Guide To The Liberal Mind

[rightwinger]

You mean like Obamacare?

I was thinking more along the lines of your list.
Less work hours - for Coal Miners
National Parks and Forests, the FDA, most of them on that list were Theodore Roosevelt (R) ideas and were expanded by his Cousin FDR (D)
They took the ideas of Lincoln and Ted Roosevelt and made them into the Democrats ideas, then lied about it and said that it was always their ideas.

Who said anything about republicans?

We are talking about conservatives

The thread is about Liberal minds not conservatives.

Then why are you bringing up republicans?

You don't think that there are Liberal Republicans?
Teddy Roosevelt was a liberal progressive.

No shit

 

[sealybobo]

Which is one of the reasons why Henry Ford increased the wages of his workers.

Increasing wages doesn't do either. As a matter of fact it drives the price up.

Facts not on evidence. The price of cars actually came down when Henry Ford increased wages.

You could avoid appearing so ignorant by actually googling before you post such patently absurd falsehoods.

http://www.thehenryford.org/education/erb/HenryFordAndInnovation.pdf

View attachment 32038

Go back to Model Ts then.

Henry Ford didn't have all of the overhead they have today.

The price came down because instead of building them one by one they invented the assembly-line which increased production.

Read your own posts shithead.

Pay the workers enough so they can afford to buy the products they make. Even Walmart employees can't afford walmart products. That's why they go on foodstamps.

They sure don't worry about overhead when paying Mary GM CEO Mary Barra s compensation will be worth about 14.4 million Detroit Free Press freep.com

What about decreasing cost per unit don't you understand?

A corporation that operates in America has to both make a profit and benefit the citizens. If it doesn't, it can fuck off.

 

[sealybobo]

Which is one of the reasons why Henry Ford increased the wages of his workers.

Increasing wages doesn't do either. As a matter of fact it drives the price up.

Facts not on evidence. The price of cars actually came down when Henry Ford increased wages.

You could avoid appearing so ignorant by actually googling before you post such patently absurd falsehoods.

http://www.thehenryford.org/education/erb/HenryFordAndInnovation.pdf

View attachment 32038

Go back to Model Ts then.

Henry Ford didn't have all of the overhead they have today.

The price came down because instead of building them one by one they invented the assembly-line which increased production.

Read your own posts shithead.

Pay the workers enough so they can afford to buy the products they make. Even Walmart employees can't afford walmart products. That's why they go on foodstamps.

They sure don't worry about overhead when paying Mary GM CEO Mary Barra s compensation will be worth about 14.4 million Detroit Free Press freep.com

That's a myth. Another lib class envy talking point. Not even worth the keystrokes to engage in the argument.

I agree. You'd be wasting your breath.

 

[sealybobo]

Oooo scary, you got all serious and shit. No one wants to bring it down Mr. Big Bossman they just want to take the Psychopaths out of the equation. Do you think capitalism can work without undue exploitation or fraud? If it's that awesome then a return of some lost faith is nothing but a good thing. A lot of people have lost faith in capitalism because they did everything right and still failed. Shouting at people and calling them commies and infidels for noticing the warts and blemishes of your awesome economic religion is never going to restore anyone's faith.

America never put a guarantee to succeed in the bill of rights. Communism sure doesn't.

Your side rigged the rules. Its our government's job to undo what the mega rich have done through Bush and the GOP and the Supreme Court.

No wonder the GOP needed to steal 2000. They already planned on invading Iraq that's we know for sure and they wanted to appoint Alito and Roberts so they could pass Citizens United.

You are so wrong. Gore tried to steal the election in 2000 and failed, thank goodness. Libtarded logic at its best fails.

And I bet global warming isn't man made, right?

it isn't. And there is NO global warming. The eastern 2/3rds of the US just went through two of the coldest winters on record. The NWS long range forecast is for another unusually cold winter.

What happens in your neck of the woods doesn't have to necessarily be "warming". Have you seen it's the hottest on record in California?

 

[thereisnospoon]

The argument from the left is that big business has no moral compass and no sense of patriotism or duty to any country or market and the republicans gladly and without embarrassment let corporate people like that run our country for their own selfish ends.

