Comments by Michael Varin | Eastern North Carolina Now
Browse all Comments by Michael Varin...
 |
Commented on The Determinants of SuccessYou believe Obama would evenly distribute all wealth if given the power to do so? This is an extreme and deliberate misinterpretation of his words and suggests that he is a true socialist. Socialism in a nutshell: to each no more than according to his needs and from each at least according to his abilities. Obama in a nutshell: to each AT LEAST according to his need and from each according to his abilities. No one should starve or be homeless.
He believes, as do I, that the overwhelming majority of Americans are industrious and would much rather be gainfully employed than rely on government assistance. It seems as though many conservatives would have us believe Americans in need would prefer a handout and will never pick themselves up by their bootstraps if given assistance. Many conservatives also believe the best way to provide assistance to those in need is to craft fiscal policies in ways which directly benefit the wealthiest segments of our population. The benefits will eventually "trickle down." This is drivel. There is virtually no evidence to support this notion and "voodoo economics" have been dismissed by every economist outside the "Chicago School," the World Bank, and the IMF for several decades. Ironically, this view of economics was originally developed by the British Fascists in the 1920's and was only later adopted by American economists. And it's never worked. Nor has Socialism. The best approach seems to be somewhere in the middle and social spending is central to this approach. This was at the heart of the "you didn't build that" speech. Obama was trying to illustrate some fairly complex issues and he completely failed. Conservatives jumped on his vague pronoun usage and have distorted the intended meaning of his speech in as many ways as possible. Obama has discussed the importance of individual initiative many, many times and did so in his much-maligned speech. Conservatives have always either ignored this or dismissed it as "lip service." I also find it strange that many conservatives will say "you can't rely on the government to improve your lot in life" and then, in the very next breath, say "there are 23 million unemployed and it's Obama's fault."
Commented: Wednesday, August 8th, 2012 @ 8:11 am
By: Michael Varin
|
|
Commented on Supreme Court Upholds Key Provision of Arizona's Immigration Law But What Does it Really Mean for Arizona?And regarding this concluding portion of your article: "Or do we have a government run by a tyrant, a man of questionable background and dubious intentions who defines the Constitution as he sees fit and enforces only those laws he wants to?"
I believe you were discussing the Supreme Court's decision, not one made by President Obama.
Commented: Wednesday, July 25th, 2012 @ 8:43 pm
By: Michael Varin
|
|
Commented on Supreme Court Upholds Key Provision of Arizona's Immigration Law But What Does it Really Mean for Arizona?Diane, you more recently wrote of the challenges imposed upon states by Obamacare. You and I went back and forth at great length on that issue. My question to your writings concerned alternative solutions. I believe we came to a stalemate. The same could very well be the case here.
What do you propose we do concerning this issue of illegal immigrants? Enormous walls and massive forces aligned on our border have proven costly and ineffective. What next? It costs taxpayers dearly to send these illegals back to their homelands and, near as we can tell, they're simply crossing the border illegally months later. I'd love to see a reasonable proposal concerning a resolution to this "problem." I put "problem" in quotes here because I don't see it as such. What are the words on our Statue of Liberty? "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Whatever happened to this approach to immigration of which we were once so proud. It served my family well. And "Rufino" does not sound like it dates back to the days of our founding fathers.
Commented: Wednesday, July 25th, 2012 @ 8:41 pm
By: Michael Varin
|
|
Stan? Mr. Deatherage? Are you there?
Commented: Wednesday, July 25th, 2012 @ 8:22 pm
By: Michael Varin
|
|
Commented on Figures don't lieTimmy Geithner, former director of Policy Development and Review at the International Monetary Fund and rescuer of Bear Stearns and AIG, is part of the liberal conspiracy too? Good Lord!!! Who are we to trust, d'ya think?
Commented: Monday, July 23rd, 2012 @ 8:20 pm
By: Michael Varin
|
|
And it's strange, Stan..I'm certainly hardworking. I've supported myself without government assistance for over 20 years. All who know me would definitely describe me as a survivor. I don't take from others or whine and I'm certainly not guilt-ridden. When I lose I do so without complaint and simply begin planning for my next victory. And I don't criticize or label people I don't know. I'm sorry to hear that I'm not a member of "your America," Stan. Actually, I take that back. You can keep it.
Commented: Monday, July 23rd, 2012 @ 11:51 am
By: Michael Varin
|
|
Stan, this is from factcheck.org. Many other sources will verify.
"A Ford TV ad slams competitors for accepting bailout funds, even though the company’s CEO lobbied for the bill. The company — the only one of the Big Three not to receive a bailout — feared a collapse of GM and Chrysler at the time would have hurt suppliers and, in turn, Ford itself. Ford Chief Executive Officer Alan R. Mulally also asked Congress for a “credit line” of up to $9 billion in case the economy worsened. In other words, Ford was for government bailouts before it was against them. Although Ford did not need money from the $80 billion bailout program, Ford did receive $5.9 billion in government loans in 2009 to retool its manufacturing plants to produce more fuel-efficient cars, and the company lobbied for and benefited from the cash-for-clunkers program — contrary to the ad’s testimonial that Ford is “standing on their own.”
