Author Topic: Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??  (Read 4728 times)

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??
« on: March 07, 2008, 12:38:52 PM »
I dont know whether he changed his position (unlikely) or whether the Dems have just moved that far left.  Heck, I'd vote for him!
From this AM's Wall St Journal op-ed.

Quote
Nearly 16 years ago in these very pages, I wrote that "'one-size-fits all' rules for business ignore the reality of the market place." Today I'm watching some broad rules evolve on individual decisions that are even worse.
Under the guise of protecting us from ourselves, the right and the left are becoming ever more aggressive in regulating behavior. Much paternalist scrutiny has recently centered on personal economics, including calls to regulate subprime mortgages.
With liberalized credit rules, many people with limited income could access a mortgage and choose, for the first time, if they wanted to own a home. And most of those who chose to do so are hanging on to their mortgages. According to the national delinquency survey released yesterday, the vast majority of subprime, adjustable-rate mortgages are in good condition,their holders neither delinquent nor in default.
There's no question, however, that delinquency and default rates are far too high. But some of this is due to bad investment decisions by real-estate speculators. These losses are not unlike the risks taken every day in the stock market.
The real question for policy makers is how to protect those worthy borrowers who are struggling, without throwing out a system that works fine for the majority of its users (all of whom have freely chosen to use it). If the tub is more baby than bathwater, we should think twice about dumping everything out.
Health-care paternalism creates another problem that's rarely mentioned: Many people can't afford the gold-plated health plans that are the only options available in their states.
Buying health insurance on the Internet and across state lines, where less expensive plans may be available, is prohibited by many state insurance commissions. Despite being able to buy car or home insurance with a mouse click, some state governments require their approved plans for purchase or none at all. It's as if states dictated that you had to buy a Mercedes or no car at all.
Economic paternalism takes its newest form with the campaign against short-term small loans, commonly known as "payday lending."
With payday lending, people in need of immediate money can borrow against their future paychecks, allowing emergency purchases or bill payments they could not otherwise make. The service comes at the cost of a significant fee -- usually $15 for every $100 borrowed for two weeks. But the cost seems reasonable when all your other options, such as bounced checks or skipped credit-card payments, are obviously more expensive and play havoc with your credit rating.
Anguished at the fact that payday lending isn't perfect, some people would outlaw the service entirely, or cap fees at such low levels that no lender will provide the service. Anyone who's familiar with the law of unintended consequences should be able to guess what happens next.
Researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York went one step further and laid the data out: Payday lending bans simply push low-income borrowers into less pleasant options, including increased rates of bankruptcy. Net result: After a lending ban, the consumer has the same amount of debt but fewer ways to manage it.
Since leaving office I've written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I've come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.
Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.
The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else.
Mr. McGovern is a former senator from South Dakota and the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • Guest
Re: Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??
« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2008, 02:14:28 PM »
mcgovern hasn't changed that much its the party landsliding to the left 

outerlimit

  • New Member
  • Posts: 34
Re: Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2008, 04:13:15 PM »
People will vote for whomever they are told to vote for.

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2008, 04:24:37 PM »
No, usury is still usury no matter how you try to justify it.  The answer is a federal minimum and living wage.

outerlimit

  • New Member
  • Posts: 34
Re: Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2008, 04:31:27 PM »
No, usury is still usury no matter how you try to justify it.

I agree.

Quote
The answer is a federal minimum and living wage.

Sorry, no matter what you set "minimum wage" to it is still minimum wage.

Silver Bullet

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,859
Re: Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??
« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2008, 04:55:56 PM »
I despise McGovern.  I read once where he gave a speech in the midwest when he was running for President.  I think he was talking to farmers.  Any way, he told the farmers that he would tax all income over $100,000 at 100%. 

He thought that, since the farmers all made much less, that they would enthusiastically applaud.  Instead, there was dead silence. 

McGovern later told one of his aides that "they must all think they're going to win the lottery or something."

He had no clue, no clue, that these were hard working folks who believed in the American way, that everybody had an opportunity through hard work and enterprise to make a success of themselves.  The farmers were contemptuous of McGovern's socialist mindset.

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Re: Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??
« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2008, 06:27:16 PM »
No, usury is still usury no matter how you try to justify it.  The answer is a federal minimum and living wage.
Let's see.  If you put a cap on the price of something, you create a shortage.  If you put a floor on the price of something, you create a surplus.
This is Econ 101.
So you want a shortage of affordable loans for working class people and a surplus of unemployed people.
Nice. rolleyes
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • Guest
Re: Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??
« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2008, 06:31:35 PM »
where'd thast mcgovern story come from?  i  was around then and it got past me

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??
« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2008, 11:11:19 PM »
I despise McGovern.  I read once where he gave a speech in the midwest when he was running for President.  I think he was talking to farmers.  Any way, he told the farmers that he would tax all income over $100,000 at 100%. 