Big business (capitalists) do not exist to exemplify patriotism, promote social values, or devote themselves to moral causes dreamed up by liberals. They exist to do one thing, make a profit. Now sometimes it helps in the effort to make profits to be patriotic or devote themselves to causes, and when this is the case, they often do so. But primarily, their mission is to make as much profit as possible.

You view this as "greed" but it isn't. It's just what capitalists do. What is "greed" is sitting on your liberal ass and expecting your government to confiscate wealth you didn't earn and give it to you.

I know this, it's why I shudder when republicans say that they will bring big business values to government. Capitalism is amoral by your definition, do you want an amoral government concerned only with cash flow? I don't, I want a government that is concerned with the well being of it's citizens. Remember them? Those things that republicans and democrats alike are fond of calling "consumers".

Excuse me, you libs are fixated on cash flow. From others to government.
Do you now deny you advocate for much higher taxes?
Fact is government SHOULD be operated like a business. Not for profit. But as a business should never do, that is to spend more than it receives in revenue.
The idea that our federal government borrows 50 cents for every dollar it spends is frightening.

 

[rightwinger]

The argument from the left is that big business has no moral compass and no sense of patriotism or duty to any country or market and the republicans gladly and without embarrassment let corporate people like that run our country for their own selfish ends.

Big business (capitalists) do not exist to exemplify patriotism, promote social values, or devote themselves to moral causes dreamed up by liberals. They exist to do one thing, make a profit. Now sometimes it helps in the effort to make profits to be patriotic or devote themselves to causes, and when this is the case, they often do so. But primarily, their mission is to make as much profit as possible.

You view this as "greed" but it isn't. It's just what capitalists do. What is "greed" is sitting on your liberal ass and expecting your government to confiscate wealth you didn't earn and give it to you.

I know this, it's why I shudder when republicans say that they will bring big business values to government. Capitalism is amoral by your definition, do you want an amoral government concerned only with cash flow? I don't, I want a government that is concerned with the well being of it's citizens. Remember them? Those things that republicans and democrats alike are fond of calling "consumers".

Excuse me, you libs are fixated on cash flow. From others to government.
Do you now deny you advocate for much higher taxes?
Fact is government SHOULD be operated like a business. Not for profit. But as a business should never do, that is to spend more than it receives in revenue.
The idea that our federal government borrows 50 cents for every dollar it spends is frightening.

It s conservatives who are consumed by cash flow

From the government to programs that help the people

 

[thereisnospoon]

I know this, it's why I shudder when republicans say that they will bring big business values to government. Capitalism is amoral by your definition, do you want an amoral government concerned only with cash flow? I don't, I want a government that is concerned with the well being of it's citizens. Remember them? Those things that republicans and democrats alike are fond of calling "consumers".

I want an amoral government only concerned with cash flow and the limited power it is granted under the constitution. Let the people define their own morals and address their own social concerns, it's not the government's place. Whenever government becomes involved in "do-good-ism" it fails. We have countless examples of that.

You say you're concerned with the "well being" of citizens, but repeatedly we've seen one liberal initiative after another fail to produce results. We've spent upwards of $20 trillion on social entitlement programs and we have as many people living in poverty as before we started. We're now spending $13,000 per child for education that lags behind the rest of the industrialized world. We've totally priced ourselves out of the manufacturing sector with unionized labor. On and on, one liberal initiative to "help people" after another has failed to help anyone but the politicians who continue to dangle a carrot for idiots like yourself, and push us closer and closer to totalitarian socialism and away from constitutional freedom.

We have spent many more trillions on the military and yet, we still have wars

I'd rather spend money on our people

Tell me, when was the last conflagration on US soil?
Ok, now that you've gotten that one, now you know why a strong military is essential to keep it that way...By keeping our armed forces equipped, we are in effect spending money on the people.

 

[mudwhistle]

Increasing wages doesn't do either. As a matter of fact it drives the price up.

Facts not on evidence. The price of cars actually came down when Henry Ford increased wages.

