The View From 1776

Science vs Religion, Part 2

From an intellectual viewpoint, there is no inherent conflict between religion and science.  Trouble comes from the efforts of atheistic materialists to hijack science.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/29 at 05:59 PM
  1. The term 'religion' includes all the man-made religions and cults of the world. Such religions maintain false and delimited premises of Reality. A static and non-progressive experience is thereby foisted on the people of these domains. Consider Hindi 'principles' and the dormant-bound people of India over thousands of years. English rule brought with it Christianity, individual value, and finally, a growing social/political freedom.

    Only the Judeo-Christian message was initiated by the Creator, and includes an accurate and growth-oriented definition of man, society, economics, government, - and science.

    Man-made religion, including humanism, is a major part of the problems of the human family. Consider the insanity of a moon-god or a politician-god, a mother-in-law-god, a judge-god, a Darwin-god or...

    "Religion?" No thanks.

    The Creator? The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Amen! Joel 3:14 kjv

    semper fidelis
    Posted by Choicemaker  on  09/01  at  09:59 AM
  2. "The true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being.

    His duration reaches from eternity to eternity.

    His presence from infinity to infinity.

    He governs all things."

    Sir Isaac Newton

    + + +
    Posted by Choicemaker  on  09/01  at  10:09 AM
  3. I don't see how science can be hijacked by anyone. Science does its thing and goes on about its business. It is a free agent. If it is hijacked now and then it manages to set itself free to continue to reveal and prove really. For instance, the theory of evolution is still standing no matter how hard one side has tried to bring it down. Intelligent people see its truths and don't need Biblical theme parks to explain the world.

    Nothing, lately, has been said about the New Deal. It hasn't been dragged through the gutter by The View lately. I am reminded of this because of Labor Day. ( Didn't the hijacking of science by someone bring about the New Deal.) If it wasn't for Labor Day being acknowledged first I don't think there would have been a New Deal, because both are about human justice and a fare deal. I would think that in the view of this blog Labor day has been as menacing to the conservative movement as the New Deal.

    Congress passed legislation in 1894 making Labor Day an official holiday. I can imagine the "capitalists, cringing over that legislation, which curtailed some of their exploitive practices. The New Deal reinforce many of the principles that were tacitly endorsed by that legislation. I would go as far as to suggest that the recognition of Labor Day as a recognition of works and the common people also heralded another liberating enterprise, women's suffrage, another disastrous turning point for traditionalists and conservatives.

    Labor Day probably brought the first scourge of "socialism" to America's shores, a scourge that is so detested here.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/02  at  01:43 PM
  4. since socialism creates so much poverty in the world and has driven so many good paying jobs away to nations like Vietnam, China, Korea, Ireland, new Europe, etc that were all firmly intrenched in socailism and now are using capitalism, why are you so keen on socialism. It causes way more human misery than it cures. Is capitalism "fair?" No, just more fair than socialism because it gives people who are better educated, more willing to risk their labor and capital, more willing to borrow to start a business, more willing to put in 80 hr. weeks to get a business going, more willing to network and work with others to advance, the incentives they need.

    By the way, speaking of capitalism in old socialist strongholds like China, they not only stress education and personal responsibility for old age pensions and healthcare with personal accounts but are providing the more rural areas with "cities" and opportunities for jobs never seen before they started switching to capitalism.
    quote:
    "Every government wants to do big things, and they want them done fast, while they're still in office," says Eva Wang, who runs EWS, a Shanghai-based architecture firm. "They all want to get credit for creating something really astounding."

    Few urban projects, however, are as ambitious as the one being planned here in Harbin, a city of nine million. In early 2004, Harbin officials won approval to build a new city center called Songbei - a 285-square-mile area that will be packed with residential high rises, office towers, luxury villas, five-star hotels, shopping and entertainment complexes, trade zones and industrial parks. Songbei is roughly the size of New York City.

    "This is the most important thing that has happened to Harbin in a long time," says Wang Renping, who runs an online real estate company here. "Ten years ago, that was all empty land."
    ==========================
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/25/business/25cities.
    html?ex=1290574800&en=65e77e0cd58cedb4&ei=5090&partner;
    =rssuserland&emc=rss
    Sorry the link was too long, copy and paste it together again for the site.

    The city of Harbin is indicitive of their intent to improve the standard of living. Rather than try to work to improve the collapsing buildings and infrastructure of the old city which would be a never ending drain like many of our older large cities, they built a new one from scratch. They will add 40 nuclear power plants to supply electricity to the new cities they are building around China, they are running new rail and pipelines to the more rural areas. Unlike Vietnam, who capitalism is confined, China is expanding theirs.

    Other than the goals of socialism which they fail to achieve and their "good intentions" what do you like about socialism since it causes a country to decline and become uncompetitive when it has to face a nation like China, India, Ireland, New Zealand, etc. How is declining buying power as we have because of our hidden taxes and compliance costs in prices helping workers who are in the 50% tax bracket even if they don't pay income tax as has been shown here on this site before?

