River Valley Blogs

Double A wrote on Mar 29, 2008 10:07 AM:

" Success is defined as having money. The more money you have, the more successful you are perceived. This concept runs in our blood. And it ruins us. "

To Brian wrote on Mar 28, 2008 9:25 AM:

" Workers of the world unite!!
"

To BrianGSmith wrote on Mar 28, 2008 9:02 AM:

" If enough people refused to work for less than what they figure they are worth, business owners would be unable to run their businesses unless they acquiece. It's called Capitalism and Free Market economics. I am not "pretending" to be anybody. I am simply offering my opinion. I repeat--as a business owner it should be my option to pay what I want to who I want. As an employee, I can refuse to work for anything less than what I feel is fair. "

loven it wrote on Mar 27, 2008 8:31 PM:

" Watching the press side with Obama and turn on Hillary. Watching Hillary refusing to surrender. Watching the worry over what the Super delegates will do. Watching the gallup polls that shows that McCain now leads both Hillary and Obama by 10 points nationally. Watching two people who are used to getting entitlements clash over who is more intitled to get the primary nomination. As long as they keep this up the summer political news will be exciting. I can't wait for the implosion in Denver. "

Dear To BrianGSmith wrote on Mar 27, 2008 6:48 PM:

" What fantasy world do you live in where workers can choose between a myriad of job options.....If there were an infinite number of high paying respectable jobs they'd be filled with the majority of our population. You live in a vacuum...who ever you are or pretend to be. Our soldiers need foodstamps to feed their kids. There is no "free market" determining wages....just look at the #200 Billion infusion our government gave all those braintrusts on Wall Street. - Brian GSmith "

To BrianGSmith wrote on Mar 27, 2008 5:12 PM:

" People have the option of choosing to not work for companies that won't pay them what they feel they are worth. If I own a business, I should be able to pay who I want what I want. And they should have the right to refuse to work for me. And, there should be a flat tax rate-you shouldn't be penalized for success. "

Harsch on Broke Tax Payer wrote on Mar 27, 2008 11:56 AM:

" The obscenity of the disparity of wealth in the U.S. is indication that it is indeed much more difficult to get a job from a non-rich person. To put it in short-hand, if you prefer Wal-Mart to the numerous family business that would have been there then you are broke in more ways than one. "

RE: "Fairness" wrote on Mar 27, 2008 2:53 AM:

" Rather than discuss "fairness" in taxes lets address fairness in pay and compensation. If the US worker...the 95% employed US citizens, were properly paid for their hard work and executives were not paid obscenely more than any human deserves then this debate wouldn't exist. "Rich" and "wealthy" citizens are the obvious biggest benefactors of the current US system....and it's only right and just they pay larger tax rates to financially support the US system. Certainly our multibillionaire elitists would want to pay for this "war to save Western civilization" wouldn't they? You speak for Paris Hilton and I'm in the corner of Johnny Blue Collar. -BrianGSmith "

Michael Welch: Waiting For -- Lyndon Obama?... wrote on Mar 26, 2008 11:46 AM:

" I'd remind folks that when talking about the Democratic party one is NOT speaking of the 'Lenin faction' OR the Socialist party OR even of Ralph Nader. We who HOPE to vote for Obama aren't expecting oh let's say another 'war on poverty' in '09 or single payer national health care; we are gambling on a Feingolden kind of withdrawal 'timetable' from Iraq, a more reasoned approach to negotiating with Iran and a step back from the world wide 'war' with militant Islam as our esepcial 'crusade' against 'evil.' Obama will probably AUGMENT the war effort in Afghanistan (as would Hillary) and who knows if his attitude re: Pakistan would have acquired some 'nuance' (one assumes it would). Obama will merely be MORE liberal, not THE liberal of liberals... "

To Brian wrote on Mar 26, 2008 9:25 AM:

" See yesterdays 10:19am post. To use a real world example,look at all the talk about smoking bans in restaurants and bars. If everyone was only concerned about self interest, all non smokers would be for the ban and all smokers against. That is not the case. Many fair minded non-smokers recognize it is an issue of business owners rights, and oppose the ban even though they would be more comfortable going out for a night on the town with the ban in place. It is an issue of fairness. Hope that helps. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Mar 26, 2008 5:10 AM:

" Anyone not a billionaire is a sucker for voting Republicon.....suckers painting fences for the modern day Tom Sawyers....happily painting. Phil Osifier has voted republicon ever since he first voted because....get this....he says the Republicans stand for limited government and individual freeedoms. Not sure what Republican party ol' Phil has been observing 'cause there ain't any I've seen since Nixon. Don't let the Orwellian repeated code words fool you...when Republicons say "privatize" they really mean give no-bid excessive contracts to dubious cronies and party members. Our privatized military can't defeat a few thousand jihadi's in quicker time than my grandparents gen defeated the Nazi's, Japanese and Fascist simultaneously. Republicans rape and rob this Nation. "

Broke Tax Payer wrote on Mar 25, 2008 9:06 PM:

" Jimmy .
Did you ever try to get or have a job offered to you by a "poor" guy. "

