Lion of the Blogosphere

Yes, traditional Republican policies are anti-working class.

Commenter “map” writes:

And exactly what policies do Democrats support that would actually benefit the people who voted for Trump? The offshore outsourcing and mass immigration? The gender and race quotas and affirmative action? The bankrupt states? The terrible schools? The massive increase in healthcare premiums? The destruction of entire cities and neighborhoods? The massive increase in crime?

Fact is that traditional Republican policies are anti-working class. Republicans have always been against unions. Against the minimum wage. In favor of big tax cuts for the rich.

And on the issue of healthcare, Republicans HATE the idea that any government money should help working class Americans obtain healthcare. Whatever the faults of Obamacare, Republicans don’t want to fix it, they want to nuke the whole thing and go back to pre-Obamacare when only the non-working class got government subsidized healthcare in the form of Medicaid, Medicare, and EMTALA.

Now on the issue of immigration, yes, massive immigration is very harmful to working-class Americans who have to compete for jobs against the immigrants.

It should be pointed out there’s a big faction within the Republican Party, the Bush/McCain/Koch Brothers/Big Corporations faction, that is just as much as pro-immigration as the most liberal Democrat.

However, liberals honestly don’t believe that immigration is hurting working class Americans. It goes against their religion to believe that. It’s racist to oppose immigration and virtuous to support it, so they believe that it can’t possibly be bad for anyone to support virtuous behavior.

I see the same cognitive dissonance on the right. Whenever I point out the benefits of abortion in reducing the birthrate of the poorest and thus most-crime-prone Americans, they go crazy and refuse to believe it. They insist on believing that every woman who has an abortion is like Juno, a young white girl from a middle-class or better family. Juno is a fictional movie! The reality is that the typical woman who has an abortion is a poor unmarried black or Hispanic woman who already has children. The last people you want to have more children. There is no better government money spent than the money spent on providing free abortions and free birth control for poor people. Every dollar spent on abortion and birth control for poor women saves at least ten dollars, if not a hundred dollars, on welfare, education, and law enforcement for the children those poor women would otherwise have had.

* * *

Commenter “Peter Akuleyev” writes:

Republicans are committed to the idea that taxes are evil, always and everywhere, much the way Democrats are committed to the idea that immigration is good, always and everywhere. Life is simpler if you just adopt an absolute ideological position and never question it.

“Stealth” writes:

A friend of mine works for the telephone company and makes a good salary, at least for a man living in a rural area. His compensation would be far lower if he weren’t a union member.

Of course one can say that Stealth’s story is a cherry-picked anecdote, but so many commenters on alt-right blogs lose sight of the fact that really some working class white men are helped a lot by being in unions.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

June 25, 2017 at 12:16 PM

Posted in Politics

110 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. 1. There is no government money. That is money seized from the tax payers.

    2. Minimum wage and unions cause unemployment, and in practice the unions are corrupt, the leaders seizing the workers’ pay and using it to fund a lavish lifestyle for themselves and to bribe government officials.


    June 25, 2017 at 12:21 PM

    • “in practice the unions are corrupt, the leaders seizing the workers’ pay and using it to fund a lavish lifestyle for themselves and to bribe government officials.”

      How does that make them any different than corporate CEOs whom Republicans love? Even the wealthiest and most corrupt union leaders are small fry compared to the massive amount of money made by CEOs.

      • I believe union bosses are an example of what Lion refers to as value transference.

        Sgt. Joe Friday

        June 25, 2017 at 12:33 PM

      • The CEOs MADE that money through voluntary transactions. If you hate the CEO of a company you can boycott the company.

        The union bosses STOLE that money because the government forces workers to pay union dues whether they want to be in the union or not.


        June 25, 2017 at 1:22 PM

      • If you don’t like working a union job, you can always go work somewhere else. For less money.

        As an employee, I had no say in handing over tens of millions of dollars a year to the CEO. Not voluntary for me. Nor, as a consumer, do I have much choice in how to spend my money in an economy dominated by oligopolies, each with a super-rich CEO.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 25, 2017 at 1:34 PM

      • Lion, tell us what products you buy for which you don’t have a choice between various manufacturers or retailers.


        June 25, 2017 at 1:46 PM

      • Gozo: I think you’re just an idiot who thinks that because union dues are listed as being deducted on pay stubs or wherever that they are somehow magically more significant than stuff that isn’t listed there and actually requires some thought to understand. The money you generate for your employer goes to all sorts of places besides your own paycheck, among them are union dues (sometimes) and executive compensation.


        June 25, 2017 at 2:41 PM

      • The best example is the payroll tax half of which is listed as being taken from your paycheck and the other half supposedly paid by the employer is also taken from your paycheck just not listed.


        June 25, 2017 at 2:48 PM

      • Magnavox:
        What is your argument? Because the government seizes money from workers’ pay they means it’s OK for the union bosses (whose power comes from the government, after all) to also seize money from workers’ pay?

        The obsession of Democrats and the alt-right (who would be Democrats but for their distaste for minorities) with CEO compensation is a reflection of envy, and the belief that somehow the government would be better at managing the economy than private actors.


        June 25, 2017 at 6:31 PM

      • The problem with unions isn’t whether they help the workers, it’s that they help exclusively their member workers, to H€ll with non-members. The result is the workers for unions that are strong do really really well, port workers, fire-fighters etc earn more than doctors and managers but where union representation is weak, hospitality & retail there is little solidarity to share with them the power that the workers & unions have amassed at the economy’s choke points.

        I’d have more sympathy with unions if their sense of solidarity was with the real losers of capitalism, but whenever they exercise their collective bargaining muscles it’s to get more from the distributional warfare exclusively for those segments of workers who already have pretty good situations.

        In short, unions are powerful and effective where their power isn’t really needed but either powerless or indifferent to the workers at the very bottom who could use the benefit of power. Or else the industries where unions are weak are so vulnerable to international competition that the unions have pretty much surrendered.

        Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta

        June 26, 2017 at 3:26 AM

      • As illustration for union power:

        Longshoremen make obscene money for the skills, qualifications and actual burden of the job.

        It’s rent seeking / value transference in a bright spotlight. They’re fortunate because of the power their position at a choke point in the economy gives them to extort bigly for their effort at organization.

        No point applying for one of these jobs, only graft or a legacy inheritance MIGHT get you over the opaque barriers to entry.

