Compassion

I miss Rush and his brilliant commentary.

i miss george carlin

"...by how many people no longer need it"

and in the end, people still need it thanks to not doing anything

In addition to the left feeling generous by providing welfare they also create hard economic times so that even more people can get on welfare.

And with Biden and Carter we also get extremely high inflation so that those on welfare can no longer afford anything.

The poverty rate in America was around 40% when Johnson pushed his wealth redistribution plan called the Great Society. It is now 50 years later and the poverty rate is at 40%. Welfare has done such a great job of doing absolutely nothing. To make matters worse 40% of the population in the early 60's is a lot smaller number of people than 40% of the population of today. Welfare is a failure.

ok, so that would mean that the reagan and bush administrations have done nothing to actually make the numbers better

Reagan yes, Bush (Sr and Jr) no. Trickle down economics works. I know saying that typically makes leftists heads explode but those are the same leftists who still think Biden is doing a great job. Trickle down is just another term for free market economics. Basically you get the government off the backs of the people then the economy rebounds. And it works whenever a president and Congress actually sign off on it together.

For whatever reason it took Reagan 2 years to realize that because he held on to Carter's blunders for his 1st 2 years in office. Then he did his best to get government out of the way, fighting Democrats tooth and nail all the way, and he managed to give us an economy that was close to booming as it can get will all of the stupid laws both parties have passed to drain people of their hard earned money.

Bush made more mistakes that Trump did. Especially in his last 2 years when he just rolled over to the Democrat majority in Congress and gave them whatever they wanted.

"Trickle down economics works"

never mind the fact that no smart politician has ever decided to bring them back

"I know saying that typically makes leftists heads explode but those are the same leftists who still think Biden is doing a great job"

good thing i have the best of both worlds by admitting that biden is terrible

reagan rose taxes on the common american. meanwhile, his presidential term got lucky and the economy improves thanks to the absolute chaos we call "the stock market." this isn't reagan exclusive either, hence the prosperity people enjoyed under bill clinton's terms.

No smart, dumb or somewhere in between, politician ever brought trickle down back. And we have never had an economy as good as it was during Reagan since. Not even Trump's economy was a good as Reagan's. No Democrat since JFK has ever presided over a strong economy. They have always made the economy weaker. Clinton had a stable economy but that was about as close to anything good the Democrats have ever done.

"good thing i have the best of both worlds by admitting that biden is terrible"

That shows that you can actually use that grey matter between your ears. Most Democrats on ImgFlip are not capable of using their brains.

"reagan rose taxes on the common american."

The only tax that I can remember that Reagan added was to tax the tips that waiters and waitresses get. And that was a Democrat tax that was wrapped in a bill that had a bunch of stuff that Reagan was trying to get accomplished. The Dems did that to him all of the time and he kept asking for a line-item veto so that he could only pass the stuff that would have benefited the nation.

"his presidential term got lucky and the economy improves"

It was not luck. One of Reagan's heroes was Calvin Coolidge. Coolidge (and Harding) gave us the roaring 20's. One of the biggest boom economies in US history. Reagan followed Coolidge's example as much as the Democrats would let him. They fought him tooth and nail. There were even Republicans who turned on him. Once George HW Bush got elected, he pretty much disavowed everything Reagan did. That's because George HW Bush is what you would call and idiot. His son wasn't much better. The stock market does not affect the economy, the economy affects the stock market. When the economy is good the stock market reflects that but only after the economy turns good.

Bush is the one who started to destroy people's prosperity but Clinton brought it down further. Then Bush Jr. Obama just about killed us. Trump gave us a great economy basically by not being Hillary Clinton. After 8 years of Obama, the business world breathed a massive sigh of relief when Hillary lost. They responded to the news that Hillary lost by releasing some of their reserve cash back into their business and more jobs were created and people prospered more. Trump didn't do that. Just about any of the Republicans who ran for president in 2016 would have cause the same boom.

"Most Democrats on ImgFlip are not capable of using their brains"

most republicans on this site won't even acknowledge my grey matter :)

"After 8 years of Obama, the business world breathed a massive sigh of relief when Hillary lost."

at least the large businesses with unethical workplace rules had that sigh of relief since it meant another 4 years of low wages.

