The $400 Haircut Was a Bargain
You thought John Edwards’s $400 haircut was bad? How about John Edwards’s $1250 haircut?
I like the defense, though:
“Breaking news — John Edwards got some expensive haircuts and probably didn’t pay enough attention to the bills,” said spokeswoman Colleen Murray. “He didn’t lie about weapons of mass destruction or spring Scooter Libby; he just got some expensive haircuts.”
I’m going to have to remember that one with the wife. “Breaking news, honey: I got an electric guitar that cost a month’s salary — but I didn’t lie about weapons of mass destruction!” Or I could try it at work. “Breaking news, boss. I told the judge it was okay to let the murderer out on $200 bail. But I didn’t spring Scooter Libby!”
OK, so this guy payed a lot of his own money for a haircut. What’s the man is supposed to do with his wealth if he’s rich? Donate everything?
Nikolay (939eb6) — 7/6/2007 @ 1:48 amWhat if it turns out that he drank expensive wine? Or payed too much for an opera ticket? Will this be a new outrage?
“That man doesn’t care for the poor because he doesn’t want to keep all his money to himself!” — is this is a charge, or what?
It wasn’t his money, it was campaign money.
gahrie (de5a83) — 7/6/2007 @ 3:35 amHere’s a charge: He wants to raise my taxes. I’m not rich. I can’t afford $400 let alone $1250 haircuts. Obviously, he can. Yet, he wants me to give more of my hard earned money to the government to waste. No thanks.
sam (781d46) — 7/6/2007 @ 3:36 am400$ was money that was charged to the campaign by mistake and that he refunded. 1250$ is about the way he spends his own money, which he has a lot of, and which is for some mysterious reason everybody’s business.
Nikolay (939eb6) — 7/6/2007 @ 4:13 amDid Edwards report the free haircuts as a campaign contribution? And given the ‘value’ of the haircuts he gave Edwards for free, did Torrenueva exceed contribution limits?
steve sturm (40e5a6) — 7/6/2007 @ 4:18 amthe way he spends his own money, which he has a lot of, and which is for some mysterious reason everybody’s business.
Mainly, because he has decided that the way I spend my money is his business…….
gahrie (de5a83) — 7/6/2007 @ 4:27 amPersonally I think people can spend whatever they want on their haircuts.
smalliebiggs (20b1fe) — 7/6/2007 @ 5:19 amOf course, they can. But what they can’t do is then go on to lecture people on poverty and not be revealed as a hypocrite.
sam (781d46) — 7/6/2007 @ 5:42 am[…] Also: Captain’s Quarters, Paterrico, […]
Webloggin - Blog Archive » Who Can Vote For A Guy That Can't Come Clean About a Haircut? (a2d188) — 7/6/2007 @ 5:53 amWhat this does is tell you that, being wealthy, Mr Edwards thinks nothing of profligate spending. He combitches that WalMart doesn’t pay its employees enough, then blows almost four weeks of gross pay, at $8.00 an hour, for a stinkin’ haircut.
Now, what do you think he’d do when it comes to the budget of the United States?
Of course, just as telling is the fact that Mr Edwards flies in his barber.
No, not his barber, let’s be honest here: it was his hairdresser.
Dana (3e4784) — 7/6/2007 @ 6:29 amEdwards won’t ever be a populist no matter how hard he tries. Populists don’t get $1,250 hair cuts.
Curtiss (c03bd7) — 7/6/2007 @ 6:38 amIn Patterico’s world, spending money you can easily afford is the same as spending all the family income on a non-essential or recklessly releasing a dangerous criminal.
Nice moral compass he has there. No wonder the GOP is having such a hard time telling wrong from right.
m.croche (34d964) — 7/6/2007 @ 6:38 amIn croche’s world, analogies are equations — and guys who have foolish personal spending habits are the perfect people to put in charge of the nation’s finances.
Patterico (bd687f) — 7/6/2007 @ 6:51 amm.croche:
No, in “Patterico’s world”, playing up “The Two Americas” while flying in one’s own personal hairdresser isn’t a political tactic you just brush aside by saying “Well, I didn’t do those things you don’t like about the incumbent”. A breadwinner is expected to provide for his family, and a prosecutor is expected to act rationally when it comes to bail terms. Have we really gotten to the point where we expect politicians to be demonizing hypocrites? Then again, I suppose we can come to expect ad hominem from you, right?
Of note: Amidst the DUI and drug allegations against GWB, I never heard him brush them off with “Well, I didn’t pardon members of a foreign terrorist organization”. He could have, but he didn’t.
Rick Wilcox (bb4b76) — 7/6/2007 @ 7:00 amI have to admit, it does make me wonder if Edwards might do somethign really stupid when he gets into office, like send bales of money over to Iraq and lose them.
I don’t know why that would worry Bush supporters, though, since they didn’t mind when Bush’s administration did it.
(Note: I know the missing bales of money kinda bugged everyone, including Bush supporters. I’m just pointing out that mishandling of money isn’t a dealbreaker for any poltician — it’s just fun to poke fun at the other side’s politicians for doing it.)
Phil (427875) — 7/6/2007 @ 7:06 amHow Many People In New Orleans Ninth Ward Got Free Hollywood Stylist Haircuts?…
Splitting hairs, Edwards stylist speaks up from the Washington Post gives more insight into the expensive haircuts of former Senator John Edwards from his previously unnamed stylist, now identified as Joseph Torrenueva, a Democrat who gave his services…
PAXALLES (72c8fd) — 7/6/2007 @ 7:21 amJohn Edwards: we just can’t afford him!…
The fact that a man not only flies in his hairdresser to style his hair, but didn’t even have a clue as to the cost, tells us a lot more about John Edwards than a series of position papers.
……
Common Sense Political Thought (819604) — 7/6/2007 @ 7:23 amThe elephant in the room is that the Silky Pony is spending all that money on his gorgeous flowing locks, okay?
I’ll say it–I’m gutsy that way.
spongeworthy (45b30e) — 7/6/2007 @ 7:37 amMr Croche: the problem is that he’s asking for a position in which he’ll be able to spend money he thinks we’ll all be able to “easily afford.”