You could avoid appearing so ignorant by actually googling before you post such patently absurd falsehoods.

http://www.thehenryford.org/education/erb/HenryFordAndInnovation.pdf

View attachment 32038

Go back to Model Ts then.

Henry Ford didn't have all of the overhead they have today.

The price came down because instead of building them one by one they invented the assembly-line which increased production.

Read your own posts shithead.

Pay the workers enough so they can afford to buy the products they make. Even Walmart employees can't afford walmart products. That's why they go on foodstamps.

They sure don't worry about overhead when paying Mary GM CEO Mary Barra s compensation will be worth about 14.4 million Detroit Free Press freep.com

What about decreasing cost per unit don't you understand?

A corporation that operates in America has to both make a profit and benefit the citizens. If it doesn't, it can fuck off.

Well, they do. Unions throw a monkeywrench in the works. When GM started taking a bailout they were paying a couple of thousand employees not to work as per the union contract. The only reason for the bailout was to pay for their benefits, insurance, pension plans and bonuses.

 

[mudwhistle]

By Bryce G. Hoffman / The Detroit News

WAYNE -- Ken Pool is making good money. On weekdays, he shows up at 7 a.m. at Ford Motor Co.'s Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, signs in, and then starts working -- on a crossword puzzle. Pool hates the monotony, but the pay is good: more than $31 an hour, plus benefits.

"We just go in and play crossword puzzles, watch videos that someone brings in or read the newspaper," he says. "Otherwise, I've just sat."

Pool is one of more than 12,000 American autoworkers who, instead of installing windshields or bending sheet metal, spend their days counting the hours in a jobs bank set up by Detroit automakers and Delphi Corp. as part of an extraordinary job security agreement with the United Auto Workers union.

The jobs bank programs were the price the industry paid in the 1980s to win UAW support for controversial efforts to boost productivity through increased automation and more flexible manufacturing.

As part of its restructuring under bankruptcy, Delphi is actively pressing the union to give up the program.

With Wall Street wondering how automakers can afford to pay thousands of workers to do nothing as their market share withers, the union is likely to hear a similar message from the Big Three when their contracts with the UAW expire in 2007 -- if not sooner.

"It's an albatross around their necks," said Steven Szakaly, an economist with the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor. "It's a huge number of workers doing nothing. That has a very large effect on their future earnings outlook."

*snip*

source: http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/17/A01-351179.htm

(Excerpt) Read more at detnews.com ...

 

[thereisnospoon]

Democrats support unions and unions kick back donations to Democrats. Without unions Democrats couldn't compete with Republicans for campaign funds. Unions chase businesses put of states and even chase em out of the country. So Democrats not only attack businesses with taxes and massive regulations, but they also back the groups primarily responsible for job loss in America.

The group most responsible for job loss is the heartless bunch known only as "the stockholders". Isn't capitalism great? You can demand a factory move to China and never even have to see the faces of the newly unemployed or feel your greed hurt someone.

That goes back to this penchant by liberals for attacking job creation at it's core. Profit is evil. Businesses are here only to provide jobs. Both of which are totally fallacious arguments by the left.

I don't get you? In 2008 Ford had record profits that year. Everyone was happy including the employees who all got record profit sharing.

It is you who hates it when the employees get their fair share.

You want to cry about what is fair. In the past the CEO made 50 times the average employee. Today he makes 350 times. At what point do we speak up and ask what about our share? Walmart has record profits and what do the employees get?

Record profits is a bogus talking point.

BTW, who didn't take the bailout offer from TARP?

FORD.

Oooo scary, you got all serious and shit. No one wants to bring it down Mr. Big Bossman they just want to take the Psychopaths out of the equation. Do you think capitalism can work without undue exploitation or fraud? If it's that awesome then a return of some lost faith is nothing but a good thing. A lot of people have lost faith in capitalism because they did everything right and still failed. Shouting at people and calling them commies and infidels for noticing the warts and blemishes of your awesome economic religion is never going to restore anyone's faith.

America never put a guarantee to succeed in the bill of rights. Communism sure doesn't.

Your side rigged the rules. Its our government's job to undo what the mega rich have done through Bush and the GOP and the Supreme Court.