    (cont)
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  09/02  at  08:37 PM
  5. Minimum wages? What good are they if after six months or a year they have less buying power, not more than they had before and fewer jobs for the unskilled. Why is it that U.S. companies that go overseas and make profits don't seem to have a problem raising wages to keep a work force when the competition is also bidding on that labor with higher wages? Supply and demand in labor is just as effective as supply and demand in commodities.

    Yet, we see both parties trying to bring in another 100 million or more immigrants to save social security and Medicare and keep the workers to retirees at 3 to 1 since 77 million will retire and now are expected to live to 92 for those 65 and retired already and 100 for those close to retirement. That 35 years they will draw on the "socialism driven program" will mean a lot of trouble unless you have a way to solve the $84 trillion unfunded liability projected for those 77 million retirees.

    Social Security as designed and signed into law by FDR was not socialism. It would have been funded by each worker for himself and not current retirees. During the 40 years of Democratically controlled Congress, we morphed it into a socialist program that has required 22 tax increase as retirees live longer and now we need to "fix" it again and it still won't be "fixed" because we aren't doing what the nations we have to compete with are doing.

    Are there bad people who are capitalists? Of course, just as their are lots of bad people who promote socialism. But, adopting socialism because there are some rotten people who are capitalists is like "cutting off your nose to spite your face." Socialism doesn't work and can't work because of the very basic principle that man (in general) needs incentives to put out 100% for his society. The more you try to help the people (again in general) the more they expect government to do for them. The more they get, the more they say they need more.

    Create programs so the "unskilled" have more jobs without a good education and you see more dropouts, more people using those programs as an excuse not to go to trade schools, get more education or stop using welfare programs. Is it fair? No!

    The world isn't fair and no government can make it fair but certainly not the federal government. "Fair Government" has to come from state and local levels and even then, the most it can make life fair for, is the majority. That principle and the freedom to move to where the "government" is treating you the "fairest" made this country great. In fact, many new settlements sprung up in new places because a group of people didn't think life was fair where they were living and so they started their own community with their own laws, constituion and government

    Socialism doesn't support that system. Socialism want the control in a centralized governement. That means inefficiency, ineffective policies, and costs that exceed all expectations over time. It is like the $5 trillon spent on poverty that didn't reduce poverty. It is like the "war on drugs" that didn't reduce drug smuggling or sales.

    On that last, I do have expertise. I worked as a police officer in a drug ridden community. In three and a half years our crime rate dropped 75% because I arrested the "locals" who were buying and selling drugs and thus, the "imports" dried up because the "customers" dried up. Was it easy? No. But, every violation, including "one joint" and a summons was issued. Repeat offenders were charged with a felony. Vehicles with even small amounts could be siezed. Every night we arrested the drug buyers and sellers but as far as I can remember, never were they arrested for a "sale" like undercover cops do.

    Police departments like many who depend on the federal government get lazy. I was able to prove, almost single handed since I made more arrests than the whole police department combined, that you can do a lot without an expensive crime lab, undercover cops, helicopters, etc. Since we couldn't afford those things and we didn't get a lot of money from some Federal "drug program," we had to resort to "hard work" and good documentation of what we did.

    (cont)
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  09/02  at  08:40 PM
  6. Not even county or state aid was what lowered our crime rate 75%. Nor were our citizens taxed more to pay for the work. Yet, in communities all around us, the crime rate didn't drop. Some were better equipped but still they depended on the "County" and "Feds" to combat the druggies who also did a lot of the other crimes.

    Socialism says we have to share so small communities like ours can have the resources they need to combat crime, poor education, high unemployment. Hogwash. Most of what is needed is the knowledge that you can do it and you don't need the federal government to help you do it. Sometimes you may need state help but rarely federal help. The same goes for education standards. You don't need Washington and a Federal Education department that has a budget of $ 63,373,000,000 an increase since 2001 of 58.7 %, thank you Congress and President Bush.

    We now have recently had a test on American topics and foreigners did better than our own students. Not foreigners living in the U.S. but foreign students who never set foot in America doing better than our own students on American topics.

    Recently a test was given that our "tech colleges" used to clean up the top 10 on. This year, we had one in the top ten with Russia and India taking most of the top ten. Look at India and China with 4 and 5 times our population but then look at the number of engineers they graduate to meet businesses needs. The number each year is 9 times ours, not the 4 and 5 times equal rates would be at for the population size.

    Socialism that says the federal government has to reduce class size and raise pay and buy computers and build new buildings, doesn't work. Only when the people in the community know that the most they can expect is some help from the state, do they take the interest needed to raise standards and demand education be competitive with the education in nations we have to compete with in the world market.

    And, yes, I know you don't support all the federal programs that Bush has increased spending on but the same will happen under democrats. They make no secret they will increase spending but, they say they can pay for it with cuts in defense spending and taxing the "top 2%" even though they know they can't tax business or wealthy more than they think is fair or they leave or move their wealth into tax free securities or overseas or into trusts and foundations.

    Until they can show me a nation that has used those policies long term and not had problems with business and investment money leaving, I won't believe them. I will believe Ireland, New Zealand, China, new Europe and others that are attracting the businesses and investment money leaving here.

