posted
As someone who voted for Bush in 2000, I feel ashamed having heard his speech. Instead of putting money into education George Bush took over 270 billion out of secondary education federal aid.
No Child Left Behind is hardly federally funded at all, it is mostly an unfunded mandate that forces schools to meet a federal standard or risk having the feds actually go in and shut the school down completely. Never mind the Federalism issues here, that is plain ridiculous and does not help students at all.
The Price of Loyalty said it best: "Bush is a blind man in a room full of deaf people." I believe it when it says in the book that Bush himself was slightly against the 2nd round of tax cuts but that his "handlers" quickly got him back in line.
His little spiel about making Catastrophe Insurance 100% tax deductable is probably the worst thing to come out of that speech. Think about it, that would be the ultimate tax loophole for coorporations, especially since threats from "terror" make it seem so reasonable.
I myself am a Christian but I know that not all of America believes in God, one god, or even any god. For our leader to fill his speech with so much Christian rhetoric and design muddles the boundry between religion and government.
Did anyone catch the statement about "we will not suffer the objections of the few" when he was talking about the UN and Iraq? What he didn't say is that Bush himself ordered several votoes on the security council concerning Israel/Palestine resolutions. And we were in some cases the only country to do so.
I notice that whenever Bush spoke abput the economy he either spoke in vague terms about "getting stronger" or he spoke in confusing terms such as "x quarter saw the highest growth in 20 years." It is my understanding that there should be no surprise since we hadn't suffered a recession that bad in over 20 years. We had nowhere to go but up!
Bush talked a lot about jobs and job education but what he didn't mention is that since he has taken office the unemployment rate has risen to over 8 percent nationally.
For my own values I feel that teaching abstinance to children is very important, but unfortunately it doesn't work for teenagers. Bush's abstinance program will only alienate teenagers and make STDs worse then safe sex education.
This ties in with Bush's empty promise to HIV in Africa and Inida. Did anyone else notice how Bush completely ignored AIDS this year?
The reason he did that is because he would have to report that he has reduced AIDS funding and aid to Africa and India by 80%. This is due to his re-instatement of the Mexico City Agreement, which Reagan created and Clinton had gotten rid of. The Mexico City Agreement basically makes all foreign medical aid contingent on the fact that no money will go to any nation or program that uses or is connected to or is affiliated with planned parenthood or any kind of education for contraceptives. This has basically heightened the danger that AIDS poses exponentially since the US has pulled almost all of its funding out. President Bush sending abstinance pamphlets to Africa will not stop the current practice of raping virgins to try to get rid of HIV. That's the kind of stuff they still do over there and Bush has decided no to try to help that anymore.
I coudl probably go on but this is just what came to mind. I feel utterly ashamed that I voted for him, and that he is a Republican, a party I thought was above this kind of stuff, and that was centered around true conservatism.
I will not be voting for George Bush in 2004.
I never thought I would ever agree with Ted Kennedy until last night.
posted
I know how you feel, BrianM. Watching the speech last night, all I could think was that I would never be able to tell my children I voted for this man. The history books will not be as kind as the current media.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to be insufferable or anything, but can those of us who DIDN'T vote for him and warned all of you years ago that he was odious say a quiet little "I told you so" yet?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I feel pretty bad about a lot of what Bush has done as well.
His disgusting expansion of the welfare state to include prescription drugs shows clear disreguard for the ideals our country was founded on, specifically personal liberty.
The president's continued support of the patriot act also sickens me. His education bill, which he allowed Ted Kennedy to write(no joke), doesn't go nearly far enough. Money is not the problem. Cash does not educate the kids. The pres. seems to barely understand that raising standards is the biggest part of the solution, but he needs to go further with it.
Then there is the constant mis-characterization of our war on terror as an attempt to help the Iraqi people. Our goal is not ultimately to help the Iraqi people, it is to protect Americans from the jihadi savages. It would serve all involved to be clear about our motives.
Not to mention his embarassingly weak performance on budget control. The tax cuts were and are absolutely right. He just needed to follow them with even deeper cuts in the economic redistribution structures like welfare, social ecurity, and medicaid.
quote: he spoke in confusing terms such as "x quarter saw the highest growth in 20 years.
What's confusing about it? I believe the exact numbers are: 8.2% real GDP growth in the 3rd quarter of 2003. Its really one of the only clear and precise things he said last night.
quote: Bush talked a lot about jobs and job education but what he didn't mention is that since he has taken office the unemployment rate has risen to over 8 percent nationally.
By who's accounting? According to the Department of Labor the unemployment rate is 5.7%. Besides, the president is not responsible for creating jobs. Try to explain what specifically Bush did to eliminate those jobs.
quote:BrianM said: Bush talked a lot about jobs and job education but what he didn't mention is that since he has taken office the unemployment rate has risen to over 8 percent nationally.
Can you source that, please? I haven’t been able to find anything over 6.2% documented since Bush took office.
posted
Wow Robes, and before I read that I had felt that arch-conservatives were a noxious bunch. Now I'm seeing a political mindset that I am even more disgusted by.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now I'm seeing a political mindset that I am even more disgusted by.
I like government enforced slavery even more than you like my positions! Sops, I am feeling a little hungry today, there will be a government agent arriving at your house with a gun to loot your pantry and find me some cheez-its, to promote...social...justice.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spoken like a man more comfortable in theory than in the real world.