He admitted that he really didn’t have a clue as to how much he was spending.
Dana (3e4784) — 7/6/2007 @ 8:49 amYeah, all those careless ways of Edwards really show, hasn’t he filed for bankruptcy already? Is he any different from Paris Hilton at all? I mean, he didn’t make any of those money that he really doesn’t know what to do with without your advice, did he?
He just has to go to George W. Bush’s school of effective business management.
Nikolay (939eb6) — 7/6/2007 @ 9:06 amOh, so it’s snark we’re after? “Yeah, all those careless ways of Edwards really show, hasn’t he filed for bankruptcy already?” Nah I’m sure he’ll just start up another non-profit to “study” the root causes of poverty. Mainly so he can avoid becoming poor.
Metzger (e03adc) — 7/6/2007 @ 9:24 am“…any of those money…”
Nikolay, proofreading is your friend…
On to why John Edwards troubles me…
John Edwards’ Junk Science
Edwards on Foreign Workers
Edwards on Iraq
John Edwards claims to channel the thoughts of the deceased while courting the Nutroots who claim GWB is a crazy Christian. He claims to be concerned about the American middle class, yet he voted to expand the H-1B visa program to reward alien workers instead of working to better train Americans for American jobs. And he CO-SPONSORED the Iraq War Resolution, making a very strong statement about Hussein and the presence of WMD’s. Yet he now believes exactly the opposite: that GWB was misleading the world about Saddam and the state of Iraq’s weapon program.
Ladies and gentleman, I present the most disingenuous politician out there today: John Edwards. My hero.
H2U (81b7bd) — 7/6/2007 @ 9:40 amWell, personally, on a visceral level, I hate Edwards, probably even more than such Republican phonies as Thompson and Romney or real creepies like Giuliani. And there are certainly numerous real issues with his character.
Nikolay (939eb6) — 7/6/2007 @ 10:18 amBut this haircut question is ridiculous and by dwelling on it you legitimize any kinds of personal attacks on your own candidates. I mean, if this is news, Romney’s dog story is 100 times more a real news.
“he voted to expand the H-1B visa program to reward alien workers instead of working to better train Americans for American jobs.”
Is there any data, anywhere, to indicate that bringing well-educated, highly productive foreign workers into this country somehow reduces the number of jobs available for Americans?
I know, I know, they’re taking a job that supposedly would otherwise go to an American. But seriously, it’s not like there’s this spigot of money, and they’re just standing under it. They come here and provide more net wealth than they are paid. That’s why they have a job ni the first place — because an employer values the labor they provide more than the salary they are paid.
So intuitively, it seems that the total net wealth in America is higher after we brought in the educated, employable workers than it was before we did so.
So what about those unfortunate less well-educated, less employable Americans who could have gotten that job by default if we hadn’t give the HB-1 visa to a foreigner? Well, lucky for them, they live in a country that’s now wealthier than it was before the HB-1 visa was granted. That’s more available wealth to be invested in the Americans’ labor — translating into more opportunity, without giving a handout in the form of some sort of free education or something.
Is there something terribly wrong with this view of HB-1 visas? Because I don’t get the objection to granting more of them at all.
Phil (427875) — 7/6/2007 @ 10:26 amIs there something terribly wrong with this view of HB-1 (sic) visas?
Yes. We should issue green cards instead. H1-B visas give employers too much power.
Yours,
Wince and Nod (931cf0) — 7/6/2007 @ 10:42 amWince
I don’t know anyone–even a woman–who pays $400 for a haircut. Never mind $1250. (I go to Supercuts, and grumble to myself how much they’ve gone up in price the last few years. Of course, for the last twenty odd years, I’ve always gotten the same haircut, varying it only for the length–sometimes short, sometimes medium short, sometimes really short.) The claims of anyone to be a populist, or an everyman, with that sort of haircutting tab, are extremely dubious. Of course, the claims of a certain candidate to be a populist, an everyman, and not an overintellectualized drone like Algore had to cotend with a family compound in Kennebunkport and a father who used to POTUS….
kishnevi (7e3b28) — 7/6/2007 @ 11:29 amNot at all, Nikolay. It is a perfect illustration of the hypocrisy displayed by John Edwards. There are two Americas: the one John Edwards relishes and the one the rest of us live in. And I am all for any personal attack on any candidate as long as it helps to explain who they are as a person. Assuming, of course, that said attack is based on fact as opposed to much of the rhetoric spewed at a certain GOP President who need not be named…
Phil, I’m going to point you to a recent discussion on Slashdot about this very topic. H-1B Visas have had an absolutely devastating effect on the computer engineer workforce in this country.
Microsoft Moves R&D to Canada
Microsoft, and other major tech companies, continues to devalue American engineers through their attempts to drive down salaries via the H-1B program.
I will quote /. user aldheorte who sums up the problem excellently:
The H-1B visa program is a burden on our economy and an economic disaster in the making. Shame on any politician — Republican or Democrat — who favors increasing the number of these visas issued. Instead of spending a fortune lobbying politicians to allow in more foreign workers, perhaps these companies would be better off building a little more private educational infrastructure to make this country’s citizens more competitive.
It is not only the responsibility of our government to help foster competitiveness but also that of our homegrown corporations. What good is all our accumulated wealth if we whittle it away in such a stupid, stupid manner? Feh.
H2U (81b7bd) — 7/6/2007 @ 11:33 amH2U post 22: “he voted to expand the H-1B visa program to reward alien workers instead of working to better train Americans for American jobs”
H2U post 27: “Microsoft, and other major tech companies, continues to devalue American engineers through their attempts to drive down salaries via the H-1B program.”
OK, now I’m mystified. Either we need to train more Americans, because there aren’t enough engineers, or there are plenty of engineers, but Microsoft doesn’t want to pay them more.
Which is it? Because if we “work to better train Americans,” that’s just (by your logic) going to bring down the salaries of existing engineers by flooding the market.
Conversely, if we need to force Microsoft to pay its engineers more, then the problem certainly isn’t that we to “better train Americans” — we’ve got plenty of well-trained Americans, they’re just underpaid.
