Posts archived in Economics and Debt

4 comments

December 7, 2011 by amglolz

Maine Conservatives find a job-killing regulation they support!

Today, Naran started a thread that unites 90% of AMGers behind the proposition that Portland’s city hall is right to implement an expensive, job-killing regulation on Maine small businessmen.

Finally, they come around to the dark side! As you friendly neighborhood communist pinko, let me welcome you to the People’s Republic of Portland.

Why would AMGers turn 180 degrees so quickly? Easy answer: In this case the businessmen in question are SOMALI.

The job-killing regulation in question requires taxi drivers, most of whom are African immigrants, to get their taxi license and pay a fee in person rather than through a representative. The city had been letting people use a representative but then decided that their rules didn’t allow it.

The AMG “pro-business” crowd somehow sees nothing wrong with having people stop working to go get a piece of paper in person just because the guv’mint has a rule saying so. If the Somalis don’t like it, why, they are asking for special rights. Got to be that. They are Somalis, after all. It couldn’t possibly be that they are trying to make a living and don’t like a stupid rule, right? That would be something regular Mainers do, not Somalis!

If you call AMGers on this contradiction, as a few posters have, the answer is some variation of “we have all got to play by the rules.”

Melvin Udall says:

The Somali taxi drivers have learned from the same day voting debate. Claim oppression, suppression, and depression. And throw in repression too.

No Melvin. They learned from AMG, where electricians and carpenters complain about housing regulations, where accountants complain about accounting regulations, and where small business owners complain about health care regulations. Complaining about regulations is sort of AsMaineGoes’ reason to exist.

Rarely is it ever said to the regular complaining Maine business people that they need to suck it up and “play by the rules.” What I usually hear is, “Hey, let’s CHANGE the rules, because Ayn Rand wouldn’t have liked them.”

Except when they are Somali.

Weird, huh.

Who would have thought AsMaineGoes would side with Portland City Hall in a story that basically reads, “Small businessmen sue city over useless regulation?”

No one, until you find out exactly who is doing the suing.

Leave a comment.
0 comments

January 17, 2011 by amglolz

Two Great Ideas!

Great Idea #1:

Make John Frary (aka “Flammenwerfer”) the head of Maine’s Department of Education.

Why do such a thing?

Because he is known as such a “serious” person who would get hard work done, and do it well?

God no.

Here’s why:

I didn’t think it would be possible to inflame the libbie establishment any further than we have with Paul, but the Ol Flammer could add whipped cream on top of that pie for sure.

John Frary is the guy that ran for Congress as a big joke. Yep, that’s what we need- someone in charge of our children’s education who can be funny (to white males over age 60… and Naran) and annoy large segments of the population. ‘Cause it is hilarious when they get mad? Get it?? Hahahaha…. GREAT IDEA! Sign him up!

Oh, and remember that gay marriage debate where he used the f-bomb? Again, that is EXACTLY the kind of person I want in charge of educating children.

Great Idea #2:

If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em! Sorta kinda…

AMG is awash with the new conservative meme: Martin Luther King, Jr. was one of them. A dyed in the wool conservative who, tragically, was unlucky enough to live in a time before his soulmate Glenn Beck.

Remember all those decades when conservatives called MLK a communist? When they opposed the creation of this very holiday?

Remember the Southern Strategy?

None of that matters.

The guy’s registration was Republican in the 1960′s. Therefore, obviously, he endorses all policies of the modern Republican party; even unfair, family destroying, and taxing-without-representating ones like our current immigration policy (according to Naran in the link above).

Because if there is one thing MLK liked, it was having a bunch of minorities working in the shadows for less than minimum wage while fearing their forced removal from the free country they came to in search of a better life for themselves and their kids. And, by the way, paying taxes they will never enjoy the benefits of, without any civic voice. And being blamed for pretty much every societal ill no matter the facts. That’s why he never said things like, “Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.”"

And the NAACP? What would a bunch of black people know about the fight for equal rights for black people. I mean, my gosh, it was like 40 years ago! No one alive could possibly remember things from back then. Obviously Naran is far more knowing and sympathetic to the cause than people who were actually there, or their children.