Commented: Monday, July 23rd, 2012 @ 11:42 am
By: Michael Varin
|
|
Commented on NULLIFY NOW !!Yep, Canucks are the French Canadians. Diane, I'm no Mike Myers. That being said, I've never been accused of taking myself too seriously. That is an accusation which could be aptly applied to many if not all "avowed Socialists." I'm not one. I jokingly posted a link to the Socialist Party's fundraising website in a comment to Stan on BCN's facebook page. He took me literally and I can see why..it was sort of an inside joke which some of my friends who were following the conversation would get. But I doubt anyone else would.
Although I'm not a Socialist, I'm a strong advocate of social spending. The Marxist credo is something along the lines of "from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs." Edit the latter half to "at least according to his needs" and I'd agree. The credo as it stands implies, or perhaps even outright demands, "no more than according to his needs." That is outrageous and an economic system designed on those principles will never thrive. See Venezuela and Cuba. There are many countries with high levels of social spending and relatively thriving (these are tough times!) capitalist economies and laissez faire policies related to commerce. When looking at unemployment rates in these countries, no correlation can be found between social spending and individual initiative. Unless Americans are inherently less industrious, I don't see why this would not be the case here as well. While productivity in these countries is on par with our own, they consistently rank ahead of us by many measures. Poverty rates, infant mortality, education, and "overall happiness" are a few which immediately come to mind. @Stan....Ironically, if Obama doesn't get reelected it will be because he made a lot of empty promises to "the left" and never followed through. Economies overseen by the likes of Hugo Chavez, Castro and others like them will always fail. And so will those that follow economic policies developed by Milton Friedman and those who have survived him in the Chicago School of Economics. Those in the middle will remain stable. And this is, in part, because they take care of their own. Diane, you are obviously a busy professional with a hectic personal life. Yet you've found the time to respond to each comment eloquently while making points which even a "venemous" and "avowed Socialist" with wolf-like tendencies doesn't care to disagree with. I have two kids (and a wife who hates housework) but I've tried to respond in kind. Take care, Diane.....I'm off to tackle a mountain of laundry and dinner prep for the week. Stan, you must have two households of kids to look after.
Commented: Sunday, July 22nd, 2012 @ 9:44 am
By: Michael Varin
|
|
Just the reply, Stan? I hope your readers visit the BCN facebook page so they can judge for themselves who first adopted the "condescending tone" you mention. Your comments throughout were snide and I believe I was entirely civil until the very end of our discourse. I'll give you credit for this much, Stan..you design a high-quality website. And, as Diane has shown through the course of our discussion, you have some intelligent contributors.
Commented: Saturday, July 21st, 2012 @ 4:34 pm
By: Michael Varin
|
|
Indeed, Steve Jobs didn't "build that." Steve Wozniak did. And Xerox was the first to develop the graphical user interface which made these computers so popular. Yes, Ford built that. I'm thinking, however, that his company recently received a federal bailout.
Commented: Saturday, July 21st, 2012 @ 4:27 pm
By: Michael Varin
|
|
Commented on NULLIFY NOW !!Diane, I'm unclear as to how the court's decision has enlarged or broadened the government's taxing power. It seems to have simply confirmed this power and applied it to the "penalty" associated with Obamacare. I don't agree with the notion that our government is simply providing "free stuff" to its citizens through Obamacare and other social program. We contribute to these programs when possible and receive their benefits when in need. I realize this sounds remarkably similar to the Socialist credo of "to each according to his needs and from each according to his ability." However, it is not being applied to our nation's entire economic system. Rather, it is being applied in selective ways to ensure the well-being of the American people.
I also disagree with the notion that Americans prefer government "handouts" over contributing to society and supporting themselves. I believe Americans are an exceptionally industrious people who feel shame when they are unable to support themselves and their loved ones. With regards to Canadian healthcare, I come from a very long line of Canucks. We've had many discussions concerning the merits and deficiencies of healthcare in both countries. Among those who have lived on both sides of the border, a preference for the Canadian system was shared by all. Similarly, I have a friend (also an attorney) who married a French citizen. She lived in Paris for six years and developed a strong preference for their approach to healthcare. Your experiences with American healthcare have obviously been dismal. To be completely honest, I have never had cause for complaint. My oldest son has been to the hospital (Children's Healthcare of Atlanta) twice in the last three years, once for a broken arm and once for appendicitis. The treatment he received was excellent in both cases. While we paid next to nothing for medical procedures, I did have the opportunity to see the bills prior to payment by Cigna. They were astounding. I also want to make it perfectly clear that my reference to your "gray matter" was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. Your article and all subsequent responses have been exceptional in every way and I applaud your reasoning and courtesy. The "venomous" tone was certainly uncalled for and was a holdover from my reaction to Stan's dismissive and condescending tone throughout our facebook discussion. You've done an extraordinary job defending your views. Now, if I could receive responses of the same caliber from Alicia and Stan we could actually move a couple of conversations forward. Cheers, Comrade.