I’m now completely lost as to what the problem is, and what you want to do to solve it.
Phil (427875) — 7/6/2007 @ 11:50 amPhil, this isn’t a complex issue. Those two posts compliment each other — they aren’t contradictory.
Microsoft [and other large corporations] is trying to have their cake and eat it too. An American corporation is duty-bound to foster goodwill among the American workforce.
As the /. poster says, “they are not having trouble finding technical expertise. They are having trouble finding people who will accept minimum wage for it.” There is no legitimate reason why a job that requires an engineering degree should be paying minimum wage. But our politicians, such as John Edwards, and our corporations, such as Microsoft, are actively seeking to do just that.
The way to solve this problem is simple: STOP ALLOWING IN FOREIGN LABOR. There are Americans willing to do these jobs; they just aren’t willing to be paid next-to-nothing for it. And John Edwards, for one, is complicit in this shameful display of selling out to corporate interests.
I hope you can understand that. It’s a fairly simple notion.
H2U (81b7bd) — 7/6/2007 @ 12:32 pmNikolay,
You have pointed out that the overpriced haircut “scandal” is instead a minor kerfuffle, and I think I agree with you. But I do have three questions:
1) You wrote that the $400 was money “charged to the campaign by mistake and that he refunded.” Would this “mistake” ever have been recognized as such by the Edwards campaign if there had not been a kerfuffle about it?
2) Wouldn’t a liberal Democrat deciding whether to give money to, say, Edwards or Obama, rationally decide that Edwards has shown both less need and less respect for such contributions?
3) While I wouldn’t expect it to really sway people in a general election, wouldn’t a candidate’s ability to avoid silly gaffes rationally weigh heavily on a primary voter’s decision?
DWPittelli (2e1b8e) — 7/6/2007 @ 1:01 pmI’d like a report on the billing for stylists and makeup for every major candidate for the Presidency, Demagogic and Republicrat.
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/6/2007 @ 1:12 pmHave in on my desk ASAP.
Thanks.
Including travel costs of course.
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/6/2007 @ 1:13 pmWhat kind of hypocrisy is that? Is it shameful for a rich man to spend a lot of money? Should he keep everything to himself? Should he burn it? Do you think that the best economy is one in which everyone lives on bread and water and buries all the money in the ground?
Are you a Communist actually?
Nikolay (939eb6) — 7/6/2007 @ 1:14 pmWhat makes you think that it’s right to take companies hostages to the government? If you stop allowing foreign labor, they will go for outright outsourcing. Why do you want to force companies to accept people that come from the places where they teach Intelligent Design in the schools instead of good specialists?
The market gives the best solutions, and if you insert government into business’s decision it brings bad results. That’s kind of trivial. In the software field, there’s nothing that would prevent companies from taking all the jobs outside, and in fact that’s what they do. If you not only insist on teaching junk like ID, but also prevent smart people from coming into your country, you just make the demise of your country closer. There’s nothing that would prevent the market from circumventing regulations, as long as it’s not a Communist country you’re living in. At best, you’ll succeed in burying Microsoft and Apple. Korean media players are already much better than Ipods, it’s not the technical, but merely marketing aspect that keeps Ipod a winner.
That’s a very silly gaffe, for sure. But I think that a staffer mistakingly using one credit card instead of another says much less about Edwards’ judgment than, say, Giuliani’s campaign chairman charged of distributing cocaine or Bernard Kerik being Bernard Kerik says about Rudy’s judgement.
Nikolay (939eb6) — 7/6/2007 @ 1:22 pmIt is hypocritical for the wealthy to frivolously spend their money and then lecture others on the financial woes of others. If the man is truly as noble as he claims to be he should be following the law of tzedakah
Tzedakah
John Edwards is speaking out of both sides of his mouth when he talk of two Americas. And that, Nikolay, is hypocrisy.
And what if I was? I’m not, but how would that change anything? Our Airline companies are duty bound to aid national defense under the right circumstances. Why are our other industries then free to dismiss the needs of our country when it suits them?
They aren’t and they should be criticized and shamed for doing so.
I never said anything of the sort.
Outsourcing is a red herring. You cannot outsource highly technical jobs — you can certainly do so for Call Centers, such as United Airlines has done — without putting your security at risk. The issue at hand is American Companies bringing in foreign labor to do jobs that should be reserved for domestic labor.
My tax dollars contribute to the public education I — and countless others — receive. So why should we allow our politicians to screw us over on the way out of these institutions by bringing in foreigners to do the jobs were taught to do? How can someone pay back a student loan on a minimum wage job? It doesn’t make any sense, Nikolay.
Our politicians and corporations are doing this country a huge disservice in this regard.
Wow. What a nonsensical statement. Why do you go out of your way to demean the bible belt? Has middle America slighted you somehow? Nobody is forcing companies to do anything. Politicians are ALLOWING — wrongly, I insist — corporations to avoid the actual market rate for technical jobs by bringing in foreign labor. And that is wrong, wrong, wrong in so many ways.
We need to remain a competitive nation, and we do so by keeping our domestic economy strong. It’s not as if Microsoft has a cashflow problem nor is there a supply-side problem with the domestic labor force. It is politically-enabled, anti-capitalist, anti-American greed that encourages this behavior, and it should be stopped immediately.
Twice you bring up an entirely unrelated issue in an attempt to do what exactly? Slander a good portion of the country? What a sad excuse for intellect.
It’s not merely the marketing aspect that keeps iPod on top. It is the end-to-end solution provided by Apple that does it. No other MP3 manufacturer, aside from Microsoft’s pitiful Zune, provides computer hardware, operating systems, and portable devices that all work perfectly with one another. The iPod become a hit not because it was the best MP3 player but because it made using an MP3 player easy enough for luddites.
But, hey, convince yourself it was only Apple’s shrewd marketing that put them at the top of the Portable Music Player market. My little cousins win arguments the same way: by putting their fingers in their ears and chanting, “LALALALALALA.”