    Socialism has great goals and great intentions just as you do. But it doesn't work and never will work and has been tried for over a century in many places and never has been successful. Even nations like Sweden are starting to have problems competing with Asia.
    quote:
    Swedish based telecom manufacturer Ericsson AB intends to slash a further 17,000 jobs over the next two years. .....

    Ericsson
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  09/02  at  08:46 PM
  7. Regarding "I don
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  09/02  at  09:25 PM
  8. That last sentence should have read "The information is out there, so science hasn
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  09/02  at  09:30 PM
  9. I don't think you understand. We both agree that capitalism is the best possible economic system, the best system that can be had under the circumstances of humankind being the way it is, in need of organization and disipline. However, capitalism on its own, unfettered, is to high octane, exploitive and in the long run self-destructive if left to its own devises. Capitalism has had to be tempered by unions, legislation, and yes, the market place to be legitimate, most effective, utilitarian and mutually beneficial.

    If capitalism had been left in its original state, as it was during the industrial revolution, it would have destroyed itself long ago by destroying the society it was most meant to benefit. Capitalism in its original state would have remained in too few hands and thus would not have been unable to grow and expand to its present preeminence. The New Deal is one example of its expansion and the making of it as utilitarian as possible.

    If capitalism has been infiltrated by socialism that is part of the process. But no fear, we have conservative like you to help combat those socialistic tendencies, like we have liberals like me to keep capitalism as honest as possible, to benefit the majority, not just a minority like in some banana republic.

    If the world was perfect, as conservatives tend to think it can be, then capitalism could be left on its own because its fundamentals are sound . But the world is not perfect. It is full of exploiters, cheats and corrupt people who have hijacked, manipulated and milked capitalism for their own personal gains. I bet if a capitalist was encroaching on your space and exploiting it you would want some control over him and some kind of legislation to stop him from harming your life.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/03  at  05:41 PM
  10. If capitalism had been left in its original state, as it was during the industrial revolution, it would have destroyed itself long ago by destroying the society it was most meant to benefit.

    That is why from the beginning, we put the power to regulate business in the hands of the people. One of things was to prevent monopolies from becoming too powerful but unions weren't needed. They are the opposite of "self government" by "we the people" which is the majority. Unions are more self-destructive than capitalism. Unions aren't needed because we have "we the people" to regulate business with legislation, not gang warfare, intimidation, bad policies, criminal organizations, blackmail, and oppression of the very workers they were supposed to help.

    Name one thing unions did that "we the people" couldn't have done. Nobody force those people to work for those companies. But, greed drove many of them to the companies because they paid more than "the farm" even though the benefits of the family farm, garden and self-employment were better. Who flocked to the factories? People who were having "state" problems and fled poor government states or other places rather than change the situation through their votes. They flocked to the "put a nut on a bolt," type job where skills, education, and decision making wasn't needed but the pay was good because Ford wanted them to buy his cars.

    Unions from the beginning were socialist organization based on socialism (wealth redistribution) and used the workers more than helped them. Our system of government and freedom of choice was set up where we could either change the laws or as individuals choose where we work. I would never work for a union shop and let union stewards take my money for their political agenda. I can spend my money on my own political agenda.

    Social programs, health and safety issues are not "anti-capitalist" programs and certainly not better under socialism. Socialists are too lazy to too their own wealth building for the most part. They are too busy being a "victim" or someone in power that uses "victims" to stay in power. Look at the wealth of the union officials and how they kept that lifestyle even when the workers were on the picket line, needing food, losing jobs as their demands drove business away, etc. You don't see them giving up their wealth for the workers. I lived with the union and I know how bad they are. They are crooks and organized criminals and were from the beginning because socialism depends on intimidation and distortion since it can't stand on its own history in any nation that uses it.

    The idea the capitalism in a nation of "we the people" would self-distruct is laughable. What is not funny is how socialism has destroyed the American manufacturing industry while telling the workers it was for their own good they were driving business out of the U.S. Oh, that's right, they forgot to tell the workers that part about business leaving.

    Tell that to Ford and GM and Chrysler workers while auto manufacturing jobs in America rise, they are losing their jobs while workers in the south in Honda, Nissan, and Toyota are working in new plants with risings sales and a rising standard of living the majority of them never saw in their state before. Where are the Union officials? Are they sending their wealth to the workers being laid off? No, they are demanding "government do something." They are demanding the workers not give in to cuts and changes in work methods and sharing the cost of healthcare. They would rather see the workers lose their jobs than give in, but they, themselves, the union leaders won't surrender their standard of living, just demand the workers do.

    Does our system of government work slowly sometimes and seem to not help the worker? Of course. But those workers vote, have the right of informing the majority of the situation and they have the right to not work for anybody they don't want to work for. Capitalism depends on workers and if workers won't work for a certain wage or benefit package, then the business has to either compete or close. By the same token, if they provide wages and benefits that don't let them compete (as is the case with GM and Ford), they have to close too.

