Letter to the Editor: 'Capital is onl...

Letter to the Editor: 'Capital is only the fruit of labor'

There are 32 comments on the Public Opinion story from Feb 14, 2010, titled Letter to the Editor: 'Capital is only the fruit of labor'. In it, Public Opinion reports that:

Chamber of Commerce Right to Work lectures to young Republicans simply serves big business exploitation.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Public Opinion.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
alex

Waynesboro, PA

#22 Feb 16, 2010
Please ... BOTH parties are in bed with corporate special interests. They BOTH sold us out--long ago--to "the global economy".

http://www.theworldperceived.blogspot.com
Clem

Mill Hall, PA

#23 Feb 16, 2010
Marxism has been tried. It failed. Socialism has been tried. It has failed. Current Marxists like Dave and Marlin always think their version of it will work. It always ends in economic collapse, the curtailment of freedoms or, in the case of Marxism, slaughter and imprisonment. You can't impose an unrealistic and anti-human system without oppression and force.
aaaaaaaaaahhhhhh hhh

Chambersburg, PA

#24 Feb 16, 2010
Dave wrote:
<quoted text>
The Chamber is supposed to be for all businesses. My small business that suffered those increases would be the same as hundreds here in Pennsylvania. Yet the Chamber did nothing & instead lobbied against my interest in lobbying against the reform bill. That public option and the Exchange both would provide us with the opportunity to belong to a larger pool & thereby get better insurance. This year, better insurance thru the FCDC saved me a lot of money. Too bad the Chamber didn't give a S*** about the plight of small business.
The Chamber railed against the Reform, bill because of the mandate. Employers in PA that offer health insurance benefits are already at a disadvantage competeting with companies that do not. They have the added disadvantage because their rates go up as the employees of the non providers utrilize the system without paying. The Chamber is more interested in protecting these non providers than helping those who do.
There is NOTHING in the health reform bill that added costs to businesses offering insurance only advantages.
The Chamber CHOSE to ignore those advantages.
They also will lobby against the cap & trade ignoring the membership who will benefit from greener technologies & efforts. Ask the HVAC emplyees involved in the surge of Geothermal HVAC and the home owners who benefit. Ask those involved in weatherizations programs & wind & solar. Ask the Fulton County tax payers who will save money astheir Courthouse goes Geothermal.
Maybe it has something to do with the PA Chamber's man in charge of their PAC is an ex oil & gas man. What do ya think.
The Chamber should avoid picking issues that benefit some of its members while harming others.
Not everyone in business is so disfunctional as to depend on slave labor to make a buck. Companies that treat their employees as assets should not be put at a disadvantage.
The PA Chamber will lose my membership asd I am sure others as they choose to ignore & lobby against some members for the benefit of others.
It is an unfortunate fact that whether it is the politicans/political parties, businesses, unions, or trade /business groups, they all have one moto..follow the money. Even the Chamber of Commerce would seem to be beholden to the monied constituents (at least when the interests of the small business conflicts with those of larger corporations)
Dave

Shippensburg, PA

#25 Feb 16, 2010
Clem wrote:
Marxism has been tried. It failed. Socialism has been tried. It has failed. Current Marxists like Dave and Marlin always think their version of it will work. It always ends in economic collapse, the curtailment of freedoms or, in the case of Marxism, slaughter and imprisonment. You can't impose an unrealistic and anti-human system without oppression and force.
I thought we were Nazis or was it communists, socialists, progressives, liberals, dems, blah blahg blah. You people need to learn what these terms mean.

I mean wow, everytime a Democrat gets in office, out come the same terminology.

Come on, get original.

As to failure, the last time we had a Democrat President, we had a surplus!

Evidently, the only time we don't have a Marxist, socialistic communistic president, we ended up with a deep rcesioion & near financial collapse! That worked well, what do you think?
Fordguy

Harrisburg, PA

#26 Feb 16, 2010
Dan the Man wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a conscious effort by the rightwing propaganda machine to manipulate the language, an agenda that hearkens back to Newt Gingrich's days when he put out a list of key buzzwords for the 80's wingnuts to repeatedly use distort the message of Democrats.
The reason voters are rejecting the Democrats message isn't because of the communications genius of Newt Gingrich (he never was THAT good). It's because the Democratic agenda largely HAS been enacted at the national level and in several states, and while it did some good, it also had some negative side effects.

There were two examples of the New Deal/Democratic agenda right before us. The first was the domestic auto industry. The automakers agreed to provide lavish pay and benefits for even the most menial jobs, while the workers would enjoy virtual job security. This worked from the 1950s through the late 1970s, when GM, Ford and Chrysler had a virtually monopoly on the market. Given that scenario, it was easy for them to negotiate generous contracts with the UAW and merely pass the costs on to the consumer (either through higher prices or a cheapening of the vehicle, or both).

Only problem was that, over time, both management and the UAW focused more on feathering their own nests than on pleasing the customer. By the early 1980s, they were producing junk, and when newer rivals with better ways of making cars came into town and set up factories HERE, they were toast. The SUV boom postponed the inevitable, but eventually they were driven to bankruptcy (GM and Chrysler) or the brink of bankruptcy (Ford). Plenty of customers had decided that they would rather pay for a superior engine or more sound proofing than forklift drivers making $100,000 with overtime, or small co-pays for Viagra prescriptions.

The second is our largest state, California. It is a liberal's wet dream - it has high progressive income taxes, high overall levels of taxation, lavish social welfare programs, tolerance of illegal immigrants and layers-upon-layers of environmental and business regulations. And the state is broke. Middle-class and upper-middle class residents are fleeing as fast as they can.