H2U (81b7bd) — 7/6/2007 @ 1:37 pmyou need your wife’s permission to buy an electric guitar??
assistant devil's advocate (c59dfc) — 7/6/2007 @ 2:13 pmI would hope that a married man informs his wife of any purchase he considers significant. Or do you not consider an electric guitar a significant purchase? A good ax will cost you four figures these days, FYI.
H2U (81b7bd) — 7/6/2007 @ 2:21 pmHow does Edwards paying a lot of money for someone’s work prove that he doesn’t give money to charity? As far as I understand, “tzedakah” in it higher levels means anonymous charity, so publicly discussing if someone is following this law makes no sense at all — if he’s really following it, no one will know.
If you force companies to make ineffective decisions, it will make them lose the competition on the global market. Why would you want them to do that?
You cannot outsource highly technical jobs??? Really? FYI, Ireland has the second best economy in the world (after Japan), and this is largely due to Microsoft, Intel etc. In my country, Russia, every other mathematical/physical student is working in some outsourcing firm now. We have a great mathematical tradition, our country (and my institute) won the world Olympiad on programming numerous times, and the only people that keep US students from losing their prestige in this field seem to be Chinese Americans. Even Boeing 787 was largely designed in Moscow. Russian specialists are certainly a cheap labor, and much cheaper in Russia than if brought to US.
Well, corporations pay a lot of taxes as well. You want to screw them — great, they will screw you. You don’t like “good specialists from US + good specialists from abroad” choice — they will go for “good specialists in some non-Communist country”, and they’ll have a lot of places to chose from.
If you decide to teach your kid contempt for human reason a la Creation Museum, that’s your own choice and right, but if this kid has problems finding a job, it’s because you wanted him to be stupid, not because of the evil corporations.
Corporations make money in a global market, so why foreign labor means avoiding actual market? Again, this is a simple logic — you regulate someone, you force him to a place he would feel comfortable in. You can’t make Mexican Illegal tend a Californian garden in Mexico, because it’s not there, but there’s no problem in employing a Russian programmer to write code for a Californian firm. The only difference is, he’ll pay most of the taxes in Russia.
Hey, is not a Republican routine to condemn “loser Liberals”, even though Blue states such as Massachusetts and California are the most technologically advanced and most of the “donor states” are Blue, while most of the “leach states” are Red?
It’s not a slander to say that Creation Museum is stupid, it’s a fact. They are stupid and proud of it, they have “Human Reason vs. God’s Word” charts.
So that’s the good old Communism again. Screw the rich! Microsoft has a lot of money, let them do our bidding! And it’s not as if much of Microsoft’s money is actually in shares which, were it to lose edge, would turn into dust.
OK, this could be said this way as well. I know for a fact that Korean players are better than Ipods in every conceivable way, but you’re right that they are probably less adjusted to the luddites’ sensibilities. This seems to be question of marketing to me, it certainly fits the wikipedia definition of this word.
Nikolay (939eb6) — 7/6/2007 @ 3:33 pmWow. I provide a link and you don’t even bother to use it. “While the word “tzedakah” is most commonly translated into English as “charity”, the word actually comes from the Hebrew word meaning “justice” or “righteousness.” John Edwards goes on and on about the injustice in our “Two Americas” despite not doing anything to actually remedy it.
Rhetoric. Meaningless, empty rhetoric. Bravo, Mr. Edwards.
That’s a false decision. Ineffective decisions according to whom? I would argue their shortsightedness is the most ineffective part of the decision. By hindering the American labor force, they hinder the American economy. By hindering the American economy, they hinder their own profit-making abilities considering our economy’s relative strength and size.
Using the most common measure of Economic Strength — Gross National Product — you would be quite wrong.
World GDP by Nation
Ireland comes in approximately 50th. But nice try. Funny you mention Ireland as they have a robust tech industry and it’s not based around outsourcing. Ireland, however, ranks higher than the US in wealth per capita. You must be aware, however, this is not a measure of economic strength but rather an indicator of have’s and have-not’s. The economic divide in Ireland is STAGGERING.
Comparatively, no, they don’t. Corporations are capable of abusing our poorly-though-out tax system in ways that individuals cannot. Here’s one good example of how they do so here:
Corporate Tax Loophole
Again, what does this have to do with the topic at hand? You are bringing up a non-issue again and again and I still cannot comprehend how it relates to the issue of corporate and political ignorance of H-1B visas. I think you just have a deep hatred for religious people — and shame on you for that.
Most of the engineers having trouble finding jobs because of this problem are located in Silicon Alley (Massachusets) and Silicon Valley (California). There is no debate about creationism or Intelligent Design there, I assure you, so find another place to vent about your problems with those topics please.
Each country has it’s own market, Nikolay, for each industry. A steelworker in the United States is paid differently than a steelworker in China. An engineer from India will be paid less than an engineer from the United States. This is the problem. The American corporations are denying Americans jobs because they believe they can save money elsewhere.
But instead their shortsightedness will eventually destroy the American labor force due to their short-term profit-seeking. We need to find a healthy medium, and that is found by stopping foreign labor from entering this country. And this issue is tied DIRECTLY to illegal immigration as well, mind you, a topic near-and-dear to Patterico and all California residents.
Here’s a problem: NATIONAL SECURITY. That should be a major concern to our ignorant politicians, along with our own struggling technical labor force.
The word is “leech,” not leach. And without Middle America we would all be starving to death. They are the backbone of this country whether or not you acknowledge it. Your contempt for them is absolutely disgusting.
It’s off-topic and irrelevant, as I’ve been saying all along. You, sir, appear to be a bigot.
Right, because that’s been my point ALL ALONG.
[insert eye-rolling emoticon here]
Except in the ways that matters to 90% of the consumer market: ease-of-use and interoperability…
H2U (81b7bd) — 7/6/2007 @ 3:59 pmWhat makes you think I didn’t check the link? What does Edwards spending his money on a haircut have to do with him doing or not doing anything to remedy injustice? How does one thing prevent another from happening? BTW, strictly speaking, that was a case of highest level of “tzedakah”, providing someone with a job.
Obviously those stupid corporations don’t know heck about making profits. Hopefully, proletariat will revolt and help them make better decisions.