        In our current form of corporatist capitalism, unions are most effective and powerful when they can conspire with government authorities to create and uphold bureaucratic barriers to entry to the profession. Too much competition is bad for bargaining power. While I don’t begrudge the longshoremen from earning a good living, who is standing up for the warehouse workers, the drivers, the cleaners and so on who do not enjoy the benefits of a powerful collective bargaining organization?

        For a while I worked in a freezer warehouse. Really awful hard work, really awful pay. But no union and no hope. Tom Wolfe did some good research and does a fair job depicting the misery in his novel, A Man in Full, if anybody’s interested.

        Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta

        June 26, 2017 at 3:48 AM

      • ” it’s that they help exclusively their member workers, to H€ll with non-members.”

        they are really only interested in the union hierarchy- which starts with what ever crime family they are controlled by, then the union officials then any lacky who keeps the grift going- the newletter writers, the organizers, the shop stewards, the 350 lb picket line manners. As long as you are a weaselly little union stooge you are on half-time work at your actual job- going to conferences, attending meetings doing union “business”.

        Beyond that you only matter to the union if you have seniority. Being good at your job means nothing. Just the number of years you have been working. If you have seniority then you basically do nothing during the week and but yourself in 1st place for all the on call and double time money.

        If you were a kid starting out you’d be crazy to join a union. If you have any drive and ambition
        a. it will do you no good
        b. the union wants to squash it since it makes everyone else look bad.

        Being in a union means being held down and wasting your whole working life until you are high enough to scoop up the overtime pay for yourself. It a life time of working out who is going to retire in 3 years so you can move up one notch and gaming the OT list for a spot. And you dont dare change companies or move or you will lose all you invested in this stupid game.

        Lion of the Turambar

        June 26, 2017 at 8:42 AM

    • A friend of mine works for the telephone company and makes a good salary, at least for a man living in a rural area. His compensation would be far lower if he weren’t a union member.


      June 25, 2017 at 1:28 PM

      • There shouldn’t be unions in governments and monopolies.


        June 25, 2017 at 2:38 PM

      • This is hopelessly vague. My cousin’s husband, non-union, is a technical manager for AT&T with responsibility for a geographical area of several hundred miles. In 1997, he told me that one of his union crew members made $117k the previous year. I’m sure that included some significant overtime, but that was still big money then, and $200k would be big money now, for someone with a JC education and living 200 miles from the nearest big city. None of us knows what that guy, whose work often involves responding to crises in difficult weather, would make absent the union, but doubtless the money saved would have gone to management rather than to reducing ordinary folks’ phone/cable bills. Those bills might be lower if the state hadn’t mandated that all their trucks have to run on LNG. That of course is the fault of Democrats.


        June 25, 2017 at 3:58 PM

      • I’m a Union man. My Father wasn’t because he was brain-washed by Republican ideological dogma about productivity, and not believing in getting paid vacations and such shit that I consider ridiculous. I believe that the world is a dog eat dog place and you do what you can to set your children up to have a better future than what your past is. My best friend owns a fairly successful construction firm. I know people from the neighborhood that work in white collar and blue collar fields and own businesses etc. I don’t know much, but will share what little I do know with yas. If you don’t own the company then work Union. It’s that simple. It’s the only way that the working-man gets a fair shake in dealing with secret-handshake yuppie assholes. I say this not out of bitterness but experience. I have nothing against “secret-handshake yuppie assholes” other than not being born one. Do you think that without a contract and binding arbitration/or ability to strike you will get a fair deal in the free market (when you are competing against third world immigrants, Nams, and other assorted trash) out of the kindness of the shareholder’s/CEO’s heart??? If you do I feel legitimately bad for you. Furthermore, “Union Bosses” is a favorite boogie man of the Alt-right and other ignoramuses to describe something that they know fuck-all about. Most Unions don’t have a boss in any real sense of the word, we have presidents who are voted in by the body (Democracy at work), we have Business Agents, and we have Shop Stewards. In my local the President is the swinging dick bar none, but again he was voted in by the fellas. That being said if he wasn’t good for us he wouldn’t be voted in. These folks are politicians and the Union is a political body similar to a Corporation. Look, essentially what we do is hire someone (our Union President) who is more polished, better spoken, and more articulate than we are to do our bidding with our employer for us. It is similar to if you have ever been to a legal proceeding and have hired a lawyer instead of standing in front of the judge by yourself. One more thing, if you are a white man who is a Union worker and you vote Democrat because you buy into their economic populism propaganda then I would consider you a race traitor who is putting the cart before the horse and will have earned a comfortable retirement in a white minority nation down the line or in other words a death sentence.

        roxborough's son

        June 25, 2017 at 11:22 PM

      • roxborough,

        See my point below.


        June 26, 2017 at 12:38 AM

      • ‘A friend of mine works for the telephone company and makes a good salary, at least for a man living in a rural area. His compensation would be far lower if he weren’t a union member.”

        And illegal immigrants would be far better off than if they stayed in their native country. But thats that the point of analysis is it?

        Who cant get hired because of this unions rules? How many young guys cant get any over time because the guys with all the seniority but themselves in the position to take it all? What opportunities has your friend had to pass up because he doesnt dare lose his position in the union and take a different job or switch to another industry?

        Lion of the Turambar

        June 26, 2017 at 7:15 AM

    • jesus we still have libertarians here?

      james n.s.w

      June 25, 2017 at 7:48 PM

      • the government would be better at managing the economy than private actors.

        sometimes it is. sometimes it’s not. sometimes regulation is good. sometimes it’s not. you’re all theory and no facts mssr gozo. the way the world should be is not the way it is in fact. if you hate government move to a poor country. they almost invariably have smaller state sectors.

        the union brings democracy to the workplace. why limit it to the public sector?

        what libertarians mean by “liberty” and “freedom” is “slavery”, a world governed by private unaccountable tyrannies for their own short-sighted benefit.

        Beverly Hills Ninja

        June 25, 2017 at 9:53 PM

    • 1. There is no government money. That is money seized from the tax payers.

      this is a common misunderstanding.

      Beverly Hills Ninja

      June 25, 2017 at 9:44 PM

    • ALL money comes from the government. That’s why it’s called capital. Where do you think people get money to pay taxes? The money tree? The government spent it into circulation first. Duh. Why are libertarians so crazy?


      June 25, 2017 at 11:25 PM

      • Helmut,

        Because, if this were true, Zimbabwe could “spend money into circulation” and, thus, have “capital.” Funny how it does not work for them.