"It was not luck"

by your terms, reagan's presidency was the last time the economy was actually good for the common american (though the chicago/nyc/rust belt inner city dweller most likely can't relate to that). it should be worth noting that between the 60s and the 80s were a time when private railroad companies were consistently merging into one another while the prosperous americans were being forced to buy an automobile. the 80's also saw cuts to amtrak services that provided carless americans with a method to and from work. in the past, the economy depended on the railroad, and in the world of logistics, it's practically impossible to replace the railroad with anything else. now we have freight companies that are too big to manage themselves properly and americans wasting potentially productive hours in congested traffic.

"but Clinton brought it down further"

i would argue that clinton still lucked out with the technological revolution that was the personal computer, which had developed into a robust product in the 90's.

our economy may never recover regardless of which political party is in control of congress until the housing crisis is fully realized and we undo the mistakes which lead to the 2008 recession.

I admire anyone who steps away from the standard left-wing narrative because they actually have the ability to think. Even if they are wrong, dead wrong. So very, very, very wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong and more wrong. So wrong that even on a good day they are still wrong. LOL

"at least the large businesses with unethical workplace rules had that sigh of relief since it meant another 4 years of low wages."

I see what you did there. You turned a positive into a negative. Remember what I said about being wrong?

Wages didn't drop under Trump. The economy did a 180 and instead of half of the country needing government assistance, everyone had a job, until COVID hit. But most of the job losses were because of Democrats locking businesses down.

If your wages are too low for you then it is NOT your employers fault. The fault lies 100% on you. You haven't put in the time and effort to make yourself more valuable to an employer.

"it should be worth noting that between the 60s and the 80s were a time when private railroad companies were consistently merging into one another while the prosperous americans were being forced to buy an automobile"

Seriously??? Private railroad companies may have merged, I have no idea if they did or did not. What killed passenger rail travel was air travel and automobiles. It wasn't because they were forced to fly or drive a car, it is what the people wanted. Passenger rail went the way of the buggy whip. It was too slow and just not convenient enough.

That is why "the 80's also saw cuts to amtrak services..." If people don't want to take a train then they should not be forced to.

"i would argue that clinton still lucked out with the technological revolution that was the personal computer, which had developed into a robust product in the 90's."

I first got into computers in the early 80's. Being a software developer the PC revolution is something I was a part of, not in any major way, just in the fact that I write software. When the internet opened up to the private sector that is when computers really started becoming another household appliance like a telephone and a refrigerator. But that didn't start in the 90's and the 2000's were the most transformative times because now high speed internet was replacing dial up nearly everywhere. At the same time the internet grew leaps and bounds.

"Wages didn't drop under Trump"

never said they dropped. they still remained below $15/hr.

"everyone had a job"

i can say from personal experience that this isn't true

"If your wages are too low for you then it is NOT your employers fault."

to quote a wise man...
So wrong that even on a good day they are still wrong. LOL

"You haven't put in the time and effort to make yourself more valuable to an employer."

this implies that the position of the amazon worker or the bus driver isn't valuable. with that mindset going around, it's no wonder people are having a mass resignation. i've seen people put in a lot of effort into their jobs yet their bosses don't care.

"Private railroad companies may have merged, I have no idea if they did or did not"

shows all you know about the topic, i guess.
due to government regulation on transport fees, companies such as the atlantic cost line, the chessie system, the seaboard air line, and countless others were forcefully conglomerated into one company: CSX transport; one of four major freight railroads in the United States. the other big names, Norfolk Southern, Union Pacific, and Baltimore-Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) have similar stories.

"It wasn't because they were forced to fly or drive a car, it is what the people wanted"

no one wanted the General motors streetcar conspiracy. no one wanted freeways in their neighborhoods. no one wanted urban downtown streets that placed cars over pedestrians. the idea that consumers wanted cars over their railroads is disputed at best, and that's without considering that american federal law and the education system was hijacked by the oil industry and rewritten around cars.
suburbanites got the opportunity to flee from the downtown cities which were now seen as taboo to live in due to government corruption. meanwhile, city dwellers never got that chance, and cars are barely functional in downtown areas.
nowadays, car usage and plane tickets are mostly seen as inferior to the more comfortable train by people my age.

