Some Comics I've Been Meaning to Post...
'Course, how will you know to if you can't read it...?
Funny thing about the artist of this comic strip: He's a die-hard Republican. But all this is the fault of Bush's "No Child Left Behind" idiocy, which basically lowers the level of education instead of tailoring for higher level and lower level. It's a good way to control the population and how much it thinks and how educated it gets, isn't it? :( I guess it's one of the good things about being frum and by default having my kid in a private school, and a really good one at that. They don't have to conform to this stupid "No Child Left Behind" program that is destroying the American Education System.
Well, at least the donuts are comforting...This artist is also a Republican, or at least a Conservative. But he, like the artist of Mallard Fillmore, is sick of the education system in this country being down in the dirt and is even more sick of the rampant outsourcing that is taking jobs away from Americans.
Here's what I find fascinating: Who, by definition, should be the "All-American" party, the one that espouses family values, is anti-flag burning, and supposedly fights for the American way of life? The Republican Party. The Democrats, us Liberal Wieners, are always so worried about everyone else. Republicans are the ones who are supposed to be worried about the US! Yet here they are, supporting Big Business to make it Bigger Business, supporting outsourcing to help Big Business grow, and destroying out Education System to keep most Americans dumb. Some party, huh?
5 comments:
we have two wings of the same big business capitalist party that differ on abortion , school choice ,etc.
vote socialist workers party or green instead.
a little secret - govt. regulations can be absorbed by big business but squeeze small business.
the more big business grows, the more job opportunities there are in America due to the Americanization of the culture in China and other countries cooperating with us on outsourcing. Who buys jeans? Where are jeans produced?
Except, who provides those jobs? Places like Wal-Mart, that pay as little as possible, and give little to no benefits, especially medical. Woo hoo! That's not job opportunities. That's being forced to take a job with a company that most likely put you out of your previous job.
Suggestion: Read Senator Byron Dorgan's excellent book, "Take This Job and Ship It!" It's well worth your time.
And you should read the Mises institute article on Wal-Mart. It's well worth YOUR time.
An excerpt:
Poverty
"Wal-Mart offers a good portion of what you need to get by in this world, and if you have a low income, Wal-Mart is your best friend."
One of the Wal-Mart critics' chief strategies is to pretend that they are on the side of the so-called "poor" in our country, and allege that Wal-Mart is an enemy of the poor. The truth is the other way around. Due to our increasingly large production of wealth (due to a long line of innovators like Wal-Mart) true poverty in America has been largely eradicated. "Poverty" here isn't like poverty in the past or in most other places in the world. For example, starvation was a constant danger for most of humanity since time immemorial, but it is almost unheard of today in America even with all its three hundred million occupants. Most people "below the poverty line" here have access to running water, modern plumbing, electricity, refrigeration of food, a bed, furniture, air-conditioning, products for personal hygiene, cleaning products, cooking and eating utensils, plenty of warm clothing, and more than sufficient food to stay healthy. In addition to these goods that satisfy the more basic needs, virtually anyone can save enough to have access to modern goods like television sets, telephones, DVD players, washing machines, personal computers, books, radios, CD players, and microwave ovens. Many of these goods, not long ago, either didn't exist or were only accessible to a wealthy few. This high and rising standard of living for even those with comparatively modest incomes is possible because of radical increases in the production of all these products. The "rich" of the past couldn't have dreamed of having all this. If policies like those advocated by the critics had been pursued in the past, this economic progress for the poor would never have occurred.
Wal-Mart's Critics on Wealth
Wal-Mart's critics are oblivious to the fact that Wal-Mart is responsible for a significant increase in total wealth, and that the greatest beneficiaries of this increase are those with the lowest incomes. In fact, they don't even seem capable of understanding that it is possible to create more total wealth. They care nothing about the increases in productivity that Wal-Mart has achieved, nor do they see any significance in Wal-Mart's lower prices. The critics believe that any person or company who becomes wealthy is immorally taking an excessive share of the fixed amount of wealth that is available. A book written by one of the critics called The Case Against Wal-Mart begins with the following quote: "Behind every great fortune there is a crime." This speaks volumes about the motivations of many of Wal-Mart's critics. It shows that they don't have an open mind about whether or not Wal-Mart is good or bad. They have an agenda against Wal-Mart and all their accusations and methods are used to further that agenda, which is to punish the company for being so big and successful. If there is a crime behind every great fortune then Wal-Mart must be the biggest criminal of them all. These critics fail to see that the great fortunes of businessmen and companies are built by producing wealth for everyone else, and not by taking wealth from others. Since the critics can't imagine creating wealth, they react to those who are wealthy with jealous rage. Their only solution to anyone's desire for more wealth is to seize already existing wealth from one party — in this case Wal-Mart — and give it to another. Unfortunately, not only does such a practice fail to create more total wealth, it causes the destruction of wealth and of our ability to create more total wealth.
I published your comment just to show how incredibly false it is.
Note the report's use of the term "total wealth." Not wealth, but "total wealth." This should be a clue
OK, so a lot have people have access to certain modern amenities. Doesn't mean they can afford them. Personally, I can't afford a plasma TV at Wal Mart any more than I can afford one at Best Buy.
Total wealth means there is an increase of wealth in America. It doesn't mean the poor are getting wealthier.
I also don't see this "report" backing up what is says with factual evidence. It's just saying the critics are wrong without actually saying how their wrong or providing documented proof they are wrong.
And "total wealth" often refers to Reagan's very failed theory of "trickle-down economics."
So woo hoo. People might have more and better access to TVs and CD players, phones and DVDs. And while a person is getting them, because he's on a Wal Mart salary because big business like Wal Mart forced his own company to manufacture the stuff Wal Mart sells in China or Mexica, he can't really afford it and puts it all on his Wal Mart credit card at pretty high interest.
Heather, if this is you, you should know better.
As I mentioned in this post, these artist are more hardcore Republicans than you and even THEY are sick of the outsourcing.
Creating more "total wealth" doesn't mean the economy is better. Creating more "total wealth" doesn't give people their real jobs back.
People can live without TVs and DVD players. Certainly, they are nice to have, but so is a good quality of life and medical benefits. Wal-Mart does not provide those.
I could go on and on, but Heather, you and I are not supposed to discuss these things anymore and we're supposed to be getting together tonight with Molly. Do you really want us pissed at each other, which will really get Adam pissed? :)
As I said before, there is obviously no way, no matter how much evidence to the contrary I present to you, that you'll ever agree with me, nor I with you (especially since you really didn't present any actual evidence here...)
See you tonight!
Oh, and if you're not Heather, sorry for all that. But you're still wrong and this report doesn't seem to be backing itself up much. :)
Post a Comment