More socialism from a "conservative" President

[KP Ling]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Can you please tell me why you consider it "socialism" to support an increase in the federal minimum wage?

Are you somehow saying that we should not increase the minimum wage

Thank you,

Frank

It is socialist because it seeks to make the government the authority in a business matter. It is also trying to correct a problem initially caused by government. FDR instituted the minimum wage to keep out-of-work black men from underbidding out-of-work white men. Rampant racism 60-70 years ago meant that if employers had to pay a set minimum then they would rather give it to white men. Not saying this is right but it is the way it was. No, we should not create a minimum wage; doing so has proven that it will need to be raised every few years to catch up with inflation, a government created problem. If you believe in a minimum wage then why not raise it to $100 an hour and end poverty? I suspect that most know the answer; the minimum wage is nothing more than an artificial manipulation of wages that sets...let's say 1" now equals 5". It is still the same length but the way you record it has changed. So, after the initial flush of cash into the low-wage market the value of the dollar will fall since more have simply been printed and you will see, as has happened throughout the history of fiat currency, spending power will drop and more clamorings for minimum wage hikes. Going to fiat currency is what has caused the dollar to lose over 80% of its buying power. Fiat currency loses value every year and so countries with fiat currency clamor for minimum wages; this is wanting the government to solve a problem it created whose solution only perpetuates the problem more.

Also, one's wages are a matter of agreement between you and your employer, not the two of you and government. The raising of minimum wage is also touted as a way (though it fails) to keep people from poverty. That is not the government's job, except in a socialist state, but the job of the individual person. Minimum wages only add to inflation by requiring more fiat money to be circulated to cover the new flush of "wealth" that comes with raising the minimum wage. So, because printing up more worthless fiat notes causes inflation, the government assures that it will have to raise the minimum wage again and again.

It also means that with a higher minimum wage the government will have more tax income (probably the best reason why a statist would want a minimum wage) and with an artificially raised "floor" then the tax code's upper brackets will be extended to make those making above and significantly above minimum wage. So, people in the middle class will be taxed even more thus dragging them closer to poverty than they already are.

Finally, socialism is a philosophy which holds that the collective is more important than the individual. America was founded on the opposite ideas but has abandoned them. That is, America was founded on the idea that no one person is better or deserving than any other except by the virtue of their individual actions and that the government's role was to safeguard each person and their property from crime; nothing more. When the government tries to intervene in your, my or anyone else's life for the "common good" then that is socialism. If you do not like your wages, quit and find another job or else make yourself marketable enough to get those better jobs. Do not use the vote, or vote in leaders, who will outsource your theft from others to the government done in the name of the "common good."

Read this: http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist...to-Planks.html

America has already enacted between 6 and 8 planks of the communist manifesto. So, I would say we are closer today to communism (we are living socialism right now) than we are to freedom and the founding principles of our country. Some of the information about each individual plank is not up to date but I think you can find your own current examples, such as No. 1 is illustrated well by the recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo vs. New London, Connecticut (or it might be the other way around).

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by KP Ling

It is socialist because it seeks to make the government the authority in a business matter. It is also trying to correct a problem initially caused by government. FDR instituted the minimum wage to keep out-of-work black men from underbidding out-of-work white men. Rampant racism 60-70 years ago meant that if employers had to pay a set minimum then they would rather give it to white men. Not saying this is right but it is the way it was. No, we should not create a minimum wage; doing so has proven that it will need to be raised every few years to catch up with inflation, a government created problem. If you believe in a minimum wage then why not raise it to $100 an hour and end poverty? I suspect that most know the answer; the minimum wage is nothing more than an artificial manipulation of wages that sets...let's say 1" now equals 5". It is still the same length but the way you record it has changed. So, after the initial flush of cash into the low-wage market the value of the dollar will fall since more have simply been printed and you will see, as has happened throughout the history of fiat currency, spending power will drop and more clamorings for minimum wage hikes. Going to fiat currency is what has caused the dollar to lose over 80% of its buying power. Fiat currency loses value every year and so countries with fiat currency clamor for minimum wages; this is wanting the government to solve a problem it created whose solution only perpetuates the problem more.