        June 26, 2017 at 12:40 AM

      • inflation results from increases in MB only so far as production doesn’t increase at the same rate and the extra money is spent, that is not spent on assets. so you might ask, “how can free money not result in inflation. the recipients haven’t worked for it?” the answer is marginal costs of production may be trivial and the increase may go mostly into asset price inflation rather than consumer price inflation. japan from the early 90s to today has basically doled out free money, monetized its debt. no inflation, not even any asset inflation. M1 in the US is 3x what it was in 2008. no consumer price inflation. for more read Between Debt and the Devil.

        the recent experience of the US, japan, and europe show that UBI is already here in an economic sense. modern developed economies simply can’t function without the money “printing press”.

        Beverly Hills Ninja

        June 26, 2017 at 4:18 PM

  2. Is being anti union necessarily anti working class? The Italian Fascists and German Nazis were intensely anti union and their backbone was the working class.

    I think that Trump’s economic policies so far have been good for the working/middle class. They have only been bad for people who rely on the government safety net, but most working/middle class people do not need/use the gov safety net.

    Otis the Sweaty

    June 25, 2017 at 12:24 PM

    • The backbone of the Nazi movement was the lower middle class and students. Something like 70% of Nazi voters were under 40. The typical Nazi was a salesman, an employee in a small business or a low level clerk. The working class mostly stucked with the Socialists right up through 1934, especially if they were unionized.

      Peter Akuleyev

      June 25, 2017 at 12:53 PM

    • Most of the time, a tight rope walker won’t need a safety net, either, but…


      June 25, 2017 at 1:29 PM

  3. Unions only help the people who are in them and that is largely govt workers now. Unions are the reason teachers get wages and pensions that are out of hand compared to people who work at companies. The pensions especially are ridiculous.

    I knew a guy who said teachers should make a million a year. I said do you know how high your property taxes would be.

    Yes, some people are underpaid for what they do while the executives are way, way overpaid. Executive pay is a disgrace.

    Someone said executives get paid a lot because they take great risks. That is absolutely not true. They have ZERO risk. They are already wealthy when the become CEO and get paid huge sums whether the company does well or not.

    The low-level workers are taking a great risk because they have little money and if they lose their job they are not in a good situation, executives will just retire with millions.


    June 25, 2017 at 1:12 PM

    • Teachers don’t make that much money, and most teachers are still white.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      June 25, 2017 at 1:31 PM

      • Here in southern California, teachers at the top end are paid around $80K a year, plus benfits, a little more if they’ve got a master’s degree. Summers off too. A teacher friend of mine has readied it’s pretty good for a part time job.

        Sgt. Joe Friday

        June 25, 2017 at 2:12 PM

      • @Sgt. joe Friday:

        I think you may be underestimating the California top end. I know a 30-year old teacher who’s on her 4th year in NorCal and she’s already making $70k. That’s regular elementary, no special needs premiums or anything.


        June 25, 2017 at 4:08 PM

      • Do you have any idea what the cost of living in NorCal is like? In Santa Clara Co, where I live, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development says a family of 4 with an income of $84K is low income and qualified for Section 8 housing vouchers. In San Francisco it is $105K.


        June 25, 2017 at 7:56 PM

      • lion is right. CA is an outlier in teacher pay. the median salary nationwide for a long time teacher is about 50k. it starts a lot lower.

        Beverly Hills Ninja

        June 25, 2017 at 10:29 PM

      • In New York City, the older generation of public school teachers who are now retiring or recently retired, really raked it in with a great pension (and they are mostly all middle-class white), but the younger teachers don’t get that.

      • Look at these salaries in the Chicago area.

        Click to access Salary-Compensation-Report-PA-97-0256.pdf

        Most well over 100,000. Top that I saw 163,000.00 for a teacher,not administrator.

        That’s not San Francisco with huge housing costs. Yes, higher housing than much of the country but not San Fran of LA high.

        Then retire at 55 say after 30 years at 75% of your last few years income say 150,000 x 75% + 112,500.00 per year with a 3% increase every year.

        You are talking a retirement of over 5 million dollars if you live for 30 years.

        Most college profs don’t make this unless they are tenured.


        June 25, 2017 at 10:40 PM

      • Sounds like a pretty good deal. I suppose that can be attributed to government mismanagement. In most places, teachers get paid low salaries and it’s not a good career.

      • “Sounds like a pretty good deal. I suppose that can be attributed to government mismanagement. In most places, teachers get paid low salaries and it’s not a good career.:

        Quite a few of the schools districts in the north and northwest suburbs of Chicago pay close to this.


        June 26, 2017 at 1:37 AM

    • Unions only help the people who are in them and that is largely govt workers now.

      They do exert some upward pressure on general wages. But more significantly unions are oblgiated to bargon on behalf of everyone in their bargaining unit, whether they’re in a union or not. So in “right to work” states unions are obligated to bargain on behalf of the employees that refuse to join the union and don’t pay dues.


      June 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM

      • There is no upward pressure on wages. How can there be when you can’t get a job?


        June 26, 2017 at 12:45 AM

    • There was an article in the NY Times last Sunday suggesting that CEO risk is a lot greater than it used to be. Cf Jeff Immelt at GE, John Stumpf at Wells Fargo, among others. And while I’m sure both got generous buyouts, Stumpf had a clawback of his last couple of bonuses due to the fake account scandal.

      Full disclosure: correspondent owns minuscule positions in both companies 🙂


      June 25, 2017 at 3:35 PM

      • What risk? They both are probably still worth at least 100 million Well, maybe Stumpf is only 50 million.


        June 25, 2017 at 10:52 PM

      • CEO pay is outrageous. They are paid like they founded the company instead of being employees themselves.


        June 26, 2017 at 12:46 AM

    • are you joking ttgy?

      in the early 80s government employees made less than private sector workers on average. their wages have if anything lagged inflation.

      it’s not that govt wages are high. it’s that private sector wages haven’t budged in real terms for 40 years.

      stop licking the boots of your class enemy.

      Beverly Hills Ninja

      June 25, 2017 at 10:00 PM


        The report found that state governments pay on average 6.2 percent more per hour in wages and benefits, including pension benefits, than the private sector for the 22 major occupational categories that exist in both sectors. Additionally, the report found that no state government pays its employees on par or below what the private sector pays; that the largest percentage difference in pay between the public and private sector is 40 percent; and that the highest difference in pay is $61 an hour. This disproportionately generous public sector compensation is a major driver of unfunded state and municipal pension liabilities across the country, which have been accurately described by pundits and experts of all political stripes as looming financial crises.