Establishing some form of assistance to seniors and the desperately poor to provide them access to life-saving and life-preserving medications isn't some classroom philosophical discussion. Have you ever seen a poor person gasping and struggling because they couldn't afford a simple medication for their asthma? How about someone who had to have a leg amputated because they could not afford insulin? Or the fact that the poor do not receive the same qaulity of overall health care that even the moderately middle class do? This isn't welfare, it is humanity, the core of existence.. that we are all in this together and we all deserve some help when it is needed.
Does it even bother you that drug companies charge Americans an astronomically higher price for their products than they do in other countries? How about does it bother you that they do that after receiving numerous governmental grants to help them develop those products?
And if you came home to find out that your grandmother had been taking her cancer medications only once every three days instead of daily because she couldn't afford them, would that bother you in the least? What if one day you had to take your child in for leukemia treatments to be told that by statistical data they had determined that it wasn't worth it to work to keep your child alive?
Let's look at education. Cash does make a difference in the results of education. Don't believe me? Go speak with a teacher at an inner city or rural public school. Ask them about class size and shortages of teaching materials or whether their pay is worth the efforts that they make. Ask a parent how they feel when their kid comes home with a list that demands they send 4 rolls of toilet paper and a box of tissues in with their kid at the beginning of the year because the school doesn't have it in the budget. Perhaps you should look at how long a school system typically recycles text books until they are held together with tape and threads with outdated information. Or maybe you'd like to look into a poor, hungry child's eyes and tell them that we're getting rid of the free lunch program.
Robes, perhaps you should change your screen name to Antionette, you seem to have a "let them eat cake attitude" when it comes to society. Really, you took Swift's Modest Proposal to heart and at face value, didn't you?
And Jihad Savages... it has a ring to it that a Roman Senator would enjoy using when speaking of the Goths on the Bulgarian frontier. Just some savages that need to be taught a lesson with steel and the blood of someone else's son.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm not talking about the new standards set for being umployed that Bush has brought through, I am talking about people reporting not being able to find work. The statistics I read were in the Wall Street Jounral and I saw them also posted in this last's quarter's John Marhsall Law Review. I believe the statistics are done by an indepedant group now that does the survey to counterbalance the Bush admin.'s lowered standards. This is like how Bush lowered the poverty line just so less people would fall over it. In any case, I can't find the statistics online, I don't have the time or the desire to go hunting for them. If you like, I am lying and you can ignore me, alright?
To those who are defending Bush with petty positives, hasn't it occured to you that HIV is perhaps the greatest biological threat man has ever encountered, and that if we don't do something about it it will eventually mutate into something even more virulent and contagious? Even if you don't care about the hundreds of millions of people that are dying and will die from it at least be selfish and be worried about yourselves getting it. Already concentrated strains in laboratories are being spread through mere touch contact, no longer just body fluids. We are doing alright at keeping the virus itself repressed with drugs, but no closer at coming to understand what a cure might even resemble, short of changing the human imune system.
Sopwith, I hear you. My wife just had to assist on a leg amputation of a 68 yr old 250lb man who went into some kind of comatose state and whose leg was turning black. He still hasn't come out of it. Easily preventable if he had had his insulin.
I am still waiting for an answer on Bush's hypocritical expectation of the UN.
quote:In fact, US casualties in Iraq during the first 6 months of this war exceed US casualties in during the first 3 years of the Vietnam war.
In the first three years of Vietnam (according to the DoD), there were 392 deaths out of a total of 17,000 servicepersons. That's a death rate of approximately 2.31 %. So the figures you're citing are not complete anyway. And you haven't even mentioned the differences in the type of wars being waged. Naturally in two different theaters of conflict, facing different sorts of opposition, casualties will be different.
I stand by my statement that a death rate of 0.145% since combat started is, though not a good thing, not nearly as bad as you claim.
quote:It is no more amaizing that the casualty counts in Iraq have been lower than those in WW II, than it would be "amaizing" for Mike Tyson to beat me in a boxing match with a single punch.
What's amazing is that, first of all, you're digging so shallowly. Even a cursory look finds more than you're seeing in casualty statistics.
There's enough to dislike about Dubya in domestic policy, but if one is going to dig deep to find it, apply that same depth to searching his foreign record as well. Seems to me that if the American military is suffering less than one percent death against Iraqi military, that ain't so bad.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure it's a liberal board, but most of the liberals here are somewhat large. So depending on what you mean by "big liberal board," the answer is either "yes" or "no."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Spoken like a man more comfortable in theory than in the real world.
This is a nice sentiment, but it means nothing. I reject your classification.
quote: Establishing some form of assistance to seniors and the desperately poor to provide them access to life-saving and life-preserving medications isn't some classroom philosophical discussion.
The disgusting and condecending nature of your response clues all who read you into the true nature of your disagreement. You respond on a purely emotional level. You seem to imply that I lack empathy, that I don't understand the situation. Your monsterous arrogance is really what prevents any real discussion from happening. I have a policy disagreement with you. What is the best way to help the elderly, the poor, the unemployed, etc. You then assert that I don't know what its like to be poor, or I have no humanity, or whatever.
quote: Does it even bother you that drug companies charge Americans an astronomically higher price for their products than they do in other countries?
