Re-Re: McCain bumper stickers
Reply to: comm-635000420@craigslist.org
Date: 2008-04-08, 2:57PM EDT
Amazing another jingoistic spewing left winger. Let us unpack some of your looney left wing nonsence shall we?
“McCain = more jobs lost”
This little tid bit of jingoism has got to be one of the most tiresome, coming in a close second behind “bush lied people died”. So “blooze” it is you assertion that outsourcing is only good for “businessmen” and comes at the expense of hard-working Americans?
I also find it interesting that you fail to apply your so called rubric equally across the board. I never heard a left winger complain about “lost jobs” when president Clinton In 1997 advocated outsourcing as a major budget-balancing tool and the National Performance Review urged agencies to consider farming out common computing tasks wherever feasible. Not a word about that huh blooze? Nope according to blooze’s left wing partisanship its all those bad “republicans” fault.
An entertaining example of democrats using the logical fallacy of “correlation equates to causation” is when they state that the loss of 2.45 million U.S. manufacturing jobs between 2001 and 2004 some how corroborates democrats coo coo pots statement that republicans are against the working class. I find this especially interesting considering the fact that the origins regarding the majority of the dislocations surrounding manufacturing labor stems from technology / machines replacing human workers in the old job. Try looking up the “marginal rate of technical substitution” left winger.
Job loss wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the United States economy has been going through a structural change which results in labor force dislocations would it? A resultant trend made more egregious because you left wingers via your support of union pushed regulations exacerbated a sense of complacency amongst the demographic of the American workforce which populates outdated economic sectors. Then when the business goes under point like Chicken Little to the republicans and squawk “its all their fault”. This wouldn’t be the only example of loony left wing pseudo economics.
We could talk about the idiotic idea pushed by democrats to arbitrarily raise the minimum wage to 10 dollars an hour thinking that this would help out the poor. What Looney left wingers failed to take into account is “built in inflation” and the “price wage spiral”. I will explain for others reading this post. Let us say that democrats succeed in passing legislation that arbitrarily raises the minimum wage to 10 dollars a hour. After the implementation of said policy the operational cost of all the businesses that populate the sectors of the economy where minimum wage jobs are located (read retail, burger flipping ect) increases. These business then take this added operational cost into account and cut jobs as well as raise prices to maintain their profit margin (the price wage spiral) exacerbating the CPI. Now a big-mac that cost you 3 dollars costs 6 dollars. Such a “market correction” takes less then 3 months, and the poor are right back to where they started. Not only that but now due to ill thought out democrat pseudo economic policy the purchasing power of the middle class who did not receive a wage increase has declined.
Try taking a macro / micro economic course “blooze” Sadly most Americans buy your left wing false populace bit of bull but pudding.
“more needless deaths in Iraq”
This will be interesting how do you substantiate your statement that our interventionist foreign policy in Iraq is in fact “needless”?
“more banckrupting of America”
Seeing as you failed to be specific I can only assume that your purposefully obtuse generalized one liner is referring to the misconception that the crisis regarding federal budget sustainability is largely / solely due to contemporary United States interventionist foreign policy. Too bad the numbers do not support said misconception.
Total cost of the war on terrorism including homeland security, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq from September 2001 – end of fiscal year 2007 equated to 604 billion dollars (1). Keeping that in the social entitlement programs of just social security and health and human services cost 623.810 / 670.486 billion dollars respectively. When combined these two social entitlement programs represent a grand total of 1.294 trillion (yes with a “T”) dollars in just 2007 alone. To put it another way federal outlays of just those two social entitlement programs (the very ones that democrats constantly attempt to expand) in one year equate to 214 % of what the United States spent on the war on terrorism in 7 years. Which party is the one whose policies represent the lion’s share of fiscal un-sustainability?
I could go on and on illustrating the lack of formal thought within your post “blooze”, citing how Hillary sits on the board of 7 major corporations ect. That being said I feel that I have provided you with more then enough to chew over for now. In the future I would subject you not regurgitate left wing talking points and instead base your statements on empiricism stemming from raw data derived from a primary information source.
Jeff
“U.S. Hegemony Without End… Amen”
1. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8690/10-24-CostOfWar_Testimony.pdf , Page 3: Funding Through Fiscal Year 2007 From September 2001 through the end of fiscal year 2007, the Congress appropriated $602 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities associated with the war on terrorism. In addition, although not explicitly appropriated for that purpose, an estimated $2 billion has been spent by VA for war-related benefits. Including VA’s spending, funding for the war has amounted to $604 billion.
2. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/budget/hhs.pdf / http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/budget/ssa.pdf
- it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
PostingID: 635000420