He thought that, since the farmers all made much less, that they would enthusiastically applaud.  Instead, their was dead silence. 

McGovern later told one of his aides that "they must all think they're going to win the lottery or something."

He had no clue, no clue, that these were hard working folks who believed in the American way, that everybody had an opportunity through hard work and enterprise to make a success of themselves.  The farmers were contemptuous of McGovern's socialist mindset.


FWIW, my Professors of American history (all three on this campus) all hold that the reason Socialism never had much go in America, compared to other countries, is that Americans, by and large, believe that they can succeed and achieve. They as such emphatize with "the rich" a lot more, as they envision the possibility they may become rich through hard work etc., whereas in other countries people have less of a faith in their own social mobility.

Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??
« Reply #9 on: March 10, 2008, 05:59:41 AM »
Isn't interesting how McGovern is considered a hardcore socialist, yet most Republicans today hold nowhere near the laissez faire views expressed in that op-ed?

Rabbi, I'm a working person and I've never paid anywhere near the kind of interest charged by payday lenders. Why should they be exempt from usury laws?  Oh yeah. The.Big.Lie.  That any regulation whatsoever on business will force them to 'stop providing their services'.  In the case of payday lenders, the only service is to their own pockets, by setting up shop in poor neighborhoods and screwing the low paid workers therein to the max.

The.Other.Big.Lie.  That minimum wage laws 'cause unemployment'.  The ongoing corporate threat that if forced to pay you a decent wage, they'll fire you.  Nevermind that if the minimum wage were .25 cents an hour, the multinationals would still outsource labor to some third world sweatshop where they could get by with .75 cents a day. 

Regulation of business evolves as a result of unscrupulous behavior by business itself.  Unrestrained capitalism is every bit as tyrannical and onerous as communism.  You only need to look back at our history some 150 years from the railroads to the robber barons and on to the sweatshops and child labor of the industrial revolution to understand that much.

Take your business, for example.  You must have a federally issued license.  Then the fedgov. tells you with whom you may and may not do business.  They impose strict record keeping requirements on you.  And, they can show up at your shop anytime and demand to see your inventory and your records.  If they're not satisfied, they can confiscate your inventory and lock up your shop and put you out of business.

Most businesses don't need anywhere near that much regulation.  But they do need laws protecting their customers, vendors, employees and stockholders from unethical and dishonest practices.

grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,435
Re: Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??
« Reply #10 on: March 10, 2008, 06:51:44 AM »
Yes, Riley but.....Look what government regulation has done to create inflation regarding energy.  Nuclear energy is safe, clean, inexpensive and efficient.  Regulation has created a scare mentality that drives the inability for anyone to contemplate building reactors, to say nothing of the hoops.  We are legally prohibited from recycling nuclear waste. (95% of which is recyclable)  We import recycled waste.  We have vast resources of coal, gas and oil, yet are blocked by your statist buddies at every turn.

The inflated price of energy is driving all the bad stuff in the world today from terrorism to heating your home and driving your car, buying your food and virtually everything.

The statists blame the big bad oil companies, China and India's demand for oil, coal and gas.  Talk about deflecting blame with the big lie.
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw

xavier fremboe

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 904
  • All-American Meanie
    • The Shop
Re: Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??
« Reply #11 on: March 10, 2008, 06:55:25 AM »
Isn't interesting how McGovern is considered a hardcore socialist, yet most Republicans today hold nowhere near the laissez faire views expressed in that op-ed?

Rabbi, I'm a working person and I've never paid anywhere near the kind of interest charged by payday lenders. Why should they be exempt from usury laws?  Oh yeah. The.Big.Lie.  That any regulation whatsoever on business will force them to 'stop providing their services'.  In the case of payday lenders, the only service is to their own pockets, by setting up shop in poor neighborhoods and screwing the low paid workers therein to the max.

It seems that we either have an entrepreneurial opportunity or equilibrium with payday loans. Why regulate it?

It would seem that someone should move in to the same areas and offer a payday loan with a lower rate/fee, thus offering people an alternative to being screwed. 

If other services have moved into the area and attempted to compete with a friendlier rate, but found that the amount of bad loans made the lower rate unprofitable, then it would seem that we have found market equilibrium. 

If the government regulates the rate below the level of profitability (even on an opportunity cost basis), you are sending people to borrow from friends, family, or loansharks.  Is that a superior solution?
If the bandersnatch seems even mildly frumious, best to shun it.  Really. http://www.cctplastics.com

grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,435
Re: Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??
« Reply #12 on: March 10, 2008, 06:58:22 AM »
"Is that a superior solution?"