Does it bother you that this country was established with a capitalist system? Ask yourself what the source of those costs are. Are drug companies trying to force people to die and not afford their products? They are just out to make as bg a profit as possible. This is what corporations do. This is how capitalism works. This is how most people handle their economic activities, be they employment, investing, whatever.
quote: And if you came home to find out that your grandmother had been taking her cancer medications only once every three days instead of daily because she couldn't afford them, would that bother you in the least?
Would it bother you if I confiscated 50% of your paycheck because my grandma was sick, and I didn't want to help her myself? You seem to miss the point that the government doesn't create wealth. They cannot make money, then give it to your grandma. That money must first be looted from someone else's grandma. Why is this form of slavery, where people are forced by the gun to work for the benefit of others, okay with you? Does the bill of rights bother you?
How about if I came into your house and took $50 out of your wallet to buy some groceries because I got fired?
quote: Cash does make a difference in the results of education. Don't believe me? Go speak with a teacher at an inner city or rural public school.
Do you think the problem with our public schools is lack on money? The racist strategy of lowering standards in inner-city schools is part of the problem in our schools.
quote: Or maybe you'd like to look into a poor, hungry child's eyes and tell them that we're getting rid of the free lunch program.
Again, I see plenty of emotion here, but no logic.
quote: And Jihad Savages... it has a ring to it that a Roman Senator would enjoy using when speaking of the Goths on the Bulgarian frontier. Just some savages that need to be taught a lesson with steel and the blood of someone else's son.
You saw the history channel last night too, eh? Yeah, I guess I should respect the beliefs of those who wish to destroy my life with the very vehicles we use to build so much prosperity. How "draconian" of me. If you want to tell me that the terrorists who threaten us are not savages, you say that outright.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Look, I started the whole thing by yelling about Bush. Then I was labeled as disgusting, and worse than the obnoxious neo-cons. I think I well within the bounds of logic to make that claim.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He couldn't afford it. This guy was barely making enough money to eat working as a bus boy at a local Inn's restaurant. My wife told me that there was some trouble at the hospital over whether his "common law" wife would allow the operation, since Alaska doesn't really recognize common law marriages. I'm not sure if the woman was just trying to grab his PFD or what, but it was clear that he had to choose between food and heat or insulin.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: My wife told me that there was some trouble at the hospital over whether his "common law" wife would allow the operation
Okay, so was this a problem with the wife being a christian scientist or what? Who is responsible in this case?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, one of the problems was that he couldn't afford the medicine he needed to live...
I'm really not a big fan of nationalized healthcare because I think it will only worsen the bureaucracy I have to deal with now when I try to get my insurance to pay for something. However, I also think that nobody should die or suffer serious and permanent injury simply because they can't afford treatment. You have no right to a facelift, liposuction, or breast implants. If you can't afford them, tough. However, a nation as wealthy as our should not allow our poor to die from preventable causes.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't it sad when you hear the Fountainhead sputtering and see Altas Shrug about the real world tragedies around us?
Robes, if it took half my paycheck to do my part to make sure no one's grandmother or child had to go without their medication, then I'd do it with the understanding that when I was in need, the assistance would be there for me as well. But you're only looking into your wallet, not the ones that were taxed before you were ever born. What about those who put into the Social Security and Medicare systems only to find out later, when they really needed it, those safety nets were full of holes? Do we just say, sorry chuckles, you should have evaded taxes and set some more money back for what was going to be stolen from you anyway.
The Medicare system and Social Security were promises our nation made to its citizens. You put in your share and it will be there for you when your time of need comes. Generations now have put their money into it and actually seen their benefits fall. It's not all about the baby boom generation getting ready for retirement age. It's also the fact that the costs associated with providing those services have sky rocketed, greatly due to the free-fire zone that the medical and pharmaceutical field has become over the years. Government intervention was a necessity in this twenty years ago, but they held off and held off until it may be too late. When they did try to do it, the drug companies had gotten too big and too politically saavy and we ended up with some watered down mishmash that will probably just put the final coffin nails in.
quote: You saw the history channel last night too, eh? Yeah, I guess I should respect the beliefs of those who wish to destroy my life with the very vehicles we use to build so much prosperity. How "draconian" of me. If you want to tell me that the terrorists who threaten us are not savages, you say that outright.
Actually, I did see the History Channel last night and it seemed so appropriate. But yes, I would advise that we respect those who oppose us (not necessarily their beliefs, but respect them for the threat they are) because if we don't, we shall vastly underestimate the threat they can and do pose. I could point to Custer before Little Big Horn, the British at Iswandallah and Rourke's Drift and our own intelligence services before 9/11.
Hey, they were all just savages... right? Nothing to worry about... right? Not a threat to people at the pinnacle of modern technology... right?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shigosei, I agree completely. I don't believe in fully socialized medicine, but I do believe that every American should have a real safety net in times of dire trouble.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Isn't it sad when you hear the Fountainhead sputtering and see Altas Shrug about the real world tragedies around us?
What's this? Does this mean something?
quote: But you're only looking into your wallet, not the ones that were taxed before you were ever born.