Hey, this measure says that Brazil’s economy is much stronger than that of Israel, New Zealand and Luxembourg. And my own Russia is just below Brazil. It cheers my heart so much.
It’s not based around outsourcing _from_ Ireland, it’s based around outsourcing _to_ Ireland. Outsourcing _from_ your country is not good for national economy, it’s just what happens if you screw businesses.
Why would corporations care about American labor force being destroyed? So what if it’s destroyed, they’ll find better labor force in some other country that, say, isn’t that much in debt and is not fond of squandering wealth on warfare. Do you really want corporations to be _moral_? How can they afford to give a special treatment to American laborers, when they are competing against other corporations that don’t have those restraints? As long as US is a best place to do business, they will do it there, once it’s not they will move on.
If you let the foreign labor into the country, it will take roughly the same wages as the average worker in that industry, simply because no one would go to another country to lower one’s standards of living. That’s certainly true about hi-tech workers. If you force outsourcing, the foreign labor will a) take much lower wages, b) pay taxes in another country.
Hey, here’s another National Security situation: you give a student a free education, he moves to work to another country. Happens in Russia all the time,
it is called “brain drain”. A simple solution: just don’t let them out of the country, or force them to work a certain job. Worked perfectly well in Soviet Russia, which was a shining economic success. Do you like this measure as well?
NOBODY cares about “National Security”. Even Haliburton relocated headquarters to the Middle East. Corporations are not moral creatures, if you want them to stay, don’t play big Comrade with them, for example, don’t prevent them from bringing in qualified labor.
Well, it’s off-topic to a certain degree (but, still, a question of education has some relevance to a question of qualification), but I find your thin skin kind of surprising. Compared to an average post on HotAir or MichelleMalkin.com, or to Rush Limbaugh condemning liberals that lurk in the shadows, or to an average rant of a “moderate right-wing blogger”, my words seem to be quite moderate.
Wrong. My Korean media player is much better than Ipod on both counts.
p.s. Are you actually far-left or right-of-the-center? I just took for granted that hating Edwards is a right’s position, but most of your arguments seem to come from far left.
Nikolay (939eb6) — 7/6/2007 @ 5:05 pmYup, J Edwards, champion of the poor. I think not. What an idiot.
Skul (4f20b9) — 7/6/2007 @ 5:30 pmJust correcting myself here: I wrote Gross National Product when I meant Gross Domestic Product. Slightly different measures, but I just wanted to clear that up ahead of time.
Your poor reading comprehension…?
Corporations are very good about maximizing profits in the short term, but it’s fairly obvious that most are very shortsighted when it comes to the long-term. Such is why IBM, once the darling of the tech sector, is not in the middle of the pack. Or why SCO, a high-flyer back in the 90’s, is now a defunct organization.
Corporations do not think of anyone’s best interest but their shareholders. And politicians who pander to corporations have no excuse since they only answer to their constituents. People like John Edwards and corporations like Microsoft disgust me for their lack of foresight into the American labor force. And the fact that you continue to deny this is indicative of the great hurdles facing those trying to remedy said lack of foresight.
What simplistic nonsense.
Said American corporations should be very concerned with the American labor force. Not only are they their main source of labor, they are the very people they seek to court as consumers. Why do you think so many corporations spend such significant amounts on Public Relations? Just so they feel good?
Many corporations understand that hosing the American workforce is a stupid idea, such as Dunkin’ Donuts. But not all have the insight into labor markets that they do. And it’s pandering, ignorant and foolhardy politicians like John Edwards that allows these shameful corporations to continue to operate without consequence.
If only foresight were 20/20…
…thankfully John Edwards has no chance of being elected.
Nobody cares about national security? Then why does IBM require a DoD background check when working with government information systems? Oh, wait, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
It’s completely off-topic, actually.
And obviously the rest of the world agrees with you….RIGHT? Because it’s not like iTunes and the iPod are the dominant software/hardware combo out there or anything. NOBODY likes iTunes, the iTunes Music Store, or the ease of synchronizing your music. They just like the iPod because it’s shiny and marketed well.
Awesome logic.
And, for the record, I’m a staunch fiscal and social conservative. I just know wrongheadedness when I see it. And John Edwards and Microsoft are perfect examples of that.
H2U (338ff2) — 7/6/2007 @ 5:50 pmThe country may be ready to elect a woman president but not yet one who is a woman in a man’s body.
nk (2d6944) — 7/6/2007 @ 5:51 pmNikolay,
Simple question that may reveal the major difference you have with others.
Do you think it’s foolish to spend $1250 on a haircut?
Patterico (2a65a5) — 7/6/2007 @ 6:02 pmAn American corporation is duty-bound to foster goodwill among the American workforce.
WRONG! And for that you need to go back to Econ 101.
An American corporation is duty bound to maximize the value of its shareholder’s stock. Nothing more and nothing less. This may mean looking for workers outside the US, or trying to foster workers inside the US. But that’s for the corporation through its management and directors to decide. If they make the wrong decision, the shareholders will suffer accordingly. But they have no duty to the US, no duty to anyone who is not a stockholder, and the only duty that have to them is to protect and if possible maximize the stockholder’s investment in the corporation.
If you think otherwise, then, whether or not you realize it, you are adhering to socialism, if not full blown communism.
kishnevi (202292) — 7/6/2007 @ 6:58 pm“Have we really gotten to the point where we expect politicians to be demonizing hypocrites?”
Gotten to ? Welcome to America, we hope you like it here.
Michael Llaneza (bb9cf7) — 7/6/2007 @ 7:15 pmAre you being purposely obtuse?
I didn’t say they were legally bound — I said they were duty bound. Every American corporation, just like our airlines, should be encouraged to keep our nations best interests at heart. If we are going to treat corporations as pseudo-individuals then we, at the very least, should expect them to cause our labor force harm.
I’m not saying it doesn’t happen. Of course it does. I’m simply suggesting that if corporations and politicians put more thought into how their actions affect both their workers and the consumers of their product we might just be better off.
That is absurd. Then why do they pay taxes to our government if they’ve no duty as you claim? They aren’t legally obligated nor did I ever suggest that. But the word duty can also mean a moral obligation, and that is the exact intent I had for the word.