    We the people (consumers and workers) determine which businesses stay in business and which don't. If you notice, Target charges more than Walmart, has fewer customers and yet is making a profit. It meets the needs of those who want a "better shopping experience." But, if Target makes a bigger profit, socialists think they should "pay more" or "have more benefits" because they are more successful. They may very well do that but it should be up to the business and the consumer (due to the price containing those wages and benefits) as to whether or not they do it.
    (cont)
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  09/03  at  07:34 PM
  11. We as a society can have and do have all kinds of health and safety regulations and would have had them sooner or later without unions since many states were non-union and had them at the state level and they were even more stringent than federal requirements. We have a state mine inspector that enforces state requirements here in our state and we require some things even the federal government mine safety people don't require.

    The damage done by unions far outweighs any benefits they provided and those benefits would have come about anyway. Maybe not as fast, but they would have come about and from us, "we the people," the "majority" as most good things like banning segregation in 1875 (too bad the Courts overturned that), giving women the right to vote, 18 year olds the right to vote, repealing our mistake, prohibition. As Jefferson said,
    quote:
    The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is the only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived.
    ============================
    Unions, or at least their members, had good intentions but like socialism in general, it can't deliver in the long run and short term benefits end up in long term disasters. That is why union membership has dropped from 33% to about 13% and much of that is government employee unions. "We the people" have come to realize how bad unions are. Still socialists think they are good and I don't blame them because they think they can create a utopia where everyone is treated "fairly" instead of "justly." There is a huge difference and individual responsibility is the key. Very little in my life was "fair," so I overcame the "unfairness," by continuing the development of skills, education, networking, and searching for new opportunities in what ever city or state they could be found in.

    That is what is great about this nation. I can quit any job I don't like and go find one I do like. I can be a CEO or a floor sweeper all based on my choices in life. I am responsible for the choices I make, not somebody else and I don't have to join a union unless I am in a union state.

    What is "fair" about a union that says I can't work in a factory unless I join their union. What if I don't like that union, don't like their dues, don't like their leadership, don't like the political candidates they send my union dues to for campaigns. Why should I have to join that union. That isn't just socialism but communism where they take my freedom of choice away and you support that crap? That is anti-American and certainly not "fair" or "just" or "moral." It is intimidation, force, and criminal because, as I saw, if you resisted the union, you got beat up and lost your job for not being "united" with your "brothers." Try going to work in some shipyards and not joining their union or even joining them but then trying to protest what they do. You'll be lucky if you only get beat up.

    Are some business's run "criminally?" Yes. But, "we the people" can prosecute them. Some of the corrupt have been with union cooperation too. When you let organized criminals run something like we had with many unions, the worker is just a pawn that the unions and company get in bed together to give the shaft to. The union rips them off and the company rips them off too, with the union's permission. Then suddenly the day comes when some Mississippi auto plant is eating their lunch in sales and they both wonder why.

    Socialism doesn't work. The goal of a fair society has to come from the individual, not government, not unions, and certainly not from force like unions used. Yes, we "individuals" can use government but, it has to be when the "majority" of individuals under a Constitution and with a representative form of government, call for government to become involved.

    If you notice, I have on several occasions said that the "will of the people" indicates they want socialism. I am not saying people here in the U.S. can't have socialism, they do have it to a larger degree than most realize. I don't believe the voters in the majority support social security reform, tax reform like Ireland used, Medicare reform, a crackdown on education standards that don't compete with other nations.

    The voters are getting what they ask for but don't like the cost and they don't like the results but, like those in France, they keep asking for more government intervention to solve the very problems government intervention caused.

    I don't deny American voters to have what you want. I think you are in the majority now, even though some of the changes came from unconstitutional court actions. (Unconstitutional simply means "not in the Constitution" as a power of the federal government).
    (cont)
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  09/03  at  07:42 PM
  12. It doesn't even matter if the "court was right," it wasn't Constitutional since change was to come from legislation and amendments to state constitutions primarily.

    Even when we ended slavery and amended the U.S. Constitution, the bulk of constitutional changes regarding slavery were made in State Constitutions with some being almost completely rewritten.

    You may very well find you "win the battle" and socialism prevails, but will you like living like the French with 10% unemployment and a "closing wage gap" because the wealthy are leaving and those left behind are all miserable. One millionaire a day is leaving France because of its socialist policies. That will happen here if you and the other socialists are victorious. It has never failed so why should it not happen here?

    Why should any business stay here when they have the money and means to go where the conditions are better. Hong Kong is now number one according to the Index of economic freedom from 2006 index of economic freedom website.
    quote:
    he Special Administrative Region (SAR) of Hong Kong remains a model of economic freedom. It is a free port with no barriers to trade; has simple procedures for starting enterprises, free entry of foreign capital and repatriation of earnings, and transparency; and operates under the rule of law.
    http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=HongKong
    ==========================

    By the way, please provide links to some of the information you provide about socialism and its successes so we can evaluate the source of the information. Also, I hope you will visit my forum and discuss some of the many issues we cover there that aren't covered here.