Who's wallet should I be concerned with, if not my own?
quote: What about those who put into the Social Security and Medicare systems only to find out later, when they really needed it, those safety nets were full of holes?
Yeah, what about them? Sorry chuckles, you demanded government run pensions, now you got 'em. ENJOY. But no, that isn't the proper response, because now I am being looted by that same system. What would have happened if we had not taught people to rely solely on the gubbmint for their retirement? No way to know that now.
quote: you should have evaded taxes and set some more money back for what was going to be stolen from you anyway.
I am having a hard time parsing this, are you being using sarcasm within a sarcastic statement?
quote: The Medicare system and Social Security were promises our nation made to its citizens.
Exactly, promises which the nation cannot back up.
quote: Generations now have put their money into it and actually seen their benefits fall.
Actually benefits have been increasing since the program was started.
quote: Hey, they were all just savages... right? Nothing to worry about... right? Not a threat to people at the pinnacle of modern technology... right?
Are you claiming that I don't understand the threat that jihadist savages pose to the united states? I mean, cause, I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings here(terrorists included), but the people who strap bombs to themselves, or who fly airplanes into civilian buildings, these are savages of the worst kind.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, a nation as wealthy as our should not allow our poor to die from preventable causes.
A noble cause. How can we best make sure this doesn't happen? Do we destroy wealth and trample people's freedoms to accomplish it?
Again, I would ask all of those who support social security and other redistribution programs, have they worked? What would it take to make them work? Were people better off, or worse off before these programs started?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't believe in fully socialized medicine, but I do believe that every American should have a real safety net in times of dire trouble.
So you only partially believe in it? Why not fully? If its okay for a safety net, why is it not okay for everyone all the time?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've swiped away the original draft of this post because, honestly, sometimes it's best to walk away from something loathsome than to wrestle with it.
Robes, Ms Antoinette, I just can't cotton to your economic/political beliefs, it just continually gives me this picture of a neo-Gollum hunched over his money saying "Precious, MY precious... nasty poor peoples, nassty grubby poor peoples.."
So, I wish you well and I hope you can find something more worthwhile in the life than a claim to capitalism that smacks of a Gordon Gecko-ist proclaimation that "Greed is Good."
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: it's best to walk away from something loathsome than to wrestle with it.
I ask again.
quote: So you only partially believe in it? Why not fully? If its okay for a safety net, why is it not okay for everyone all the time?
I don't think this is an insulting question. Its specific and direct. However, you don't have an answer for why a little socialism is okay, but a lot isn't.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
May I ask how helping the poor is destroying wealth and trampling peoples' freedoms? First of all, preventive care such as providing insulin to a diabetic who needs it is probably cheaper than paying for an amputation and keeping a man in a coma on life support. Health care for the poor may actually help protect our wealth because we won't have to pay for expensive procedures later.
There's also the fact that if we let the lower class die, who will work the low-paying jobs? If you want to be pragmatic about it, it's probably better for your pocketbook to keep those people alive and healthy so they'll be productive. It's also the compassionate thing to do.
You are, of course, welcome to try to protect your wallet. I think that the government is horribly inefficient, which is why I prefer to donate my money rather than pay taxes. If you don't like the choice of what to do with your money taken away from you, why don't you choose to help the poor so the government doesn't have to?
Regarding social security and medicare: It's a pyramid scheme. Eventually the system will collapse, unless we increase the birth-rate. The country made promises it couldn't keep forever. I don't expect to see the money I put in ever again, personally. I think social security will probably be gone by the time I retire.
posted
Robes, why is it a problem to want a balance of capitalism and socialism? I personally like free-markets, but I realize that capitalism is only beneficial when there's healthy competition. So I agree with anti-trust regulations because trusts are bad for the economy. Do you like your capitalism completely unregulated? If not, then why are you criticising sopwith for wanting a moderate amount of socialism?
The economy is not a black and white issue. There is a continuum between capitalism and socialism, and almost everyone falls somewhere in the middle, not on the extreme edges.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason you haven't found higher unemployment numbers is cuz those past their eligiblity for unemployment insurance payments are no longer counted. Nor are highly trained (with formerly decent pay&benefit packages) personnel now forced to work as "independent" consultants and as office temps at lower wages&benefits. Nor are highly trained (with formerly decent pay&benefit packages) personnel now forced to work part-time -- often at minimum and near-minimum wage jobs -- with no benefits. Nor are those who once contributed financially to formerly two-income households, but have ceased seeking work because the wages now offered are too low to cover the extra expenses and higher tax bracket of being employed. Nor are those who are newly entered in the job market. Nor are those forced to take early retirement, and small retirement compensation packages, in lieu of probable layoffs. Nor are those who would like to return to work after an early retirement, and subsequent destruction of their retirement finances by the Dubya recession. Nor are those who would like to return to the job market after raising their kids to an age where they no longer need the constant presence of adult supervision. Nor are those fully dependent on welfare. Nor are those dependent on charity. Nor are street people who manage to find enough occasional employment to keep themselves alive. Nor are "illegal"s. ETC
BTW: The types of unemployed and under-employed cited above are counted as part of the unemployment rolls in Canada and the EuropeanUnion nations.
posted
It is a sad fact that the posted Unemployment Rate doesn't reflect the actual employment situation.