The quitupled their wealth wrote on Mar 25, 2008 6:05 PM:

" in spite of Clinton, not because of Clinton. "

Harsch: Brilliant Argument wrote on Mar 25, 2008 1:58 PM:

" Soros is not republican, so...I'm lost. Soros supports Democrats, so...I just don't get it...unless it means that if one rich man is not republican then republicans are not doing enough to please the rich. That may be true--they are a hard lot to please. Some even hate Clinton, under whose presidency the top few percentage of them quintupled their wealth. "

A word about links from Jimmy wrote on Mar 25, 2008 1:57 PM:

" Certain links that are embedded in comments are wreaking havoc on the formatting of the blog. For the time being, please do not include links in your comments; instead, you might try simply using prose to direct other visitors to a particular site. I�ll keep readers updated on this issue, but for now, I�ll need to delete any links included in comments. "

Don't forget wrote on Mar 25, 2008 1:06 PM:

" Billionaire Soros is for the Democrats. If the Republicans were really such and advantage to the rich, then why is Soros against them? It has to do with personal freedoms that Republicans still guard. The primary one that keeps the Soros's from taking complete control is the 2nd Amendment. "

Michael Welch: Democrats Are Fine As "The Secular Party"... wrote on Mar 25, 2008 11:34 AM:

" Since the advent of that odd alliance with divorced Hollywoody non-church goer Ronnie Ray-gun, the Repubs have more and more become 'the Christian fundamentalist party' -- in 1988 Bush senior, an Episcopalian by heritage, gained the presidency by losing almost every voter group yet carrying these literalists by about 80%; and when that vote split among GHWB, Perot and Clinton in '92, he of course lost. But if the Repubs are the 'sectarian party' per opportunism, I'd suggest that the Demos remain the 'secular party' as many folks are rightly wary of religious politics (see Osama bin Laden as an example of such religion in politics hmm) and prefer a founders' constitution, not one by say 'Cotton Mather.' So I look forward to a new Democratic president -- Obama, I'm uh 'praying'... "

Bugs to 10:31 am wrote on Mar 25, 2008 11:24 AM:

" Not so much... because Hillary is for it also, and I believe McCain is just like Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2, who all talked about their opposition to abortion, but didn't do anything about it. And quite frankly, the most important issue to me in this campaign is ending the illegal occupation of Iraq, and Obama is the best bet to do that. "

To Bugs wrote on Mar 25, 2008 10:31 AM:

" I have seen on other boards that you support Obama for President. Doesn't his stance on the abortion issue concern you? "

Starfish wrote on Mar 25, 2008 8:11 AM:

" And, oh, on the Rich Dem/Poor Repub observation: the REAL divide is educated/ignorant. That fantabulously successful and gifted people like Warren Buffet publicly proclaim that they have an unfair advantage is particularly compelling. Bugs is right: the "social issues" are PURE dog whistle politics to call in the poor puppies to join forces with the Rockefeller Republicans. "

Starfish wrote on Mar 25, 2008 8:06 AM:

" "All business is evil, only politicians can solve our problems." I don't think I said that, Mr. Osifer. I said ". . .without regulations (i.e. RULES), businesses can and will become predatory?" Furthermore, they become large enough and strong enough that the quaint old "Robber Baron Militias vs. Crime Family/Unions" kerfuffles are long since antiquated. ONLY government (I didn't say politicians) can POSSIBLY have the muscle to intervene on our behalf. Sadly, said businesses have a way of co-opting governments. Yeah, there's a problem with central control--really, the same type of problem we have: you can't separate government from business interests. Also, I'm not lumping Chavez with Stalin; Chavez is a loud-mouthes populist radicalized by the bully Bush. Stalin was a fascist. "

To 9:18 pm poster wrote on Mar 25, 2008 7:08 AM:

" First of all, just because more Democratic Senators are wealthy than Republican ones, doesn't mean more Dems are rich than Repubs. That's what your implying right? Second: How many poor Republican Senators do you know? "

PHIL OSIFER wrote on Mar 25, 2008 6:59 AM:

" All business is evil, only politicians can solve our problems. So that is you thoughts starfish. Hugo Chaves, Fidel Castro,Stalin took over all business in their countries. When the Soviet Union folded industry in those countries did not know what to do. They had to have help from the west. ie US. This is what I mean by Marxist Socialist, you want it you'll get it. ENJOY, because personel freedoms will be gone "

Richest states vote Democrat wrote on Mar 24, 2008 9:18 PM:

" while in traditional repulican states like Mississippi (which is considered one of the poorer states) rich individuals vote Republican. To make a blanket statement that the Republicans are the party of the rich ignores also that the majority of the richest Senators are Democrats "

Bugs Raplin wrote on Mar 24, 2008 4:17 PM:

" What's interesting is that the elite-both Republican and Democrat-are in alliance on many of the issues that your average Republican is opposed to. Abortion. Why is this still the law of the land with the tenures of Reagan, Bush I and Bush II? Immigration. Witness Bush's guest worker nonsense. (the elite want that cheap Mexican labor). I suspect also that the Republican elite as personified by Bush could care less about school prayer, same sex marriage, and the 2nd Amendment. "