    Regarding that #1 rank. Notice "operates under the rule of law." That is how it is supposed to be here, not under the threat of a strike. If you don't like the wage, you leave. I have left a dozen jobs for different reasons, usually because I wanted to try something new. Whether it had "benefits" or not doesn't matter because I can provide my own benefits if they don't. As a matter of fact, I am more free if I provide my own benefits and don't depend on some company to meet my needs. I would rather find a company that doesn't provide benefits and provide them myself so I can quit at any time and still have my benefits. Socialists think the company should provide healthcare, paid vacations, pensions, etc. Fine, if a company wants to provide those things for those who are unwilling or unable to provide them for themselves, but it certainly shouldn't be mandatory. That is not "being free" like our founders expected our society to be. Let the market for labor determine what a company will provide along with "we the people" legislating even a minimum wage if we choose, or health and safety legislation.

    Notice that the socialists and unions haven't forced Congress to include all workers in minimum wage legislation. Thus, they don't seem to mind that each wage hike leaves those exempted workers further and further behind and for 40 years democrats were in control when many of those minimum wage hikes were passed. While Republicans know that minimum wage deals hurt more than are helped, democrats are hypocrites because they claim the minimum wage will help but then leave out a whole segment of workers.

    Socialism is all about "self" more than helping the oppressed, poor and sick. It is about gaining power on the backs of those people and then putting things in place that make life worse, not better for those people because it makes them slaves to government programs. (generalizing since a few use the programs and rise above them but those people are few and far between) Many people in those programs are in them their whole life and then their children are in them.

    Socialists could learn a lot from China if they really want to raise people out of poverty. They could learn a lot from Ireland, or Poland, Slovenia, Moldova, Estonia, and other ex-soviet nations that are using capitalism to rise out of poverty and not using wealth redistribution as we do but rather incentives to get the wealthy and business to come to their nations. In some they have a flat tax where the wealth pay the same as the low wage worker. That is fair and it is just. That way, any worker can rise as high as he wants in wages and not worry about the government taking more of his wages just because he has improved his standard of living.

    Many governments
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  09/03  at  07:44 PM
  13. "That is why from the beginning, we put the power to regulate business in the hands of the people."

    What do you think "the hands of the people" includes. It includes unions and the right of people to form unions. Unions gave people a voice which fundamental capitalism denied them.

    "We put the power to regulate business in the hands of the people". You use 'we' in the liberal mindset, as the Constitution was written, as in "We the people".
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/04  at  12:25 AM
  14. It includes unions and the right of people to form unions. Unions gave people a voice which fundamental capitalism denied them.

    NO, Unions don't give the people a voice. I told you it gives organized crime a voice and uses the workers to oppress them and lose their jobs for them while the union bosses get rich and the workers become worse off.

    The only reason unions seemed to work is because at that time we had no competition. The industrialized states had the ability to keep raising prices to cover union bosses demands but once the competition started to show up, they were doomed. Show me how workers were helped when they lost their jobs becasue of the inability of the companies to compete with non union plants both here in the U.S. and abroad. How are the union workers doing in Germany and France with 10% unemployment?

    How are union workers with no job doing for healthcare. Unions have lost so many jobs that manufacturing is 13% compared to 33% when they didn't have to worry about competition since the other states with similar industry were all union states too.

    To think unions represented the people is rediculous since they didn't represent but "forced" the workers to belong to them. Representation is a voluntary system not one run with thugs, murderers, blackmailers and leaders linked to organized crime. You actually believe a "criminal organizaton" is the voice of the people?

    You can't believe that and had to live and work in a union city like I and my family did. You either do what the union says or you don't work. How is that freedom? Like communism, unions are based on violence toward business and their own members.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  09/04  at  12:37 AM
  15. Mr. JanPBurr,

    You exaggerate and distort so so much. You only see the balance of one side, which is no balance at all.

    Best wishes for a more positive outlook.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/04  at  09:54 AM
  16. Sorry.... what was I thinking? After all, I am responding to an ultra conservative blog.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/04  at  11:17 AM
  17. David, you are correct. I lived in the union area. I saw the fights, the destroyed property, the news carried the deaths. Yes, the intentions of many were good. But, the distortion of what the "good" would result in was wrong. Union leaders lied to the workers. Like all socialists they promised things that in the long term cause more problems than they solve.

    Show me where it has worked. France? Germany? Everything socialists say is good has been used and used long enough to see the results of it.

    Where do you suggest we look for the long term results that prove what you say? Where have the unions not lost jobs for workers?

    Some of the longest "best run" nations that have unions are now also seeing the loss of jobs to Asia because they can't compete. A union that isn't corrupt can serve a useful purpose. I am talking about unions run by socialists. They are the worst because they also affect tax policiy in Union states. The tax policy they demand usually is to tax wealthy and business, not the workers, to pay for the socail programs they also want.

    Again the social programs usually aren't the problem but, the tax system is because it makes the businesses even more uncompetive and the workers even stop buying their own products because the foreign goods don't have that tax and the compliance costs to the same level hidden in the price. Unions are one reason the democrats have had so much power and during the 40 years they controlled congress did so many thing as the federal level that make our businesses uncompetitive.

    They were supported by unions who thought, (there were told by union leaders) that business and wealthy would pay the tax bill and workers wouldn't have to. That is much of why a low wage worker is not in the 50% tax bracket even if he doesn't pay income tax. (35% hidden tax and compliance costs, 7.5% payroll, and 8% sales tax in many states in the old Rust Belt).

    Autos are a good example of how hidden taxes hit the consumer.
    quote:
    For instance, a wage earner in an average-tax state must earn $17,038 to purchase a $10,000 car. That means that the work er pays $7,038 in income, payroll, and sales taxes on a $10,000 car. The study finds that in some high-tax states, such as California and New York, the "true" price to consum ers of goods and services is twice the retail price because of taxes. Self-employed workers, who must pay a self-employment tax, routinely must also earn double the retail price of an item to have the after-tax income to buy it. That is the "rule of two on taxes."
    http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-015.html
    ============================
    That is what socialism costs the worker and why he loses so many jobs to competition in other states and nations. Go down the list of tax rates for states and see which states have taxed business the highest and then see which states are losing the most manufacturing jobs. They are the same states. Those lost jobs are why 1 million have moved out of Detroit. It is why Mass. has lost population (total) for two years in a row and risks losing seats in Congress. It is why states like Arizona are gaining 100,000 people a year and Nevada even more (it has no corporate income tax).

    Those workers have jobs. Michigan still has an 7% unemployment rate. while Arizona has 4.7 (these are from July) Even the Southern states that used to have double digit unemployement are seeing single digit from the auto and auto related companies locating there.

    However, where are your statistics. You say unions have made things better for workers but you don't back it up with statistics and sites, that show union states have better economies than right to work states. Population shifts tell a lot too.

    quote:
    Last year, Massachusetts was the only the state in the union to lose population. This year, three's company; neighboring states New York and Rhode Island join Massachusetts as the big losers.

    Mass. 6,398,743 -0.1
    N.Y. 19,254,630 -0.1
    R.I. 1,076,189 -0.3

    While this may not seem like a big deal, the population shift can
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  09/04  at  12:13 PM
  18. (cont)
    I am also open to your agument if you will just post statistics to back it up. Show me the states better off with high taxes on business. Show me how the workers aren't paying those taxes and the compliance costs in the prices they pay. Show me how "we the people" couldn't do the same thing unions did using violence and destroying property to get their way. Show me the "growth" in union membership and the "growth" in manufacturing jobs in union states. Show me the "rising" average wage in union states now that so many manufacturing jobs are leaving for Asia and other states. I have shown you the statistics I base my argument on, now show me yours. This isn't about conservative but about statistics.

    Remember, I don't argue with the goals of socilists. That isn't the problem. The problem is the system they want to use to reach those goals doesn't work in the long run.

    Show me some statistics like these
    quote:
    Nationally, Ohio's migration losses rank sixth worst, trailing only New York, California, Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey. States seeing the most newcomers are Nevada, Arizona and Florida.

    The key is jobs, says Marc Perry of the Census Bureau. "People may give all sorts of reasons for moving, but somewhere on that list is economic support," he says.

    Clearly, the loss of manufacturing jobs has staggered Ohio and Cuyahoga County. Gov. Bob Taft hopes to boost Ohio's economy with newly minted tax reform and big-ticket investment in high-tech with the $1.6 billion Third Frontier program.
    http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/11455326816570.xml&coll=2
    =======================
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  09/04  at  12:19 PM
  19. typo:
    hat is much of why a low wage worker is not in the 50% tax bracket

    should be "now" in the 50% tax bracket.

    Regarding hidden taxes, you might want a stat on that and this doesn't include compliance costs to pay these taxes.
    quote:
    Americans pay a mind-boggling array of taxes--income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, utility taxes--and one result is that most people have no idea how high their tax burden actually is. This paper identifies $638.8 billion in hidden taxes, or $2,413 in hidden taxes for every American.
    http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=310&org_name=NTUF
    ===============================

    That is almost $10,000 for a family of four. That is one reason Chinese workers making $8,000 have $40,000 in buying power when compared to the U.S. dollar's buying power. while about 1 billion are still up and coming, more than our entire population in China are now middle-class and they are adding 50 million a year. That is what low taxes on business has done for their wages.

    Or how about closer to home, Ireland which low taxes on business and the wealthy caused workers wages to rise 325% while ours rose 60%. Do you disagree with those published statistics that increased tax reveneues (by lowering the Corp. tax rate 48 pts)so much they dropped national debt from 120% of GDP to 27% and became the 2nd wealthiest nation in Europe. Show me one high tax socialist nation that can come even close to matching that.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  09/04  at  12:31 PM
  20. "Union leaders lied to the workers."

    Well, what organization has not lied to its members? If politics enters the arena you will sometimes get lies and bad outcomes. We have gotten it from governments as well as religion. The intentions are good but if you get self serving people running things you will get lies, cheating and corruption. This is not just the preserve of unions. It is inevitable if humans are involved. The best that can be done is to have a system in which it can be kept it to a minimum and contained. And we have such a system in liberal democracy.

    Nevertheless. what ever you believe, unions in the whole have had a positive effect in organized labor and making relationships with management better.

    In the case of car manufacturing by the Big Three, if they have been loosing ground it is just as much a fault of the culture of management as it is the attitude of labor. The two have to rethink and reinvent the industry, together, if they want to survive.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/04  at  03:23 PM
  21. David"
    Nevertheless. what ever you believe, unions in the whole have had a positive effect in organized labor and making relationships with management better.