An out of work nuclear engineer who takes a job at Burger King to help cover the bills, is technically employed by the government's standards, but the engineer would probably think differently.
An economist once explained to me that the perfect unemployment rate (realistic "full" employment) would be 4.5 percent. Half of a percent would be folks transitioning from one career to another, one percent would be available workforce from layoffs or firings, another one percent would be just entering or leaving training/college and sadly the other two percent are the terminally unemployable.
On a side note, dealing with unemployment and underemployment -- how bad is the budget deficit going to get as we start to feel the effects of lower incomes for the middle and lower classes start resulting in lower income tax revenues?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: May I ask how helping the poor is destroying wealth and trampling peoples' freedoms?
Choosing to help the poor doesn't destroy anyone's freedom. FORCING people to help the poor, under threat of jail and gun, does destroy freedom.
quote: There's also the fact that if we let the lower class die, who will work the low-paying jobs?
Geezus, how did humans survive before medicare and social security? I guess if we stop looting money from those who earn it, the lower class will perish. Then who will pay the liquor and tobacco taxes!?
quote: If you want to be pragmatic about it, it's probably better for your pocketbook to keep those people alive and healthy so they'll be productive.
If these programs actually made people healthy and more productive, you might be right, but they don't. Check the numbers. Plus, even if they worked, it is still immoral to take from someone just because they have succeeded.
quote: It's also the compassionate thing to do.
Compassion at the point of a gun?
quote: why don't you choose to help the poor so the government doesn't have to?
The best help they can get is a good economy. Simply giving money away helps no one, as you can see by the abject failure of the "war on poverty".
quote: why is it a problem to want a balance of capitalism and socialism? I personally like free-markets, but I realize that capitalism is only beneficial when there's healthy competition.
The problem is that socialism, on any scale, doesn't work. Look at the government programs like welfare, social security, medicare, etc. These are all failures.
The comment about competition is ironic because socialism allows no competition, it holds competition to be destructive. We don't need to balance success with failure.
Socialism entails minute planning of the economy and controled production. The economy is too complex for some individual or small group of individuals to control from a central office.
quote: Do you like your capitalism completely unregulated?
We just had a big discussion about this recently. Short answer is yes. Understand however, that this does not then mean its okay to break the law by cheating or stealing or whatever. Those are covered by other laws. Regulations cover the minute details of the day to day operation of businesses.
quote: destruction of their retirement finances by the Dubya recession.
Who broke the stock market?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just wait until Dubya's indentured servitude program gets fully underway. In it, if a burger joint can no longer fully supply its labor needs at minimum wage with Americans, it can hire an alien citizen instead. If an InformationTechnology company can't hire an American at say 60% of current wages (which is what foreigners now working in the US for IT companies make in comparison to their American citizen or permanent resident counterparts), they can import new workers from overseas.
And those alien workers can't even switch jobs for better working conditions or higher pay without leaving the country. Heck, they can't even legally get another job if their wages&benefits are reduced. And leaving America means only that they can reapply for work documents in hope that sometime in the future they will once again be approved by the US government to get another job at another US company, with no guarantee that the new job won't be worse.
posted
Ahh, sometimes you can't help but dive back in... here goes.
Who broke the stock market? Excessive greed or unfettered capitalism goaded on by opportunists broke the stock market.
The Internet Bubble was only the first shudder and shake. You remember that one don't you? Everyone dove in to buy up IPOs for internet-based companies that had shaky business plans, no true financial backing and no physical products. Why were they able to make these IPOs? Simply because the system had become so filled with rats on both the regulatory and sales side that as long as everyone made money, no one balked.
The same thing happened in the 80s with junk bonds.
Later it happened with Enron and other companies as they reinvested their worker's pension funds back into their own stocks to artificially inflate the prices. Why did they do it? Because some mighty git decided that the time for day traders had finally come. Add in discount Internet brokerages giving everyone the option to buy and sell at a moment's notice (and the discount guys pulled a coup by finding a way to charge an investor for both buying and selling, whereas before it had only been on commissions from sales).
Now, what did this do to the economy? It shifted the entire business plan of the major US companies. The major investors were no longer interested in the long-term viability of a company so much as the short-term return on their investment. This fueled more layoffs, re-orgs and off-shore flights than anything in the history of American business.
Rampant capitalism made investors put on an eyepatch, grab a cutlass and set forth to rape, pillage and plunder anything they could get their hands on. They were in it for the fast buck and the companies they now controlled had no choice but to follow the path these folks had laid before them.
And no one a hardcore capitalist would care about cried until the jig was up and some folks had run some surefire businesses into the ground. Because we couldn't have government in to assess the details or to regulate the finer print.
It's still going on and people still haven't learned anything. They're going back into the stock market for quick profits like a hang-over sufferer heading back for a hair of the dog that bit them.
But in the meantime, those folks at Enron and Tyco and many other firms lost their hard-earned pension plans and their jobs and their homes and their health care insurance. That probably doesn't sweat you much Robes. Or maybe it does, as long as you don't have to put in 75 cents to try to provide them with some sort of aid.
But you see, they are part of the same society that you are. Once, they may have been in the same shoes as you, but they put in their fair share of the tax burden... not at the point of a gun but out of their duty for being part of this society. They contributed to a society, a nation, a collection of people whose lives -- no matter how distant -- are inextricably entwined.