It's not going broke because of Proposition 13 - the state's tax collections rebounded to pre-13 levels by the late 1980s. And Proposition 13 hasn't prevented the state from having either the 6th or the 16th (if you exclude some taxes) highest level of taxation in the country. If the state ranked in the bottom 10 for level of taxes, people would have a point regarding the negative effects of Proposition 13, but it doesn't, so they don't.

Nor is it because blue states subsidize red ones. If you subtract the federal money spent on federal lands within states, and federal money spent on defense, red states subsidize blue ones. Which means that the red states are subsidizing generous social welfare benefits offered by blue ones.

The simple fact is that the state spends too much, and its tax base is disappearing. It also shows the perverse effects of overeliance on progressive income taxes. Proponents of that plan like to portray "the rich" as Paris Hilton types who are living off of the money daddy (or grandaddy) made, but, in reality, the incomes of the rich are much more volatile than those of the middle class. They rely more on a business that could go south, or on investments that tank in a recession.(For example, if your spending plans rely heavily on 100 tax payers who make $1 million annually, you will get a lot of money from them in good times. But if their annual income falls to $500,000 in a recession, they are still richer than most people, but your tax collections from them have been cut in half. You can't tax income that isn't there.)
LIL JOHN

New Bloomfield, PA

#27 Feb 16, 2010
Dave wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought we were Nazis or was it communists, socialists, progressives, liberals, dems, blah blahg blah. You people need to learn what these terms mean.
I mean wow, everytime a Democrat gets in office, out come the same terminology.
Come on, get original.
As to failure, the last time we had a Democrat President, we had a surplus!
Evidently, the only time we don't have a Marxist, socialistic communistic president, we ended up with a deep rcesioion & near financial collapse! That worked well, what do you think?
'''As to failure, the last time we had a Democrat President, we had a surplus'''

Glad you brought that up --

Within the first year he raised taxes after promising he wouldn't , which ''cost him congress''! The first time in 40 years that republicans had control of congress!

See the hand-writing on the wall do ya?

It's congress that regulates the purse strings not the president!

He and you can claim the credit but it was congress that gave him that surplus!
Dave

Shippensburg, PA

#28 Feb 16, 2010
LIL JOHN wrote:
<quoted text>
'''As to failure, the last time we had a Democrat President, we had a surplus'''
Glad you brought that up --
Within the first year he raised taxes after promising he wouldn't , which ''cost him congress''! The first time in 40 years that republicans had control of congress!
See the hand-writing on the wall do ya?
It's congress that regulates the purse strings not the president!
He and you can claim the credit but it was congress that gave him that surplus!
Lets pretend your theory is true.

We had this same Congress basically thru 2006.

What happened that we went from a surplus to deficits?

lets look at the possibilities.

1) the Republicans got struck by lightnig & turned into fiscally irresponsible spendomaniacs.

2) We had a change in Presidents.

Ummmmmmmmm

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#29 Feb 16, 2010
Clem wrote:
Marxism has been tried. It failed. Socialism has been tried. It has failed. Current Marxists like Dave and Marlin always think their version of it will work. It always ends in economic collapse, the curtailment of freedoms or, in the case of Marxism, slaughter and imprisonment. You can't impose an unrealistic and anti-human system without oppression and force.
Socialism has not failed, dipshiiit. Norway, Amsterdam, Canada, just to name a few, are very successful socialist countries. Most of the Western European countries we rely on are at least moderately socialist. Sorry that fearmongering and misinformation isn't working out for you.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#30 Feb 16, 2010
Also: what could be more "anti-human" than a healthcare system that completely screws over the majority of its users?
Filter

Mercersburg, PA

#32 Feb 16, 2010
LIL JOHN wrote:
<quoted text>
'''As to failure, the last time we had a Democrat President, we had a surplus'''
Glad you brought that up --
Within the first year he raised taxes after promising he wouldn't , which ''cost him congress''! The first time in 40 years that republicans had control of congress!
See the hand-writing on the wall do ya?
It's congress that regulates the purse strings not the president!
He and you can claim the credit but it was congress that gave him that surplus!
so, if this is the case, why are you constantly blaming everything on Obama? Make up your mind. You are the most hypocritical person on the post. You bash people for posting under different names but you do the same. You bash people for not using valid citations, but you quote wikipedia. You sir, are the laughing stock of this forum. again, bringing entertainment to offices all over the 4 state region-people bet on what stupid thing you will say next. aren't you something? NOT!
Jason - the writer

Gettysburg, PA

#34 Feb 20, 2010
It's interesting what you say. Let's also remember that raising labor rates creates inflation. Therefore, the people that you're trying to help, while perhaps helping in the short term, end up right back where they were when the inflation for "artificial" rate raises catches up.
Dave

Shippensburg, PA

#35 Feb 20, 2010
Jason - the writer wrote:
It's interesting what you say. Let's also remember that raising labor rates creates inflation. Therefore, the people that you're trying to help, while perhaps helping in the short term, end up right back where they were when the inflation for "artificial" rate raises catches up.
Its the other way around, Employees get raises to offset inflation. The cost of labor is only part of the cost of products.

Look at oil. Oil doesn't go up because the oil workers got a raise.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

The New Deal Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The New Deal Goes South (Jul '13) Jul '13 Terry 1
News Wonkblog book club: "Fear Itself" (Jul '13) Jul '13 Holly 1
News 'New Deal' on hep C (Mar '13) Mar '13 Zellers pharmacy 1
News The Taliban vs. Teenage Girl, Richard Hell, The... (Mar '13) Mar '13 Alex 1
News Political Book Club: A Reading List (Mar '13) Mar '13 Dean 1
News Wynne Liberals plan to continue ONTC fire sale (Mar '13) Mar '13 Dean 1
News Book review: 'The Great Deformation: The Corrup... (Mar '13) Mar '13 Dean 1
More from around the web