    Where are you stats on this. I haven't seen it so I need some sources for this that I can read and contemplate on. All I have seen is the cost of business going up, lost jobs, lost union membership, lost buying power and higher compliance costs that make our nation unable to compete in the world market.

    Please list some sources so I can study them.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  09/04  at  04:10 PM
  22. By the way, I taught group dynamics to the union. I worked with the union. I dealt with the union. Did management have problems too? You bet. But the unions were their own worst enemy and their demands that the workers not have to be involved in decisions to improve productivity, gave Toyota and other U.S. auto plants an advantage the union would let their members have, a say in productivity. That advesarial relationship on both side was a huge block to the advance the Big three needed to compete as well as their demands that made the cost so high they couldn't compete either.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  09/04  at  04:13 PM
  23. correction "U.S. auto plants an advantage the union would let their members have," should have been "wouldn't."

    Also, there is an article posted on Tree of Liberty Forum on the Union with a link to the article and the comments by both left and right on it.
    http://azrepublicanissues.forumsplace.com/post-6412.html
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  09/04  at  04:38 PM
  24. Look!!! I don't need stats to understand and see how unions have worked over the years to improve working conditions and prevent exploitation. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. Stats! What a bunch of nonsense. I could offer you stats and then you would turn them on me.

    I am not a union man nor have much use for them but I can see their having existed for the overall good.

    What did Mark Twain say about stats, lies and more lies.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/04  at  06:03 PM
  25. I was in a union plant, were you?

    Stats aren't for you, they are for us who read what you claim but won't support. How are you going to educate others if you don't prove what you are saying.

    All you have to do is list the source of what you claim. At least show why "we the people can't do what unions tried to do but alway fail at because they lose jobs for their members and drive business out of the states and sometimes nation.

    You are talking about what they wanted to do but all they really did was lose their members jobs and our nation tax revenues and exports. What good are all the benefits when you lose your job because of them?
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  09/04  at  06:11 PM
  26. Actually, it was Benjamin Disraeli who said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn-lies, and statistics." Clemmons merely gave the quote a wider audience.

    Statistics are a useful tool for understanding, but are also too easily manipulated to produce a desired result. Too often, they are cited as though they constitute and established principle or a law of nature; whereas they most often represent a first approximation (but only when done honestly and correctly). I have been shown how scientists often develop and misconstrue their own results in hot pursuit of an answer. We do this, often without realizing we do it because we are convinced we know the right answer and are in a hurry. To that end, analysts are often guilty of ignoring
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/09  at  01:53 PM
  27. David,

    Ultra-conservative blog? We really must broaden your circle of friends. If you think this is "ultra" conservative, try visiting
    http://buchanan.org/ (not just anti-illegal)
    conservative-monarchist club (want to bring back the good old days - really!)
    The Constitution Party (wants repeal of several key amendments)
    The Dixie Avenger (Southern/states rights, stuck on rewind)
    http://www.jbs.org (John Birch Society)

    Naw, we're pretty much middle of the road conservatives. It's just from way over there (anywhere on the left) everything else looks off the map. smile
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/09  at  02:37 PM
  28. That is true about statistics. Without context and how they were obtained, they are not reliable.

    Look at the 84 trillion "unfunded liablity" used to describe social security and Medicare over the next few decades. All that really means it that we have to come up with a way to fund it. It doesn't mean it will stay "unfunded."

    Or look at the Budget stats we use. They are only worthwhile if used in context. We talk about "spending increases" and "blame" somebody but the bulk are mandatory tied to COLA so people getting a social security check this year, have the buying power of last year.

    Still, when used in proper context they are absolutely vital in planning, debating, and solving problems. Without statistics, a clear picture is not available and is only "opinion." Even "eye-witness" accounts are not often statistical of the full picture. For example, growiing up in a union state, and union city and seeing the nightly news of the violence and deaths and property damage, did not mean it was also happening in another union state. Using just statistics from one union state would not be a full picture.

    But, we can look at history and the statistics from it. We can look at the nations that have been socialist, union nations for several decades and look at their unemployment rates over time, the movement of business and wealth from or to the nation, and the standards of living to get a picture of what policies work and which don't work. The key is "over time," since many policies take years to have the full effect of them revealed. Even a simple rate hike by the fed takes about 9 months to show up in the economy. Many government policies take 2 or 3 years due to the time it takes a business to feel and analyze long term consumer effects and then downsize, expand, move, or close. What we do know is that from the 1950's to now there has been a steady outflow of manufacturing from 30.4% of GDP down to about 13% and during that time an almost equal decline in union representation. Was it because the union plants closed first or more often? Or was it some other reason? Why has business tended to open more often in right to work states lately and in low tax, low wage nations but sell to us? Competition is the first thing that comes to mind but what makes up the price? Healthcare, taxes, compliance costs, payroll taxes, regulation expense, property taxes, energy costs, raw material availability, transportation costs, and consumer base. If we just take "taxes" as the statistic we won't get anymore of an accurate picture than if we just take wages or healthcare.