You, however, benefit from this society. From the traffic cop he pulls the drunk from behind the wheel that could have plowed into you, to the emergency workers who will save your life before checking your bank account first, to the military that protects your right to live a pompous life, to the very inks that are used to print the money. They've contributed to this society, one that has strived to provide some guarantee of assistance when it is needed, and they have benefitted from it to.
You live in a society and benefit from the good graces of your neighbors, yet have the gall to complain that you have to pay for your fair share? What makes you so special? What makes you worth more than a down-on-their-luck person living on the streets?
I'll give you a hint... the real answer doesn't require an accountant.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I noticed that no one has responded to Brian's post about AIDS.
The trouble, Brian, is that no one has ever produced a cure for any viral disease, to the best of my knowledge. The best we can do are prevention and amelioration of symptoms, despite decades of work. With most viruses, this is okay because eventually the body manages to throw off the invasion if it has enough help.
All known organisms have the same basic structures in their DNA and RNA, and many viruses use proteins similar or the same as those already found in the body. Moreover, cellular membranes protect large reservoirs of the virus already within the cells. It is thus near-impossible to kill a virus without killing the host as well.
I would very much like to see a cure for AIDS, but I do not expect one any time soon. I would like to think that people would stop transmitting the virus--ie, STOP SCREWING AROUND!!!--but apparently that is contrary to human nature.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh yes Rospierre, people did die in droves.
Why do you think Socialism, Communism, and Fascism were so rampant in this century?
Was it because people were lazy that they decided to risk their lives to protest and "rob" the rich?
No.
It was because the wealthy, seeking to find more wealth, did not look for it in themselves, but sought to get it from the workers, and return none of it. It was because they were all "just trying to make as big a profit as possible", and those who did not have the capital to invest and make a profit had no choice but to starve or revolt.
If the charities you assume would help the poor did indeed solve the problems.
You talk a lot about freedom.
You say that my taking your money to feed the poor makes you a slave.
What of the freedom of the poor?
Do they not have the freedom to live? The freedom to work? The freedom to try and get an education?
You say that removing any of your money through taxes is making you a slave.
That is an insult to people in this world who do live in slavery, whether its a Nike' shoe factory in Brazil or a road crew of children in Pakistan or else where in the hidden third world we try to pretend doesn't exist.
There are benefits and costs to freedom. Taxation is one of the ways we pay.
You have stated earlier that the reason for government is to protect property.
I state that the reason for government is to protect the people who make up the society. Protecting their property is just one of the ways this is done.
We can argue about it in another thread. I have to go now.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:BTW: The types of unemployed and under-employed cited above are counted as part of the unemployment rolls in Canada and the EuropeanUnion nations.
Because the majority is usually right isnt it? I wanna see the last time the United States looked at the nations of Europe and said, "since Europe is doing it, we should do it to." There is a reason why we are such a powerful country and its not because we do what the EU does.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Quite correct. Reagan can take a portion of the blame: for the ReaganDebt still being paid off; and his decrease of the InternalRevenueService audits on large corporations, which otherwise might have kept the stockmarket fraud to a minimum.
The Republican Congress can also take a large portion of the blame for jamming though Congressional overrides of Clinton's vetos of three bills which essentially gutted oversite of the stockmarket by reducing responsibility of executives, boards of directors, legal advisors, and auditing firms to their stockholders AND reducing the requirement for a paperwork trail while making proof of fraud more difficult by requiring that any conviction contains undisputable evidence of knowing&deliberate deception by those charged with the crime. Using such a 'state of mind' evidentiary requirement would have made it difficult to obtain a conviction of JackRuby, who murdered LeeHarveyOswald during live coverage on national television.
Of course, it didn't help that Dubya ran his entire 2000 campaign swearing that a recession was inevitable. And when he took office, one can hardly blame the stockmarket for believing the new President -- who is in the strongest position to influence the economy -- and bear-market crashing stock prices. Even then, he went well out of his way to ensure that a recession would occur, by having his FederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission ignore the obviously illegal manipulation of the California energy supply by his buddies at ElPasoGas, Enron, FirstEnergy, etc. California couldn't do anything since it had given its regulatory powers over to the FERC under a bill designed&approved by Republican Governor PeteWilson. Energy cost being a major driver in production costs (~30% or greater), California's economy tanked. However, not even Dubya&Rove could pull off this act of political vengence for rejection of the Dubya-Cheney presidential aspirations without affecting the national economy. California is the 5th strongest economy in the world; and a sneeze in California causes a flu in the overall US economy.
If it weren't for Dubya's buddy OsamaBinLaden using mostly Saudi nutcases to stage the 9/11 attacks, the economy would still be in a recession. As it was, the SaudiArabian government ducked for cover and lowered oil prices to unprecedented lows in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars. And the American public went on a massive patriotic spending binge in an attempt to prevent a further collapse of the economy. Add the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates, and the subsequent refinancing boom allowing consumers to spend even more, and the recession was over.