"If people don't want to take a train then they should not be forced to."

i see the narrative that people are being forced to take a train places a lot as if a train they're never going to use is coming at their expense. it's not about taxes either; even private companies such as brightline and especially texas central railway are victim to this mindset.

Part two

As a software developer I possess all of the skills required to push a broom. I can easily stop writing software and take a lesser paying job to keep the place clean. But I have bills to pay and food to buy so why would I. Especially with this moron in the White House who is trying very hard to kill the economy and make the value of the dollar worthless.

"shows all you know about the topic, i guess."

About the railroad industry, you're right. I really don't think about them too much. Except with this new job that I just started about 4 months ago, I get to work at home 4 days out of the week and they pay for my rail pass into work on the one day have to go in. So on that one day of the week I think about the railroad.... a little.

"due to government regulation on transport fees"
Now we are talking the same language. The government, the root of all evil. I am a Constitutionalist, not an anarchist so I think governments should be kept small and powerless. If our government hadn't grown so massively (and it still is growing in power) then the private rail industry would only be affected by consumer demand. If people preferred to travel by airplane (because it is a whole lot faster) or travel by car then the private passenger railroad is going to suffer. That is just a fact of life. And the 50's and 60's is when the airline industry really took off (no pun intended unless it was funny. Then it was completely intended). There wasn't that much air travel in the 40's and earlier. The airline industry didn't come into full stride until the 60's.

If you are talking about freight rail then their merging is no different than a lot of companies. Technically speaking there are only a small number of companies who own most of the rest of the companies. That is not always true, for example the company I work for is not owned by anyone except for the guy who started it.

I know we have anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies but somehow large corporations have figured out a way around the anti-trust laws. I used to work for a software company about 20 years ago that got swallowed up in a larger corporation. My friend who still work there said that the company culture they once had is all gone. It is not the fun place to work that it once was. However, no one is forcing her to stay at that job.

I think you and I are probably on the same page with monopolies. Because they AND the government working in tandem, eliminate the competition.

I can't reply on your comments below because the reply hyperlink has been removed.

"it's when there is suddenly a staff shortage that maybe we should start questioning the value of their labor."

I'm not sure what you mean by that. If there is a staff shortage then everyone usually has to work harder to make up for the shortage. Some businesses will give bonuses after they hire more people to make up for the shortages but not all.

"if inflation is as real as many claim it to be, then perhaps jobs should adjust to meet that inflation as they successfully did decades ago"

Huh? You can't see the cost of everything going up? Where is a business supposed to come up with the extra cash especially when their expenses have just gone up because of inflation. That being said, the company I just started at have everyone a raise after my first month there specifically because of inflation. They also gave everyone bonuses. Then a few weeks later they gave everyone who started work before I got there another bonus. So some companies do but most don't. It is not the business' fault that the government cannot stop printing money.

It is part of the Modern Monetary Theory. Both political parties have bought into this awful theory. The theory is that if the government needs money for anything they should just print it. Even the economist who support it worry about inflation but they think Congress will stop the inflation. I'm still waiting for Congress to save the day.

"anyone can do them, but if not incentivized to do those jobs, no one will apply. as a result, labor shortages will naturally occur, which will damage efficiency of their respective businesses."

That is nothing new. It is the reason why Democrats want to tear down the border because they want more Latinos up here to pick grapes, lettuce and so on.

It is never a matter of not being able to find Americans who will do those jobs. It is a matter of Americans not doing those jobs for so little pay. Some business owners never learn this lesson and some large corporations are so huge that doesn't matter.

"i fear that if someone like desantis gets into power, he can abuse the patriot act to gain info on peoples' lifestyles and livelihoods."

I agree with you on the Patriot Act but I disagree with you on DeSantis. If he is like Bush then yeah that's a problem. If he is like Ted Cruz then there is no problem.

"we will never get the full idea of peoples' preferences in the 50's since infrastructure and subsidies were built around cars and airlines instead of tramways and passenger trains. people could've very easily not decided these methods, but they had to use them. "

You really have a bizarre world view. The infrastructure and subsidies did not cause the automobile and air traffic boom, it was created by the automobile and the air traffic booms. And actually the infrastructure wasn't there until closer to the mid 70's. It was by then that a car could travel across country and not have to worry so much about finding gas stations. Prior to that you had to really plan your trips because if you didn't buy gas at the right place then you might find yourself stranded in the middle of nowhere.