Also, one's wages are a matter of agreement between you and your employer, not the two of you and government. The raising of minimum wage is also touted as a way (though it fails) to keep people from poverty. That is not the government's job, except in a socialist state, but the job of the individual person. Minimum wages only add to inflation by requiring more fiat money to be circulated to cover the new flush of "wealth" that comes with raising the minimum wage. So, because printing up more worthless fiat notes causes inflation, the government assures that it will have to raise the minimum wage again and again.

It also means that with a higher minimum wage the government will have more tax income (probably the best reason why a statist would want a minimum wage) and with an artificially raised "floor" then the tax code's upper brackets will be extended to make those making above and significantly above minimum wage. So, people in the middle class will be taxed even more thus dragging them closer to poverty than they already are.

Finally, socialism is a philosophy which holds that the collective is more important than the individual. America was founded on the opposite ideas but has abandoned them. That is, America was founded on the idea that no one person is better or deserving than any other except by the virtue of their individual actions and that the government's role was to safeguard each person and their property from crime; nothing more. When the government tries to intervene in your, my or anyone else's life for the "common good" then that is socialism. If you do not like your wages, quit and find another job or else make yourself marketable enough to get those better jobs. Do not use the vote, or vote in leaders, who will outsource your theft from others to the government done in the name of the "common good."

Read this: http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist...to-Planks.html

America has already enacted between 6 and 8 planks of the communist manifesto. So, I would say we are closer today to communism (we are living socialism right now) than we are to freedom and the founding principles of our country. Some of the information about each individual plank is not up to date but I think you can find your own current examples, such as No. 1 is illustrated well by the recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo vs. New London, Connecticut (or it might be the other way around).

I agree that America has been pushed to the left in recent history. This is the fault of democrats and republicans. I still think it is a stretch to call raising the minimum wage "socialism". You are right that we just can't raise it to end poverty. The democrats count on people believing that raising the minimum wage helps to end poverty, and they play on this misconception. This is why they constantly make it an issue in order to buy votes.

I would consider the issue of income redistribution to be somewhat socialist. I suppose you could argue that is what the minimum wage does.

I guess it depends on how the minimum wage is being used as to whether or not it can be called "socialism". If it is constantly being raised as a way to give workers a "raise" and to try to end poverty (like you mentioned) then that would probably be socialism. Right now, it appears that minimum wage increases are so infrequent and do not come close to what the average hourly wage is.

I believe there should be a minimum wage, but it should be set at a relatively low number as compared to the average hourly wage (like it currently is)--which is almost $17.00 per hour. The minimum wage exists so that workers don't get exploited, but it does not exist (and should not) to end poverty or to accomodate those who feel that all workers "deserve a raise". Since the average hourly wage in this country (NOT including supervisory roles, CEO's, CFO's, etc) is just a few cents short of $17.00/hr, you can tell that most people are receiving a fair wage--which further proves that the democrat sceme to campaign with a promise to give all hourly workers a "raise" is nothing more than an attempt to buy votes.

Now if our minimum wage was up around $17.00/hr and was constantly being raised in order to raise the average hourly wage and end poverty, then I would consider it socialism.

Oh and good post KPLing, btw.

Frank

[NewXD40fun]

The real reason the working poor stay working poor.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: A RICH AMERICAN'S GAME

by Froma Harrop

There's a popular game in America that goes, I'll cut your wages, but you don't cut mine. And the outsourcing of your factory job to China is a good thing, because it makes my paycheck go further at Wal-Mart. We hear this theme a lot in the debate over illegal immigration.

Consider the recent raids on Swift meat-processing plants. Federal agents arrested 1,187 illegal immigrants at facilities in six states. Mere hours later, economists warned that depriving the industry of illegal labor could raise hamburger prices.

Illegal immigration is usually presented as a win-win situation: Undocumented foreigners earn far more than they could back home. Consumers get a bargain.

Nowhere to be seen are America's working poor who get stomped on 13 different ways. They have to compete with illegal immigrants for jobs and housing. Low-skilled natives and legal immigrants also end up subsidizing the undocumented because they tend to live in the same communities, which must provide hospitals, police, schools and garbage pickup.