And it worked, to a point. The point being business confidence remained&remains quite low, since the Administration has gone out of its way to do as little as possible inregard to the multi-tens-of-billions of dollars lost in Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, AOL, Vivendi, etc frauds. Yet it has plenty of money&personnel to waste on MarthaStewart's minor act of stupidity involving only a few ten-thousand dollars in hopes that the public will be gullible enough to take it as a sign that the Administration cares about stock manipulation&deceit. However, when honest (and even dishonest) businessmen can no longer count on the companies that they deal with -- exchange cash/credit, products, and services with -- to be on the up&up inregards to their financial condition, and can't rely on the regulatory bodies to enforce compliance with the law, the prudent thing to do was to tighten their belts. Which they did: engaging in massive worker layoffs and firings; mandating more overtime at less overall payroll costs; reducing inventories; reducing new purchases of equipment; reducing new business construction; etc. Despite the recession being over.
Granted the reduction in the capital gains tax has artificially bumped up the stock prices. However, if an investor wants a $10 yearly profit on $100 capital, and the tax is 25%, then he must receive a $13.33 to both pay taxes and get his desired return. Eliminate the tax, keep the $13.33 return, and a new investor wishing for a 10% return would be willing to pay $133.33 for the same stock. Which tells you why the stock market rose. However, there needs to have been no underlying increase in the assets of the businesses themselves: no increase in profit; no increase in production; no increase in overall wages; no increase of the number of wage earners capable of buying products and services. So business confidence remains low in terms of actual investment to increase production, and unemployment remains high.
Then add in the borrowing to cover the TRILLION dollar deficit for 2003 and 2004 which will certainly raise interest rates, making investment in capital goods even less attractive. And you get capital flight to eg Europe which is reflected in the ~40%rise in the price of Euros for the dollar. That same rise in overseas currencies is causing OPEC to raise its oil prices so that eg Europe and Japan pay less-but-somewhat-near the same amount of their trade goods for oil as they currently do. And Americans have to pay considerably more. Which increases US production costs. In fact, the Dubya debt has caused oil producing nations to consider moving off the strict dollars-for-oil exchange to a more flexible Dollars&Euros&Yens&etc oil purchasing mechanism. And the dollars-for-oil is a major reason why the US dollar is favored as a reserve currency by other nations. Eliminate the necessity to buy oil with USdollars, and the underlying need to purchase the USdollar decreases, as well as a major prop for its value.
posted
I see no difference between people being forced to support a war financially at gunpoint and people being forced to support others at gunpoint. You might argue that the government ought to do one and not the other, but you are still taking away the exact same freedoms when you tax, no matter what you spend that money on.
I personally think you should be able to determine where a percentage of your tax money goes. Check off boxes if you want to support the military, education, and heathcare, say. If the public is sufficiently well-informed (not likely, I admit) then theoretically the useful programs stay while the wasteful ones might get less funding.
What happened to the poor before social programs? Sometimes they died, sometimes their family took care of them. Many probably had to beg. We don't have beggars all over the place now, probably because the government takes care of them.
As I said, if you don't like the government taking your money to support the poor, then I hope you do it voluntarily in some way. Not everyone who is poor got that way because they were lazy. Sometimes it's just the luck of the draw.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys are wasting your time trying to get a libertarian to see things in shades other than black and white.
The notion that there is only one moral principle which applies perfectly to all situations is pretty attractive, and the principle of pure unrestricted liberty is a good one in most cases. But of course exceptions arise, especially in a technologically advanced society with a highly artificial man-made market economic system like our own. So better principles must be sought.
My current idea is that we should view someone as free only to the extent that they have a wide variety of lifestyle choices available to them. By this reckoning, the wealthier you are the freer you are, and so if we can boost the general wealth of the poor we are boosting their freedom.
Anyway, contrary to what Sopwith said, I have much more sympathy for libertarians than communitarian conservatives. I think it would be best if the world political dialogue shifted from conservative v. liberal to libertarian v. liberal. That way at least everyone involved would agree that personal freedom is the top priority, and the subject of controversy would be how best to secure it.
posted
"Because the majority is usually right isnt it?"
On the contrary, I haven't a care for majority opinion. Look at how often I ignore the majority's desire for "proper" grammar&spelling. If you knew me from other forums, you would have even stronger proof. Facts are the same, but the interpretation can differ greatly, especially semanticly. Often I was in argument with misinterpretations of eg physics by those who mistakenly assumed PhysicsEnglish is the same language as AmericanEnglish. It ain't.
In this case I added the "BTW: The types of unemployed and under-employed cited above are counted as part of the unemployment rolls in Canada and the EuropeanUnion nations." because anytime anyone mentions American unemployment, a "conservative" says "but look how much worse it is in Europe and Canada." Thought I'd preempt that statement by pointing out that it isn't comparing the same type of data sets.
quote: Excessive greed or unfettered capitalism goaded on by opportunists broke the stock market.
Wrong. People trying to get something for nothing broke the stock market.
quote: Everyone dove in to buy up IPOs for internet-based companies that had shaky business plans, no true financial backing and no physical products.
People made idiotic decisions. Which they are free to do. People are free to eat fast food every meal of every day if they want.
quote: The same thing happened in the 80s with junk bonds.