        June 25, 2017 at 10:58 PM

      • There shouldn’t be government unions. You’re right that government workers by and large get things that all workers should be demanding and so destroying government unions ought to be one of the last things we do but they do have to go.


        June 25, 2017 at 11:55 PM

  4. It would help if we defined what “traditional Republican” means. The party was founded as the pro-Union, free labor party in 1854, a scant few years before the whole thing blew up into the Civil War. Its antecedents were in the free soil and free labor movements. In practical fact that meant anti-Union.

    Abolitionists always advised free blacks to underbid immigrants. Other than being against slavery, the Abolitionists were really libertarians, and would fit in well with the Reason magazine crowd.

    The Democrats were the party of the working class — the white working class, which hated and excluded blacks. Since the New Deal, these economic issues have become entangled with modern racial politics, and latterly, the sexual revolution.


    June 25, 2017 at 1:15 PM

    • Traditional republican means pre trump


      June 25, 2017 at 3:02 PM

  5. Most sensible post in a long time although no mention of health care should gloss over the huge amount of over spending in the US and the multi trillion dollar yearly subsidy that this amounts to. That’s probably the single best argument against this retarded republican idea that the only people making a buck off the government are its employees and people on welfare.


    June 25, 2017 at 1:18 PM

  6. Stealth approves this message.



    June 25, 2017 at 1:26 PM

  7. Socialist policies are dysgenic, they subsidize low IQ people to have more children by taking both time and resources away from higher IQ people. A dysgenic society is bad for everyone regardless of class, race, etc.


    June 25, 2017 at 1:46 PM

    • this is only very roughly true, but at the same time social darwinism is inefficient and cruel. unfortunately eugenics is worse than racism as far as contemporary politics goes. for one thing children are often quite unlike their parents IQ-wise and there’s always regression to the mean. the one study i know of found that the heritability if IQ explained at most 1/15th of intergenerational status transmission in the US. it’s been true for a long time now, the most fecund tend to cluster in the middle of the IQ distribution holding race constant. that is, dumb people and smart people have few children. holding race constant is very important though.

      Beverly Hills Ninja

      June 25, 2017 at 10:27 PM

  8. Working class have much higher rates of smoking and obesity. Which are two of the main causes of health problems today. Not to mention alcohol, drug abuse, etc. I shouldn’t have to pay for people’s irresponsible and self-inflicted health problems. If people want subsidized healthcare then they should be required to live healthy. Because if you live healthy then you probably won’t need it.


    June 25, 2017 at 2:36 PM

    • This is an almost unbelievably retarded comment. The only thing worth even engaging in is the false, though unlike everything else you said at least semi plausible, belief that smokers and the obese have higher health care costs.


      June 25, 2017 at 2:46 PM

      • They should stop charging smokers an extra amount for health insurance then.

        Even eating right etc doesn’t mean you will be healthy.I saw a guy on the internet who worked in the medical field and said that lifestyles don’t have that much to do with heart disease. He said he saw people who did everything right and still had terrible arteries and those that didn’t had healthy arteries. I don’t know if that is true but it sure sounds like it could be.

        What about the people who get hurt skiing or playing sports and need operations? Why should we pay for them then? These people are putting themselves at risk. They should pay an extra premium for that.

        The above shows how absurd this idea is of people not wanting to pay for others.

        Paying for others is what insurance is.

        Health insurance is a “socialization” of risk or costs even if it is private. That is why we buy it. Some are going to use less than others. Also, we don’t know when we will need a large sum so we just put it in a pool of money and use it when we need.

        We might as well have some kind of national insurance at this point. We pay for those who don’t have insurance, even the illegals.

        We should stop all illegal immigration though. Of course, I would stop legal immigration too.


        June 26, 2017 at 12:14 AM

    • Smoking and obesity don’t have much to do with, say, melanoma, which a lot of people (ahem) develop despite a lifetime of “doing the right thing.” If one got melanoma a few years ago, he or she couldn’t go to another insurance company without being told that their new insurance doesn’t cover pre-existing conditions. It isn’t right that such people should be left vulnerable like that. The government should step in, at least with supplementary insurance, to help.

      It isn’t just the working class that’s getting f****d.


      June 25, 2017 at 3:03 PM

      • As someone who worked in the insurance field for 30 years, it grates when people refer to coverage of pre-existing conditions as “insurance”. You cannot “insure” a burning building for fire.

        This is certainly one of the reasons that insurers are withdrawing from Obamacare, and why it is failing. Will anyone offer me a life “insurance” policy if I have terminal cancer? Should an ‘insurer’ be forced to offer a health insurance policy (at a very modest increased premium, completely unrelated to the actual risk) to someone who is chronically sick with a poor prognosis? According to Obamacare, absolutely yes.

        Cover for pre-existing conditions may be desirable (in certain circumstances), but it is the responsibility of private charity or of government handouts, and has nothing to do with “insurance”


        June 26, 2017 at 1:28 AM

      • “couldn’t go to another insurance company without being told that their new insurance doesn’t cover pre-existing conditions”

        That was only true for about 15% of the population. The overwhelming majority of the population gets insurance via group plans through their employer, which have been legally required to cover pecs for at least 20 years, or some form of government insurance, which also covers pecs.


        June 26, 2017 at 10:17 AM

    • “I shouldn’t have to pay for people’s irresponsible and self-inflicted health problems.”

      You do now, and you always will. If you buy an individual policy with an insurance company, you’re carrying those people whether you like it or not.

      That check box isn’t on my company health plan… The check box that says “I won’t pay for the other employees who don’t take care of themselves.” You’re right, everyone on the company health plan has to pay for other employee’s self-inflicted health problems.

      Isn’t that HBD? Letting the self-inflicted unhealthy off themselves? I’m on board! When are the corporations, insurance companies, and HMOs going to go along with such a sensible policy?

      yea right

      June 25, 2017 at 9:20 PM

    • that’s a fine position except “Because if you live healthy then you probably won’t need it.” i doubt this is true. that is, health nuts get sick too, eventually. and the etiology of most cancers, als, psychiatric problems, etc. are still a total mystery.

      Beverly Hills Ninja

      June 25, 2017 at 10:18 PM

      • Other than cigarette smoking, and drug an alcohol abuse, most other health problems are random bad luck or genetic. My uncle died at a young age from cancer, he didn’t do anything to deserve his fate.