Look to Dunkin’ Donuts for a corporate entity that acts responsibly within the American market. They should be the role model for all American-based corporations. We should expect no less! To do so is folly.
Your logic is faulty. That’s “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” thinking. Very poor thought process you’re displaying there. This has nothing to do with adhering to a collective! This has to do with looking out for the people who keep you in business: your employees and your consumers.
If you’re suggesting that Dunkin’ Donuts, my example of a responsible corporate entity, is indicative of a communist or socialist ideology then you’re out of your gourd.
Which leads me to my next question: are you a sock-puppet for Nikolay? How does this have *anything* to do with communism?
Corporations should be responsible citizens just as politicians should be as well. Unfortunately for us citizens that is rarely the case. If more people thought about the consequences of their actions then we’d be much, much better off. I hope you can comprehend that.
To bring this back full circle, the topic was about John Edwards and his idiotic political positions. I brought up H-1B visas and their terrible effect on the American economy. If you can come up with a reasonable argument as to why H-1B visas are a good thing I would love to hear it.
But this has nothing at all to do with socialism, communism or any other ideology. It has to do with being responsible, intelligent and informed. That is all. And John Edwards is the antithesis of such a “platform.”
H2U (338ff2) — 7/6/2007 @ 7:20 pmI’d like a report on the billing for stylists and makeup for every major candidate for the Presidency, Demagogic and Republicrat.
Have in on my desk ASAP.
Thanks.
Comment by AF — 7/6/2007 @ 1:12 pm
Including travel costs of course.
Comment by AF — 7/6/2007 @ 1:13 pm
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/6/2007 @ 7:21 pmWhoops. This should read…
H2U (338ff2) — 7/6/2007 @ 7:21 pm#48 – That would be possible if the other candidates used campaign money to pay for hair care. Next time he needs to be more careful which pocket he pulls the money from, at least he declared it. He couldve tried to hide it completely. I’m more interested in what he has given to charities. But not the ones that pay him to lecture on poverty.
chas (3385c2) — 7/6/2007 @ 7:40 pmNikolay wrote:
No they don’t; corporations don’t pay any taxes at all. Rather, they simply collect taxes from the end users of their products, so that individual taxpayers can’t see just how much they are being taxed.
Dana (1f0f07) — 7/6/2007 @ 8:00 pmNK wrote:
Which is why we must continually refer to Mr Edwards’ hairdresser, so that they get the point. 🙂
But if we aren’t ready to elect a woman in a man’s body, are we ready to elect a man in a woman’s body?
Dana (1f0f07) — 7/6/2007 @ 8:04 pmH2U–this may surprise you, but NOBODY has a moral obligation (that is, a duty) to this country or any other beyond what they voluntarily commit themselves to. To say that anyone has a moral duty to others which they did not in some form commit themselves to, is the essence of socialism. Just because I live in a particular town, in a particular state, in the USA, does not mean that I have, a priori, any duty to any other person in that town, state, or in the USA; much less do I have any duties to entities such as “my country”.
And no way do taxes represent a duty. They are money extorted from me under the threat of force by the government, and as such are a form of theft. Or are you going to argue that I have moral obligations to those who rob me?
When I said corporations have a duty only to their stockholder, I used the word “duty” in exactly the same way you do. But I have a different perspective on what moral obligations are.
On a less rhetorical note, I suggest you familiarize yourself with libertarian political theory. Even if you reject the arguments, you will be able to recognize the weaknesses of the premises on which you base your own political thinking.
kishnevi (202292) — 7/6/2007 @ 8:19 pmNK (re 43) Bitchiness is something that is usually associated with the stereotype of homosexuals, not homophobes.
Or are you suffering from Democrat Derangement Syndrome?
kishnevi (ba7408) — 7/6/2007 @ 8:21 pm“But not the ones that pay him to lecture on poverty.”
That speech was made at a university, not a policy group.
I’m not saying this as a worshipper of Edwards, or any other politician, by the way. But this whole debate is about fluff, not policy.
Here’s some meat and potatoes for you
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/6/2007 @ 8:28 pmDont see why it matters where the speech was made. He was paid for it by a charity he started who’s function is to combat poverty. How did paying John Edwards to give speeches do that? As for Fred, there’s no meat or potatoes there unless someone produces billing records. I do agree the hair cut stuff is just fluff but then so is Edwards candidacy.
chas (3385c2) — 7/6/2007 @ 8:40 pmKishnevi #54,
I thought it was more snideness, say even cattishness, not bitchiness. But if you think I was being bitchy, ok. I know of no men, gay or straight, and very few women, who go to the trouble Edwards does to look pretty. And as for “homophobe” … who gratuitously brought up Mary Cheney’s orientation in a televised debate with her father? And whom did he hope to influence?
nk (d0f918) — 7/6/2007 @ 8:55 pmKishnevi #53:
I’m unclear about the context of your comment but, in general, I disagree with your blanket statement regarding duty. In addition to the express contractual duties that people agree to assume, the law regularly imposes on people a duty to use a specific standard of care. The most common example of this type of duty arises under tort law.
DRJ (31d948) — 7/6/2007 @ 10:11 pmIf somebody has a haircutter that he’s accustomed to, I don’t see a problem in paying for his traveling expenses a minor (compared to the guy’s wealth) sum. Bad haircut may be a major embarrassment, sometimes you have to pay more just to be sure. Of course it would be a ridiculous price for a haircut per se, but given the fact that it includes expenses, I don’t see anything special in it. And you can also be sure that a haircutter you know well won’t make embarrassing video of you and post it on the internet, which is worth quite a lot.
Nikolay (939eb6) — 7/7/2007 @ 12:13 amI still can’t find anything in that wikipedia article that says that what Edwards does is against “tzedakah”. I can’t for the whole world understand how paying someone a lot for a job is uncharitable.
Really? Microsoft has no consumers outside US? And you probably also think that there’s no PR outside of America. You think that US will forever remain ahead of the pack, because…? Why?