Starfish wrote on Mar 24, 2008 3:49 PM:

" The quid pro quo established by FDR in the 30's was that the government would bail out the banks if they would accept regulation. Now, with this bunch of goons, we have, as Dr. Krugman says, the quid without the pro quo. Don't you understand that without regulations (i.e. RULES), businesses can and will become predatory? What you may call an intrusive government, I call a clean river. What you call regulatory burden, I call recognizing a bully. Without government to intervene on behalf of the weak, a two-tiered society of nobles and slaves evolves. Where are your calls for personal responsibility with respect to Kenny-Boy Lay or Bear Stearns? "E-coli Halliburton?" Paul Bremer? "

Starfish wrote on Mar 24, 2008 3:37 PM:

" Nice platitudes, Phil, but isn't it odd how you government minimalists have voted in--and fervently stand by--the most intrusive, far-reaching government in modern history? I don't even know what this Marxist Socialist accusation is about other than a buzzword infested rant. I THINK you mean to invoke the totalitarian, central control we saw masking as "Communism" but I don't know for sure. Fact is, the focus on weaponry and muscle with the concurrent neglect of social justice and infrastructure looks a LOT like the Stalinist adversary that collapsed under it's own weight in the late 80's. "

PHIL OSIFER wrote on Mar 24, 2008 1:35 PM:

" I am 65 years old and I have voted Republican since I forst voted and here are the reasons.
I believe in limited government, personel responsibility,respect for life,respect for the Constitution. And many,many more. I went to a Roman Catholic school at the time JFK ran for President. Teachers at the school tried to convince me to back JFK because he was a Caholic. Good thing I did not have the right to vote for him. Although; in hindsight he was the last actual Democrat that there was. Today those people running the party are really Marxist Socialist. No offence though "

Re: Bugs observations wrote on Mar 24, 2008 12:31 PM:

" If correct, this tells me the Democrats should change their stance on some of these issues. "

Michael Welch: "Democrats In Name Only"?... wrote on Mar 24, 2008 11:31 AM:

" Democrats have, since the days of William Jennings Bryan, been more activist in modernizing government; Wilson completed the 'progressive' reforms in the 19teens and then FDR established effective regulatory agencies for banking and investment during the '30s while at same time going for some innovative public works programs that included a 'federal circus' (featuring a young virile trapeze artist named Burt Lancaster from Harlem, NY), part of the Federal Theater Project which provided jobs and public theater ALL ACROSS the nation with experimental and provoctive plays. LBJ attempted to complete that New Deal but was flummoxed by choosing war over a truly 'great society' and 'Democrats' playing 'Republican' re: Bill Clinton has been, largely, the legacy since... "

Michael Welch: American Calvinism... wrote on Mar 24, 2008 11:18 AM:

" 'Bugs' makes valid points below; plus the old canards about 'government intervention' (virtually EVERYONE -- especially the richest -- wants government intervention via the Fed in the current mortgage lending crisis however!) and 'interference' are effective. People of course feel closest to their local governments and think that they can effect it directly --rightly often, see La Crosse's blocking of the notorious highway 'corridor' through the marsh in the late '90s when EVERY major institution in the city supported it. But state and federal governments are essentially controlled by wealth which equals power. And wealth also is often identified with 'virtue,' see below, another old Calvinist 'canard'... "

Johnny Hobo wrote on Mar 24, 2008 10:22 AM:

" Jimbo, you really need to do your homework. Quick, look and see who pays the most in taxes, that is, who shoulders the burden of personal income taxes. Why, it's the "rich" (as you say.) Little wonder the "rich" benefit from tax cuts...probably because they are shouldering the tax burden. Where did you graduate from journalism school? "

Fairness wrote on Mar 24, 2008 10:19 AM:

" Jimmy, I think the answer lies in fairness. I know it is tempting for us to all want our piece of the pie, and want those that have theirs to be compelled to share. But, is that what capitalism and free enterprsie is all about? The tax breaks you speak of do ease the burden on the rich more than the poor. So, in that sense,they do favor the rich. But, when you realize the burden that is being eased is an unfair and proportionately larger burden to begin with, it is only making things "more fair". Even with all these tax breaks, the rich still pay more than their fair share in taxes. Sometimes you don't always vote self-interest. You vote for what is fair. "

econ 101 wrote on Mar 24, 2008 10:13 AM:

" the economy doesn't change the minute a president is elected. there is a time lag between the time that legislation is passed that efects the economy and when the economy begins to react to it. one easy explanation is that the democrats have benefitted from the changes caused in republican years. the other explanation is that presidents don't do much at all to the economy compared to what the fed chairman does. blame the fed chairman when things go bad. "

Bugs Raplin wrote on Mar 24, 2008 9:45 AM:

" In answer to Jimmy's question, the Republicans are more in tune with a lot of folks on the social/cultural/religious issues such as abortion, immigration, taxes, strong military budget, opposition to same-sex marriage, prayer in schools etc. This allows them to get elected and pursue policies that favor the rich to the detriment of many of their own supporters, who voted for them. "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »