Thanks for the link. I'll check out the views there. All the discussion misses some historical points of premise. I would recommend the review of the "Federal Reserve Act", the work of Bill Cooper on the I.R.S. and Federal taxation history, and reasonings of Congress for creation of the minimum wage. I am sure you have to oppose the minimum wage as well, believing the market should determine wage levels, correct? Now if we have 20 million ILLEGAL Aliens (note the word ILLEGAL) willing to take American jobs IF Bush let's them become LEGAL Aliens by it, what does this do to American wage pressures? WHY BRAD?
The fact is we don't live in a Democracy, or even a representative Democracy. Right now, Bush is introducing a plan to eliminate overtime pay for returning veterans now serving in Iraq and other theatres. Is it because we demand this of our Government? Do you support this? Then who did want it and why? The "entities" our Government serves want it, the 'Corporations'. Whether run by a Khan, King or a Kerry, all government has always IMPOSED its rule on the people not sought their consent in Democratic manner. It is for this reason We the People are reduced to having to debate amongst ourselves whether or not we can all have access to medical care, etc. There was actually a time when the Un(Bush thinks it's IN)-alienable Right to life ( as in health care for all humans of our Country who NEED help sustaining their physical life), liberty (as in right to be free to work and decide how our moneys are spent), and the pursuit of Happiness meant something to Americans. Franklin never thought of profit in organizing a fire station, Dr. Rush in treating the ill. These were fundamental to a civilized society and were virtuous to have, not even open to debate as to value to the society in any public circle. We've strayed if this is our debate today.
There is a lot to this matter which is assumedn and subsumed by the post and leading to this debate, such as fundamental flaws to the system of economics we live under today. The minimum wage would have no use or reason for being if the 'system' allowed the employees, whose productivity allows for the owner to purchase machines to assist labor, to enjoy the benefits of their productivity. Because it does not, the 'owner' will use the machine to lay off the very people who made the acquisition possible. I've heard Rush Limbaugh argue for 'technocracy' using a common claim that the new machine takes labor to create, so the introduction of machines to lay off employees and concentrate more wealth per unit produced in the owner, is therefor good as it 'creates' jobs. This is absurd and self-contradictory.
Ask, 'Why was the machine created?' To increase unit output and decrease cost per unit. Now if this is achieved there is only one formula to use right? What is prime factor in cost per unit element? LABOR(as in human employee). Takes less money in labor expense to effect the unit factor on this side of the formula. The machine is created to decrease cost in wages to humans. Does the machine then get the money? NO, the owner does. How did he get the money for it? LABOR, and enough Productive labor to create the profit to allow for the expenditure. This is a fatal flaw of the system. It does not reward production but insidiously uses productive labor to reward the owner with all the proceeds of others labor.
The moneys saved and raised by profit due to improved labor of employees, in a utopian society, would go to the employees who made it. Such a system would eventually have a class of millions who have that highest and final goal of all labor, LEISURE. A 30 hour work week would be natural, the a 25 hour work week, etc. Leisure is the highest state a Society can achieve and should be the goal of any forward Society. In leisure, people have time to think, read, compose, invent, rest, raise, inspire. Its attainment would not take away from the economy, but add to it more and more. We have no leisure (well the owners do) to achieve higher and higher ideals and goals because the system now punishes production and the very people who make companies successful.
Believe me, the logic of the present system is the pragmatism that is skewing the true objectives of the economy of this Nation and making it sound completely American to lay off Americans and hire slaves in dictatorships, qua NAFTA and GATT. Go back and read the mechanisms that have created the Federal Income Tax, the Federal Reserve (neither Federal nor a reserve, having NO relation to our government, yet we are told to send our checks to them, not the Government [this is deep but you'll understand how this glaring faact came into existence once you review it) Act, and the economic system that allows medical costs to be so high.
Consider how we live in a economic system that supposedly rewards efficiency that reduces unit cost and labor, yet also supports a sector that has had ONLY increases in its cost despite all the advances of technology and improved labor - the medical health sector. They do this because the system they are using is fundamentally flawed. We must not only seek health care for all Americans - and I consider this a virtuous undertaking, not a crime against anothers pocket-book - and a change in the essential application of economic theory to medicine as a whole. Right now, if you live in Mexico, you'll pay a tenth of what you'll pay for the same drug to save your life in America. WHY? It's a flawed system they are exploiting and which should not apply to medical care. It is allowing pharmaceutical companies to dictate the cost per pill to their salespeople - the physicians - based on income, not any formula of cost/labor.
The purpose of medicine is to heal, not profit on the pain and suffering of its Citizens. We must remove the incentive for money from the system and put it back to its proper role by - in this the 21st century - becoming proud to live in a Nation where ALL the people have a guarantee of LIFE as our forefathers intended it, and as we now must come to know it - as a value not a cost.
Finally, there is no way I accept that anyone who even said it, really would let a 80 year old lady or man of this Country die because their own children could not afford to care for them anymore. Such is more than un-American, it's cruel and un-civilized.
I once argued against a Mayor who decided he'd force a un-experienced out-of-town Afro/American to be Fire Chief of the City because he was minority and minorities should have more say in Governmnet affairs. While I agree there should not be racism in hiring, I never heard of a fireman pulling up to a house fire and asking if the residents were white or black before acting to save a life. It was an insult to the community to go outside and not hire from our own, because they earned it for service and experience, and not because they were one color and not another. The flaw was in the Mayor's thinking and racism, not the Firemen's. I have to think we, even those who have said otherwise in their postings here, would never withhold our hand to the sick and dying because it was not our responsibility. If I'm wrong to say this, I apologize, but the mark is not on me, for I have a basis upon which I hold my values, a context originating in fundamental knowledge of the why, how, and who's of my thoughts and conclusions. I have a basic premise not at odds with my fundamental values and political goals.
JoeUser Forums