"it was due to government subsidies and regulations and the invention of the jet engine that airlines seemingly became much more sustainable. the regulations had to be put in place due to the chaos and lack of safety in the airlines prior."

And the strangeness just keeps coming. Do you seriously think that the government is full of experts on everything? Safety standards have been evolving forever. The government usually is the one playing catch up to make those safety standards universal. I used to work for a Chevron refinery as a web page developer. I was utterly amazed at how Chevron went far above and beyond the OSHA and union standards to keep people safe. My brother was a pipe fitter (he's retired now) and he had contract to work for Chevron on a job. He told me that he would work for Chevron anytime but not Exxon. Exxon's standards are abysmal. They bare meet the OSHA requirements.

So it just depends on the company. Some make what you said right (even though you are wrong, wrong, wrong.... lol) but other companies make what you said wrong. In either case the government is never the expert. They have to learn from the industries and they get things wrong all of the time.

"airlines seem fast on the surface, but if you're traveling the distance of New York and Philadelphia, trains are consistently the faster option, or less time-intensive option, because airline passengers have to deal with customs and post-9/11 security,"

In some cases that is true. If I drive to work I can get there in 30 minutes but I have to pay for parking and that is far too expensive. Taking the train I get to work in a little over an hour.

"The infrastructure and subsidies did not cause the automobile and air traffic boom, it was created by the automobile and the air traffic booms."

the automobile industry forced the government into allowing cars in downtown city districts and building parking lots. had things gone differently, car traffic would be exclusive to freeways outside of the city and rural roads. instead, however, we have cars hindering productivity within cities. in downtown orlando, fl, alone, 2 freeways intersect and take up a huge portion of the central district.

"And actually the infrastructure wasn't there until closer to the mid 70's. It was by then that a car could travel across country and not have to worry so much about finding gas stations."

the 50s infrastructure i'm referring to is suburban housing developments which exclusively had single-family homes with driveways; what we call "suburbia." this is where commuters lived and due to being far away from places, homeowners needed a car just to go shopping.

in the 70's there was an oil embargo that forced gas prices to increase. as a result, american auto markets began losing out to japanese imports that prioritized fuel efficiency. this is why you see people like me driving a 1999 honda cr-v. as a result, your car could carry you further and made the gas stations less of a concern.

"Do you seriously think that the government is full of experts on everything? Safety standards have been evolving forever."

the private sector were never going to implement safety measures universally. given the choice, i'm sure american airlines would've never wanted 9/11 safety measures even though their planes were the ones that plummeted into those buildings. the private sector almost certainly have experts in the field. that's why i praise the engineers at spacex and the marketeers at brightline. that extends to safety as well. however, as you say, it's not universal. chevron has priority on the condition of workers, while exxon does not. i never said the government came up with airline safety standards, but they had to be the enforcers.
and george bush certainly needed damage control after 9/11 ;)

"Taking the train I get to work in a little over an hour."

in countries with modern infrastructure, most commuter trains are built to be faster than their driving alternative since roads designed for faster cars tend to be less safe for both drivers and cyclists, while the trains are modern and have better design philosophy.

"never said they dropped. they still remained below $15/hr."

Some the value of some jobs are not worth $15/hr. This is where the Labor theory of value gets it wrong. The value is in the job, not the individual. An individual's value is priceless but the job that an individual does is not. It is the same as when you buy a product. Depending on how much you really need that product is the value of that product. If you do not need it them you don't buy it. If you need it once or twice then you look for the cheapest version. The product is the labor. The labor is the job, not the individual. Pushing a broom has less value to the company than being a district manager. The business is the consumer and the business really needs someone who has the skills to be a district manager to keep the business going but the skills required to push a broom aren't as valuable to the business.

"to quote a wise man...
So wrong that even on a good day they are still wrong. LOL"

Oh.. So you're making me eat my word are you? :)

"this implies that the position of the amazon worker or the bus driver isn't valuable. with that mindset going around, it's no wonder people are having a mass resignation. i've seen people put in a lot of effort into their jobs yet their bosses don't care."

See the above long winded paragraph in this text. The value of the job that the Amazon worker or bus driver is not highly skilled. Just about anyone can do those jobs. The value is in the job, not the individual. No one is stopping the Amazon worker or bus driver from finding skill and leaning how to perform that skill that will allow them to seek for a job requires someone with those skills. Because the value is not in the individual, it is in the job. What an individual learns and performs is a variable whereas the individual themselves is a constant. You cannot put a price on the value of the individual only on what that individual is capable of doing and capability is a variable, it always changes.

I am a software developer. I get paid for the value I provide to be able to write software. That is a highly technical skill. Anyone can do it but they need training and experience to where they can provide the value needed by an employer. It is the training and experience my employer is paying me for, not because of my radiant personality and striking good looks. Well at least my wife thinks I an good looking enough for her so we'll just leave it at that.

"An individual's value is priceless but the job that an individual does is not."

it's when there is suddenly a staff shortage that maybe we should start questioning the value of their labor. if inflation is as real as many claim it to be, then perhaps jobs should adjust to meet that inflation as they successfully did decades ago

"The value of the job that the Amazon worker or bus driver is not highly skilled. Just about anyone can do those jobs"

anyone can do them, but if not incentivized to do those jobs, no one will apply. as a result, labor shortages will naturally occur, which will damage efficiency of their respective businesses. it's worth mentioning that the cost of living in places where jobs are has gone up exponentially, forcing many to work multiple jobs and live paycheck to paycheck.

"If our government hadn't grown so massively (and it still is growing in power)"

i fear that if someone like desantis gets into power, he can abuse the patriot act to gain info on peoples' lifestyles and livelihoods.

"If people preferred to travel by airplane (because it is a whole lot faster) or travel by car then the private passenger railroad is going to suffer. That is just a fact of life."

we will never get the full idea of peoples' preferences in the 50's since infrastructure and subsidies were built around cars and airlines instead of tramways and passenger trains. people could've very easily not decided these methods, but they had to use them.

"And the 50's and 60's is when the airline industry really took off (no pun intended unless it was funny. Then it was completely intended). There wasn't that much air travel in the 40's and earlier. The airline industry didn't come into full stride until the 60's."

it was due to government subsidies and regulations and the invention of the jet engine that airlines seemingly became much more sustainable. the regulations had to be put in place due to the chaos and lack of safety in the airlines prior.

airlines seem fast on the surface, but if you're traveling the distance of New York and Philadelphia, trains are consistently the faster option, or less time-intensive option, because airline passengers have to deal with customs and post-9/11 security, while amtrak passengers avoid the hassle. amtrak also has free wifi (bad wifi, but other train services have better wifi, proving it's possible to improve it). as such, trains can be more productive than their airborne counterparts.

~chapter two~

"Part 3 - Dang it! I didn't want to be this long winded. My apologies"

No worries. i should incorporate that strategy.

"I know we have anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies but somehow large corporations have figured out a way around the anti-trust laws."

our politicians have deliberately ignored anti-trust laws due to lobbying. it's why we will never have another teddy roosevelt type in power.

"However, no one is forcing her to stay at that job."

you'd be surprised by how many people are asked to work by the employer not just after resigning, but even after getting fired. for no pay.

"Especially when the top 10 financial organizations are now controlling the cash flow to all businesses. A private consortium in Europe invented what is called an ESG score"

i thought that the U.N. brought that about in Europe. I am aware of what the ESG score has done with a few companies like Disney and what-not, and how it's controlled by the Wall Street corporation known as Blackrock. it's why Disney's box office failures don't affect them: their stock price increases based on wokeness (or whatever) and their money comes in from a small handful of people who don't even watch movies.

"i thought that the U.N. brought that about in Europe. I am aware of what the ESG score has done with a few companies like Disney and what-not, and how it's controlled by the Wall Street corporation known as Blackrock. it's why Disney's box office failures don't affect them: their stock price increases based on wokeness (or whatever) and their money comes in from a small handful of people who don't even watch movies."

ESG scores were started in Europe but they have gone global. Blackrock is heavily involved in promoting ESG scores and the Great Reset.

I didn't know that about Disney. I thought they were getting their money because the own Marvel and Star Wars, both of which are cash cows. They also own ABC. Plus Disneyland and all their other amusement parks around the world.

