Kamala's VP?

[wnyguy]

 

[B-Man]

 

 

Oh Tim. . . . . . . . . . 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

 

[B-Man]

 

 

Watch: Tim Walz STRAIGHT UP LIED About How Much School Kids Missed Thanks to His Lockdowns

 

 

 

It's a day ending 'y', so of course Tim Walz is lying again. This time about his record on COVID-related school lockdowns.

 

Watch:

 

 

Anyone who has or knows kids -- or pays an ounce of attention -- knows he's lying.

 

https://twitchy.com/amy-curtis/2024/08/14/watch-tim-walz-downplays-what-covid-lockdowns-did-to-kids-n2399626

[B-Man]

 

 

LIAR.

 

 

 

The Washington Post gives Tim Walz 4 Pinnochios.

 

"Speaking to a union audience, Walz swung too hard for the fences.

He claimed that Vance has not voted for any 'pro-worker bills,' and his source was a union report card that covered only two bills in one year.

 

As we have documented, Vance has voted for at least two bills that helped workers and had union support.

 

On top of that, claiming that Vance knows nothing about working people, when that’s the subject of his book, is also false."

 

Writes Glenn Kessler.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/15/walzs-false-claim-that-vance-never-voted-any-pro-worker-bills/

[All_Pro_Bills]

On 8/13/2024 at 12:52 PM, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

Oh…well that last sentence of mine was actually typed tongue-in-cheek, though your inability to recognize that was a failure of my writing style and not your reading comprehension! I’ll try to answer your questions:

 

When market socialists speak of transitioning beyond the current U.S. mixed economy, they’re usually thinking of models that don’t meaningfully alter the existing ratio of private businesses to public services (well…aside from the health care industry…and maybe also the energy industry…). So all that would really change is the matter of who owns the means of production and the particular way this ownership is distributed. These ownership details, however, would then fall under government regulation.

 

A simple example of what I mean: you want to start a business, but your business model involves you collecting 99.9% of all profits while the rest of your employees split the remaining 0.1% in the form of very low-wage jobs. The market socialist government steps in and tells you that, as founder/CEO, your personal profit collection is to be capped at, say, 51% while the rest of your employees are collectively entitled to the remaining 49%. So you can still make your high-quality products at lower costs to the consumer and with better worker compensation than your competitors. The key difference is that the socialist government more aggressively enforces minimum standards in the worker compensation component of your business plan.

 

In case you’re wondering why I’m just a social democrat and not a full-blown market socialist: for me, it’s much more about data-driven macroeconomic optimization than it is about the restrictions to certain entrepreneurial freedoms. There ARE situations in which I believe supply-side solutions best promote growth (especially if there is greater national oversight of outsourcing, stock buybacks, taxation loopholes, etc.). My reservations with market socialism models are related to potential unintended consequences arising from supply-side market distortions as well as from labor market distortions. At least for the time being, I’d be more than okay with a robust social safety net that includes universal health care and the complete elimination of medical debt.

Excuse the delay in responding.

 

I think what's missing in the example of my higher quality, lower cost, higher pay scenario is a discussion of the governments "take" from the enterprise. They're not going to leave 100% of the profits in any arrangement like 99.9% for me and .01% for the workers. The government might want say, 50% and leave the remaining 50% to disperse between ownership and workers. its the name of the game after all, the beast of government needs lots of cash for spending and redistribution.

And if I was running a private or corporate (if those things would be legal under the socialist system) company that was producing better products at lower cost and higher quality and paying workers more than the State run entities I suspect given the choice of competing with me in some "free" and fair market driven competition vs. using their power to shut me down they'd opt to shut me down.

My problem with any government run central authority overseeing the economy whatever the system is the assumption that central planners know what the correct price or wage or the correct decision on any other financial or business decision when it comes to running an enterprise.

My brother worked many years in Washington. His experience ranged from field work to running budgets and projects. At places like DOJ, Department of State, DHS, DEA. We talked many times of how the government functions. I talked about my experience in the private sector. One topic we discussed inefficiencies. He unequivocally stated the difference between my private sector company and the government is that if my firm was inefficient or poorly run it will go out of business but if the government is inefficient and poorly run (which it is), they'll just keep going and piling more funds and spending into a rat hole. It all sounds good in theory but in practice that's the ultimate end for any form of socialism.

Edited August 16 by All_Pro_Bills

[B-Man]

 

                          

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 Politics as Usual: Tim Walz is a Gun Control Opportunist.

 

 

In announcing his support for an assault weapon ban after the Parkland shootings, [Tim Walz] told The Star Tribune: “I’m not just asking to be the congressman from the First Congressional District. I’m looking at a broader state with broader issues, broader population densities, and I think as a legislator I’ve been proud to say if the facts dispute our ideology, change the ideology.”