No wonder the GOP needed to steal 2000. They already planned on invading Iraq that's we know for sure and they wanted to appoint Alito and Roberts so they could pass Citizens United.

Yeah, we tried to steal the 2000 election.

Gore cheered when our deployed military had their votes thrown out. Obama went one up on that and simply burned their ballots.

Whoopsie!!!!

You forget about 95% of the facts in 2000. Typical. Piss off.

Oh? And those so called facts are?
This oughta be good.

 

[rightwinger]

I know this, it's why I shudder when republicans say that they will bring big business values to government. Capitalism is amoral by your definition, do you want an amoral government concerned only with cash flow? I don't, I want a government that is concerned with the well being of it's citizens. Remember them? Those things that republicans and democrats alike are fond of calling "consumers".

I want an amoral government only concerned with cash flow and the limited power it is granted under the constitution. Let the people define their own morals and address their own social concerns, it's not the government's place. Whenever government becomes involved in "do-good-ism" it fails. We have countless examples of that.

You say you're concerned with the "well being" of citizens, but repeatedly we've seen one liberal initiative after another fail to produce results. We've spent upwards of $20 trillion on social entitlement programs and we have as many people living in poverty as before we started. We're now spending $13,000 per child for education that lags behind the rest of the industrialized world. We've totally priced ourselves out of the manufacturing sector with unionized labor. On and on, one liberal initiative to "help people" after another has failed to help anyone but the politicians who continue to dangle a carrot for idiots like yourself, and push us closer and closer to totalitarian socialism and away from constitutional freedom.

We have spent many more trillions on the military and yet, we still have wars

I'd rather spend money on our people

Tell me, when was the last conflagration on US soil?
Ok, now that you've gotten that one, now you know why a strong military is essential to keep it that way...By keeping our armed forces equipped, we in effect spending money on the people.

We have not been invaded by a foreign power in 200 years

Hard to justify a military that is more powerful than the next ten nations combined.
By keeping our armed forces so equipped we are denying money to help our people

 

[mudwhistle]

The story has been scrubbed from this source.....of course....of course.

 

[mudwhistle]

By Mark Graban December 16, 2005 Read More →
GM Jobs bank programs — 12,000 paid not to work
Detroit News – 10/17/05

UPDATE 2/9/06: Why the sudden interest in this article?? Email me.

This isn’t new news, nor is it a new program, the GM “jobs bank”. When I worked at GM, 1995-96, as a new college graduate, it was a weird awakening to the working world that GM would pay people to not work. They really wasted the potential of those folks by just letting them sit around. It can’t feel good to come to work and not be needed. It’s better than not collecting a paycheck I guess, but not by much.

The reason I link to this was a pretty hard-hitting editorial in today’s Wall St. Journal (link here, subscription required).

I also bring this up in the context of the lean people who say you must promise to not lay off employees as a result of lean efforts. In a way, the GM jobs bank program was of a similar vein, but it promised not to displace workers because of the robots and automation that were expected to lead to Roger Smith’s “lights out factory” boondoggle. The WSJ points out, rightfully, that GM needed to have a growth strategy to make use of the Jobs Bank workers and that, without that, the program is a collossal waste and an embarrassment to GM.

If you’re going to work on lean, yes, it’s better to promise “no layoffs”, otherwise you’ll quickly drain away any motivation your workers have to make suggestions and drive improvements. But, make sure you’re ready to bring on more business and to grow, to make use of employees who will inevitably be freed up due to lean improvements.

Some quotes from the WSJ editorial:

Mr. Wagoner, meanwhile, is joining Ford Motor CEO William Ford in mounting a campaign to ask Washington for taxpayer help, starting with a passionate op-ed on these pages last week. But since Mr. Wagoner is asking for help, it’s only fair that taxpayers get to ask some questions in return about the GM business practices that so concern the bond raters.

A good place to start is with its “jobs bank,” which is the company’s euphemism for a post-employment limbo in which GM pays laid off members of the United Auto Workers not to work. If you want to know why GM’s costs are too high for the number of cars it sells, here’s one explanation.