Commented: Saturday, July 21st, 2012 @ 2:38 pm
By: Michael Varin
|
|
Commented on Americans' Ignorance About Socialism Is UnbelievableStan, I've already given you a bit of my personal history. I'm certainly not a member of the non-producing or freeloading class and despise them as much as anyone. But you and Alicia would have people believe they make up the majority of those who receive government assistance. This is a lie. Alicia, your response is basically this: If you'd just read my article and not take the time to investigate the facts, you would see it as truthful. And I notice that neither of you has bothered to address the facts which I highlighted in my initial response. They show many of your article's fallacies. A "zinger." A "hot pitch." Whatever.
Commented: Saturday, July 21st, 2012 @ 9:52 am
By: Michael Varin
|
|
Commented on NULLIFY NOW !!Diane, your response is thoughtful and eloquent. However, I believe it is you who fails to understand the enormity of the court's decision. It has clearly labeled the penalty as a tax. It can therefore be repealed by our elected representatives. As for the rest, you seem be saying that the states can't afford to not comply with Obamacare. They can, however, focus their efforts on it's ultimate demise through the repeal of the newly labeled tax. This is a cumbersome but democratic process. Should Obamacare ultimately be repealed, we will continue to pay for the uninsured through outrageously inflated medical costs. I don't believe your response addresses this issue. The young and healthy are already required to contribute to Social Security. I assume you are also opposed to this as it represents "big government's" intrusion into your personal affairs. I remember another individual who frequently spoke of the insidious federal government and its evil ways. His name was Timothy McVeigh. Diane, you are undoubtedly well-informed. Unfortunately, I question the integrity of the sources to which you obviously turn for information. As you undoubtedly question the integrity of those to which I turn. So we'll always be at a stalemate. We live in a democracy which continually tries the patience of both sides of this debate. Continue to participate and I will do the same.
Commented: Saturday, July 21st, 2012 @ 9:40 am
By: Michael Varin
|
|
Commented on NULLIFY NOW !!No, Stan. It doesn't get confusing until conservative obfuscation comes into play. And yes, Diane. I think I have a pretty solid grasp on Nullification. So let's imagine this principle in play. I live in VT. I contribute to state-funded healthcare via the tax referenced in the recent Supreme Court decision and my medical expenses are paid by a state-administered program. My job relocates me to NC. NC has no such program. Now consider that this difference was made possible through your proposed Nullification scenario. How do I get my $ back? Your proposal is nonsensical. The ACA approach works very well in dozens of other countries with capitalist economies. Why not here? You and Stan need to step away from your daily dosages of Fox News and the National Review. It's eroding your gray matter.
Commented: Friday, July 20th, 2012 @ 8:16 pm
By: Michael Varin
|
|
Commented on NULLIFY NOW !!Sure, Diane. And the tens of millions of American who didn't want to pay taxes in support of the Iraq War didn't have much of a say either. We argued against the taking of innocent lives on our bill. You argue against saving them. Whatever. What you don't acknowledge is the fact that you've always paid for the uninsured when you paid $60 for an aspirin or a blanket during a hospital visit. Get real.
Commented: Friday, July 20th, 2012 @ 6:18 pm
By: Michael Varin
|
|
Commented on Americans' Ignorance About Socialism Is UnbelievableSorry, Stan. I keep forgetting that these facts bore you. Michelle Bachman, though! Now there's some exciting stuff!
Commented: Friday, July 20th, 2012 @ 6:05 pm
By: Michael Varin
|
|
Commented on Americans' Ignorance About Socialism Is UnbelievableApparently not, Stan. You're clearly opposed to socialism yet you credit Orwell (a Socialist) for alerting you to the dangers of socialism. Wrong. Alicia thinks his works are no longer required reading in public schools because they are anti-socialist. Wrong again.
Commented: Friday, July 20th, 2012 @ 6:03 pm
By: Michael Varin
|
|
Commented on Americans' Ignorance About Socialism Is UnbelievableWhile reading Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" a while back I learned about Walesa. A chapter is devoted to his Solidarity movement. Their economic program states: "The social enterprise should be the basic organizational unit in the economy. It should be controlled by the worker's council representing the collective." I could give the whole program but I think you get the point. You think Obama, the Socialist, would snub Walesa because he's a socialist? Whatever. Alicia, I work with dozens of college students from these European countries you're talking about. They would laugh in your face if they heard you compare Obama's politics to those of the Baltic states. This article was bad from the opening word and went down hill from there. Get your facts straight. And Stan, do a little fact-checking before you offer up your praise. This whole article is bunk.
Commented: Friday, July 20th, 2012 @ 4:10 pm
By: Michael Varin
|
|
Commented on Americans' Ignorance About Socialism Is Unbelievable"Ignorance"? Orwell called for a socialist revolution in Great Britain, folks! Read "The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius." His books were all anti-fascist, not anti-socialist. Stan and Alicia have confused the two. Am I boring you again, Stan?
Commented: Friday, July 20th, 2012 @ 2:25 pm
By: Michael Varin
|