 

As Mr. Walz sought to rebut charges that he had only recently altered his views out of political expediency, he pointed to procedural votes he had taken in Congress in 2015 and 2016. They were less significant than he implied. Virtually all of them were party-line roll calls to allow debate on gun controls, not votes on the underlying bills. These parliamentary maneuvers had no chance of succeeding in the Republican-controlled House, but they would allow Democrats to accuse the G.O.P. of blocking politically popular proposals.

 

That is why advocates on both sides of the gun issue gave them no credence at the time. Bryan Strawser, chairman of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, said procedural votes that went nowhere did not matter.

 

“I would see these votes and his mention of them when he ran for governor as an attempt to rewrite the script and position himself in the best possible light for his new political ambitions,” Mr. Strawser said, adding that Mr. Walz had “always voted to support gun rights” until it no longer suited him.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/15/us/politics/tim-walz-gun-control.html

 

https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/2024/08/18/politics-as-usual-tim-walz-is-a-gun-control-opportunist/

 

 

 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 8/16/2024 at 10:26 AM, All_Pro_Bills said:

Excuse the delay in responding.

 

I think what's missing in the example of my higher quality, lower cost, higher pay scenario is a discussion of the governments "take" from the enterprise. They're not going to leave 100% of the profits in any arrangement like 99.9% for me and .01% for the workers. The government might want say, 50% and leave the remaining 50% to disperse between ownership and workers. its the name of the game after all, the beast of government needs lots of cash for spending and redistribution.

And if I was running a private or corporate (if those things would be legal under the socialist system) company that was producing better products at lower cost and higher quality and paying workers more than the State run entities I suspect given the choice of competing with me in some "free" and fair market driven competition vs. using their power to shut me down they'd opt to shut me down.

My problem with any government run central authority overseeing the economy whatever the system is the assumption that central planners know what the correct price or wage or the correct decision on any other financial or business decision when it comes to running an enterprise.

My brother worked many years in Washington. His experience ranged from field work to running budgets and projects. At places like DOJ, Department of State, DHS, DEA. We talked many times of how the government functions. I talked about my experience in the private sector. One topic we discussed inefficiencies. He unequivocally stated the difference between my private sector company and the government is that if my firm was inefficient or poorly run it will go out of business but if the government is inefficient and poorly run (which it is), they'll just keep going and piling more funds and spending into a rat hole. It all sounds good in theory but in practice that's the ultimate end for any form of socialism.

 

Note that I’m referring strictly to market socialism models in my response:

 

1. Taxation: You’re always going to have tax requirements, with all of the accompanying potential headaches, whenever you have public services. Market socialism is not necessarily any better or worse than other forms of government in this regard. Even societies practicing anarcho-capitalism will feature an annoying array of “tax-like” user fees that must be paid.

 

2. Nationalization: Market socialism definitely doesn’t forbid privatization! Private companies won’t be shut down as long as their ownership structures meet certain regulatory criteria.

 

3. Central Planning: The whole point of market socialism is to NOT have top-down micromanagement of a macroeconomic system! Government intervention into a free market isn’t the same concept as a centrally planned economy. No economic system of any practical merit is truly laisse-faire because many types of market failures are inherent.

 

4. Various Inefficiencies: On the microeconomic level, not all goods and services are the same. Some of them function better outside the profit motive (national defense, law and order, firefighting, transportation infrastructure, health care, water utilities, possibly all forms of energy, etc.).

 

On the macroeconomic level, the theory behind market socialism is that societies are maximally efficient when socioeconomic mobility is optimal, and that socioeconomic mobility is optimal when labor exploitation is minimal (i.e., a laborer receives reasonable compensation for his/her contribution to the final product…so no cases of subsistence on food stamps while the capitalist accumulates wealth surpassing that of small countries…). The underlying theory is all rooted in standard Keynesian economics plus well-established Marxist critiques of capitalism. You basically want more people fully engaged in the economy, from both a consumer’s point of view and an investor’s one.

 

You may recall from my previous post, however, where I did acknowledge my reservations with the ability of market socialism to set labor wages and generate entrepreneurial speculation. Successful food co-ops are succeeding within the framework of a decidedly capitalistic economy; billionaires can be genuinely unique in their risk-taking personalities. There are no simply defined problems with obvious solutions in the world of political economics, even though socialists and libertarians alike may implore you otherwise. That is my current belief.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tommy Callahan]

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

[EasternOHBillsFan]

54 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

What totally ineffective propaganda on the #1 source for raw sewage, X!

 

Here, go buy some Kleexex for the next 4+ years, B-Man... the soon to be two time loser who can't win the popular vote will need a truckload.

 

https://www.amazon.com/kleenex/s?k=kleenex

 

 

Edited August 22 by EasternOHBillsFan

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

7 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

you mean politicians meet with rich donors?  Peter Thiel says hello.

[Doc]

 

On 8/23/2024 at 11:38 AM, B-Man said:

 

 

 

Soros is a racist Republican conspiracy…

Edited August 24 by Doc

[Biden is Mentally Fit]

Let he among us that hasn’t lied about winning a Chamber of Commerce award cast the first stone.