Sure, but the statists can't stand market solutions.  It would give them nothing to do and we can't have them not be able to control our lives.  They do know better than we do how to live our lives, no?
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??
« Reply #13 on: March 10, 2008, 07:13:49 AM »
Quote
Look what government regulation has done to create inflation regarding energy.  Nuclear energy is safe, clean, inexpensive and efficient.  Regulation has created a scare mentality that drives the inability for anyone to contemplate building reactors, to say nothing of the hoops.  We are legally prohibited from recycling nuclear waste. (95% of which is recyclable)  We import recycled waste.  We have vast resources of coal, gas and oil, yet are blocked by your statist buddies at every turn.

Ah, yes.  The usual blather about 'evil government regulation'.  Let me ask you this-do you think the  nuclear industry is any more regulated here than in Europe?  And yet Europe has twice as many nukes as we do.  How do you explain that, my good man?

grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,435
Re: Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??
« Reply #14 on: March 10, 2008, 07:34:37 AM »
Good question.  Is it?  Nobel Prize winner Carter pushed and signed a law prohibiting the recycling of nuclear waste.  Wonder why?  Well it was a payoff to dig the hole in the mountain out west to dispose of the waste which is 95% recyclable.  But you pick one of many.  What about the rest of my comments?

  The Green River Basin is said to have 2 trillion barrels of oil, 1.2 trillion accessible with today's tech, at a profit, at $40.00 a barrel.  Governor Granholm of Michigan proudly states that her best accomplishment was to shut down any exploitation of natural gas/oil under Lake Michigan.  Never mind the drilling can be done safely from on shore.  The Cubans have hired the Chinese to drill for oil in the Straits of Florida closer to our shores than what our laws allow the "Big Oil Villains" who would supply America.  The prohibition for exploitation of ANWAR is a joke.  It seems to me I remember one of the Democrat obstructionists whined that it would take 6 years to get that oil on line, so what value would that be?  He said that over 6 years ago.  And the value is self evident.

I guess ending the democrat obstructionism would take away some of their sloganizing;  "No blood for Oil."  Well, there would be no blood for oil if they'd get the hell out of the way.
The best thing going to end the so called dependence on oil is to use it up faster so that the capitalists can more quickly figure out new ways to produce it for profit and the market place of ideas and products works so much better than statist socialism.

As for your comment about the railroads, with today's government regulation there would be no railroads.  It couldn't be built without waiting another 100 years to fill out the paperwork and environmental impact studies.  Actually, in retrospect it probably wouldn't be built at all.
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw

Silver Bullet

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,859
Re: Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??
« Reply #15 on: March 10, 2008, 08:11:24 AM »
Quote
where'd that mcgovern story come from? 

Sorry, we're talking forty years ago.  I had to have read it in a newspaper (probably a "column") or a magazine. 

I can't provide a link.   smiley

Silver Bullet

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,859
Re: Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??
« Reply #16 on: March 10, 2008, 08:13:22 AM »
Quote
FWIW, my Professors of American history (all three on this campus) all hold that the reason Socialism never had much go in America, compared to other countries, is that Americans, by and large, believe that they can succeed and achieve. They as such emphatize with "the rich" a lot more, as they envision the possibility they may become rich through hard work etc., whereas in other countries people have less of a faith in their own social mobility.

That makes sense to me.

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,622
Re: Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??
« Reply #17 on: March 10, 2008, 10:00:53 AM »
I remember hearing a while back that McGovern went into the private sector and tried to run his own business after failing to win election.  He later changed his views a bit on govt interference and regulation I think.
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??
« Reply #18 on: March 11, 2008, 10:45:53 PM »
Quote
You only need to look back at our history some 150 years from the railroads to the robber barons

Wait... someone thinks that the 19th century railroads were an example of 'unrestrained capitalism', rather than a cooperation between companies and legislatures bribed by said companies?
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??
« Reply #19 on: March 11, 2008, 11:16:03 PM »
Quote
someone thinks that the 19th century railroads were an example of 'unrestrained capitalism', rather than a cooperation between companies and legislatures bribed by said companies?

uhhhhhh............that's an example of 'unrestrained capitalism', dontcha know.

outerlimit

  • New Member
  • Posts: 34
Re: Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??
« Reply #20 on: March 11, 2008, 11:24:16 PM »
You know, I get really tired of hearing how the "dems have moved so far to the left" by FOX News watchers and AM radio listeners on the internet.

Let's get a clue here, the Democrat Party was infiltrated to the top by the Communist Party of the USA back in the 1960's.

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??
« Reply #21 on: March 12, 2008, 12:55:49 AM »
Quote
someone thinks that the 19th century railroads were an example of 'unrestrained capitalism', rather than a cooperation between companies and legislatures bribed by said companies?

uhhhhhh............that's an example of 'unrestrained capitalism', dontcha know.

...are you serious?
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • Guest
Re: Who Wouldn't Vote For This Man??
« Reply #22 on: March 12, 2008, 05:31:14 AM »
bribes is such a harsh term  incentive fees is much nicer  just as yesterdays kickback is todays "rebate"