      • Also as the link I posted said, the obese and cigarette smokers actually consume less medical care over the course of their life times owing to their shorter life expectancy.


        June 25, 2017 at 11:45 PM

    • the scandal is the cost of health insurance in the US for the same treatments vs other OECD countries. everyone can be covered to the same standard of care for half the current expenditure. why? because in this case the private sector is less efficient. this contradicts the gop ideology so it must be false. the problem is it’s true.

      Beverly Hills Ninja

      June 25, 2017 at 10:21 PM

      • Theres a long history of public and private utilities in the US, going back at least 200 years. That’s what other countries, do they set prices for health care the same way we do for things like natural gas and electricity. Our refusal to do that is also why our internet, cable television, and (I believe) cell phone prices are also so out of wack with the rest of the developed world.


        June 25, 2017 at 11:44 PM

      • We subsidize the healthcare systems of the rest of the world. We do so to increase the power of the US government.


        June 26, 2017 at 12:50 AM

      • map is right. the conservatives are absolutely right about this. this is the real sticky wicket of health care. how to solve it? it would take some kind of global treaty.

        it’s true. if the US sets prices lower there will be less innovation across the globe. how much less idk. but less.

        though it should be said that the “hard work” in medicine is done mostly by government funded PhDs paid bubkes compared to MDs or health care executives and drug companies spend more on sales than research.

        Beverly Hills Ninja

        June 26, 2017 at 4:34 PM

      • Beverly Hills Ninja,

        The solution to this problem is requiring all medical device and pharmaceutical exports are sold by consignment by the US government. The USG is required to get 90% or more of the US price from foreign sales. Split the revenue between corporates and government.

        This equation of $50,000 treatments in the US that cost $5,000 in “XXX” needs to be reversed.


        June 27, 2017 at 3:54 PM

      • Probably a trivial amount less because the money goes to fund things that couldn’t possibly contribute to research. But there is no reason for the US to subsidize the rest of the world. It ain’t 1946 anymore.

        Jobs are another matter although even there I’m sure there are much more efficient ways to translate spending into employment.

        Map saying something has no legitimacy. So if he wants to argue that the reason for US healthcare policy is furthering global power rather than just giving money away to large politically influential businesses he’ll have to link to an actual intelligent person making the argument.


        June 27, 2017 at 4:30 PM

  9. Good thing Trump isn’t a traditional Republican.


    June 25, 2017 at 2:49 PM

  10. That does not mean that you could not design a dicislist system that was eugenic. One way would be to tax the hell out of the rich but then give them massive tax breaks for having many biological children. You could have a tax rate of 80% but give a 10% break on each biological child. That way if a very succesful person had 8 biological children they would effectively pay 0 tax. Their genetic contribution to the gene pool of the next generation would be far more valuable than the resources that can contribute in one lifetime. Then all the rich degenerates that have 0 children would be taxed tgrough the roof to pay for healthcare for the poor. This is positive eugenics rather than. egative eugenics, and it may be the only feasible way to get eugenics to work in a democracy. Everyone is happy except the rich childless degenerates, but they would be a voting minority anyway. And if you are given the gift of good genes but shirk the responsibility of passing those genes on then you deserve to lose your material wealth.


    June 25, 2017 at 3:09 PM

    • You can also have negative eugenics by attaching birth control requirements to means tested programs.


      June 25, 2017 at 7:56 PM

    • 80% of wealth is inherited mssr DataExplorer. see the story below for how eugenic this is.

      Beverly Hills Ninja

      June 25, 2017 at 10:12 PM

  11. I see lots of problems with the modern Republican Party, but I don’t see anything redeeming about the contemporary Democratic Party.

    At worst, Republicans believe that if we deregulated the markets a little more, then Joe Sixpack would get a higher paying job of some sort. They’re wrong, but it’s more negligence than malice.

    In contrast, Democrats at their worst cheer about the White Death:

    Democrats are just there to transfer “gibmedats” to the underclass, virtue signalling opportunities for SWPLs, and juicy deals for their donors. Theoretically, big government programs can help the working class, but in practice the Democrats just treat it as a rent-seeking opportunity for votes and kick backs, so the underclass capitalizes on those opportunities more than the working class.


    June 25, 2017 at 3:17 PM

  12. “I see the same cognitive dissonance on the right.”

    Yes, that’s true, but I think you’re missing the point. The conservative position is consistent insofar as it opposes abortion and stands for inculcating values of personal responsibility and willingness to delay gratification. When such values become more widespread (and don’t hold your breath for that to happen any time soon), personal self-control will relieve the need for large numbers of abortions.

    Of course, there’s the question of birth control . . .


    June 25, 2017 at 3:31 PM

  13. Before World War II, only the rich sent their children to college. There were a significant number of work class people that were smart enough to go the college, but there families could not afford to send them. That all changed after WW II. Today most young people who are smart enough to go to college do go to college. They marry college educated people and they have children that are generally smart enough to go to college.

    The working class today is mostly people who were not smart enough to go to college. They marry other people who were not smart enough to go to college. They have kids that are not smart enough to go to college.

    After a couple of generations, the “college educated” and the “working class” largely live in different neighborhoods, don’t socialize much, and have negative views of each other.

    The decline of the working class began with the separation. There no longer are “smart” working class people who were the union organizers in the past. In the 1960s and 70s the labor movement broke with the Democratic party over the issue of the Vietnam war and resentment of the hippy counter culture. The working class became the Reagen Democrats. The Republican party has used the counter culture issues along with racial resentment (school busing, affirmative action) to keep the working class as a mostly reliable voting block.

    This has largely been a con-job, because Republicans really only care about the super wealthy and reducing their taxes. They hate unions, which is what made many working class families middle class. They hate government regulation meant to protect workers or consumers. The want to deregulate Wall Street and corporations.

    Trump’s convinced the working class that immigrants and trade deals were largely responsible for the decline of the working class. Traditional Republicans were horrified at this, because they support immigration in part to keep wages lower and trade deals to open foreign markets and protect their offshore facilities from nationalization and confiscation by foreign governments.

    I suspect Trump will do little about either immigration or trade deals beyond symbolic actions. Trump seems to have signed on to Congressional Republican plans to take a trillion dollars out of health care spending on low income Americans and give it mostly to those making more than >$250k.