Who doesn't suffer from illegal immigration? For starters, the people who write about it. I speak of the journalism profession, which has the habit of covering the issue by anecdotes. Reporters thrive on sympathetic stories about illegal immigrants who work hard and go to church.

But, were a busload of illegals from Australia to turn up at their newspaper and offer reportage at 10 percent below the going rate, the writers would call the authorities so fast that your head would spin. And the publisher's argument that thanks to the cheap Australians, he's able to trim a few cents off the newsstand price would make no impression.

As it turns out, the meat-processing companies that employ so many illegal immigrants have been enjoying a nearly 50-percent discount on what was the going rate. In 1980, the average meat-processing job paid $19 an hour. The companies then moved their plants to rural areas, far from the Midwest cities and their unions. The industry's wages now average about $9 an hour.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce likes to wail about the "labor shortage." It says there aren't enough chambermaids, dishwashers, etc. to work for its members at lousy wages. Odd, but when there's a shortage of labor -- or anything else -- doesn't the price of it go up? The price of unskilled labor in the United States hasn't gone up. It's gone down. Because of immigration, American-born high-school dropouts experienced a 5-percent loss in wages during the '80s and '90s, according to a study by Harvard economist George Borjas.

For some reason, the job of keeping prices low has fallen entirely on the shoulders of the most vulnerable Americans. If we banged down CEO compensation and sliced lawyers' pay by a third, the same thing would happen. Everyone's prices would drop. The corporation could sell its products for less, and the cost of legal services would fall.

No vocation keeps a tighter lid on immigration than the medical profession. "If we let in 100,000 immigrant doctors," Richard Freeman, another Harvard economist, recently told a group of journalists, "everyone in this room would benefit." Except the American doctors.

Suggest a U.S. labor policy that depresses professional pay as a means of keeping prices in check, and you get laughed out of the room. But say that sitting on the wages of unskilled factory workers stems inflationary pressure -- a frequently made argument -- and the PhDs quietly nod in agreement.

And that's how the game is played. High pay for me. Low pay for you. The folks at the economic bottom are obviously not making the rules.

http://www.creators.com/opinion_show...olumnsName=fha



Funny how the Democrats and their sychophant labor unions will be pushing for 100% amnesty for illegals, and open borders for the hordes, so they can further compete with American citizens for jobs.


Tom

[jdavionic]

KP, I read the article on the link that you provided and I can see some merit to the socialist argument. But their conclusions are, in many cases, really stretching it. Point being, I don't think we're as close to socialism as they have concluded, BUT I do think there is a trend in that direction.

For example,
"3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Americans call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes."

Obviously we have an inheritance tax. But is it really an "abolition of all rights of inheritance"? I'd say - not yet. However, I do agree that paying any tax on an inheritance is wrong. And I do agree that this is just a part of bigger picture trend toward socialism.

[KP Ling]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

KP, I read the article on the link that you provided and I can see some merit to the socialist argument. But their conclusions are, in many cases, really stretching it. Point being, I don't think we're as close to socialism as they have concluded, BUT I do think there is a trend in that direction.

For example,
"3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Americans call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes."

Obviously we have an inheritance tax. But is it really an "abolition of all rights of inheritance"? I'd say - not yet. However, I do agree that paying any tax on an inheritance is wrong. And I do agree that this is just a part of bigger picture trend toward socialism.

The point being not that the government has completely abolished this or that right, but the fact that the government feels it has the power (well anyone or thing more well armed than anyone or anything else has the right just by sheer force) and can and does curtail and limit rights means that the ultimate logical step is abolition. I am not saying this is a deliberate course of action like, tomorrow if someone got up in Congress and said that all property rights shoudl be abolished they would be laughed down and then branded a commie. However, where is the line? History has shown that the government, once it takes an inch will continue to creep farther and farther towards Leviathan and away from simply a necessary evil. Once government says that it has the final say in your property, i.e. who pays death taxes and who doesn't as well as making you sell your property to a developer when you do not want to, it has established a precendent that will continue growing more anti-liberty and socialist until one day it does indeed own everything and you just rent it.