Please clarify what do you mean by “National Security” in this context. It seemed as if you were talking about security risk of the potential economic decline, and I’m sure no business cares much about that. Did you really mean “no hi-tech business can outsource because of the risk that the evil foreigner would sneak in malicious code”, something like that? This is just a completely ridiculous claim.
Well, iTunes Music Store is marketing.
You seem not to understand the basic idea. There’s a tough competition out there. American companies could easily lose in that competition. If you force them to fulfill their “moral obligations” instead of following their business interests, you make them more likely to lose. The hi-tech specialists that you won’t let in would stay outside and make much more damage to your economy from outside than they would make if you let them in.
Great. Microsoft is an embodiment of wrongheadedness. And they are also stinking hippies. Case settled.
Nikolay (939eb6) — 7/7/2007 @ 1:13 amNikolay,
I agree that there have been bigger gaffes made by other candidates. On the whole, I have no opinion on whether Edwards’ gaffes have been more or less than other candidates.
DWPittelli (2e1b8e) — 7/7/2007 @ 3:54 amI don’t see the cost alone as a form of hypocrisy for Edwards based on his economic populism; he hasn’t declared that “property is theft,” after all. However, and I know Edwards isn’t Al Gore, but doesn’t it trouble anyone from a greenhouse gas standpoint, that his hairdresser is flying across the country to service him? Further, isn’t it likely that the hairdresser has other clients with canceled appointments who must be inconvenienced by these jaunts of up to two days? If so, then it would appear that Edwards and his hairdresser think his hair is more important than the keeping of the hairdresser’s prior commitments. That shows a pretty high level of narcissism and egocentrism for an adult to have, while expecting to be taken seriously as an advocate for the common man.
DWPittelli (2e1b8e) — 7/7/2007 @ 4:01 am” He was paid for it by a charity he started who’s function is to combat poverty.”
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/7/2007 @ 6:31 amNo he spoke at UC Davis, and the school charged an admission fee.
Again, all of this is because he’s a liberal. Bush was born rich and has done nothing for the average american. Nothing. He’s a disaster for them. And he lies about it.
But pretty boy Edwards gets slammed for this?
silly.
Yeah, that Medicare prescription dug coverage? Never happened. Tax cuts? Rebates? All in your imagination. I could go on, but it’s AF, so what’s the point?
Pablo (99243e) — 7/7/2007 @ 6:53 amPablo, lets just begin and end by acknowledging that you’ve got no bloody idea WTF you’re talking about.
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/7/2007 @ 10:07 amWhat an absurd statement — and one that speaks volumes about you as a person. Even DRJ takes issue with your thoughts!
You’ve missed the point entirely. If John Edwards bases his campaign on a premise of two americas — that there is rampant injustice occurring to this very day to those less wealthy — then he is obligated to do something about it with his enormous wealth. Instead he fritters it away on $1250 haircuts and G-d knows what else.
That is simply shameful.
Microsoft is a US-Based corporation that should feel obligated to not slight the very people that made them rich to begin with. It’s absolutely ludicrous that you continue to believe that Microsoft & John Edwards are entitled to avoid scrutiny over shady practices like H-1B visa increases.
This practice has ruined the American tech sector through sheer ignorance of the political and corporate mobsters that now run the beltway. I speak from knowledge as an engineer in the United States — from where do you speak from?
I never said that and your distortion of my statement is absolutely hilarious. You seem incapable of actually comprehending a paragraph. So I’ll stop right here and say good day.
H2U (338ff2) — 7/7/2007 @ 10:33 amAF – Quit while you’re behind. You are the one who doesn’t know what he is talking about, not Pablo. The medicare prescription bill was a benefit to millions. The Bush tax cuts reduced the tax bill for the average family of four by approximately $3000 (going by memory. Letting them expire amounts to a tax increase on those same families. No child left behind was written by Kennedy at Bush’s suggestion. We had a shot at social security reform if it had not been for the intransigence of democrats. Bush has also managed to keep us largely safe in the U.S. in spite of the efforts of the left to derail his plans since 9/11. Unemployment remains very low by historical standards and the economy continues to grow.
WTF are you talking about AF?
And that boob Dana who say corporations don’t pay taxes? Which loony lib did those talking points come from? Evr try telling a customer that you are raising your prices because your corporate income taxes are going up? Have you seen companies tell customers they are cutting prices because their corporate tax rates just went down? How freaking stupid stupid are these people? Have they ever held a real world job in the for profit sector with any authority?
daleyrocks (5a4736) — 7/7/2007 @ 10:57 amListen to an economist. And a republican one at that:
Bruce Bartlett:
continued
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/7/2007 @ 12:33 pmDRJ–H2U and I were talking about moral duties, not legal duties. And notice how I phrased myself:
which they did not in some form commit themselves t
which leaves a good amount of wiggle room for things such as implied commitments, persumptions, etc., such as reasonable standards of care.
H2U–notice that DRJ was talking about legal duties, and you specifically confined yourself to moral duties. Or are you now shifting the ground of your argument.
At any rate, thank you for clarifying that you do in fact believe that organized extortion is moral as long as it is legal.
kishnevi (a117ab) — 7/7/2007 @ 12:44 pmDaleyrocks, there is no need to call Dana a “boob” for making a slight error.
Corporate Tax Information
The relevant portion I shall now except:
“In the United States, the federal corporate rate is 35%. But since 1999, when Treasury announced the “check the box” system many corporations can elect to be treated as a pass-through entity, thereby skipping the entity level 35% tax and having all income pass through to the shareholders. This is the tax treatment that the much discussed “S” corporations receive but now many more types of state-law corporation may avoid double taxation by “checking the box”. Dividends are also subject to a lower rate of income tax in the United States.”
Dana is partially correct in that many corporations can avoid paying significant portions of their tax obligations by passing it on to their shareholders. Not all corporations do this, but the overwhelming majority of them find the “check-the-box” system to be advantageous.
Corporations have a much easier time handling their tax burden as compared to individuals, which is the original point I made and still stand by. It is, in my humble opinion, the moral duty of American-based corporations to consider the effect their decisions will have on the American labor market. And it is undoubtedly the moral obligation of American Politicians to put the needs of the labor force — their constituents — over that of the corporations.