    We have to take total price that covers all costs, including what profits shareholders or owners need to be satisfied, that price provides. Competition is not fair and never has been. When auto companies ran the "carriage" trade out of business in city after city as autos gained popularity, a lot of very skilled and good workers lost their jobs and a lot of business owners went belly up. They didn't gouge and weren't unethical, they just couldn't compete. We now see that as our population buys less and less "American" and more and more "Asian." Our workers and businesses are mostly good one that don't gouge, but they can't compete so we buy foreign.

    Statistics help us determine whether to close, downsize, outsource or move. But, they have to be complete, accurate, and germane to that particular business and its competition and consumer base.

    Statistics would help union members decide how to be competitive. If they don't get the full picture though, they will lose. They will lose their jobs probably but they will also lose buying power with the rest of America if they don't make the right decision. Socialism costs them more and more every year. They now have 1/5 the buying power of a Chinese worker. That means a $25 an hour worker here is matched by a $5 an hour worker there. That is about the mfg. wage in Hong Kong.

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics alone would say U.S. $23.17 for 2004 and $5.51 for Hong Kong. If we didn't have more information it would appear we are way ahead of them. Yet, we have to remember we have to add middlemen, shipping, fees, other transportation from California ports, U.S business costs, etc. into the prices we pay for Chinese goods that all reduce our buying power over the Chinese shopper.

    (cont)
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  09/09  at  04:47 PM
  29. Yes, we have be very careful with statistics, even these. The government in China is totalitarian. How do you put that into statistics of whether it is a "good place" to live or work? Yet, we still can't ignore that jobs from all over the U.S. and Europe are going to China and that statistic is one that affects workers, wages, and buying power of workers.

    Let's say for a moment that unions are the greatest thing for workers since industrialization began. What good is a union if you have no job? It isn't that workers shouldn't have good wages, healthcare, social security, Medicare, etc. They should. But, if we make business pay for it and that closes the business down because Americans buy Chinese goods instead, how has that worker actually benefited when he is standing in an unemployment line and there are no other jobs at his pay level available? It isn't fair, but it is reality.

    If the union ignores the statistics, as they do, and the business closes, the worker suffers more than if he kept his job but with lower benefit coverage. For example, this statistic is one ignored by the union. The right to work states, in the Auto industry may only pay 60% of the insurance premium for their workers thus making the cost of manufacturing their vehicle competitive with foreign imports and very competitive with U.S. made vehicles. So competitive, Toyota is now #2 ahead of Ford. Are their workers any more or any less deserving of benefits? No, but they do compete with foreign manufacturers. Yet, because the unions ignore those "statistics" they continue to lose jobs by the 10's of thousands in all the "Big Three" now the "Big One" and it is fading fast too.

    GM makes more profits in China selling to Chinese than in America selling to Americans. The last year GM was profitable here, they made $811 million to the Chinese operatins $836 million. The profit here was $145 per vehicle and the profit there was $2,200 per vehicle because they are competitive with the other manufacturers in China and there are many.

    Statistics are like taking a hundred pictures at a crime scene. No one picture and some times not even a dozen will give you the whole picture but they are a part of the picture and when included with all the others give a complete picture. That means the statistics that are good and bad ones regarding the intent to convey an accurate picture. It is like saying China has 200-300 million middle class to make it seem prosperous without adding their population is 1.3 billion people so less than 1/4 are doing well and people are still imprisoned and die for protesting government actions.

    I too am very suspicious of statistics but know of no other way to get an accurate picture. If I listen to an "expert," he bases his expert opinion on statistics, but were they all of them?
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  09/09  at  04:50 PM
  30. When it comes down to it, science is the same as religion, always correcting, always making mistakes and wrong interpretations.... Statistically... science will not matter because statistically, the world should be ending sooner or later due to human error... Why do scientist try to argue? do they try to create good in the world? Is it my way or the highway theology? It is the same with major Christian cults which go against the word of God and the Law written by his hand and even view Jesus as a profit... of course Jesus died and was resurrected... Most people believe that he existed even muslims view him as a Prophet... If the people do not believe those who were closest to him, then they are foolish because then he would be the most evil man to walk to planet....out of chaos came order(the perfect man) and out of order came chaos.... Jesus himself said that he came to send fire on the earth and also that there already was fire that was going to come(no matter if he came or not)....... Man through his immoral ways will send fire upon this earth because he is too smart for his own good....

    I can imagine Einstein as if he were crying over this planet "IF ONLY I WOULD HAVE KNOWN, I WOULD HAVE BEEN A WATCHMAKER"
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/12  at  12:43 AM
  31. Throughout this discussion I read the common failure of data analysis without principle; - the common failure of collectivism.

    Unions, gvernments, and tyrants, never see the trees because of 'the forest.' Numbers, to them, are of more value than individual persons. Illusion, illusion, illusion. Where is the real Reality?

    There are only individuals. Collectivism takes dead aim at a humanistic target and misses and becomes a very real part of the problem of imperfection.

    A collectivist 'solution' will never solve a collectivist problem. On the contrary...

    semper fidelis
    vincit veritas
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  12/12  at  01:44 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.