Rigths are absolutes. A right is something you have or do that does not consitute a claim on someone else and so, we do not have rights in this sense anymore because the government (really everyone else) has a claim on us in everything we do. Do I have the right to own property? No, because I can only own property so long as I pay taxes which means that everyone has a claim on me and I on everyone else as the law and its codification of rights are now perceived.

[NewXD40fun]

Originally Posted by KP Ling

The point being not that the government has completely abolished this or that right, but the fact that the government feels it has the power (well anyone or thing more well armed than anyone or anything else has the right just by sheer force) and can and does curtail and limit rights means that the ultimate logical step is abolition. I am not saying this is a deliberate course of action like, tomorrow if someone got up in Congress and said that all property rights shoudl be abolished they would be laughed down and then branded a commie. However, where is the line? History has shown that the government, once it takes an inch will continue to creep farther and farther towards Leviathan and away from simply a necessary evil. Once government says that it has the final say in your property, i.e. who pays death taxes and who doesn't as well as making you sell your property to a developer when you do not want to, it has established a precendent that will continue growing more anti-liberty and socialist until one day it does indeed own everything and you just rent it.

Rigths are absolutes. A right is something you have or do that does not consitute a claim on someone else and so, we do not have rights in this sense anymore because the government (really everyone else) has a claim on us in everything we do. Do I have the right to own property? No, because I can only own property so long as I pay taxes which means that everyone has a claim on me and I on everyone else as the law and its codification of rights are now perceived.

Damn KP, I understand your philosophy now...I'm a little slow.

EXCELLENT explanation of 'rights'. Thanks.


It appears we need another Ronald Reagan instead of those RINOs McCain and Giuliani.




Tom

[TxPete68]

Originally Posted by KP Ling

The point being not that the government has completely abolished this or that right, but the fact that the government feels it has the power (well anyone or thing more well armed than anyone or anything else has the right just by sheer force) and can and does curtail and limit rights means that the ultimate logical step is abolition. I am not saying this is a deliberate course of action like, tomorrow if someone got up in Congress and said that all property rights shoudl be abolished they would be laughed down and then branded a commie. However, where is the line? History has shown that the government, once it takes an inch will continue to creep farther and farther towards Leviathan and away from simply a necessary evil. Once government says that it has the final say in your property, i.e. who pays death taxes and who doesn't as well as making you sell your property to a developer when you do not want to, it has established a precendent that will continue growing more anti-liberty and socialist until one day it does indeed own everything and you just rent it.

Rigths are absolutes. A right is something you have or do that does not consitute a claim on someone else and so, we do not have rights in this sense anymore because the government (really everyone else) has a claim on us in everything we do. Do I have the right to own property? No, because I can only own property so long as I pay taxes which means that everyone has a claim on me and I on everyone else as the law and its codification of rights are now perceived.

Oi Vey!!!! As I read this, horror stories of Eminant Domain run through my mind. Especially with the Trans-Texas Corridor looming in here in the Lone Star State. The Gov'met's ability to say, "Yeah you little people can own some land..... until we decide we want to use it for something." is really worrisome. We just bought 5 acres outside of San Antonio and when I am building the fence, I am going to cut and weld "Molon Labe" on the gate.

[cjive134]

Originally Posted by beardman2

I have to agree with KP on this one to some extent. Our founding fathers didn't intend for crap like this.

I'd even go so far as to say the minimum wage is unconstitutional.

What would be the basis for the unconstitutionality of a minumum wage?

[cjive134]

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

The real reason the working poor stay working poor.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: A RICH AMERICAN'S GAME

by Froma Harrop

There's a popular game in America that goes, I'll cut your wages, but you don't cut mine. And the outsourcing of your factory job to China is a good thing, because it makes my paycheck go further at Wal-Mart. We hear this theme a lot in the debate over illegal immigration.

Consider the recent raids on Swift meat-processing plants. Federal agents arrested 1,187 illegal immigrants at facilities in six states. Mere hours later, economists warned that depriving the industry of illegal labor could raise hamburger prices.

Illegal immigration is usually presented as a win-win situation: Undocumented foreigners earn far more than they could back home. Consumers get a bargain.

