The dogmatist within is always worse than the enemy without.
S.J. Gould
Tweet of the Day
Dump the Trump. The only thing worse than a left-fascist is a stupid one, pied piper to gullible derangement syndrome right-wing populists.
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) July 30, 2015
"If Donald Trump were a Democratic mole placed in the Republican Party to disrupt things, how would his behavior be any different?"- G. Will
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) July 30, 2015
@onahunttoday @OANN @RandPaul @MattSchuckOAN Why are parasitic, thieving left-fascists against free markets lifting millions out of poverty?
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) July 31, 2015
Taking a Stand Against Union Tyranny (I Think I'm in Love)No on Tyranny of the Majority
Facebook Corner
(from yesterday's Lew Rockwell's thread on Donald (Four Bankruptcies) Trump)
,,,[Trump] with his schoolyard bully antics is stealing the oxygen from worthier candidates like Rand Paul and Rubio.
Rubio isn't a worthy candidate. He's a pandering neocon.
In fact, Rand Paul is my favorite. Yes, I agree Rubio has some issues (beyond the foreign policy issue, he has backed Florida's Big Sugar producers, he's not great on NSA privacy,) But he's been good on Ex-Im and general budget and domestic policy issues. I do think from a political standpoint he positions very well against Clinton with an almost-JFK like charisma. If Rubio doesn't win it, look for him to show up on everyone's short list for VP.
(FEE). There is little evidence that immigrants make countries less free.
I will no longer respond to FEE's continued attempts to conflate "immigrants" with "illegal aliens". It is a deceptive ploy that is obvious, or one that is ignorant of strategic necessity. It is also a black eye on what is otherwise an excellent on-going work by FEE. Without resolution to the fact we are a welfare state, allowing the unchecked flow of aliens into our country provides no opportunity for repair of liberty within our country, and simply moves us towards Cloward-Piven's collectivist vision. We must resolve one (welfare) before we can address the other (increased openness of immigration law). Blind academic arguments in a vacuum of unreality, however, will not produce effective strategies to restore and sustain individual liberty in our country. Further, to continue to attack those who get this and those who support true, legal immigration, is alienating common sense lovers of liberty. Respectfully, does the FEE leadership (Leonard Reed) not see this? "You cannot simultaneously have a welfare state and free immigration.” –Milton Friedman
Am I surprised a bunch of anti-immigrant derangement syndrome xenophobes and bigots would spam this FEE thread?
First of all, I'm calling out the idiot OP because I'm so sick and tired of reading the same morally illiterate economically illiterate talking points. I'm pissed off by idiots knowingly quoting Friedman out of context. This is the REAL Friedman:
"You had a flood of immigrants, millions of them, coming to this country. What brought them here? It was the hope for a better life for them and their children. And, in the main, they succeeded. It is hard to find any century in history, in which so large a number of people experience so great an improvement in the conditions of their life, in the opportunities open to them, as in the period of the 19th and early 20th century.
"The United States before 1914, as you know, had completely free immigration. Anybody could get in a boat and come to these shores and if landed at Ellis Island he was an immigrant. Was that a good thing or a bad thing?' You will find that hardly a soul who will say that it was a bad thing. Almost everybody will say it was a good thing.
"Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as its illegal."
You got that? Friedman was NOT arguing to build a fence, he was NOT arguing to deport undocumented aliens, he was NOT in favor of limiting immigration. So STOP this disingenuous quoting Friedman out of context; he simply didn't want immigrants to add to the social welfare deficit. By law, they don't qualify for welfare benefits.
Now as to the bullshit talking point between "legal" and "illegal" immigration. As Friedman pointed out, except for some racist (Asian) exceptions, we had unrestricted immigration (including my French-Canadian great-grandparents), there were no intrinsically unconstitutional violations of the unalienable right to migrate. Who the hell do you think you are to keep families apart, to stand in the way of employers hiring who they want to hire, to stand in the way of others wanting their taste of the American dream? The fact of the matter is unions have attempted to bar foreign workers from getting temporary worker permits in their attempts to manipulate the labor market, one of the reasons they support minimum wage laws. The fact of the matter is that when the American government made it more difficult to travel back and forth, it actually made it more likely for migrants to stay permanently. No, buddy, in free market forums you will not find people who worship Big INS or want to back un-American know nothing restrictions on immigration?
(Reason). A wage increase raises the pay of some people, it also reduces employment of young and low-skilled people. The CBO calculated that an increase in the federal minimum wage from its current level, $7.25 an hour, to $10.10 per hour would cost about 500,000 jobs.
Complete bullshit. The minimum wage has been raised several times since its inception in 1938, and the empirical data clearly reveals that there is absolutely no correlation, let alone causation, regarding raising the minimum wage and job losses/economic tragedy. In point of fact, jobs have increased and the economy has improved every time the minimum wage has been raised. Moreover, it isn't up for discussion; it isn't a matter of opinion, but LAW. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 mandates a livable minimum wage. If the current minimum wage were simply adjusted for inflation, it would be well over $10/hr, if adjusted for productivity, it would be well over $20/hr. So, the current minimum wage is not only criminal, but immoral - never mind the fact that it's just plain bad business.
Economically illiterate fascists all over this thread. Look, the fact of the matter is that less than 3% of jobs are minimum-wage jobs, and wage/job growth elsewhere can mitigate the adversarial effects on low-skill, lower-experienced/younger workers. The indisputable fact is that a plurality of minimum-wage jobs is with smaller companies barely cracking a profit. The basic law of supply and demand holds--as labor cost increases, there's less demand for it; technological substitutes become more feasible, etc. The question is where the market-clearing wage is; price floors generally result in gluts (e.g., in lower-skill workers, aka unemployment). It is, in reality, an unconscionable discriminatory tax on low-wage labor. If you can't find a minimum-wage job at current levels, you are simply facing an even worse probability of future employment. A minimum wage increase isn't a way of "forcing employers" to pay higher wages. Employers have budgets; they can't always pass along their increased costs. They will likely respond by doing things like increasing job objectives and raising hiring criteria. The real story: fascists declaring it illegal for a willing employer and applicant to do business; the unionists benefit from fewer experienced competitors--they fear a future competitor getting his foot in the door of the job market. It is a corrupt special-interest bargain with political whores.
Marriage and Family
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Glenn McCoy via Townhall |
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists
Kenny Rogers, "Blaze of Glory"