While I’m on this little rant, here’s another tidbit for you AMGers: the name “NAACP” is not racist. I know, it literally says “for the advancement of colored people….” But consider that the name was picked in 1909, and that the group was began primarily by white and Jewish people and didn’t even have a black President until the 70′s, and, well, suddenly the name doesn’t seem descriptive of a racist organization. And they certainly work with people of all races. So why call them racist?

Answer: Because calling groups like the NAACP racist for political gain is one of the most effective wedges Republicans use to divide us. And AMGers fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

And so does our Governor.

Leave a comment.
0 comments

January 6, 2011 by amglolz

An Immigrant’s Story

On As Maine Goes certain posters are hoping that the first thing Governor Paul LePage does is to revoke Maine’s policy on not seeking out undocumented immigrants for the reason of their status alone.

I thought this might be an appropriate time to share the story of a Maine immigrant who came to America in an attempt to improve his life. He did not get a visa. He did not get a green card.

He was French-Canadian.

Tea partiers are so fond of the “good old days,” well, check out these good old days and compare them to today.

There were different reason why they left, I suppose. When a person leaves one place and goes to another, the main reason why he leaves is because he wasn’t satisfied in the first place, and he thinks he can better himself by going somewhere else. I know a lot of people up there were hard up. They thought times were better in the states, and I guess they were. Some of the farmers thought they could do better farther south (in Maine) where the growing season would be a little longer. Some of the young fellows, like myself, couldn’t see much future for themselves on a small village farm where there were a lot of kids growing up. Some of them wanted a change, or they wanted to see a little of the world. The ones that left were generally of the poorer classes, and they thought they could better across the line.

In early days there were no restrictions whatever on immigration; that is, there were no laws or regulations to prevent any one from coming to the states from Canada. There may have been family objections in a few cases, but they were seldome serious. The greatest obstacle was generally a lack of the necessary cash.

Of course, some people at the time argued that the French-Canadians were an impediment to our state, a burden, and a danger to our culture. One official in Massachusetts wrote:

“the Canadian French are the Chinese of the Eastern States.  They care nothing for our institutions, civil, political or educational…  They are a horde of industrial invaders.”

How did that turn out?

History teaches if one is willing to listen.

Later immigrants from Canada has to pay a head-tax and, eventually, were subject to a quota. But prior to that something around 900,000 French Canadians emigrated to the United States, which is a large number even in today’s terms, much less in early 20th century. Are we better or worse off because of it?

Leave a comment.
0 comments

September 8, 2010 by amglolz

$1,000,000 in a truck? NOT SUSPICIOUS.

This is a Michelle Anderson week. She is on a roll.

The latest Michelle whopper has to do with a Mr. Riviera-Ramirez caught driving a big rig in Maine with $1,000,000 dollars, cash, stashed in the back. The police arrested him and seized the cash.

Michelle doesn’t like this. Not the guy transporting illicitly gained cash through our state! Don’t be silly. She is fine with that. What she doesn’t like is the police taking the money and arresting the driver.

As far as I know, hauling cash is not any more illegal than stuffing cash into the lining of one’s coat.

How do they get the right to seize the money while not charging the driver or passenger in any crime involving the money?

Here’s how, genius. They can keep the money if they think it is involved in criminal activity.

“But,” Michelle would say, “But they don’t know that the money is criminal-connected! It is just cash. Fungible, generic cash.”

No, I’d say. Money sitting in a bank is not suspicious, because legal uses of money often involve it sitting in a bank. A million dollars sitting in a truck? VERY SUSPICIOUS.

Really, what percentage of cars on the road have a million dollars of cash inside? I would have guessed zero, but this story shows it is apparently closer to 0.000000001%. Either way, the rarity alone makes it suspicious.

Then one must ask what percentage of trucks on our highways each day carrying $1,000,000 are involved in legal activities. Well let’s think…. Why would any sane person risk his honestly earned cash by driving it around with an 18 wheeler? My guess, again, would be 0%, but I’ll once again concede it may be closer to 0.000000001%.