Nowhere to be seen are America's working poor who get stomped on 13 different ways. They have to compete with illegal immigrants for jobs and housing. Low-skilled natives and legal immigrants also end up subsidizing the undocumented because they tend to live in the same communities, which must provide hospitals, police, schools and garbage pickup.

Who doesn't suffer from illegal immigration? For starters, the people who write about it. I speak of the journalism profession, which has the habit of covering the issue by anecdotes. Reporters thrive on sympathetic stories about illegal immigrants who work hard and go to church.

But, were a busload of illegals from Australia to turn up at their newspaper and offer reportage at 10 percent below the going rate, the writers would call the authorities so fast that your head would spin. And the publisher's argument that thanks to the cheap Australians, he's able to trim a few cents off the newsstand price would make no impression.

As it turns out, the meat-processing companies that employ so many illegal immigrants have been enjoying a nearly 50-percent discount on what was the going rate. In 1980, the average meat-processing job paid $19 an hour. The companies then moved their plants to rural areas, far from the Midwest cities and their unions. The industry's wages now average about $9 an hour.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce likes to wail about the "labor shortage." It says there aren't enough chambermaids, dishwashers, etc. to work for its members at lousy wages. Odd, but when there's a shortage of labor -- or anything else -- doesn't the price of it go up? The price of unskilled labor in the United States hasn't gone up. It's gone down. Because of immigration, American-born high-school dropouts experienced a 5-percent loss in wages during the '80s and '90s, according to a study by Harvard economist George Borjas.

For some reason, the job of keeping prices low has fallen entirely on the shoulders of the most vulnerable Americans. If we banged down CEO compensation and sliced lawyers' pay by a third, the same thing would happen. Everyone's prices would drop. The corporation could sell its products for less, and the cost of legal services would fall.

No vocation keeps a tighter lid on immigration than the medical profession. "If we let in 100,000 immigrant doctors," Richard Freeman, another Harvard economist, recently told a group of journalists, "everyone in this room would benefit." Except the American doctors.

Suggest a U.S. labor policy that depresses professional pay as a means of keeping prices in check, and you get laughed out of the room. But say that sitting on the wages of unskilled factory workers stems inflationary pressure -- a frequently made argument -- and the PhDs quietly nod in agreement.

And that's how the game is played. High pay for me. Low pay for you. The folks at the economic bottom are obviously not making the rules.

http://www.creators.com/opinion_show...olumnsName=fha



Funny how the Democrats and their sychophant labor unions will be pushing for 100% amnesty for illegals, and open borders for the hordes, so they can further compete with American citizens for jobs.


Tom

I agree 100% Tom. That feels so strange saying that.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by KP Ling

The point being not that the government has completely abolished this or that right, but the fact that the government feels it has the power (well anyone or thing more well armed than anyone or anything else has the right just by sheer force) and can and does curtail and limit rights means that the ultimate logical step is abolition. I am not saying this is a deliberate course of action like, tomorrow if someone got up in Congress and said that all property rights shoudl be abolished they would be laughed down and then branded a commie. However, where is the line? History has shown that the government, once it takes an inch will continue to creep farther and farther towards Leviathan and away from simply a necessary evil. Once government says that it has the final say in your property, i.e. who pays death taxes and who doesn't as well as making you sell your property to a developer when you do not want to, it has established a precendent that will continue growing more anti-liberty and socialist until one day it does indeed own everything and you just rent it.

Rigths are absolutes. A right is something you have or do that does not consitute a claim on someone else and so, we do not have rights in this sense anymore because the government (really everyone else) has a claim on us in everything we do. Do I have the right to own property? No, because I can only own property so long as I pay taxes which means that everyone has a claim on me and I on everyone else as the law and its codification of rights are now perceived.

Good post, KPLing. I think we can all agree (except for a few select individuals who post on this board) that government is involved WAY too much in our lives.

You are right, we've got to draw the line somewhere. Like Tom said, that last post helped to clear up how you feel about this. At first I thought you were trying to say that it was too late and that we were socialist already!

I'm glad you posted a warning of what is to come if we continue down the same path!

LOL @ cjive agreeing with Tom!

Frank