’t see the connection b/c none exists.
A state’s budget is completely separate from the amount of taxes it’s citizens pay to the federal government. What don’t you understand about that?
You are unable to extract anything of meaning from obvious facts! It suits you Eric.
You are living up to the Republican mentality, just an average thinker. Are you a freshman Eric. Hopefully. Then maybe I can educate you. If not, well, I won’t give up on you, if you want to learn.
And as far as your Limbaugh/Hannity/Savage learned twisted thinking brought on by years of Republican welfare I’m sure if the Red Republican states with lower tax rates had to do without California’s 50 BILLION a year welfare check to them their hypocritical sanctimonious rhetoric might quiet enough that you and they be barely tolerable in conversation. Are you from Mississippi Eric? Haley Barbour the welfare whore of America! The darling of the Republican asperations for 2012. They get $2.00 back for every dollar they send to Uncle Sam LOL! Alabama? They get a buck 66 back for every dollar they pay. If those states had to balance their budgets on the back of their citizens WITHOUT gov’t tax dollar welfare you’d be a little more humble in your opinion of the great state of California Eric. Wait, no maybe you wouldn’t. You are a Republican. Anti American Bush, Cheney, Palin loving Republican.
LONG LIVE UNIONS! LONG LIVE THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY! HIGHER TAXES ON THE WEALTHY! MAY THE REPUBLICAN BE IN THE MINORITY FOR 8 DECADES THIS GO AROUND!! And if they do return may Bob Barr’s clone be their leader lol.
I am really disappointed of level of this internet page. I have never read so poor articles, total not recommended!