    If the Republicans in Congress survive that, next up take another trillion dollars out of Medicare and then social security. I know. Trump said he was not going to cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. This year he held a party in the Rose Garden to celibate the House passage of the biggest Medicaid cut in history. You don’t really think Trump cares about Medicare or Social Security do you?


    June 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM

    • They hate government regulation meant to protect workers or consumers.

      How many working class jobs have your Progressive “climate change” regs lost?

      The Undiscovered Jew

      June 25, 2017 at 5:56 PM

      • How many jobs have been created by alternative energy? Currently the solar industry is one of the fastest growing energy sectors. Solar and wind together added 100,000 new jobs last year.


        June 25, 2017 at 6:25 PM

      • How many jobs have been created by alternative energy? Currently the solar industry is one of the fastest growing energy sectors. Solar and wind together added 100,000 new jobs last year.

        Only because the government subsidizes them American tax dollars.

        In a free market they would – justly – not exist outside of testing laboratories because the technology is not mature enough to go into mass production.

        Wind “energy”, for example, uses more energy than it produces. It’s a complete technological flop.

        Even if they were subsidized, there is no reason for your Progressive regulations to destroy brown energy jobs.

        Net-net more working class jobs have been destroyed by regulations than have been created in the “green” sector.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 25, 2017 at 7:39 PM

      • “Only because the government subsidizes them American tax dollars.”

        And the government doesn’t subsides coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear? The government gives very cheap leases for fossil fuel. Solar cost is now gotten low enough it would be competitive without subsidies.

        “Wind “energy”, for example, uses more energy than it produces. It’s a complete technological flop.”

        This is not true if the turbines are operated correctly. Obviously if you try to operate the turbine when there is little wind, this can happen, but operators are suppose to shut down the turbine when there is no wind.

        There are articles circulating that claim that more energy is used to produce a wind turbine than is will ever produce, but the actual sources quoted usually trace back to someone that just said a wind turbine in a bad location will never produce enough energy to make up the energy consumed to construct it. Most estimates are that in a good location a wind turbine will produce as much energy as required to construct it in 6 months to a few years. There is the issue that a good location may be a long way from where you need the energy and wind velocity even at a good location is variable and may not be high when you need energy most. Solar is better at meeting the air conditioning demand on hot days.

        “Even if they were subsidized, there is no reason for your Progressive regulations to destroy brown energy jobs.”

        We have been experiencing a huge boom in oil and natural gas drilling and jobs in the last 10 years. The sector losing jobs is coal, and it is not because of regulation. It is because natural gas is so much cheaper and automation in the mines means fewer miners are needed. Regulation has nothing to do with it.


        June 25, 2017 at 9:35 PM

      • Wind and solar seem dubious to me, things that are being done for SJW religious reasons and not because they make economic sense. Of course, things that make no economic sense, but happen anyway because of massive government subsidies, can create lots of jobs.

      • And the government doesn’t subsides coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear?

        Do they?

        but the actual sources quoted usually trace back to someone that just said a wind turbine in a bad location will never produce enough energy to make up the energy consumed to construct it.

        Actual sources are biased ones receiving money from green subsidies.

        Wind isn’t remotely sufficient to replace hydrocarbons even if it marginally produces more energy than it consumes. Which it may not.

        If you think Wind is a substitute for hydrocarbons then let’s cut the subsidies for both “green energy” and traditional “brown energy” and see which one survives.

        We have been experiencing a huge boom in oil and natural gas drilling and jobs in the last 10 years.

        There would be more jobs if Obama had approved projects like Keystone and didn’t block offshore drilling.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 25, 2017 at 11:00 PM

      • “There would be more jobs if Obama had approved projects like Keystone and didn’t block offshore drilling”

        There has been a reduction in new oil and gas drilling because of low prices, so it is doubtful that there would be many more jobs.


        June 26, 2017 at 10:08 AM

      • There has been a reduction in new oil and gas drilling because of low prices, so it is doubtful that there would be many more jobs.

        Yes there would.

        The restart of Keystone is still attracting business interest, it wouldn’t find interest if it weren’t viewed as profitable.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 26, 2017 at 7:35 PM

  14. The only, and I mean the only thing worse than a Republican is a god damn Democrat.

    Two in the Bush

    June 25, 2017 at 5:15 PM


    The Meaning of the Georgia Special Election for the Special Counsel

    The election means no one outside DC cares about the investigation for reasons that include the fact Comey himself admitted there was no evidence for collusion between Trump and Russia (then what is the point of the investigation!?) , the investigation is too complex for voters to understand, it isn’t a voter priority, or some combination of these plus other factors.

    I have written that if Trump fires ends the investigation this summer the issue will be more or less completely forgotten by the midterms. Georgia has proven me right.

    To end the investigation Trump can –

    Pardon all his advisers but leave the special counsel office technically open but with nothing to investigate.
    Fire Mueller.
    Both issue pardons and fire Mueller.

    I recommend pardoning advisers immediately and then remove the special counsel after Christopher Wray is confirmed as the new FBI Director.

    Most importantly, Trump needs to bring the investigation to a close so I can stop writing about this topic.


    The Senate vote is approaching.

    To encourage the Senate to approve a partial repeal of Obamacare Trump should state publicly that the exchange subsidies will have to come to an end unless a comprehensive health care fix is sent to his desk.

    The Congress is terrified of the exchanges collapsing before the midterms and will have to pass some sort of fix with or without repeal legislation.

    Since they will have to address the exchanges at some point, holding the subsidies hostage will make it more likely the Senate and House send a partial repeal to Trump’s desk.

    Why haven’t Comey’s Memos been Released to Congress?

    Only his close friend and mentor, Mueller, has a hold of the memos. Senate investigators are being stiff armed.

    This game of hide and go seek with key evidence from stakeholders with a right to know is another reason to fire Mueller so he doesn’t hoard the evidence for himself and release only tidbits that are useful to him.

    WWDD – What Would Dilbert Do?

    Trump has been repeating his mantra there was “no collusion”.

    He can do better. His current response makes it seem as if voters should take him at his word that there is no collusion.

    What Trump should say is “Comey testified there was no collusion. What are they investigating if Comey admitted there was no collusion?”

    If Trump says he is innocent, that doesn’t move the public one way or other.

    If Trump says Comey testified there was no collusion, then the public becomes even more confused about what the investigation is about when Trump’s enemy says his investigation found nothing. The more confused the public is the more they will mentally give up and move on to something else.


    I don’t see how there can be a civil war if the Left doesn’t know how to shoot.

