Election 2008

Try.

(Oh yes—very big of the Flat Hat to include the ever-endangered conservative point-of-view).

The amount of time it would take to respond to all of the incredibly misleading, factually incorrect, and just plain dumb assertions that this piss-poor excuse for a rant makes would not nearly be worth it.

You are so wrong in so many ways and for the FH to publish this even just online says a lot about the paper.

Also, some factual clarifications:

“By the way, to clinch the point, an unemployment rating of either 3 or 4 percent (I can’t remember which) is almost unavoidable because that’s low enough that it inevitably ends up including people who choose not to work or cannot work — due to a comfortable reliance on welfare or to unavoidable disability.”

By definition, the unemployment rating only includes people who are able to work and seeking work.

“instead we could be asking the people to sacrifice. Like we used to. But Americans are unwilling to sacrifice anymore, because we’ve become spoiled and a little decadent”

Food prices have risen 50%, whereas wages have not; this implies people may only get 66% as much food as they used to with the same money (which, for many Americans, especially the millions below the poverty line, is all they have). 1.3 homes were foreclosed in 2007 alone, so if we assume an average household of three people, that’s 3.9 million Americans who lost their home. Even car sales are down: domestic car sales are down about a third and one in five car dealerships is expects to close this fall alone. Is that not sacrifice?

“this still benefits our trade balance. More nations buy more goods from us now, because they can afford to.”

Absolutely false. Our national debt is so high ($10 trillion) because we export less and less. A few Europeans going on NYC shopping trips is not the same as a functioning economy. As our economy falters, so does production of exportable goods. Also, $3 trillion invested in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, for which we see no economic return is not doing great things for our economy. Couldn’t that money have gone to infrastructure, education, investment, financial safeguards, etc?

“Oil prices have increased due to a number of economic factors. One is the increased demand for oil coming from China and India — rapid, up-and-coming, industrializing nations that require oil to fuel their growth.”

Americans consume 25% of the world’s oil and make up less than 10% of its population. Neither India or China even approaches our vast, and ever-increasing, consumption of oil. There are many factors that contribute to the price of oil, but America’s heavy consumption (especially fighting two wars) leads the market.

“While their governments are inextricably linked to their national oil businesses — ours is not.”

Oil companies get taxed. A lot. A whole lot. Not to mention heavily subsidized. The “actual” price of gas is about twice what you see on the pump, government pays for the rest. By which I mean, of course, that taxpayers pay for the rest. Keeping the price artificially low is a great way to spur consumption, as is the idea of a “gas tax holiday.”

“Your Democrats would take those windfall profits for the government. I have such a moral/political problem with that. What the heck did the government do to supply the U.S. with that oil”

How about declaring war against countries that don’t sell us oil and spending $3 trillion opening up their oil fields, some of the largest in the world? I thought that was pretty helpful.

This is a bit of a straw man argument, no? Pick the weakest possible arguments against Bush, knock them down, and declare yourself the vanquishing foe of “liberal ignorance”?

Isn’t this a lot like if I were to cite “my conservative friend who says Obama is a Muslim,” write a thousand words explaining why Obama is not a Muslim, and then conclude that obviously “conservative” is synonomous with “ignorant” and that my defense is sufficient reason to vote for Obama?

C’mon Beth. If you’re going to produce all this in defense of Bush, go after the real issues. What about American soldiers lost to Iraq and Afghanistan, 4,000 dead and 30,000 wounded? What about the 4.5 million refugees we’ve created in the region? What about WMDs? What about torture?

What about the $5 trillion in national debt Bush has run up? What about the $500 billion federal deficit projected at the end of this year, compared with the $700 billion surplus at the end of Clinton’s term? Why is private-sector job creation growing at a rate on sixth of what it was under Clinton?

Why are there five million additional Americans now below the poverty line, compared with eight years ago? Why do seven million more Americans lack health insurance? Why have average health insurance premiums doubled?

What happened to America, Beth? Isn’t any one of these questions more worthwhile?

Anonymous,

How do you reward talent, ability and hard work in your socialist state? How do you know how much to produce and what to produce? How do you avoid shrinking the total output your nation? How do avoid crumpling under the weight of a bloated civil service system a la France?

Just because markets sometimes fail doesn’t mean you ought to abandon them. On the other hand, socialism has failed and people have abandoned it.

Regards,
The Developed World

Anonymous,

Thanks for what seems to me to be a reasoned response. But let me suggest something to you.

I was raised Catholic, and I could call myself Catholic. But since I don’t believe in the rules of the Catholic Church, I don’t consider myself to be Catholic.