….

GM has a host of problems, from the attractiveness of its product lines to the health-care costs it pays for its one million retirees. But a major one is size: It is a smaller company than it was or expected to be when it made the promises it’s now trying to keep both to retirees and current workers. GM has some of the most productive industrial workers in the world, but it has too many of them for the number of cars it can sell today.

The jobs bank is both cause and symptom of that problem. We don’t wish hardship on those workers, but the company’s future now rests on its ability to make its payroll match its production. If the jobs bank — and the self-deception it represents — cannot be fixed, that millstone will continue to drag down what was once one of America’s great companies.
​

 

[sealybobo]

Facts not on evidence. The price of cars actually came down when Henry Ford increased wages.

You could avoid appearing so ignorant by actually googling before you post such patently absurd falsehoods.

http://www.thehenryford.org/education/erb/HenryFordAndInnovation.pdf

View attachment 32038

Go back to Model Ts then.

Henry Ford didn't have all of the overhead they have today.

The price came down because instead of building them one by one they invented the assembly-line which increased production.

Read your own posts shithead.

Pay the workers enough so they can afford to buy the products they make. Even Walmart employees can't afford walmart products. That's why they go on foodstamps.

They sure don't worry about overhead when paying Mary GM CEO Mary Barra s compensation will be worth about 14.4 million Detroit Free Press freep.com

What about decreasing cost per unit don't you understand?

A corporation that operates in America has to both make a profit and benefit the citizens. If it doesn't, it can fuck off.

Well, they do. Unions throw a monkeywrench in the works. When GM started taking a bailout they were paying a couple of thousand employees not to work as per the union contract. The only reason for the bailout was to pay for their benefits, insurance, pension plans and bonuses.

I remember when the right attacked unions for this. Yes, it was a stupid thing GM agreed to. I have a feeling GM gave in to this demand and planned on using it to make the unions look bad. It sure worked.

So that policy is no longer. What else do you hate about labor unions?

 

[thereisnospoon]

America never put a guarantee to succeed in the bill of rights. Communism sure doesn't.

Your side rigged the rules. Its our government's job to undo what the mega rich have done through Bush and the GOP and the Supreme Court.

No wonder the GOP needed to steal 2000. They already planned on invading Iraq that's we know for sure and they wanted to appoint Alito and Roberts so they could pass Citizens United.

You are so wrong. Gore tried to steal the election in 2000 and failed, thank goodness. Libtarded logic at its best fails.

And I bet global warming isn't man made, right?

it isn't. And there is NO global warming. The eastern 2/3rds of the US just went through two of the coldest winters on record. The NWS long range forecast is for another unusually cold winter.

What happens in your neck of the woods doesn't have to necessarily be "warming". Have you seen it's the hottest on record in California?

Hottest WHAT in California....Hey rocket scientist, there are remnants of a hurricane crossing the Gulf of California, headed toward the Arizona border. There is a ridge of high pressure over the Canadian Rockies. The result is windflow patterns which drive air down from the high Sierra peaks. When air sinks it compresses. When air compresses it does what?
The weather patterns are forecast to normalize for this time of year. Get a grip on yourself.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Go back to Model Ts then.

Henry Ford didn't have all of the overhead they have today.

The price came down because instead of building them one by one they invented the assembly-line which increased production.

Read your own posts shithead.

Pay the workers enough so they can afford to buy the products they make. Even Walmart employees can't afford walmart products. That's why they go on foodstamps.

They sure don't worry about overhead when paying Mary GM CEO Mary Barra s compensation will be worth about 14.4 million Detroit Free Press freep.com

What about decreasing cost per unit don't you understand?

A corporation that operates in America has to both make a profit and benefit the citizens. If it doesn't, it can fuck off.

Well, they do. Unions throw a monkeywrench in the works. When GM started taking a bailout they were paying a couple of thousand employees not to work as per the union contract. The only reason for the bailout was to pay for their benefits, insurance, pension plans and bonuses.

I remember when the right attacked unions for this. Yes, it was a stupid thing GM agreed to. I have a feeling GM gave in to this demand and planned on using it to make the unions look bad. It sure worked.

So that policy is no longer. What else do you hate about labor unions?

Talk about twisting the facts. The Obama admin bailed out GM as a gift to the UAW for their undying support. Get a grip.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Go back to Model Ts then.

Henry Ford didn't have all of the overhead they have today.

The price came down because instead of building them one by one they invented the assembly-line which increased production.

Read your own posts shithead.

Pay the workers enough so they can afford to buy the products they make. Even Walmart employees can't afford walmart products. That's why they go on foodstamps.

They sure don't worry about overhead when paying Mary GM CEO Mary Barra s compensation will be worth about 14.4 million Detroit Free Press freep.com

What about decreasing cost per unit don't you understand?

A corporation that operates in America has to both make a profit and benefit the citizens. If it doesn't, it can fuck off.

Well, they do. Unions throw a monkeywrench in the works. When GM started taking a bailout they were paying a couple of thousand employees not to work as per the union contract. The only reason for the bailout was to pay for their benefits, insurance, pension plans and bonuses.

I remember when the right attacked unions for this. Yes, it was a stupid thing GM agreed to. I have a feeling GM gave in to this demand and planned on using it to make the unions look bad. It sure worked.

So that policy is no longer. What else do you hate about labor unions?

The question is not what else to hate about unions. But what NOT to hate about them.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Pay the workers enough so they can afford to buy the products they make. Even Walmart employees can't afford walmart products. That's why they go on foodstamps.

They sure don't worry about overhead when paying Mary GM CEO Mary Barra s compensation will be worth about 14.4 million Detroit Free Press freep.com

What about decreasing cost per unit don't you understand?

A corporation that operates in America has to both make a profit and benefit the citizens. If it doesn't, it can fuck off.

Well, they do. Unions throw a monkeywrench in the works. When GM started taking a bailout they were paying a couple of thousand employees not to work as per the union contract. The only reason for the bailout was to pay for their benefits, insurance, pension plans and bonuses.

I remember when the right attacked unions for this. Yes, it was a stupid thing GM agreed to. I have a feeling GM gave in to this demand and planned on using it to make the unions look bad. It sure worked.

So that policy is no longer. What else do you hate about labor unions?

Talk about twisting the facts. The Obama admin bailed out GM as a gift to the UAW for their undying support. Get a grip.

You're dealing with a man of faith here. Telling a liberal to get a grip implies that you're counseling him to abandon his religion of liberalism and all of its faith-based positions. We both know that Liberalism is a hard religion to leave, worse than Scientology even.

 

[thereisnospoon]

They are also good at stealing Republican ideas and make it seem that it's their idea. They are very good at that too.

You mean like Obamacare?

I was thinking more along the lines of your list.
Less work hours - for Coal Miners
National Parks and Forests, the FDA, most of them on that list were Theodore Roosevelt (R) ideas and were expanded by his Cousin FDR (D)
They took the ideas of Lincoln and Ted Roosevelt and made them into the Democrats ideas, then lied about it and said that it was always their ideas.

Who said anything about republicans?

We are talking about conservatives

The thread is about Liberal minds not conservatives.

Then why are you bringing up republicans?

Because this is how the liberal mind works.
In the face of overwhelming evidence that refutes their narrative, libs will attack those presenting the facts by using unsubstantiated accusations and insults.

 

[rightwinger]

You mean like Obamacare?

I was thinking more along the lines of your list.
Less work hours - for Coal Miners
National Parks and Forests, the FDA, most of them on that list were Theodore Roosevelt (R) ideas and were expanded by his Cousin FDR (D)
They took the ideas of Lincoln and Ted Roosevelt and made them into the Democrats ideas, then lied about it and said that it was always their ideas.

Who said anything about republicans?

We are talking about conservatives

The thread is about Liberal minds not conservatives.

Then why are you bringing up republicans?

Because this is how the liberal mind works.
In the face of overwhelming evidence that refutes their narrative, libs will attack those presenting the facts by using unsubstantiated accusations and insults.

What the fuck are you babbling about?

Do you drool while you post?