And who's fault was it then? Was it the fault of capitalism? I think the problem here is that capitalism is the only economic system that works in the real world. Socialism has been shown to be the system of utopian fools. So whenever something happens, it gets blamed on greedy capitalists. Well sure, there really aren't that many socialists running the stock market or being CEO's of big companies. So when these people commit crimes, its not because they were dishonest and wanted something for nothing, no. It was because of capitalism.
quote: they reinvested their worker's pension funds back into their own stocks to artificially inflate the prices.
Wrong. The artificial inflation of their stock value was done by committing fraud with their accounting. The re-investment was perfectly legal, although stupid. I don't think anyone forced those employees to put all their retirement money into the company. They wanted to get rich quick. Which is not to be looked down upon. However, they are the ones that took the risk of investing all their money in one place. They are not at fault, but lets be honest about it.
quote: Rampant capitalism made investors put on an eyepatch, grab a cutlass and set forth to rape, pillage and plunder anything they could get their hands on.
What madness is this? Who plundered what now?
quote: Because we couldn't have government in to assess the details or to regulate the finer print.
Lack of government regulation caused this last economic downturn? Thats a new one on me, how?
quote: Once, they may have been in the same shoes as you, but they put in their fair share of the tax burden... not at the point of a gun but out of their duty for being part of this society.
If paying income taxes were optional, would you, or anyone else, do it? Indeed everyone pays at the point of a gun. You may pay because it makes you feel good, but I do not pay for that reason. I pay so that the man won't come and take my house away.
quote: to the military that protects your right to live a pompous life,
Your type disgusting psuedo moralism is rampant in our society today. Those who don't help help the majority continue their lie of "helping everyone" are hated. You claim to just want the best for everyone, and oh why can't we all just pitch in and help everyone. Well your system has been shown as the hideous failure it is. Why don't you answer my last question? What is wrong with socialism?
quote: You live in a society and benefit from the good graces of your neighbors
This does not mean I demand charity from them. I do not live at their expense.
quote: What makes you worth more than a down-on-their-luck person living on the streets?
What makes the jobless more deserving than the employed? What gives the unproductive a claim on the money of the productive?
quote: What of the freedom of the poor?
Yeah, what of their freedom?
quote: Do they not have the freedom to live? The freedom to work? The freedom to try and get an education?
Apparently they have MORE of a right than I do.
quote: That is an insult to people in this world who do live in slavery
They live in bonded slavery for the same reasons we live in monetary slavery. The disease of guilt, which allows its host the self-righteous feeling of having a right to another person's life.
I am willing to listen. I am trying to express what I see as the most logical and moral point of view. The psuedo-libertarian views I express on here are the best I can do when it comes to explaining the world as best I can.
However, I don't want to listen to emotional apeals. Emotions are not the solution here. Empathy will not solve the problem in and of itself. There needs to be some logical and moral premise to the actions we take and the laws we make.
And majority be damned. The bill of rights is there to hamper the majority's efforts to oppress the minority with religious and social laws. If we allowed a majority vote on everything, christianity would likely be the established religion of the realm. Federal oversight, rooted in the constitution is one of the most important parts of our government.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"However, I don't want to listen to emotional apeals. Emotions are not the solution here."
Why not, exactly? What leads you to think that ruthless logic is the best way to deal with human beings?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I think what your saying is solid then and I see why you brought it up. I dislike it when people compare the U.S. to Europe, and portray America in a negative light, as if just being in Europe makes them better. For instance, when people like Madonna or Qweneth Paltrow(spelling?) say, "Its just such a different way of life in Europe."
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Wrong. The artificial inflation of their stock value was done by committing fraud with their accounting. The re-investment was perfectly legal, although stupid. I don't think anyone forced those employees to put all their retirement money into the company. They wanted to get rich quick. Which is not to be looked down upon. However, they are the ones that took the risk of investing all their money in one place. They are not at fault, but lets be honest about it.
You might want to look into this a bit more, Ms. Antoinette. What was invested back into the company were the employee's 401K and pension funds, at the advisement of the company's investment gurus. The actual employees did not have a say into which stocks were purchased or how much would be invested back into the company.
After such maneuvers, many investment firms also began trading these little schemes for advance purchase ability of IPOs for spin-off stocks. This prompted many companies to spin off their most profitable enterprises in an attempt to boost quick sales of their stock, or increase their own portfolios in these artificial splits. Greed at its finest for the quick bang.
AT&T was one of the first to get into this as they spun off Lucent (their own R&D firm) which saw them lose their edge in the telecom business. Lucent set a record for an IPO investor boom in its day and then, without the support of its parent company, it quickly fell into the doldrums and became one of the more lackluster stocks of the last decade. Not to be outdone, AT&T then spun off their wireless division before they had even finished paying for all the lil wireless providers they had bought up in a desperate attempt to be part of that boom. Now, their AT&T Wireless is struggling mightily. Then spun out AT&T broadband and well, that's hitting the ground with a mighty thud as well. Meanwhile, old Ma Bell is finding itself out of the innovation loop and holding onto a share of long distance business of satellites and land lines, but it's future days are looking pretty ho-hum.
There are a few hundred more companies with similar woes in both of the mentioned scenarios. All done in the name of capitalism, but really done for greed's sake.
Capitalism isn't a bad thing, but only if the bad people don't get involved.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
FederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission ignore the obviously illegal manipulation of the California energy supply by his buddies at ElPasoGas, Enron, FirstEnergy, etc. 