Such is why I see John Edwards as a danger to the American economy. Any politician — Republican or Democrat — who believes the H-1B visa expansion to be beneficial to this country is a tool of the corporate establishment. And I condemn such actions as strongly and loudly as I can.
H2U (338ff2) — 7/7/2007 @ 12:53 pmKishnevi,
I specifically confined my opinion to a moral duty and not a legal one. IANAL nor have I claimed to be. I speak only on behalf of my personal beliefs with regards to corporate responsibility.
But DRJ’s point stands and compliments my position.
H2U (338ff2) — 7/7/2007 @ 12:56 pmMan, you guys are getting way too serious about this. Let’s just accept Edwards as a lipstick lesbian, riding behind Elizabeth on a Harley — Elizabeth in her leathers and Edwards in a halter top, hot pants, platforms and a cutoff denim vest with a patch that says “PROPERTY OF DA LIZ”.
nk (d0f918) — 7/7/2007 @ 1:06 pmnk, I gotta admit: that was pretty funny. 😉
H2U (338ff2) — 7/7/2007 @ 1:13 pmLike Hillary wrote in her thesis at Yale quoting Saul Alinsky, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon”. (Sorry, no link, but if you want to Google the comment …).
nk (d0f918) — 7/7/2007 @ 1:28 pmH2U, DRJ was talking about legal duties. Last time I checked, legality and morality are very different things. It is, for example, definitely illegal to smoke marijuana, and clearly not immoral to do so (unless you are a member of the law enforcement establishment, like Patterico, or a public advocate of maintain the illegality, in which case it would be immoral to smoke because of the hypocrisy involved.) (To be clear, I don’t smoke anything, illegal or otherwise, and I have no reason to think that Patterico does anything illegal.)
And the converse is true. Goverment collection of taxes is obviously legal. But it is not in any sense moral.
kishnevi (e9203f) — 7/7/2007 @ 1:30 pmTerrible example. Here in Los Angeles it is entirely legal to smoke marijuana as long as you’re a member of the Cannabis Club. It is therefore not a legal or moral issue. 😉
H2U (338ff2) — 7/7/2007 @ 2:48 pmH2U: It’s not immoral to smoke marijuana, whether or not it is legal, and whether or not health issues are at stake. It is therefore a very good example of illegality is not the same immorality.
And I think the DOJ has a different opinion about the Cannabis Club than you do.
kishnevi (0c68d7) — 7/7/2007 @ 4:41 pmH2U – Dana’s point was that corporations don’t pay taxes because they essentially extort the money from others. My point is most corporations don’t explicitly factor their tax positions into their pricing decisions.
Your Wiki lift is misleading and it doesn’t sound like you understand it or its applicability to the point raised. I understand S Corps and LLC’s and partnerships. What if there are no distributions to shareholders or partners, H2U? The taxes still must be paid. Stockholders of publicly traded companies now pay lower taxes on dividend and capital gains thanks to Bush, but they do not pay income on the undistributed earnings of the companies. Care to elaborate a little more on that check box system?
daleyrocks (5a4736) — 7/7/2007 @ 7:11 pmNo AF, let’s begin with your rationale for dismissing the Medicare program and the tax cuts as having done nothing for the average American. Then we can move forward with your disassembly.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/7/2007 @ 7:57 pmIt’s also perfectly legal in Alaska, no Cannabis Club required.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/7/2007 @ 8:00 pmWhich brings up another question about the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/7/2007 @ 8:00 pmNext time let him have a indean barber with a tomahawk and make it real low down like CREW CUT
krazy kagu (d0aa80) — 7/8/2007 @ 12:00 pmKagu! Welcome back, birdie! Did you go south for the winter?
See Dubya (c1b804) — 7/8/2007 @ 3:16 pmThe quality of his comments did… slightly.
They weren’t exactly gems of wisdom before.
Leviticus (feff7c) — 7/8/2007 @ 8:38 pm[…] 7th, 2007 by scrubone Patterico points out that the left now think it’s ok to like unless the lie includes is about Weapons […]
But I didn’t lie about WMD Dear… « Something should go here, maybe later. (3409c6) — 7/9/2007 @ 2:04 pmRegarding the H1-B visa -yes, it matters.
1. The visa holders take American jobs
2. The visa holders are compensated for their services at rates substantially lower than the “prevailing wage”. Are they going to complain? Unlikely.
2. American youth heading to colleges and universities will not enroll in courses of study where they know they can be displaced in a heartbeat by a foreign national and where they know they will be considered last, next to workers with the same skills from a foreign country.
3. Americans displaced by the availability of H1-B visa holders increase the social burden of many citizens of the United States, on the local or national level:
a) unemployment compensation
b) CHIPS (insurance for children)
c) food stamps
d) Medicaid / Medicare
e) homelessness
f) forclosure on mortgage
g) increased rate of divorce through economic
stress on the family
h) emergency medical care for the uninsured
i) (where available) catastrophic illness
care [i.e. cancer] paid for by the
government)
j) increase in crime rate
so, I ask you— is it worth it? so what if the company or organization, be it the University of OK, or Bank of America, is saving a few bucks in immediate remuneration to get a project completed posthaste – who did they throw out of work, or disregard, or marginalize? How much did their cost reduction end up costing EVERYONE in their communities and the entire US because they can’t see past their immediate bottom lines and performance goals?
I hope everyone of the blasted H1-B holders has to go home with no hope of ever returning. The threshhold used to be 250,000 of them, and now it’s down to 65,000. And the politicos want to increase it again? WHY???? So my kids won’t have jobs? So I get to go on Welfare because I can’t find work, cause some hotshot from India or Russia or China or the Philipines can come to my country and work, taking work I could have done, and send money home, and bring his family in, while I and mine suffer? Give me a break.
I’ve been an IT professional for the last 18 years. H1-Bs have made my life a hell since 1999, let them go home and sweat. and stay there.
Kassandra (13475a) — 9/3/2007 @ 7:08 pmLesbians Lesbian Girls Lesbian Twins…
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…
Lesbians Lesbian Girls Lesbian Twins (08fc82) — 2/1/2008 @ 11:29 pm