User Profile: psychosocial1


Member Since: May 05, 2011


  • January 24, 2013 at 9:25pm

    Mr. Tully has gotten to THE foundational problem present in our country today. The fundamental issue of “us vs. them” or “with us or against us”. Ideological rigidity, based in part on a hyper-focus on individualism, is tearing down this nation. First of all, we are ALL a part of American society. None of us are an island unto ourselves. Adam Smith understood this concept 300 years ago. Why can’t we? Secondly, one only has to look at these message boards to see the evidence of this. Otherwise likeminded individuals, anonymously arguing over the minute details of inconsequential topics. Many on these message boards will claim that the current administration is waging “class warfare” with the “rich vs. poor” narrative yet completely miss the fact that Beck (and other talking heads) are using the exact same type of rhetoric to attack unions. Specifically, these pundits promote the idea that union members get pay and benefits not given to non-union workers. This is done to create a sense of envy and unfairness. Instead of thinking critically about the situation, listeners adopt the rhetoric of the speaker and perpetuate the meme.
    By the way, (I know it’s off topic) “right to work” is the quintessential example of freeloading. I would think that conservative-minded people would be against this, but it is cheered loudly in these circles. Non-union members receive the same pay, benefits, and protections provided by the unions without paying a dime for th

  • January 14, 2013 at 9:29pm

    Great example of a misleading headline and the typical glee demonstrated by low-information, conservative “thinkers”. There is NO mention of cutting production in the American plants that produce Jeeps, but rather this is an expansion of the business into a new market. Romney tried to roll out this false talking point during the election.

  • November 15, 2012 at 11:47pm

    The evil boss makes money because of the labor of his employees, get it? Metz is yet another crybaby millionaire. I’m sure most people of your mindset think this guy should be worshipped. Perhaps you should broaden your own viewpoint to consider the fact that the equation has two sides.

  • November 15, 2012 at 11:42pm

    All of the comments being made here seem to leave out one very important factor in this equation. The employees. The individuals doing the actual work that brings in the revenue. I am quite sure Mr. Metz is not a poor man, and I am even more sure that he isn’t the one cooking the food or serving it. His employees are a large part of the reason this man has the income he does. How about recognizing the fact that there are two sides to the equation? The ownership/labor relationship is symbiotic in nature, neither one surviving without the other. I realize this concept is a bit too tough for some to understand. Quite frankly, I am getting a bit tired of the “poor old downtrodden millionaires” meme.

  • November 12, 2012 at 1:49pm

    Thank you for making my point. You know nothing of my beliefs or ideology and yet you hurl the typical vitriolic rhetoric simply because I say something you might be against. Ad hominem attacks do not further your own position. Yes, I understand the tax issues involved with the Clinton administration. The personal tax increase was imposed in 1993. 9% points. Capital gains cuts came in 1997. Gingrich made the statement that this increase would stall the recovery and cause a downturn. No such downturn ever occurred. I have the facts on my side and clear historical precedent as evidence.

  • November 11, 2012 at 9:16pm

    I admire your efforts, but they are largely wasted here. I rarely find that I can have an intelligent, well-reasoned debate on this (or any other) message board. If an individual makes any statement that goes against the accepted “conservative” platform he/she is automatically labeled a “socialist,marxist,etc…”. The problem with this medium specifically, and the overall political opinion arena generally, is this “you’re either with us or you’re against us” mentality. Too many people only see the black and white extremes of the spectrum; they cannot identify the fact that there is a huge gray area in between. Small government, free-market, personal liberty conservatives constantly seek government intervention to deny liberty to entire groups of individuals who live a lifestyle they don’t agree with. These same conservatives also seek government intervention in business by seeking incentives for development (hardly free-market is it?). I would suggest researching the subjects of confirmation bias and group polarization. These two concepts explain a great deal of behavior. As to the specific issue of taxes, Gingrich made the claim that the Clinton tax hike would stall the recovery and cause recession. Clinton’s tax increase caused no such recession. Kristol is only pointing out a fact that can be supported by historical precedent.

  • November 2, 2012 at 10:05am

    I apologize for any dizziness I may have caused. I was simply trying to give a thorough explanation of my position. Sometimes we must go beyond what should be necessary to compensate for ambiguity due to the nature of the forum. The bottom line is that both are necessary. In my opinion Rand fails to address this fact. It is a cyclical system where both entities support the other. I am not attempting to put one above the other, but rather I am simply illustrating this fact.

  • November 2, 2012 at 2:07am

    The scenario proposed by Factor is nonsensical. It is completely outside the context of what is understood to be “helping”. I would think that most reasonable individuals could agree with that point. Social programs and bureaucracy are much more relevant to any discussion of this subject. Brook should have refrained from giving an answer to that particular example and instead shifted focus to the broader scope of government largesse. It is was he was referring to.

  • November 2, 2012 at 1:56am


    You make decent points, but you miss the big picture. I’ll use your example as an illustration. The corporation has private property rights. Without regulations to govern the conduct of the corporation it is free to do as it pleases within the boundary of its property. If this company chooses to pollute there is little recourse for those living in the surrounding community. The scenario can quickly become very convoluted. One could use game theory to map out all of the different outcomes. My original point is simply refuting Brooks statement that the suffering of one is not the responsibility of another especially when the latter causes the suffering of the former.

  • November 2, 2012 at 1:43am


    I will agree with most of what you say, but will make one caveat. I strongly believe that those in power, both in Congress and the boardrooms, are still seeking the protections of the rules of incorporation while freeing themselves from the “burdensome” regulations that raise the costs of operation. Would you not agree with that?

  • November 2, 2012 at 1:36am

    The first movie was a very poor adaptation of the book. I’ve read more than one of Rand’s books, Atlas Shrugged being one of them. I won’t level any charges of hypocracy against Rand for accepting government assistance toward the end of her life. My argument against her beliefs are much more foundational. Plus, I’m not saying she was completely wrong in her assertions. However, many people that espouse her positions have very little understanding of what capitalism really is. If our government chose to completely deregulate industry and end subsidies tomorrow we still would not have a true capitalist system.

  • November 2, 2012 at 1:29am


    I believe I know where you are going with the question, I’ve heard it before, but I’ll play along. They mine to earn a wage, to provide for themselves and their family. In the context of AS and my earlier post, the miners, through their labor provide the raw materials for Rearden to produce his metal. No miners, no raw materials, no Rearden metal. The path I see you following is this: Why didn’t one of those miners develop the metal? The person that develops the metal is really immaterial to the discussion. What is important is that without labor the idea is not fully realized. They each require the other. You may say that without the idea the labor isn’t necessary and logically you would be correct. I’m simply saying that once the idea is conceived it requires labor to become fully developed.

  • November 2, 2012 at 1:16am

    Brooks statement about the suffering of one not being the responsibility of another has a fatal flaw. If the actions of the former directly cause the suffering of the latter it IS necessarily the responsibility of the former. For example, a corporation dumps toxic chemicals in the water supply of a locality. The residents of that locality develop diseases as a direct result of this dumping. The individuals in charge of this corporation are simply following policy that is in the best interest of the corporation (i.e. maximizing profits, limiting costs). Without any type of regulation there is NO reason for any corporation to follow any policy that would protect the environment because these types of protections necessarily drive up costs. Furthermore, while the corporations realize bigger profits due to this deregulation society as a whole bears the additional costs. These costs are referred to as externalities. Privatize the profits and socialize the costs.

    Responses (7) +
  • November 2, 2012 at 12:51am

    What is your defense of Rand’s philosophy? Rand generally got it wrong in Atlas Shrugged. She suggests that it is the idea that is the most important thing and the developers are the kings. What Rand, and all the followers, miss is that labor is required to bring that idea to fruition. Rearden is the perfect example of this. He develops his new metal. Revolutionary? Quite possibly. However, the raw materials necessary for crafting the finished product require labor. Mining and transport specifically. Processing the raw materials into the finished product require labor. Men to run the furnaces and manage the processes. Transporting the finished product requires labor. Rand never shines any light on the required labor. She simply promotes Rearden’s idea. These two entities are dependent on one another. It is a symbiotic relationship. Dagny and Willers are another example of this. Dagny requires Willers’ assistance to help run Taggart Transcontinental. Willers is Dagny’s eyes and ears in her family’s company while she runs the John Galt Line. His assistance is imperative yet he is eventually unceremoniously dumped in the desert and forgotten while Dagny goes on. Again Rand shows favor to the “idea” person while shedding the laborer. And again, the relationship is symbiotic. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the subject and your defense of Rand.

  • November 1, 2012 at 8:45pm

    @AGGIE: I agree. What is Romney hiding? Even his father released tax returns. I love the reaction generated by your post. These people don’t seem to understand.

    @Chick: Romney hasn’t said exactly what loopholes and deductions he would eliminate. He has suggested doing away with the capital-gains tax (which would lower his tax liability to approximately zero). The discussion of Romney’s tax policy has him getting rid of the child deductions, the earned income tax credit, and the home mortgage interest deduction. ALL of which tend to favor the middle class and the poor. My guess is that whatever allows the rich to keep more of their money he will do.

  • November 1, 2012 at 8:32pm

    You’re getting warmer, but I’m willing to bet that if Romney wins the election most of these people will go back to sleep. I could give the reason for that, but I’m quite sure it would be banned.

  • November 1, 2012 at 8:28pm

    How exactly are our troops having their right to vote denied? Is the federal government explicitly stating that the soldiers CANNOT vote?

  • November 1, 2012 at 8:26pm

    Who is in charge of these Congressional committees again? Oh, yes, the Republicans. Ad hominem attacks and goofy nicknames for the president, but no one is discussing the actual issue. Typical.

  • November 1, 2012 at 8:19pm

    The Blaze invokes the Trump name because it draws attention. Trump is an empty suit. If he truly cared about these charities he could easily donate the money without any stipulation and still openly promote the action. I haven’t seen any evidence that he is even considering that. On the contrary, Trump is blaming the president for the lack of that donation. Too many ignorant people can’t see that very simple fact.
    @ 2minutes: Is it impossible for you (and many others) to leave the ad hominem attacks out of the conversation? Does calling the president snarky nicknames make you feel that your point carries more weight? (It doesn’t you know). It simply demonstrates a complete lack of ability to argue your points in an intelligent, adult manner.

  • November 1, 2012 at 8:07pm

    Donald Trump is nothing more than a self-promoting narcissist. This natural disaster is having a devastating effect on tens of millions of individuals, and all Trump can do is complain about Obama’s college and passport records. If the welfare of these individuals is that important to you Donald, just donate the $5 million to charity without any strings attached. We all know he won’t do that though. I would think that all of the Beck fans could understand the tasteless nature of Trump’s actions; however, as I read through these comments I see that, as usual, you are all too willing to jump on the bandwagon. I’m beginning to wonder about the true motivation of your vitriol and interested to know if there is no line you aren’t willing to cross to sling mud at the president.