    An army fed by Whole Foods is a malnourished army destined to mostly collapse from exhaustion well before it reaches the battlefield.

    This prole, Hodgkinson, fired dozens of rounds at dumb, geriatric, slow moving Congressional Republicans lounging on a flat baseball field, the fool Capitol police waited 3 whole minutes to return fire, and this slob could only wound the GOP’s Whip, Steve Scalise.

    At least the prole knew how to reload his rifle.

    But what hope is there for Prius drivers?

    The Undiscovered Jew

    June 25, 2017 at 5:29 PM

  16. are unions bad for business? no. obviously.

    it is in the interest of union members that their employers stay in business. if this requires pay cuts they will take them. if it requires obscene executive salaries they will agree to them.

    the only economic effect of unions is the transfer of income from owners and managers to workers. what a crime!

    unionization rates in the OECD.

    Beverly Hills Ninja

    June 25, 2017 at 5:37 PM

    • Also many European countries have rules of incorporation that give workers power and influence in a way similar to unions by, for instance, giving them representatives on the board of directors.


      June 25, 2017 at 7:52 PM

    • You have to distinguish between “business” in general and particular businesses.

      It’s in the interest of unions for the particular businesses they work for to stay in business. That means it’s also in their interest for there to be less competition for these businesses. More businesses and competition means lower profits and less money for the unions. The transfer to the unions is from the consumers.


      June 25, 2017 at 9:44 PM

    • “it is in the interest of union members that their employers stay in business”

      That’s the trouble with public sector unions. Their employer isn’t going to go out of business pretty much regardless of what they demand, so there’s no reason to moderate those demands.


      June 26, 2017 at 4:58 PM

  17. the GOP ideology claims that unions make everyone poorer, not just owners and executives.

    the moon is made of green cheese.

    Beverly Hills Ninja

    June 25, 2017 at 5:40 PM

  18. Both parties are failures except when it come to enriching themselves. I’m still waiting for the Republicans to abolish any federal agency or genuinely lower taxes. Democrats only care about whiny minority groups and bringing in more worthless ‘turd worlders’ to vote Democrat.

    I remember some years ago getting a sign on bonus and having half of it looted by the state and federal systems and resent listening to the poops in either party openly wonder why there is no middle class.


    June 25, 2017 at 7:52 PM

  19. I don’t know much about the labor movement and am ambivalent about it. Look, both the workers and the employers have their side. This has to be straddled in a harmonious manner, but I don’t know how. Of course when workers are exploited, I’m for unions. When unions are taken over by mafia and impose unreasonable demands, I’m against the unions. So I don’t know if I’m for or against, ambivalent is how I’m. Maybe there is a good book to read?

    Anyway, in my trade the union guys have much better salaries and benefits then the non union. And what’s the best is that they get proper up to date training. Say duct measurements, I worked with an Albanian guy who had taken a 5 day course in how to do it when he was in the union, I, on the other hand, had to reinvent the wheel figuring it out on my own and talking to guys in the trade. Big difference. Of course an Albanian forman got him into the union and there was no way for me to get in. No worry, I’m not a union type, but I would have liked to attend that course. So there are good things about unions. And ofcourse I’m for a union for the exploited miners that Orwell writes about in ‘The Way to the Wigan Pier’.


    June 25, 2017 at 10:43 PM

    • workers and owners have some contradictory interests. the two prevailing solutions to this question are…

      1. deny it exists.

      2. claim that it can be overcome with unions, high taxes on the rich, etc.

      “class warfare” qua pejorative is an ideological term just like “racism”. it has a purpose but no meaning.

      Beverly Hills Ninja

      June 26, 2017 at 4:43 PM

  20. I have nothing against unions. I see it as the flip-side of corporate power. If Apple can successfully leverage technology, branding and regulatory capture to extract as high a price for an iPhone as possible, then I don’t see a problem with a union organizing to withhold labor in exchange for a higher wage.

    The key point, however, is to understand how a union actually operates, and why the Republicans opposed it. A union is a monopoly on labor…essentially…a type of trust. It’s aim is to increase the real wages of its workers by enforcing a closed shop where no one can work for the company or industry unless they belong to the union. A company loses control over who they hire and at what price, but they still maintain control over when and how often to hire, which is not often. This, btw, is not me making up anything. Sociologists have studied, for example, the Printer’s Unions extensively and they’ve documented how unions operate.

    The net effect of the higher union real wages imposed by a closed shop is that entire industries employ fewer people than they otherwise would have if the industries were not unionized. The reduced employment in unionized industries results in ever larger pools of workers that have to compete for smaller pools of jobs, meaning non-union sectors face wage-decline due to competition among the remaining workers.

    One of the big lies that are pushed by unions is that their activities somehow raise the wages in non-union economic sectors. They assume the “credible threat” of unionization increases wages elsewhere. This is simply untrue because, if you can’t get a job in a union shop to begin with, then there is no way the union wage can affect wages in other sectors. No one can change jobs to get better pay so why would a company feel pressure to offer better pay.

    Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of this and it’s certainly a good deal if you can get it. Unfortunately, a couple things changed: First, unions function best in tight labor markets, where this closed shop mechanism is less observable because good jobs can be had in the non-union sector. That tight labor market disappeared under globalism. Second, the unions were infiltrated by communists. Communists turned unions from a mechanism of kicking the tree to help bring down the fruit to an ideology that believes kicking trees is what bears the fruit. Unions became vehicles for expropriating property, shutting down businesses, buying politicians and essentially causing mayhem. With downsizing and globalism, people did not like the idea of seeing a pampered labor aristocracy gunning for wages and benefits they would never see for themselves. The sh*t really hit the fan when government employees were unionized and now people were paying taxes out of shrinking wages to pay for government union pensions and salaries.

    Much of this I attribute to the brain drain of smart working class people into college and management. The remaining workers were not very bright and they could not guard against these trends. Heck, unions did not even bother cultivating both parties in an effort to remain neutral, the way, say, real estate interests do.

    Thus, you get the Republican anti-union position held over the last few decades. There is nothing anti-worker about it. What is anti-worker is the Republican unwillingness to impose a closed shop over the United States itself, which would benefit American workers because it should be of no concern to the US government whether or not foreigners have American jobs. Of course, Democrats also share this anti-worker bias.