Basically, the only sort of people that haul around that much cash in the back of the truck are criminals. Because they want to hide it. It is obvious. If the police had NOT seized the money, they’d be committing malpractice. And you just know that if the unseized money went to fund a terrorist attack, Michelle would blame the police for not taking it when they had the chance, because, well, consistency is not her strong suit.

The ironic icing on this crap-cake is that Michelle is an avid supporter of Arizona’s unconstitutional immigration law, which allows the police to arrest you for just looking foreign. Which this guy did. Michelle would be okay with that sort of arresting. But don’t bother the guy with a million bucks stashed in the cab! He’s cool.

Whatever.

Leave a comment.
4 comments

August 31, 2010 by amglolz

Michelle Anderson: This Random Dude is somehow worthy of an interview.

The Editor recently posted a podcast by his favorite conspiracy theorist Michelle Anderson, in which she interviewed a seemingly random tea party activist about the not necessarily simple issue of Federal court jurisdiction.

The random person was named Jeff Lewis, and in speaking about the recent Federal Court decision holding that Arizona’s “papers please” law was unconstitutional he said this:

The judges on American Idol have as much jurisdiction to hear the case against Arizona as the U.S. District Court for the district of Arizona does. So any rulings, injunctions, whatever that lady does — Judge Bolton — no offense to her personally, but professionally, she’s in violation of her oath of office.

Got that? She is in violation of her oath of office. Whoa, that sounds serious. How did she manage to do that?

Well, according to this guy who runs a coalition with a website logo featuring the Statue of Liberty sinking into flames, the Federal Judge violated her office by letting the United States sue Arizona in her Federal Court.

According to this random dude with no apparent expertise, the only Court in which the Justice Department could have filed a suit against Arizona was at the actual Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., because only it has “original jurisdiction.” Without original jurisdiction, the Federal Judge was overseeing a “kangaroo court.”

How did the Attorney General of the United States get it so wrong? And why didn’t Arizona raise the issue? And why do other states in other cases also ignore the question of “original jurisdiction?”

Interesting question. Even Jeff Lewis isn’t sure. He notes, somewhat flummoxed, that:

Virginia. I’ll mention this one. They’re fighting ObamaCare. Same scenario. A state, the commonwealth, is a party. They should have filed it immediately with the Supreme Court.

So everyone with any legal expertise whatsoever seems to think that this process works one way: you start in the District Court. This guy Michelle interviewed seems to think that is wrong and, what’s more, that everyone else KNOWS it is wrong but keeps doing it anyways. All these judges and lawyers are breaking their oaths of office.

Here is an alternative hypothesis, Michelle. Maybe this Jeff Lewis guy is wrong. Think about it. Let that thought sink in, slowly. Maybe the entire legal profession, including the attorneys on both sides of all these cases, have an entirely different understanding because, you know, THEY ARE EXPERTS. They know better. Maybe when this guy accuses them of something terrible like breaking an oath of office, you should make sure this is correct before you just give him a free platform to rant.

Near the end, Michelle asks:

Jeff, if we want to learn more about this or get ahold of you, how do we do that?

Gee, Michelle, here’s a neat idea on how to learn more about this: speak to a lawyer. Or hell, at least a paralegal. There are only a few million people in this country that could sort this out for you. But no, you let some crazy guy accuse some judge of a crime just for doing her job. That isn’t right, and you should be ashamed. If you actually cared about why these lawyers all seem to do the same thing, over and over, maybe you should try talking to some of them.

And you, Editor, should also be ashamed for letting this drivel be broadcast through your website. It’s just crap. Accusations like this against Federal Judges are serious. They are carrying out one of the most important duties under our Constitution and deserve a tiny bit of respect. I’m not saying you have to agree with them, but don’t lob these crazy accusations without, at the very least, trying to learn the reasoning of the other side. Especially when, as in this case, the other side appears to be everyone who ever went to law school.

It is astounding how little the facts matter to these people.

Leave a comment.