Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Taking Issue With Williams’ Notion Of Concealed Evil

March 2, 2014

To The Reader’s Forum: Like previous world powers before us, and as our own U.S....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(20)

FedUpL8ly

Mar-04-14 10:38 PM

Did anyone else note a very subtle insight into the stark difference between Obama and Putin. In a Tuesday press statement, Obama said that Putin's actions into Ukraine are illegal and that Putin must have a "different set of lawyers" than Obama. Breaking news to Barack Obama, Putin doesn't confer with and get the approval of lawyers before he invades another country. It's not too much of a stretch to realize Obama would have told Hitler to get a better set of lawyers also.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

independent61

Mar-04-14 1:46 PM

this guy is a educated idiot

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Mar-03-14 9:36 AM

Well goat where's your proof? GM? Detroit? The Pittsburgh steel industry? You talk about the 1% making so much money, but brag about the union gang member making so much the non union labor can't keep up with inflated prices for goods.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

carlaw

Mar-03-14 7:46 AM

I wish Walter Williams was in the White House instead of president Obama. I have been following his column for years and he always proves to have great insight.

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Mar-03-14 7:15 AM

Sure, not sue

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Mar-03-14 7:14 AM

Sue you old goat. Just show the proof. Unions don't hire people. Unions only have jobs for UNION MANAGEMENT. Nobody owes you a job. When you look for one, no gang has the right to tell you a guy who owns a company can't have you unless you are a paying gang member. Anyone who risks everything, hocks everything, works 7 days a week to build something for a good living should not be taken over by a gov't back gang. It's organized crime. Extortion.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Mar-03-14 7:14 AM

Sue you old goat. Just show the proof. Unions don't hire people. Unions only have jobs for UNION MANAGEMENT. Nobody owes you a job. When you look for one, no gang has the right to tell you a guy who owns a company can't have you unless you are a paying gang member. Anyone who risks everything, hocks everything, works 7 days a week to build something for a good living should not be taken over by a gov't back gang. It's organized crime. Extortion.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Coppergoat

Mar-03-14 7:01 AM

Fcked Up, the 1% pays a higher share of taxes than ever before BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HIGHER SHARE OF INCOME THAN EVER BEFORE. It's sad that you can't see the facts you cite actually support my position.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FedUpL8ly

Mar-03-14 2:39 AM

Carlaw, you were exactly correct in your statement. It should be noted the high number of disagrees illustrates how the community organizer got re-elected. Coppergoat, when the 90% tax rate was in effect, fewer than 10 taxpayers in the entire country paid that rate. Point of fact, the top 1% now pay a higher share of income taxes than ever before. As for profits, wages and standard of living, you're so far off base that you're not even in the ballpark. I have been a member of three different unions in my career, been a chairman, known and worked with international vice-presidents of different unions and have a much greater understanding of their pros and cons than most. You'd sing a different tune if you had seen what I've seen.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Coppergoat

Mar-02-14 10:40 PM

50's, just admit you make **** up. "Unions created the middle class, then destroyed the work ethic." Where do you get your nonsense? Do you have even an iota of proof to back you up? Because I assure you I have plenty of proof for everything I've said.

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Mar-02-14 8:39 PM

goat you had it half right. The unions created a wealthy middle class of workers. Then it killed the work ethic. stone-you should have stopped when you got to building sports arenas. And all those unmentioned goodies the government thinks is good for us. After taking our money to do it.

5 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

StoneJarl

Mar-02-14 7:31 PM

Correction: I hope none of you are ever in need.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

StoneJarl

Mar-02-14 7:29 PM

Mr. Williams presents a false "either or" argument and a very contrived situation. If we are to follow his logic, then we need to do nothing for the less fortunate, just let them die in the streets, then we can argue over who has to clear the corpses. Even if we are to be completely callous, we need to protect our own property values by not allowing the neighborhood to go downhill. We need to work together to find reasonable solutions to common and individual needs. The world is complex. None have the means or talent to address all social problems alone, hence we form government to build roads, ensure food safety, build sporting arenas, protect us against those who would harm us, and many more concerns we may have for the betterment of us all. The shallow selfish attitudes expressed by many here are totally appalling. I hale none of you are ever in need. If there is evil, it is in the hearts of those who find evil in loving their fellow man.

7 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Coppergoat

Mar-02-14 6:29 PM

OMG. Again with the union-bashing. Way to completely miss the point, 50's. You have an unerring way of doing that. It was the strength of the unions that created the post-war middle class. The decline of unions is directly tied to the decline of the middle class, which has yet to share in the incredible prosperity the nation has enjoyed throughout the so-called economic crisis. Stockholders hold a greater share of the wealth than at any time in history, and stocks are at historic highs. The 1% is literally drowning in money, but are so determined to keep every nickel their employees make they now find themselves with no customers. Which is no problem because they can cash out and leave the workers who actually created their wealth high and dry. Increasing income inequality is the fundamental economic problem in this oountry, and is most assuredly not caused by unions.

8 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

carlaw

Mar-02-14 11:37 AM

Walter Williams is and most always is right on the money. We need to change immigration laws and should pattern after Australia. Our borders should be as secure or even more secure than they are in other countries. It is absolutely wrong to rob others of what they have worked for and earned. You would not have to raise minimum wage and those jobs would be in demand if we turned off the immigration spigot. Wages.would go up by themselves to fill the demand for workers. We are creating.a class of unproductive slaves at everyone else's expense. It can't last and then what?

11 Agrees | 14 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Mar-02-14 11:03 AM

coppergoat-you mean before the unions decided a laborer should make enough to have a boat, ATV, vacation in the tropics, and have two cars and a pick-up? Then the low guys on the totem pole, and the elderly on fixed income had to pay five times more for staples because everything went up to keep both the union men and the greedy management in the lifestyle they wanted. When most everything but trinkets were made here, and people didn't want to be living on the government handout. What increased productivity? A guy making premium because of the artificial time per piece set by union men quota making as low as possible so a premium would be a piece of cake? Yep. 90% is too much, but the very rich will pay a lot as long as they can do more with after tax income.

9 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

troglodyte

Mar-02-14 10:17 AM

Advocates of government, intrusion, manipulation, and control of economy and life make far too many and too sanguine assumptions about the intelligence, wisdom, virtue, and incentives of the controllers. Corruption, inefficiency, unfairness, and eventual catastrophic failings are the natural consequences of that policy.

9 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Coppergoat

Mar-02-14 9:02 AM

Ah yes, the '50's. When the top marginal tax rate was 90%, and husbands earned enough in their middle class jobs to support a family without the wife having to work (at least in sitcoms on television, if not in real life). But guess what happens when the shareholders keep 100% of the profits for themselves and don't reward their workers' increased productivity? Falling real wages and more two-income households. It's amazing that conservatives see this as some kind of moral failing when it is a natural consequence of their economic policies.

12 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Mar-02-14 7:00 AM

Back in the 50's women raised kids and kept them on the right path. Old folks were cared for by family, not cast away so you could keep up a lifestyle you want and letting the government raise your kids. For a woman who chose to do the toughest, most important job in the country, it was worth it. Then Uncle and the "me" society caught on.

12 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CREDENCE

Mar-02-14 6:28 AM

Frank, Frank, Frank, We've been trying to do this for 80 years but with all the bribes, junkets, kick-backs, and flat out thievery, it doesn't seem to go far. If we could get the corruption out of the so-called "lawmakers" (Michelle the latest new one man congress) then perhaps something would be accomplished. The current regime is VERY electroluxish!

9 Agrees | 14 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 20 of 20 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web