If Walt was alive he would absolutely hate what Disney has become. They are truly an evil corporation who is drunk on power and ran by "woke" twits who think they can get away with anything. If I had kids I would never let them watch Disney these days. They can watch all of the old Disney stuff but nothing in the last few years.

"I didn't know that about Disney"

yeah. pretty much every company has to comply with ESG to increase their stock market value. that's why i imagine norfolk southern is buying battery-powered electric locomotives instead of spending the money on overhead electrical infrastructure across their network: to virtue signal about the planet. netflix used to do the same type of compliance, but are trying to shy away from it now.

"I thought they were getting their money because the own Marvel and Star Wars, both of which are cash cows"

arguably. i'd say disney's strategy has began to focus on their streaming service over their movies in recent times due to their nonstop release of mediocre tv shows.

"They are truly an evil corporation who is drunk on power and ran by "woke" twits who think they can get away with anything"

i think he'd be more concerned with disney's pandering to china, a country whose government commits genocide, upholds segregation laws, and outlaws marriage equality.

Part 3 - Dang it! I didn't want to be this long winded. My apologies

Now what was I saying... Oh yeah. You and I are on the same page with monopolies.

Especially when the top 10 financial organizations are now controlling the cash flow to all businesses. A private consortium in Europe invented what is called an ESG score. It stands for Environment, Social (as in social justice) and Governance. This score has really picked up steam with those financial institutions. They are not being forced to apply these scores by the governments of the world but most of the governments (including our) is encouraging it. Along with the United Nations, the World Economic Forum and the International Monetary Fund.

The way it works is that businesses with low ESG scores are denied certain privileges extended by these 10 financial organizations. And how it works it is not just a single business who has to comply to raise their score. It is that single business and everyone they do business with. This is where the real danger happens.

On the outside many on the left look at what the ESG score stands for and think it is a good idea. Businesses should be concerned about the Environment, Social Justice and complying with the government. But this rabbit hole is much, much, much scarier than that. Some retirement fund businesses are applying that ESG score to the individual retirement accounts. The WEF is working on a digital device that a person can have that will show their ESG score based on their daily activities.

What we are seeing here is a new 21st century Fascism. It is global. None of the players (mostly the WEF and IMF but there are others) behind the scenes are talking about doing away with individual nations. They just want to control the financial and business world within those nations. By controlling the money (and they are talking about a global digital currency as part of their plans) they control the businesses AND the people.

This IS what the Great Reset is all about. It is a monopolistic control of all of the worlds finances and businesses by a handful of people. Oh yeah and they want to end capitalism as well.

And everything I just told you about them is A) already happening and B) is right there open for anyone to see if they went to the WEF's website.

This is the exact reason why Biden was installed as president and why he is destroying the dollar and the economy.

I'm about to run out of room and I don't want to part 4.

Why do you lie?

Mind you, under Clinton, key interest rates were raised to slow the overheating economy, something Trump should have done (and Biden just did, albeit kinda late) but was more concerned about setting economy records than keeping the economy running steady for the longer term.
Clinton actually aimed for a 4.3% unemployment rate, because anything lower means a growing shortage of cheap available workers and thus wages would have to rise to hire and keep them.

Also, Reagan took credit for what Carter set in motion,

"Modda 4d

.... the economic mess Carter inherited from Nixon and Ford and that Reagan basically coasted on policies set by Carter. From the appointment of Paul Volcker as Chair of the Fed who raised interest rates to bring inflation under control, to Carter being the Great Deregulator, not Reagan, to military policies against Russia which, again, Reagan merely followed as well as a growing economy. Reagan did hit a trillion in debt for the first time, so at least there's that."

https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/much-of-what-youve-heard-about-carter

just thought i'd do funny pic :)

You lie too much, ignoring the economic mess Carter inherited from Nixon and Ford and that Reagan basically coasted on policies set by Carter. From the appointment of Paul Volcker as Chair of the Fed who raised interest rates to bring inflation under control, to Carter being the Great Deregulator, not Reagan, to military policies against Russia which, again, Reagan merely followed as well as a growing economy. Reagan did hit a trillion in debt for the first time, so at least there's that.

https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/much-of-what-youve-heard-about-carter

Conservatives measure compassion by how many rape victims they further victimize

Just like the meme itself

How so?