There are certain rules that we live by here in the U.S. As examples, I point to the Constitution, the free market system and representative democracy. If one doesn’t believe in the rules, one is welcome to go live somewhere where they have other laws.

The reason you don’t see Sweden and Denmark producing as much as we do, or giving the same amount of foreign aid, or being the country that others turn to for protection is precisely because they are, as you called them, welfare states. That’s not how we do things here.

When this becomes a welfare state, you’re going to find that the people with money go elsewhere. The people with the money are the people who create the jobs. Then who’s going to pay the taxes for the government to redistribute the wealth?

Besides that, maybe things are different for you, but I’ve been working for many, many years. Most of the idealists around here aren’t paying their own tuition. I’m paying my own tuition, property taxes, income taxes. I’ve done an amazing amount of volunteer work, and I contribute regularly to charity. I’m telling you, I feel less and less like working when the government takes it away from me to give it to others.

How much of a cut in your standard of living are you willing to take? Between animal rights people and anti-oil people, “environmentalist and socialists, we’re travelling on bare feet, writing with a stick in the dirt, and as I recall, that involves pulling your mate into the cave. I’d be a lot more accepting of people’s socialism if they were living what they’re preaching—and paying their own bills.

“It’s good to be idealistic, but I suspect you’re one of those people who’s going to get bitten hard on the ass when you get to be a grownup and discover reality.”
Do you think I haven’t held jobs? That I haven’t ever interacted with people outside of this college atmosphere? Learned when to keep my political opinions to myself, knowing which people will and won’t agree with me?

And we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I am socialist; you are not. I think capitalism and the free market are bad things, while you value them. I am basing my opinions about economics on empirical evidence. For example, a more unregulated market around the industrial revolution led to abused workers without unions and rights, low standards of production, and the placement of big corporations over the consumer. All of this versus how successful democratic welfare states like Sweden and Denmark are (Sweden has one of the world’s lowest poverty levels). You can base your opinions on that old model of capitalism, but I think it’s been shown it simply doesn’t have the interests of the people.

Oh, and by the way, the government subsidies for windmills and ethanol? You’re welcome.

Hey, Merp—how about signing your real name, for starters?

Let me help you out here….

First, do you personally know anyone on welfare? I do. Where do you live? I live in Hampton, not on the cushy grounds of W&M, where Mommy and Daddy are paying my bills. You’re talking to a grownup here.

What’s comfortable about welfare is not having to get up and go to work. Not missing Oprah. Not much else, but when you’ve been told for years and years that this is all you can expect, well, that’s what you believe. Bless Clinton’s heart, he did manage to do a “welfare to work” program, and fact of the matter is, when you keep a job for awhile, show up on time, and do your job, the wages increase. You’re not supposed to stay at minimum wage—you’re supposed to move up, which is what the people paying for your edumacashun did.

Next, government control of industry belongs to a little system known as fascism. Or communism. We don’t do that here—well, actually, we do. We bail them out, we regulate the bejeezus out of them….hell, might as well take over. Government does so well with all it touches, doesn’t it? Can you say FEMA?

You the consumer have the ONLY real control in a free market—that is NOT the government’s job. You ought to give a perfunctory reading to the Constitution one day, and find out what the job of the government REALLY is. Do you honestly believe we’re going to have non-plastic computers? You think the government can make Dell make computers out of what, wood?

You’re not thinking out of the box, sweetie. It’s good to be idealistic, but I suspect you’re one of those people who’s going to get bitten hard on the ass when you get to be a grownup and discover reality.

I’m glad this blog and comments are so constructive. I’m glad this is all so objective and not more of the same bi-partisan bull that’s been ruining this country since the 60s.

Liberal ignorance = repetitive.

Discuss

(All in good fun my leftist friends).

LOL you’re funny. You have a great way of twisting around words.

I wasn’t aware anything was comfortable about welfare.

“And do you honestly think that President Bush has the magical power to not only have changed us all over to renewables in the past eight years, but made them start up immediately?”
Yes, the government has the power to control the market, i.e. tax cuts to oil companies. The government could have subsidized the renewable-producing companies. Maybe the market wouldn’t have switched entirely by now, but Bush definitely hasn’t tried!

“What exactly are you using to post this dribble, a grass computer? One word….plastic.”
Exactly my point. I, the consumer, really do not have much control over the energy market. That is the government’s job. If I could, I would buy cars, houses, etc. run completely on renewables. But that option isn’t in the market yet. There isn’t an option for a non-plastic computer. And, yes, that can be blamed on the government for not subsidizing that industry.

“If you’re going to present yourself as a thinking person at W&M, how’s about you think first?”
I believe, actually, that I am thinking too far outside the box for you. Clearly, what I was talking about was way beyond your line of thinking.

What?! Subsidizing!? Welfare doesn’t actually get “someone else to take care of you and your children”?? People on welfare don’t “choose not to work,” they cannot support themselves on minimum wage?? Who knew?!

Try thinking outside your tiny box.

One, she didn’t say that people are comfortable living on welfare. She said that there is a comfortable reliance, meaning that there is a means of getting someone else to take care of you and your children, should you choose not to work. Do we have courses in reading comprehension around here, or is “knee jerk confabulation” simply the standard?

And do you honestly think that President Bush has the magical power to not only have changed us all over to renewables in the past eight years, but made them start up immediately? Do you really believe that there’s no need for oil? What exactly are you using to post this dribble, a grass computer? One word….plastic.

If you’re going to present yourself as a thinking person at W&M, how’s about you think first?

I’m glad you pointed out that there are so many people with “a comfortable reliance on welfare.” It’s about time somebody talked about these people leaching off of my money, sitting around all day living like kings, with nothing better to do than vote for Democrats. Who cares if no one can survive on minimum wage? They should find a better job!

And you’re definitely right about Bush not causing an oil crisis. No need to mention that if we had switched to renewables, there would be no need for oil anyways. I’m paying for my lovely rich child’s education with the money I make from my oil company; we wouldn’t want the peasants to know this little tidbit of information.

“(Not due too much to war, despite popular misconception, though we have been borrowing tons of money where instead we could be asking the people to sacrifice. Like we used to. But Americans are unwilling to sacrifice anymore, because we’ve become spoiled and a little decadent)”

yes we should totally be asked to sacrifice for a war a lot of us disagree with

and yes we’ve all become so decadent (conforming of course to a christian morality scale i assume)

Liberal ignorance? Don’t be so quick.

- The unemployment statistics also fail to take into account those people who cannot find a job before their benefits end. That is to say, once a person’s eligibility for collecting unemployment benefits runs out, they are no longer part of the statistic. There is an article from 2004 that explains the concept of unemployment; its numbers are out of date, but the explanation is accurate: http://www.thinkandask.com/news/jobs.html .

- I for one am rather happy that gas prices are going up; on a personal level it’s annoying, but I also know it’s contributed to a serious discussion of America’s energy future and where we currently get our oil.

- Americans aren’t frustrated that oil companies are making huge profits, generally speaking. I think the stupid part is that they’re doing so while our federal government gives them huge tax breaks, at a time when we’re spending $10 billion a month on our two wars and already face a huge debt. Meanwhile, the working class in this country are looking a grim economic landscape. So, the criticism isn’t that companies are turning a profit – I think anyone would be happy when an American company does well – it’s that we’re giving them huge tax relief WHILE they’re making those profits.

that little war in one of the most oil-rich countries in the world? the one that was ultimately provoked by nothing except the will of the administration?

Beth,
Thank you! I am looking forward to reading more of your blogs!

Beth,
I want to agree with you. I really do. The arguments your friends use irritate me as well, but in countering them, you need to make sure you’re sticking to facts.

On unemployment:
That 4.5 percent still represents people who want jobs and can’t find them. The unemployment rate doesn’t, and never has, counted people who simply choose not to work — or who give up their search. Unemployment would have been sky high in the 40s if we factored in all those housewives.

On Oil:
To be sure, rising oil prices instilled an inflationary fear in central banks around the world, but it’s a stretch to say they caused the economic slump. I’d attribute that to the mortgage meltdown/crisis/slump/crunch/buzzword.

Also, the oil companies’ situation is more complicated than your illustration would lead anyone to believe. You’ve blurred the line between oil production and refining. Margins in the refining business have always been tight because if you don’t produce the oil yourself, you’re banking on the value added in the refining process. Higher oil prices don’t help you out when your costs rise with them.

Where high oil prices do help is in production. If you can pull oil out the ground really cheaply, like Exxon and other do in certain places around the globe, then you make the difference between the cost of production and what you can sell it for on the open market. On this side, rising oil prices don’t affect the cost of production (much), so margin increases with them.

Several other things (and I’m really trying to help, not criticize here). Oil companies don’t set the prices. The market does that. Also, you’re missing a term in the overall discussion, and it’s confusing everything else. Revenue is all the money that’s coming into a business. Profit is revenue minus costs/taxes/etc. Profit margin is profit as a percentage of revenue. There’s more to it than that, but talking about EBIDTA would get even more boring.

Anyway, I appreciate the efforts you’re making on an otherwise really liberal campus. Keep fighting the good fight.

Finally!

Thank you!