    Opposing the minimum wage is also not anti-worker. Traditionally, minimum wages were tied with regional politics. Northeastern unions wanted high minimum wage laws to price southern labor out of the market, forcing companies to re-locate to the northeast. That is why the south has right-to-work laws. Without them, the south never would have had any industrial concerns moving into the area. Again, when you impose a closed shop over the entire US, this problem will go away as well, but both parties oppose this.

    The Republicans, iow, have proven consistent, but stupid, while Democrats have proven inconsistent, but evil. They started undermining the white working class with the civil rights act and its agitation and the black working class with the immigration acts. In fact, the Democrats are largely engineering strife for the purpose of increasing their own power.

    As far as abortion is concerned, most middle class and working class families are not concerned with what minority women do. They are concerned about their own daughters. They want help from society to keep them away from sex and to avoid having abortions. Remember, abortion messaging targets young women of child bearing age and parents see that institutions are hostile toward their interests, so they want help maintaining a decent environment for their kids.

    What matters is the massive change in Democrat Party thinking over time, where they have thrown a large swathe of their constituency under the bus.


    June 26, 2017 at 12:28 AM

    • Magna, where is the link to that AC you had installed all by yourself? We wanna see it. Don’t disappoint us by not providing it. Don’t make us think bad thoughts now. Magna?


      June 26, 2017 at 7:00 AM

    • Magna, that was an interesting comment.


      June 26, 2017 at 7:05 AM

    • I agree largely with what you said. I do however think that having a strong Union presence in an area does place some pressure on non-union outfits to pay workers more because A)companies can’t make it too enticing for their good workers to defect to the Union and B) the threat of “salting” is real. If you’re not familiar with the term I’m sure you can find something about it easily on the googler but it basically means organizing a Union shop. Management traditionally isn’t too keen on it. For the record I am opposed to a $15/hour minimum wage and illegal immigration (all immigration really) as any American working-man who heads a household should be. I think the reason that there is some mutual animus between big labor and the Republicans is that the Repubs are traditionally the party of the rich…i.e. Management. Management is the traditional bargaining table opponent of the Workers so the relationship between Dems and Labor is more of a “enemy of my enemy is my friend” than any real type of partnership. Believe me the guys in my Union are majority Deploables, maybe in Grandpa’s day the JFK Dems weren’t so ghey and were more a party of/for white blue-collar men or something but we all know that the current Dems hate white men more than anything. One other thing that is huge fake news is the manner in which the Media Complex tries to conflate the Working Class (whom I had always considered to be anyone who earns an hourly wage including Union men with careers) with the Nam Underclass. Only in America can people who don’t work be called “the working class”.

      roxborough's son

      June 26, 2017 at 9:33 AM

      • roxborough’s son,

        Again, I don’t think having unions is a problem. I certainly don’t think that the way to deal with unions was the offshore outsourcing and mass immigration practiced over the last 40 years.

        But to make a minor point…”salting” does not work for the simple reason that you are always better off paying higher costs in the future than you are paying higher costs now.

        Let’s say you own a non-union shop paying $20 an hour. The union shop down the street pays $40
        bucks an hour. You don’t have to pay parity with the union shop because the shop is never hiring, so your workers cannot credibly threaten you with the leaving to the higher paying union firm. Now, let’s say that I’m worried about “salting” so I consider paying a higher wage. The problem is, the higher wage does not insure me against unionizing. If I pay 30 bucks an hour, does that guarantee that I won’t get unionized? Of course not. So, it makes sense for me to collect whatever profit margins I can by paying 20 bucks an hour. If and when the shop actually gets unionized, is a problem for the future. Notice, also, that this does not help non-union workers. Therefore, “salting” does not work.

        Again, I have nothing against unions. It’s a great deal if you can get it, but you guys can’t go around and make arguments like these. People make decisions thinking they can get into unions, and, when they discover that they can’t, it blows up their support. Unions really needed to keep a much lower profile.


        June 26, 2017 at 4:17 PM

  21. Unions are corrupt goons that are *needed* to fight Management who are corrupt goons. It’s the way of the world and always will be.


    June 26, 2017 at 9:48 AM

    • In fact, you’re not fighting management. Management has a budget that they allocate to labor. Whether they spread that budget among 1000 workers or 500 workers is irrelevant to them.


      June 26, 2017 at 4:19 PM

    • it would be nice if there weren’t such contradictions in the system.

      Beverly Hills Ninja

      June 26, 2017 at 4:45 PM

  22. Magna, since you haven’t provided us with a link to the unit that you’d installed, I have to conclude that you had made the whole story up. Why do you and JS keep doing stuff like this u dunno. Whatever.


    June 26, 2017 at 9:47 PM

    • I doubt you earn any significant amount of money, besides your occasional spouting of jackpot winnings with hang wringing, while typing on the computer/on the blog. Most tradesmen become senile and their career is done after middle age. I always love the constant bluffing how trades are lucrative, especially if they are non-union. The average trade chump earns the same as a cubicle chump without the physical pain.


      June 27, 2017 at 8:31 AM

  23. I see the same cognitive dissonance on the right. Whenever I point out the benefits of abortion in reducing the birthrate of the poorest and thus most-crime-prone Americans, they go crazy and refuse to believe it. They insist on believing that every woman who has an abortion is like Juno, a young white girl from a middle-class or better family.

    you failed the ideological turing test. this isn’t what we believe. we know that abortion is killing. what are you aborting if you aren’t aborting a human? if an abortion doesn’t occur what does a woman give birth to?


    June 27, 2017 at 7:18 AM

    • How do you “know”? Many people believe that pre-born fetuses don’t have a soul so they are not yet spiritually human.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      June 27, 2017 at 7:32 AM

  24. why aren’t there more people on the web who can see that both gop and dem policies are anti-white working class, at least in part, and why aren’t there more whites who want less immigration/multiculturalism and also want universal healthcare and strong unions?? Odd case…

    the alt white

    June 27, 2017 at 8:56 AM

    • Not at all, we are busy working. This is very simple. We know that customers and hard working guys like ourselves are our only freinds.


      June 27, 2017 at 1:08 PM

  25. O/T – In a post scarcity world, Amazon opens physical bookstores just for the sake of it. It has so much money and many of its competitors are offering the same glut smut. It wants to lower the prices even more and drive them out of business, even if rent expenses exceed their sales revenue at the stores.

    The Amazon Bookstore Isn’t Evil. It’s Just Dumb.

    So why does the establishment fail to understand this? Either they’re stupid or don’t want the average person to understand this is what happens in a post scarcity society.


    June 28, 2017 at 8:52 AM

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: