recovering conservative;1341562 wrote: Okay, let's pause here! It seems to me, that the big reason you are continually complaining about being misunderstood and having words put in your mouth, is because you are short on specifics, when you talk about subjects like government regulation.....in the previous paragraph, no specifics! I gave a specific example -- the original Free Trade Agreement....which NAFTA quickly followed on the heels of. Now, when the FTA was a federal election issue up here, I was more than a little conflicted about what to believe. At the time I was working for a company that management admitted, would close within 3 years if the deal was ratified. But, I was young and promised a job with another company that was primarily a U.S. supplier, and expecting to cash in. Since that time, it seems to me that the promises have been long forgotten, while an international system that has suppressed wages and living standards for most people, and allowed a small powerful elite to enrich themselves.I'm truly conflicted about NAFTA, mainly because some of it gets deep into weeds that I simply don't have the knowledge to address. I don't like regulation specifically designed to protect our people's paycheck from a system that may simply be more efficient, meaning delivering the same quality product at a lower price. But I also don't like things NAFTA has spurred, such as the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC), a highway system that would allow south-of-the-border trucks bound for more interior destinations to bypass almost all of Texas without even having to stop to refuel. As an aside, the TTC got me to thinking how our interstate highway system decimated small town America, and how maybe the benefits, which I enjoy every day, may not really outweigh the costs. All in all, I would vote against NAFTA unless I could see a clear benefit to our liberty (liberty being far more important than economic prosperity).
recovering conservative wrote: So where do you stand on specific issues, not political theory? When you say:"Part of that is regulating interstate and international trade, but such regulation must be kept to that minimum" how much regulating are you talking about? Would you have scrapped the free trade agreements? Or does keeping them to a minimum, mean you support the policies of deregulation, that have allowed commercial and personal banking to merge, and an entire industry of unregulated capital markets, such as insuring investments with Credit Default Swaps, to flourish without any government oversight? If I'd been politically aware back in '99 when Clinton signed off on repealing Glass-Steagall, I would probably have supported it ... and I would have been oh so wrong. That is one piece of regulation that fits firmly in that definition of keeping honest people honest. But be fair. It wasn't purely deregulation that caused this snafu. It was also Fannie and Freddie, which were created specifically to allow people to live beyond their means, and gov't actively encouraging and guaranteeing sup-prime mortgages.
recovering conservative wrote: And what is red tape and nonsense regulation? Were the Massey Mine Disaster and the BP - Global Horizon blowout in the Gulf, caused by too much regulation? Or was this and the everyday examples of unsafe products and working conditions, a sign that private industry is too free from regulation, and needs some real government oversight by regulators who aren't intimidated or bought off by the corporations?Wasn't the BP issue more about enforcing regulations already in place, rather than inadequate regulation? The rest of your leading/loaded questions I'll ignore for now.
recovering conservative wrote: I would like to add the qualifier on the present system of neo-liberalism, that it will still be a powerful force in the near future, but high oil prices will reduce trade and cut into their present ability to force virtually every nation to follow their banking and trade policies.:wah: I see you've found a neo-label.
Looking under the Label
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Looking under the Label
posted by accountable
I'm truly conflicted about NAFTA, mainly because some of it gets deep into weeds that I simply don't have the knowledge to address. I don't like regulation specifically designed to protect our people's paycheck from a system that may simply be more efficient, meaning delivering the same quality product at a lower price. But I also don't like things NAFTA has spurred, such as the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC), a highway system that would allow south-of-the-border trucks bound for more interior destinations to bypass almost all of Texas without even having to stop to refuel. As an aside, the TTC got me to thinking how our interstate highway system decimated small town America, and how maybe the benefits, which I enjoy every day, may not really outweigh the costs. All in all, I would vote against NAFTA unless I could see a clear benefit to our liberty (liberty being far more important than economic prosperity).
let me give you a european take on this issue.
It's not free trade unless it's both ways. The US makes a free trade agreement and then tries to make it that they get to trade without hinderence and bleats that any restrictions put on trade are merely anti-american. If you look at the trade disputes between the eu and the US on meat imports for instance, EU regulations ban meat that has been treated with growth hormones and consumer resistance to such things in the EU is tremendous but the US complains it's an attempt to restrict trade. Perhaps if americans were aware of the implications there might be consumer resistance in the states as well.
Artifical Hormones, hormone residue in meat - The Issues - Sustainable Table
Growth Hormones in Food - CopperWiki
In the UK and EU, perhaps because we are relatively crowded the effects of these getting in to the water courses has resulted in the feminisation of fish, in Italy there was a well known case where the males in an italian town started growing breasts, it's funny but serious at the same time. T
Organic food is a fast growing sector. It's not paranoia if it really affects you you know.
If I'd been politically aware back in '99 when Clinton signed off on repealing Glass-Steagall, I would probably have supported it ... and I would have been oh so wrong. That is one piece of regulation that fits firmly in that definition of keeping honest people honest. But be fair. It wasn't purely deregulation that caused this snafu. It was also Fannie and Freddie, which were created specifically to allow people to live beyond their means, and gov't actively encouraging and guaranteeing sup-prime mortgages.
If you'd been politically aware you wouldn't have supported it. the act was brought in in the thirties to stop exactly the kind of lending practices that were then rife. Try a search under NINJA loans with the date 1999, 2000. What happened with the mortgage market was entirely predictable and many did predict it. Same with short selling and all the other financial instruments and practices that were banned after the 1929 crash, they were allowed again and guess what
YouTube - The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class
Monetarism has a lot to answer for, this goes back to the seventies and eighties. It sucked europe in as well. Sadly we can't blame the fascists, well maybe thatcher comes close.
I'm truly conflicted about NAFTA, mainly because some of it gets deep into weeds that I simply don't have the knowledge to address. I don't like regulation specifically designed to protect our people's paycheck from a system that may simply be more efficient, meaning delivering the same quality product at a lower price. But I also don't like things NAFTA has spurred, such as the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC), a highway system that would allow south-of-the-border trucks bound for more interior destinations to bypass almost all of Texas without even having to stop to refuel. As an aside, the TTC got me to thinking how our interstate highway system decimated small town America, and how maybe the benefits, which I enjoy every day, may not really outweigh the costs. All in all, I would vote against NAFTA unless I could see a clear benefit to our liberty (liberty being far more important than economic prosperity).
let me give you a european take on this issue.
It's not free trade unless it's both ways. The US makes a free trade agreement and then tries to make it that they get to trade without hinderence and bleats that any restrictions put on trade are merely anti-american. If you look at the trade disputes between the eu and the US on meat imports for instance, EU regulations ban meat that has been treated with growth hormones and consumer resistance to such things in the EU is tremendous but the US complains it's an attempt to restrict trade. Perhaps if americans were aware of the implications there might be consumer resistance in the states as well.
Artifical Hormones, hormone residue in meat - The Issues - Sustainable Table
Growth Hormones in Food - CopperWiki
In the UK and EU, perhaps because we are relatively crowded the effects of these getting in to the water courses has resulted in the feminisation of fish, in Italy there was a well known case where the males in an italian town started growing breasts, it's funny but serious at the same time. T
Organic food is a fast growing sector. It's not paranoia if it really affects you you know.
If I'd been politically aware back in '99 when Clinton signed off on repealing Glass-Steagall, I would probably have supported it ... and I would have been oh so wrong. That is one piece of regulation that fits firmly in that definition of keeping honest people honest. But be fair. It wasn't purely deregulation that caused this snafu. It was also Fannie and Freddie, which were created specifically to allow people to live beyond their means, and gov't actively encouraging and guaranteeing sup-prime mortgages.
If you'd been politically aware you wouldn't have supported it. the act was brought in in the thirties to stop exactly the kind of lending practices that were then rife. Try a search under NINJA loans with the date 1999, 2000. What happened with the mortgage market was entirely predictable and many did predict it. Same with short selling and all the other financial instruments and practices that were banned after the 1929 crash, they were allowed again and guess what
YouTube - The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class
Monetarism has a lot to answer for, this goes back to the seventies and eighties. It sucked europe in as well. Sadly we can't blame the fascists, well maybe thatcher comes close.
Looking under the Label
People living beyond their means. AC I don't like that concept either. I don't live beyond my means. I live with what suits me, I live in my comfort zone. What raises my hackles about the concept is it seems to me is a given lifestyle is not a choice, it's something imposed on you by the society we live in. That to me is not liberty.
Those people who bought those homes through Fanny and Freddie were stupid for doing it, but what about the greedy people that sold those houses? A lot of those people had a hope for a better future but because of the way our system is structured they have no hope now and we all pick up the tab.
I think our system is faulty, it is set against we the people and greed is the engine that in the end will bring this country into the third world.
Those people who bought those homes through Fanny and Freddie were stupid for doing it, but what about the greedy people that sold those houses? A lot of those people had a hope for a better future but because of the way our system is structured they have no hope now and we all pick up the tab.
I think our system is faulty, it is set against we the people and greed is the engine that in the end will bring this country into the third world.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Looking under the Label
Accountable;1341579 wrote: I'm truly conflicted about NAFTA, mainly because some of it gets deep into weeds that I simply don't have the knowledge to address.
What got deepest into the weeds was that most people (not even many of the free trade supporters) realized just how much of the economy could be outsourced! All of the techies -- especially the self-proclaimed libertarians in Silicon Valley 10 years ago, who never realized that their computer and software designing skills could be outsourced to places like India, and they would end up working at McDonalds or Walmart.
Looking at the broader picture, I don't think most supporters of free trade 40 years ago realized the scope of how much of the economy could be outsourced, and many were under the illusion that business elites had some sort of ideological notion that there overriding interest would be to protect the middle class, because the American middle class was the foundation of the modern consumer-driven economy. They would often quote Henry Ford's dictum that wages had to be high enough so that the workers could afford to buy his cars. Unfortunately, most business leaders do not think like Henry Ford! The only thing that has surprised me lately is that they also don't give a damn about the longterm welfare of the environment! It's one thing to be oblivious to climate change, environment-degradation, and extinctions -- but the actions of the major energy companies show that they know the risks, and are willing to push ahead regardless in the interests of the next quarter's profits and personal greed. You would think that most business leaders have children also, and would have some consideration for the future, but all indications are that most are only motivated by money and how to get more of it! And because they don't give a rat's ass about anything beyond immediate gratification, there has to be some over-arching governing force that can reign them in when they go too far.....and that is where government of the people, by the people, has to step in.
I don't like regulation specifically designed to protect our people's paycheck from a system that may simply be more efficient, meaning delivering the same quality product at a lower price. But I also don't like things NAFTA has spurred, such as the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC), a highway system that would allow south-of-the-border trucks bound for more interior destinations to bypass almost all of Texas without even having to stop to refuel. As an aside, the TTC got me to thinking how our interstate highway system decimated small town America, and how maybe the benefits, which I enjoy every day, may not really outweigh the costs. All in all, I would vote against NAFTA unless I could see a clear benefit to our liberty (liberty being far more important than economic prosperity).
I don't know much about this TTC (up here the TTC is the Toronto Transit Commission), but I've heard of it mentioned mainly by the black-helicopter crowd who seem to be against NAFTA for all of the wrong reasons. There's not much of a leap to a government financing this highway, when the arguments behind setting up the Interstate system of highways is taken into consideration. When it started, the arguments were all based on national security, just like breeches of personal rights and freedoms are excused by the threat of terrorism today. Hindsight indicates that the economic reasons were to subsidize the powerful corporate interests -- the auto companies and oil companies, often lumped together as the Highway Lobby, because they all acted collectively to advance their interests with government policy. Sure, consumers would rather have their own cars, than have to take trains and buses (just like average consumers in India and China today); but the state was lobbied and leveraged into subsidizing the building of highways to make cars and trucks more economically feasible. So it's not like the gradual progression that gutted public transport of passengers and freight was just determined by economic principles! Before Penn/Central Railways went bankrupt back in the 70's, they tried to make this point! They had to pay for the building and maintenance of their tracks, as well as fees applied by local governments; while the trucking industry only had to pay tolls on some of the highways.
On NAFTA, like I mentioned previously, it's difficult to foresee all of the implications when you throw the doors open and risk your own productive industries for the chance of getting some stuff cheaper, and selling more of your stuff to foreigners. The end result has been that the new Neoliberal World operates like a casino, where some win, most lose, and the house (big business) benefits no matter who is gaining. Free trade has crippled the ability of the average worker to bargain with the employer to advance their wages and working conditions. Every rule and law that has been passed by government in the last century, was the result of union pressure! Otherwise everyone would be still working 12 hours for a dollar a day, six days a week. Better not speak of this as something in the past though, because the ruined bargaining position of labour has put Dickensian working conditions something we will return to in the future, if the domination of business interests has no challenge.
If I'd been politically aware back in '99 when Clinton signed off on repealing Glass-Steagall, I would probably have supported it ... and I would have been oh so wrong. That is one piece of regulation that fits firmly in that definition of keeping honest people honest. But be fair. It wasn't purely deregulation that caused this snafu. It was also Fannie and Freddie, which were created specifically to allow people to live beyond their means, and gov't actively encouraging and guaranteeing sup-prime mortgages.
I tried to grasp as much as I could of the high-flying world of modern banking and finance a couple of years ago, during the bank meltdown. That was the first I heard of Glass-Steagall, and never took notice of it when the Clinton/Republican Congress tagteam abolished it. The fact that this was a bi-partisan action was a big part of the reason why it went mostly unnoticed. There was no opposition; everyone in government, with the exception of a few Cassandras, was in favour of it.
I have to say that I consider the focus on Fannie & Freddie by FoxNews and other rightwing outlets, looks like an attempt at blame-shifting, since they were pretty far down the food chain of how the housing bubble was created in the first place. Without banking deregulation (especially repeal of Glass-Steagall) and the refusal to regulate newly created derivative investments, like CDO's and CDS contracts, there would not have been the fuel that built the fire in the first place. When personal banks are allowed to sell off their mortgages in bundles of mortgage-backed securities, they are effectively washing their hands of the risks involved in writing bad loans. Before the real estate market completely collapsed, one of the Cassandras - the naked capitalism blogger wrote a piece warning investors that their pension funds may have put a large share in the lowest tranches of CDO's -- these being the lowest third of the security that payed the highest interest. They were attracted by the offer of high interest rates, and many of the smarter investors, like some of the major international banks, bought these CDO's on the condition that they could be insured by credit default swaps purchased from AGI....and you may remember what happened when AGI called Ben Bernanke and told him that they would file for bankruptcy if they were forced to pay out all of the CDS contracts that they had written. To me, the big scandal is that nothing of real substance has been done by the Obama Administration to change this system. They are only interested in re-inflating Wall Street, and the next time things go bad, there will be another run on the banks, and calls for the government to bail them out!
Wasn't the BP issue more about enforcing regulations already in place, rather than inadequate regulation? The rest of your leading/loaded questions I'll ignore for now.
:wah: I see you've found a neo-label.
They more or less go hand-in-hand. When we hear stories about how the people at the Mines&Minerals dept. were letting BP staff write their own safety reports and rubber-stamping every deep sea drilling venture that crossed their desks, it's pretty obvious that there was no regulators on the job! Most of the reason for this situation is blamed on the fact that these bureaucrats are in and out of government and the industries they are supposed to be regulating......just like the people who are supposed to be regulating Wall Street.
What got deepest into the weeds was that most people (not even many of the free trade supporters) realized just how much of the economy could be outsourced! All of the techies -- especially the self-proclaimed libertarians in Silicon Valley 10 years ago, who never realized that their computer and software designing skills could be outsourced to places like India, and they would end up working at McDonalds or Walmart.
Looking at the broader picture, I don't think most supporters of free trade 40 years ago realized the scope of how much of the economy could be outsourced, and many were under the illusion that business elites had some sort of ideological notion that there overriding interest would be to protect the middle class, because the American middle class was the foundation of the modern consumer-driven economy. They would often quote Henry Ford's dictum that wages had to be high enough so that the workers could afford to buy his cars. Unfortunately, most business leaders do not think like Henry Ford! The only thing that has surprised me lately is that they also don't give a damn about the longterm welfare of the environment! It's one thing to be oblivious to climate change, environment-degradation, and extinctions -- but the actions of the major energy companies show that they know the risks, and are willing to push ahead regardless in the interests of the next quarter's profits and personal greed. You would think that most business leaders have children also, and would have some consideration for the future, but all indications are that most are only motivated by money and how to get more of it! And because they don't give a rat's ass about anything beyond immediate gratification, there has to be some over-arching governing force that can reign them in when they go too far.....and that is where government of the people, by the people, has to step in.
I don't like regulation specifically designed to protect our people's paycheck from a system that may simply be more efficient, meaning delivering the same quality product at a lower price. But I also don't like things NAFTA has spurred, such as the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC), a highway system that would allow south-of-the-border trucks bound for more interior destinations to bypass almost all of Texas without even having to stop to refuel. As an aside, the TTC got me to thinking how our interstate highway system decimated small town America, and how maybe the benefits, which I enjoy every day, may not really outweigh the costs. All in all, I would vote against NAFTA unless I could see a clear benefit to our liberty (liberty being far more important than economic prosperity).
I don't know much about this TTC (up here the TTC is the Toronto Transit Commission), but I've heard of it mentioned mainly by the black-helicopter crowd who seem to be against NAFTA for all of the wrong reasons. There's not much of a leap to a government financing this highway, when the arguments behind setting up the Interstate system of highways is taken into consideration. When it started, the arguments were all based on national security, just like breeches of personal rights and freedoms are excused by the threat of terrorism today. Hindsight indicates that the economic reasons were to subsidize the powerful corporate interests -- the auto companies and oil companies, often lumped together as the Highway Lobby, because they all acted collectively to advance their interests with government policy. Sure, consumers would rather have their own cars, than have to take trains and buses (just like average consumers in India and China today); but the state was lobbied and leveraged into subsidizing the building of highways to make cars and trucks more economically feasible. So it's not like the gradual progression that gutted public transport of passengers and freight was just determined by economic principles! Before Penn/Central Railways went bankrupt back in the 70's, they tried to make this point! They had to pay for the building and maintenance of their tracks, as well as fees applied by local governments; while the trucking industry only had to pay tolls on some of the highways.
On NAFTA, like I mentioned previously, it's difficult to foresee all of the implications when you throw the doors open and risk your own productive industries for the chance of getting some stuff cheaper, and selling more of your stuff to foreigners. The end result has been that the new Neoliberal World operates like a casino, where some win, most lose, and the house (big business) benefits no matter who is gaining. Free trade has crippled the ability of the average worker to bargain with the employer to advance their wages and working conditions. Every rule and law that has been passed by government in the last century, was the result of union pressure! Otherwise everyone would be still working 12 hours for a dollar a day, six days a week. Better not speak of this as something in the past though, because the ruined bargaining position of labour has put Dickensian working conditions something we will return to in the future, if the domination of business interests has no challenge.
If I'd been politically aware back in '99 when Clinton signed off on repealing Glass-Steagall, I would probably have supported it ... and I would have been oh so wrong. That is one piece of regulation that fits firmly in that definition of keeping honest people honest. But be fair. It wasn't purely deregulation that caused this snafu. It was also Fannie and Freddie, which were created specifically to allow people to live beyond their means, and gov't actively encouraging and guaranteeing sup-prime mortgages.
I tried to grasp as much as I could of the high-flying world of modern banking and finance a couple of years ago, during the bank meltdown. That was the first I heard of Glass-Steagall, and never took notice of it when the Clinton/Republican Congress tagteam abolished it. The fact that this was a bi-partisan action was a big part of the reason why it went mostly unnoticed. There was no opposition; everyone in government, with the exception of a few Cassandras, was in favour of it.
I have to say that I consider the focus on Fannie & Freddie by FoxNews and other rightwing outlets, looks like an attempt at blame-shifting, since they were pretty far down the food chain of how the housing bubble was created in the first place. Without banking deregulation (especially repeal of Glass-Steagall) and the refusal to regulate newly created derivative investments, like CDO's and CDS contracts, there would not have been the fuel that built the fire in the first place. When personal banks are allowed to sell off their mortgages in bundles of mortgage-backed securities, they are effectively washing their hands of the risks involved in writing bad loans. Before the real estate market completely collapsed, one of the Cassandras - the naked capitalism blogger wrote a piece warning investors that their pension funds may have put a large share in the lowest tranches of CDO's -- these being the lowest third of the security that payed the highest interest. They were attracted by the offer of high interest rates, and many of the smarter investors, like some of the major international banks, bought these CDO's on the condition that they could be insured by credit default swaps purchased from AGI....and you may remember what happened when AGI called Ben Bernanke and told him that they would file for bankruptcy if they were forced to pay out all of the CDS contracts that they had written. To me, the big scandal is that nothing of real substance has been done by the Obama Administration to change this system. They are only interested in re-inflating Wall Street, and the next time things go bad, there will be another run on the banks, and calls for the government to bail them out!
Wasn't the BP issue more about enforcing regulations already in place, rather than inadequate regulation? The rest of your leading/loaded questions I'll ignore for now.
:wah: I see you've found a neo-label.
They more or less go hand-in-hand. When we hear stories about how the people at the Mines&Minerals dept. were letting BP staff write their own safety reports and rubber-stamping every deep sea drilling venture that crossed their desks, it's pretty obvious that there was no regulators on the job! Most of the reason for this situation is blamed on the fact that these bureaucrats are in and out of government and the industries they are supposed to be regulating......just like the people who are supposed to be regulating Wall Street.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Looking under the Label
Scrat;1341826 wrote: People living beyond their means. AC I don't like that concept either. I don't live beyond my means. I live with what suits me, I live in my comfort zone. What raises my hackles about the concept is it seems to me is a given lifestyle is not a choice, it's something imposed on you by the society we live in. That to me is not liberty. The key word is means, not class or caste. You can read into it whatever you wish, but I think you're being a bit ... inventive. A given lifestyle is absolutely a choice, but simply choosing a given lifestyle in no way obligates the rest of us to pay for it. If a person doesn't have the money to pay for the lifestyle he chooses, then he is living beyond his means.
Scrat wrote: Those people who bought those homes through Fanny and Freddie were stupid for doing it, but what about the greedy people that sold those houses? A lot of those people had a hope for a better future but because of the way our system is structured they have no hope now and we all pick up the tab. A lot of the greedy people had a hope for a better future? I don't see your point, unless it's that both sides are victims of something else. Could that something else be government regulation? That very government that people now expect to fix the problem gov't regulation started by imposing more regulation??
Scrat wrote: I think our system is faulty, it is set against we the people and greed is the engine that in the end will bring this country into the third world.Maybe. I'd welcome Third World liberty over First World Big Brother.
Scrat wrote: Those people who bought those homes through Fanny and Freddie were stupid for doing it, but what about the greedy people that sold those houses? A lot of those people had a hope for a better future but because of the way our system is structured they have no hope now and we all pick up the tab. A lot of the greedy people had a hope for a better future? I don't see your point, unless it's that both sides are victims of something else. Could that something else be government regulation? That very government that people now expect to fix the problem gov't regulation started by imposing more regulation??
Scrat wrote: I think our system is faulty, it is set against we the people and greed is the engine that in the end will bring this country into the third world.Maybe. I'd welcome Third World liberty over First World Big Brother.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Looking under the Label
gmc;1341622 wrote: posted by accountable
let me give you a european take on this issue.
It's not free trade unless it's both ways. The US makes a free trade agreement and then tries to make it that they get to trade without hinderence and bleats that any restrictions put on trade are merely anti-american. If you look at the trade disputes between the eu and the US on meat imports for instance, EU regulations ban meat that has been treated with growth hormones and consumer resistance to such things in the EU is tremendous but the US complains it's an attempt to restrict trade. Perhaps if americans were aware of the implications there might be consumer resistance in the states as well.
It's because the U.S. has been the 800 pound gorilla that it has been able to bully around trading partners. Every other trading partner with the U.S. has experienced this -- for many years, Canadian steel and softwood lumber were subject to high tariffs because congressmen in affected U.S. states lobbied for special protections. Most of the claims have been without merit; but if tariffs are instituted, and are not removed even after being ordered to years later, it is effectively the same as asymmetrical trade agreements. When ethanol became the alternative fuel fad, the first thing the U.S. did was put in rules and regulations to keep cheaper sugarcane-based ethanol from Brazil to be imported -- because U.S. corn growers were the ones expecting the windfall from new corn sales. In Mexico, after NAFTA, most of their agriculture has been wiped out by cheap subsidized U.S. imports......and as a sidenote to all of the Americans complaining about Mexican illegals -- this is a primary reason why so many have had to leave home and try to cross the border looking for work, in the first place!
But the U.S. has not been willing to go to bat for most of their industries (just the ones with the loudest lobbyists and the most money), in most cases, they've followed the dictates of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and allowed production to be outsourced, and have cheap imports for the average Walmart shopper. The U.S. trade imbalance, and the National Debt have only been sustainable because the U.S. Dollar is the World's reserve currency! As long China, and before them - Japan, have had to take U.S. dollars in return for their manufactured products, these countries with the huge trade surpluses have to keep buying U.S. Treasury Bonds to finance more buying from America, and forced to invest those dollars in the U.S. or buy weapons systems from U.S. suppliers.
But, the days when the U.S.A. could just keep borrowing to finance more imports, is coming to an end! The noises made about using the Euro or trying to create a brand new reserve currency are getting louder, as nations like China, start wondering about the real value of their treasury bills. In the last few years, it seems that China is trying to pull away from the Greenback, but slowly enough so that it doesn't cause a collapse of the Dollar. Keep buying US Treasury bills, Clinton urges China - Taipei Times
let me give you a european take on this issue.
It's not free trade unless it's both ways. The US makes a free trade agreement and then tries to make it that they get to trade without hinderence and bleats that any restrictions put on trade are merely anti-american. If you look at the trade disputes between the eu and the US on meat imports for instance, EU regulations ban meat that has been treated with growth hormones and consumer resistance to such things in the EU is tremendous but the US complains it's an attempt to restrict trade. Perhaps if americans were aware of the implications there might be consumer resistance in the states as well.
It's because the U.S. has been the 800 pound gorilla that it has been able to bully around trading partners. Every other trading partner with the U.S. has experienced this -- for many years, Canadian steel and softwood lumber were subject to high tariffs because congressmen in affected U.S. states lobbied for special protections. Most of the claims have been without merit; but if tariffs are instituted, and are not removed even after being ordered to years later, it is effectively the same as asymmetrical trade agreements. When ethanol became the alternative fuel fad, the first thing the U.S. did was put in rules and regulations to keep cheaper sugarcane-based ethanol from Brazil to be imported -- because U.S. corn growers were the ones expecting the windfall from new corn sales. In Mexico, after NAFTA, most of their agriculture has been wiped out by cheap subsidized U.S. imports......and as a sidenote to all of the Americans complaining about Mexican illegals -- this is a primary reason why so many have had to leave home and try to cross the border looking for work, in the first place!
But the U.S. has not been willing to go to bat for most of their industries (just the ones with the loudest lobbyists and the most money), in most cases, they've followed the dictates of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and allowed production to be outsourced, and have cheap imports for the average Walmart shopper. The U.S. trade imbalance, and the National Debt have only been sustainable because the U.S. Dollar is the World's reserve currency! As long China, and before them - Japan, have had to take U.S. dollars in return for their manufactured products, these countries with the huge trade surpluses have to keep buying U.S. Treasury Bonds to finance more buying from America, and forced to invest those dollars in the U.S. or buy weapons systems from U.S. suppliers.
But, the days when the U.S.A. could just keep borrowing to finance more imports, is coming to an end! The noises made about using the Euro or trying to create a brand new reserve currency are getting louder, as nations like China, start wondering about the real value of their treasury bills. In the last few years, it seems that China is trying to pull away from the Greenback, but slowly enough so that it doesn't cause a collapse of the Dollar. Keep buying US Treasury bills, Clinton urges China - Taipei Times
Looking under the Label
Posted by recovering conservative.
It's because the U.S. has been the 800 pound gorilla that it has been able to bully around trading partners. Every other trading partner with the U.S. has experienced this -- for many years, Canadian steel and softwood lumber were subject to high tariffs because congressmen in affected U.S. states lobbied for special protections. Most of the claims have been without merit; but if tariffs are instituted, and are not removed even after being ordered to years later, it is effectively the same as asymmetrical trade agreements. When ethanol became the alternative fuel fad, the first thing the U.S. did was put in rules and regulations to keep cheaper sugarcane-based ethanol from Brazil to be imported -- because U.S. corn growers were the ones expecting the windfall from new corn sales. In Mexico, after NAFTA, most of their agriculture has been wiped out by cheap subsidized U.S. imports......and as a sidenote to all of the Americans complaining about Mexican illegals -- this is a primary reason why so many have had to leave home and try to cross the border looking for work, in the first place!
You don't have a capitalist economy any more, vested interests have been able to use their clout to obtain special protection and keep out competition, that is not capitalism that's mercantilism and almost the complete opposite of free market capitalism. Subsidising exports is not capitalism either. Yet you see learned articles arguing that beating down the competition is what capitalism is all about, competition yes, but using market position and dominance to do so will destroy the economy if it is allowed to happen. Laissez faire capitalism is all very well but it should not be a free for all, there needs to be means of curbing those who would form monopolies and cartels and so destroy a capitalist economy. free trade would help you in your present situation, you need to do business but on fair terms.
But the U.S. has not been willing to go to bat for most of their industries (just the ones with the loudest lobbyists and the most money), in most cases, they've followed the dictates of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and allowed production to be outsourced, and have cheap imports for the average Walmart shopper.
I would rephrase that to the us congress has not been willing to act for ordinary people and let companies get away with shutting factories and shift production abroad for the sake of short term making the bottom line look good. So long as the profits rolled in no one stopped to wonder who was profiting. A good capitalist should want the most educated, highly paid work force available or you can forget about an industrial economy - one consisting of walmarts and macdonalds does not generate any wealth for anyone. Mind you you can't prop up industries that have had their day either. You need something in between, interfere when necessary and leave well alone when you can.
It always comes back to the same question, who owns the wealth of a nation? IMO there's something wrong in it being in so few hands. We have the same problems but different approaches. For one thing we take progressive taxation as being the norm. I find this sort of discussion with americans fascinating. Essentially we agree but you have a funny way of looking at things. Socialism to me is a working class grass roots political movement that has achieved much in changing society for the better. It's a record to be proud of. On the other hand it wouldn't have happened without a capitalist economy. It's not a choice between capitalism or socialism, the two go hand in hand.
It's because the U.S. has been the 800 pound gorilla that it has been able to bully around trading partners. Every other trading partner with the U.S. has experienced this -- for many years, Canadian steel and softwood lumber were subject to high tariffs because congressmen in affected U.S. states lobbied for special protections. Most of the claims have been without merit; but if tariffs are instituted, and are not removed even after being ordered to years later, it is effectively the same as asymmetrical trade agreements. When ethanol became the alternative fuel fad, the first thing the U.S. did was put in rules and regulations to keep cheaper sugarcane-based ethanol from Brazil to be imported -- because U.S. corn growers were the ones expecting the windfall from new corn sales. In Mexico, after NAFTA, most of their agriculture has been wiped out by cheap subsidized U.S. imports......and as a sidenote to all of the Americans complaining about Mexican illegals -- this is a primary reason why so many have had to leave home and try to cross the border looking for work, in the first place!
You don't have a capitalist economy any more, vested interests have been able to use their clout to obtain special protection and keep out competition, that is not capitalism that's mercantilism and almost the complete opposite of free market capitalism. Subsidising exports is not capitalism either. Yet you see learned articles arguing that beating down the competition is what capitalism is all about, competition yes, but using market position and dominance to do so will destroy the economy if it is allowed to happen. Laissez faire capitalism is all very well but it should not be a free for all, there needs to be means of curbing those who would form monopolies and cartels and so destroy a capitalist economy. free trade would help you in your present situation, you need to do business but on fair terms.
But the U.S. has not been willing to go to bat for most of their industries (just the ones with the loudest lobbyists and the most money), in most cases, they've followed the dictates of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and allowed production to be outsourced, and have cheap imports for the average Walmart shopper.
I would rephrase that to the us congress has not been willing to act for ordinary people and let companies get away with shutting factories and shift production abroad for the sake of short term making the bottom line look good. So long as the profits rolled in no one stopped to wonder who was profiting. A good capitalist should want the most educated, highly paid work force available or you can forget about an industrial economy - one consisting of walmarts and macdonalds does not generate any wealth for anyone. Mind you you can't prop up industries that have had their day either. You need something in between, interfere when necessary and leave well alone when you can.
It always comes back to the same question, who owns the wealth of a nation? IMO there's something wrong in it being in so few hands. We have the same problems but different approaches. For one thing we take progressive taxation as being the norm. I find this sort of discussion with americans fascinating. Essentially we agree but you have a funny way of looking at things. Socialism to me is a working class grass roots political movement that has achieved much in changing society for the better. It's a record to be proud of. On the other hand it wouldn't have happened without a capitalist economy. It's not a choice between capitalism or socialism, the two go hand in hand.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Looking under the Label
"You need something in between, interfere when necessary and leave well alone when you can."
I'd rephrase that to: Interfere only when absolutely necessary and leave everything alone otherwise.
Of course that word "necessary" is a debate all its own.
I'd rephrase that to: Interfere only when absolutely necessary and leave everything alone otherwise.
Of course that word "necessary" is a debate all its own.
Looking under the Label
A lot of the greedy people had a hope for a better future? I don't see your point, unless it's that both sides are victims of something else. Could that something else be government regulation? That very government that people now expect to fix the problem gov't regulation started by imposing more regulation??
Let me try this again. As I see it person "A" wanted a home, ''A" had kids and needed something other than an apartment. "A" also bought into the housing scam, sure his house would cost 5 times what it was worth and far more than he would ever be able to pay off in a reasonable amount of time. Admittedly he was an idiot and greedy thinking he would make a profit on it. Remember the lore writ in stone? "Home prices will always go up" A lot of fools swallowed that.
Anyway Fannie and Freddie were there to help him, which was the governments screw up. I can see that much. Apparently there was little or no regulation of what F&F was allowed to pay to help "A" get into a home. Home sellers and home sales people knew this so what did they do? They upped the prices to ridiculous levels. Government was regulating the wrong thing, they were regulating who could have houses. Not how they would be paid for from start to finish. People took advantage of this, the real-estate industry, banks, all of it. We are now paying the price because the expectations are/were unreal. Couple this with the outsourcing of what used to sustain us in the jobs area and were have one hell of a mess.
Sorry no more time.
Let me try this again. As I see it person "A" wanted a home, ''A" had kids and needed something other than an apartment. "A" also bought into the housing scam, sure his house would cost 5 times what it was worth and far more than he would ever be able to pay off in a reasonable amount of time. Admittedly he was an idiot and greedy thinking he would make a profit on it. Remember the lore writ in stone? "Home prices will always go up" A lot of fools swallowed that.
Anyway Fannie and Freddie were there to help him, which was the governments screw up. I can see that much. Apparently there was little or no regulation of what F&F was allowed to pay to help "A" get into a home. Home sellers and home sales people knew this so what did they do? They upped the prices to ridiculous levels. Government was regulating the wrong thing, they were regulating who could have houses. Not how they would be paid for from start to finish. People took advantage of this, the real-estate industry, banks, all of it. We are now paying the price because the expectations are/were unreal. Couple this with the outsourcing of what used to sustain us in the jobs area and were have one hell of a mess.
Sorry no more time.
Looking under the Label
My first reaction to the term NAFTA is softwood lumber related. The US refused to honour the agreement regarding BC softwood, it went to tribunal, Canada won, the US maintained that it was unfair trade and refused to submit to the NAFTA ruling. So, what the heck is an agreement when one party can just cancel it when it doesn't suit them?
Looking under the Label
koan;1341949 wrote: My first reaction to the term NAFTA is softwood lumber related. The US refused to honour the agreement regarding BC softwood, it went to tribunal, Canada won, the US maintained that it was unfair trade and refused to submit to the NAFTA ruling. So, what the heck is an agreement when one party can just cancel it when it doesn't suit them?
It's called Realpolitik and the only real way to stop it happening is to cut trade with the one refusing to honour agreements and you can't do that until you find other markets. The daft thing is it damages their own economy more than it does those they trade with.
European Commission : Trade : United States (Bilateral relations)
Non-Tariff Measures in EU-US Trade and Investment
A study was carried out by the European Commission at the request of the European Parliament and released in December 2009. It identified the most important Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs) that affect trade between the EU and the US, and estimates their economic impact. Main findings of the study are:
* For the EU, removing all actionable NTMs would translate into an increase in GDP (€122 billion per year) and exports (+2.1%).
* Sector-wise EU benefits would come mainly from gains in motor vehicles, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, food and electrical machinery.
* For the US, benefits from removing actionable NTMs are estimated at €41 billion per year for GDP and 6.1% for exports.
* US benefits would mainly accrue to the electrical machinery, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, financial services and insurance sectors.
* The US gains more in exports and the EU more in income.
South american countries are beginning to trade more with other non US economies as well, but that sucks in imports from the states, the problem is the US only seems to see imports and doesn't notice what it sells to those countries when they decide to renege in trade agreements.
US Trade with South America in 2008: Ecuador Grows Fastest as Exporter while Chile & Peru Lead Importers
It's called Realpolitik and the only real way to stop it happening is to cut trade with the one refusing to honour agreements and you can't do that until you find other markets. The daft thing is it damages their own economy more than it does those they trade with.
European Commission : Trade : United States (Bilateral relations)
Non-Tariff Measures in EU-US Trade and Investment
A study was carried out by the European Commission at the request of the European Parliament and released in December 2009. It identified the most important Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs) that affect trade between the EU and the US, and estimates their economic impact. Main findings of the study are:
* For the EU, removing all actionable NTMs would translate into an increase in GDP (€122 billion per year) and exports (+2.1%).
* Sector-wise EU benefits would come mainly from gains in motor vehicles, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, food and electrical machinery.
* For the US, benefits from removing actionable NTMs are estimated at €41 billion per year for GDP and 6.1% for exports.
* US benefits would mainly accrue to the electrical machinery, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, financial services and insurance sectors.
* The US gains more in exports and the EU more in income.
South american countries are beginning to trade more with other non US economies as well, but that sucks in imports from the states, the problem is the US only seems to see imports and doesn't notice what it sells to those countries when they decide to renege in trade agreements.
US Trade with South America in 2008: Ecuador Grows Fastest as Exporter while Chile & Peru Lead Importers
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Looking under the Label
recovering conservative;1341829 wrote: To me, the big scandal is that nothing of real substance has been done by the Obama Administration to change this system. Werd. But the Commerce Clause has become a tool to usurp power, rather than a mandate to regulate trade. Besides, it doesn't fit the Obama Plan to "fundamentally change America" ... presumably into a bona fide welfare state.
Looking under the Label
Accountable;1341978 wrote: Werd. But the Commerce Clause has become a tool to usurp power, rather than a mandate to regulate trade. Besides, it doesn't fit the Obama Plan to "fundamentally change America" ... presumably into a bona fide welfare state.
If Obama had gone all out for a universal healthcare bill and called another election if it was stalled by congress what do you think would have happened? would he have been re-elected on a bigger mandate? seems to me as an outsider that the moment for any real change has passed.
If Obama had gone all out for a universal healthcare bill and called another election if it was stalled by congress what do you think would have happened? would he have been re-elected on a bigger mandate? seems to me as an outsider that the moment for any real change has passed.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Looking under the Label
gmc;1341982 wrote: If Obama had gone all out for a universal healthcare bill and called another election if it was stalled by congress what do you think would have happened? would he have been re-elected on a bigger mandate? seems to me as an outsider that the moment for any real change has passed.He would've been laughed at because presidents can't call for elections here. 
They're scheduled. He bit a huge chunk out of Liberty. The camel's nose is under the tent, which was all they really expected to accomplish anyway. The next step is to wait for the current catastrophe to play out, then use it as an excuse to make it even more comprehensive, more "welfare state."
They're scheduled. He bit a huge chunk out of Liberty. The camel's nose is under the tent, which was all they really expected to accomplish anyway. The next step is to wait for the current catastrophe to play out, then use it as an excuse to make it even more comprehensive, more "welfare state."Looking under the Label
Accountable;1342054 wrote: He would've been laughed at because presidents can't call for elections here. They're scheduled. He bit a huge chunk out of Liberty. The camel's nose is under the tent, which was all they really expected to accomplish anyway. The next step is to wait for the current catastrophe to play out, then use it as an excuse to make it even more comprehensive, more "welfare state."
Watched a documentary about the tea party movement last night. I have real difficulty making sense out of american politics. state rights against federal rights I get but I can't for the life of me understand why you would prefer leaving something like healthcare at the mercy of profit making corporations rather than have it freely available to all at the point of need (it's not free you understand we all pay for it, I've paid for forty odd years and only used it a couple of times.) It's such a fundamental difference in mind set. How can you complain about jobs being sent abroad but at the same time not want government intervention to stop companies doing it. Want no government involvement in business but be against free trade agreements ( I think). Want civil rights but be against government enforcing them. Seems to me the wrong people are getting the blame for what is wrong, it's not liberal economics and capitalism it's right wing monetarism and a lack of regard for ordinary working people.
The libertarian party in the UK is part of the lunatic fringe, anarchists have faded in to obscurity and no one takes them seriously - if they ever did. I was amazed to find they are a serious political party in the states. It's like communism, a utopian ideal that just isn't going to work you will always need government to curb those who would take from others. Many in the UK and especially in the industrial heartlands of Scotland are instinctively socialist in outlook. It's a completely different mind set. A free for all is a thieves charter, the powerful will always take from the less powerful unless you have govt in place with laws to stop them. OK the debate is about how much government you need but to enforce civil liberties it has to be strong. Who was right in the sixties? libertarians or those who thought discrimination was wrong and rode roughshod over the rights of those who objected to integration?
They're scheduled. He bit a huge chunk out of Liberty. The camel's nose is under the tent, which was all they really expected to accomplish anyway. The next step is to wait for the current catastrophe to play out, then use it as an excuse to make it even more comprehensive, more "welfare state."Watched a documentary about the tea party movement last night. I have real difficulty making sense out of american politics. state rights against federal rights I get but I can't for the life of me understand why you would prefer leaving something like healthcare at the mercy of profit making corporations rather than have it freely available to all at the point of need (it's not free you understand we all pay for it, I've paid for forty odd years and only used it a couple of times.) It's such a fundamental difference in mind set. How can you complain about jobs being sent abroad but at the same time not want government intervention to stop companies doing it. Want no government involvement in business but be against free trade agreements ( I think). Want civil rights but be against government enforcing them. Seems to me the wrong people are getting the blame for what is wrong, it's not liberal economics and capitalism it's right wing monetarism and a lack of regard for ordinary working people.
The libertarian party in the UK is part of the lunatic fringe, anarchists have faded in to obscurity and no one takes them seriously - if they ever did. I was amazed to find they are a serious political party in the states. It's like communism, a utopian ideal that just isn't going to work you will always need government to curb those who would take from others. Many in the UK and especially in the industrial heartlands of Scotland are instinctively socialist in outlook. It's a completely different mind set. A free for all is a thieves charter, the powerful will always take from the less powerful unless you have govt in place with laws to stop them. OK the debate is about how much government you need but to enforce civil liberties it has to be strong. Who was right in the sixties? libertarians or those who thought discrimination was wrong and rode roughshod over the rights of those who objected to integration?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Looking under the Label
gmc;1342062 wrote: Watched a documentary about the tea party movement last night. I have real difficulty making sense out of american politics. state rights against federal rights I get but I can't for the life of me understand why you would prefer leaving something like healthcare at the mercy of profit making corporations rather than have it freely available to all at the point of need (it's not free you understand we all pay for it, I've paid for forty odd years and only used it a couple of times.) It's such a fundamental difference in mind set. If you get state rights against federal rights then why don't you get opposition to federal takeover of the healthcare system? As I understand it, our system was fine until some politician noticed that some more profitable companies were giving health insurance as a perc to their top executives and other select employees, and figured they could glean a lot of votes if they could force all companies to give the same perc to all their employees. Of course, then it became an entitlement rather than a perc, meaning guaranteed demand ... meaning insurance companies could raise their prices ... meaning they would have more profits ... meaning they could spend more on politicians' campaign contributions and lobbyists to ensure even more such laws.
gmc wrote: How can you complain about jobs being sent abroad but at the same time not want government intervention to stop companies doing it.It's gov't intervention that's sending the jobs overseas in the first place.
gmc wrote: Want no government involvement in business but be against free trade agreements ( I think).Not no involvement, minimum involvement. And free trade agreements are good as a general concept. I think I mentioned I don't understand NAFTA.
gmc wrote: Want civil rights but be against government enforcing them.I believe this comment comes from earlier conversations where some people blur the line between civil rights and impinging on some people's rights in favor of others. Perhaps you can clarify?
gmc wrote: Seems to me the wrong people are getting the blame for what is wrong, it's not liberal economics and capitalism it's right wing monetarism and a lack of regard for ordinary working people. "Right wing" monetarism?? Is that somehow worse or more evil than the current monetarism?
gmc wrote: The libertarian party in the UK is part of the lunatic fringe, anarchists have faded in to obscurity and no one takes them seriously - if they ever did. I was amazed to find they are a serious political party in the states. It's like communism, a utopian ideal that just isn't going to work you will always need government to curb those who would take from others. Many in the UK and especially in the industrial heartlands of Scotland are instinctively socialist in outlook. It's a completely different mind set.It's not a completely different mindset, only somewhat different. Individually, virtually everyone is instinctively socialist in that we help each other when in need. The difference is in basic culture built on history. Your history is that the gov't is responsible for the people. Responsibility to the people came later and is a concept with which we agree. Our history is that gov't is a tyrant and enemy of personal liberty. That's not to say that gov't doesn't have a place or a function, and it's not to say that gov't should be gotten rid of. Government is a tool, a weapon of great destructive power, which has proven its ability time and again to wreak havoc in the hands of even the best-meaning people. As I see it, you choose to continue to see government as being responsible for your well-being, and yield much of that decision-making to it (with the placebo that anyone can opt out whenever they wish), While I would choose to take those decisions on myself.
gmc wrote: A free for all is a thieves charter,Agreed. Your implication is incorrect.
gmc wrote: the powerful will always take from the less powerful unless you have govt in place with laws to stop them.And if the powerful are the ones running the gov't, what then?
gmc wrote: OK the debate is about how much government you need but to enforce civil liberties it has to be strong. Who was right in the sixties? libertarians or those who thought discrimination was wrong and rode roughshod over the rights of those who objected to integration?Unload your question (if you can) and try again. Do you honestly believe it is a question of accepting all or none of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, full stop?
Government is government, responsible to The People - all of The People. As such it must not discriminate in any way. It must treat all citizens equally. In that, the CRA was good and valid, imo.
A business is private property, responsible to the owner(s) of that business. Check that. Responsible to no one at all, because it is property and inanimate. The owners decide how to run that business, and if they want to throw away profits by restricting their clientele then who are we to keep them from being so stupid? The government's responsibility is to make sure that business owners are not cheating their customers or partners. In other words, to keep honest people honest. It is not the government's responsibility to force a businessman to make profit off of people he would rather not do business with. In that, the CRA overstepped, imo.
gmc wrote: How can you complain about jobs being sent abroad but at the same time not want government intervention to stop companies doing it.It's gov't intervention that's sending the jobs overseas in the first place.
gmc wrote: Want no government involvement in business but be against free trade agreements ( I think).Not no involvement, minimum involvement. And free trade agreements are good as a general concept. I think I mentioned I don't understand NAFTA.
gmc wrote: Want civil rights but be against government enforcing them.I believe this comment comes from earlier conversations where some people blur the line between civil rights and impinging on some people's rights in favor of others. Perhaps you can clarify?
gmc wrote: Seems to me the wrong people are getting the blame for what is wrong, it's not liberal economics and capitalism it's right wing monetarism and a lack of regard for ordinary working people. "Right wing" monetarism?? Is that somehow worse or more evil than the current monetarism?
gmc wrote: The libertarian party in the UK is part of the lunatic fringe, anarchists have faded in to obscurity and no one takes them seriously - if they ever did. I was amazed to find they are a serious political party in the states. It's like communism, a utopian ideal that just isn't going to work you will always need government to curb those who would take from others. Many in the UK and especially in the industrial heartlands of Scotland are instinctively socialist in outlook. It's a completely different mind set.It's not a completely different mindset, only somewhat different. Individually, virtually everyone is instinctively socialist in that we help each other when in need. The difference is in basic culture built on history. Your history is that the gov't is responsible for the people. Responsibility to the people came later and is a concept with which we agree. Our history is that gov't is a tyrant and enemy of personal liberty. That's not to say that gov't doesn't have a place or a function, and it's not to say that gov't should be gotten rid of. Government is a tool, a weapon of great destructive power, which has proven its ability time and again to wreak havoc in the hands of even the best-meaning people. As I see it, you choose to continue to see government as being responsible for your well-being, and yield much of that decision-making to it (with the placebo that anyone can opt out whenever they wish), While I would choose to take those decisions on myself.
gmc wrote: A free for all is a thieves charter,Agreed. Your implication is incorrect.
gmc wrote: the powerful will always take from the less powerful unless you have govt in place with laws to stop them.And if the powerful are the ones running the gov't, what then?
gmc wrote: OK the debate is about how much government you need but to enforce civil liberties it has to be strong. Who was right in the sixties? libertarians or those who thought discrimination was wrong and rode roughshod over the rights of those who objected to integration?Unload your question (if you can) and try again. Do you honestly believe it is a question of accepting all or none of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, full stop?
Government is government, responsible to The People - all of The People. As such it must not discriminate in any way. It must treat all citizens equally. In that, the CRA was good and valid, imo.
A business is private property, responsible to the owner(s) of that business. Check that. Responsible to no one at all, because it is property and inanimate. The owners decide how to run that business, and if they want to throw away profits by restricting their clientele then who are we to keep them from being so stupid? The government's responsibility is to make sure that business owners are not cheating their customers or partners. In other words, to keep honest people honest. It is not the government's responsibility to force a businessman to make profit off of people he would rather not do business with. In that, the CRA overstepped, imo.
Looking under the Label
GMC. The Tea Party movement is a red herring, it is not meant to be effective in changing the situation, most of the people associated with it are lunatics so no sane person pays much attention. It serves to discourage the normal people from participating.
“Corporate socialism controls American government – US political activist
permalinke-mail story to a friendprint version
Published 02 November, 2010, 13:48
With midterm elections in the US about to begin, RT has spoken with four-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader about the real powers that govern America.
Share4 Yahoo StumbleUpon Google Technorati
del.icio.us Digg Reddit Mixx Propeller
Ralph Nader does not belong to either of the two parties ruling Congress.
Nader believes that Theodore Dreiser put it very well many years ago, when he said that “the corporations are the government.
“Knowing they [corporations] can’t be out front because people don’t like a lot of these big corporations, they are ripped off by the banks and credit card companies, they camouflage and their camouflage is that they give the Tea Parties certain deceptive information and focus on certain politicians, and therefore they continue their work behind the scenes. We have corporate socialism in this country where profits are kept and losses are socialized on the back of the taxpayer, Nader said.
“There isn’t a single department agency in the US government whose outside influence overwhelmingly is not corporate, he added. “They control from the outside, they put their representatives into government positions, funding the members of Congress with their cash [and] 35,000 full-time lobbyists in Washington – they are the government.
“Corporate socialism controls American government – US political activist
permalinke-mail story to a friendprint version
Published 02 November, 2010, 13:48
With midterm elections in the US about to begin, RT has spoken with four-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader about the real powers that govern America.
Share4 Yahoo StumbleUpon Google Technorati
del.icio.us Digg Reddit Mixx Propeller
Ralph Nader does not belong to either of the two parties ruling Congress.
Nader believes that Theodore Dreiser put it very well many years ago, when he said that “the corporations are the government.
“Knowing they [corporations] can’t be out front because people don’t like a lot of these big corporations, they are ripped off by the banks and credit card companies, they camouflage and their camouflage is that they give the Tea Parties certain deceptive information and focus on certain politicians, and therefore they continue their work behind the scenes. We have corporate socialism in this country where profits are kept and losses are socialized on the back of the taxpayer, Nader said.
“There isn’t a single department agency in the US government whose outside influence overwhelmingly is not corporate, he added. “They control from the outside, they put their representatives into government positions, funding the members of Congress with their cash [and] 35,000 full-time lobbyists in Washington – they are the government.
Looking under the Label
posted by accountable
If you get state rights against federal rights then why don't you get opposition to federal takeover of the healthcare system? As I understand it, our system was fine until some politician noticed that some more profitable companies were giving health insurance as a perc to their top executives and other select employees, and figured they could glean a lot of votes if they could force all companies to give the same perc to all their employees. Of course, then it became an entitlement rather than a perc, meaning guaranteed demand ... meaning insurance companies could raise their prices ... meaning they would have more profits ... meaning they could spend more on politicians' campaign contributions and lobbyists to ensure even more such laws.
I don;t know enough about your system to make any valid comment
posted by accountable
Your history is that the gov't is responsible for the people. Responsibility to the people came later and is a concept with which we agree. Our history is that gov't is a tyrant and enemy of personal liberty. That's not to say that gov't doesn't have a place or a function, and it's not to say that gov't should be gotten rid of. Government is a tool, a weapon of great destructive power, which has proven its ability time and again to wreak havoc in the hands of even the best-meaning people. As I see it, you choose to continue to see government as being responsible for your well-being, and yield much of that decision-making to it (with the placebo that anyone can opt out whenever they wish), While I would choose to take those decisions on myself.
You don;t know much about our history if you think that. Actually our history is a long bloody one of forcing the powers that be to concede power to the masses and getting rid of kings that believed in the divine right to rule and all that crap. Parliamentary democracy was our idea as were bicameral legislatures which you incidentally copied. Albeit that was by historical accident rather than design. We have a welfare state because it was demanded by the grass roots and the govt of the day did as told. Any party that doesn't support the concept can forget about staying in power. Every now and then we still reach up and grab the bastards by the balls. Government by the people for the people is a straight lift from english civil war political pamphlets - you know when they chopped off the head of a scottish king because he was too much of a papist and believed in the divine right of kings. not a good argument to put if you want to stay king.
posted by accountable
And if the powerful are the ones running the gov't, what then?
They always will, right from the word go they acted to keep the great unwashed from having any real say - stand in line with a musket just don't expect a vote. so you change the voting system to break their hold. Roll on proportional representation in our case. In yours i suggest you ban contributions from companies to political parties. Change the constitution if you have to.
posted by accountable
Unload your question (if you can) and try again. Do you honestly believe it is a question of accepting all or none of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, full stop?
Government is government, responsible to The People - all of The People. As such it must not discriminate in any way. It must treat all citizens equally. In that, the CRA was good and valid, imo.
I'm not an american remember. I find it interesting but not as fascinating as it would be if I were. But you can't have it all ways there are some things you need to have a government that can force people to comply with laws they don't like. one man's freedom to do as he likes can be another's misery.
posted by accountable
A business is private property, responsible to the owner(s) of that business. Check that. Responsible to no one at all, because it is property and inanimate. The owners decide how to run that business, and if they want to throw away profits by restricting their clientele then who are we to keep them from being so stupid? The government's responsibility is to make sure that business owners are not cheating their customers or partners. In other words, to keep honest people honest. It is not the government's responsibility to force a businessman to make profit off of people he would rather not do business with. In that, the CRA overstepped, imo.
I see where you're coming from, I think, what if that business was the only doctor or hospital in town? or the only bank or if it was a school funded by taxes paid by all?
posted by scrat
GMC. The Tea Party movement is a red herring, it is not meant to be effective in changing the situation, most of the people associated with it are lunatics so no sane person pays much attention. It serves to discourage the normal people from participating.
be interesting to see what happens. In the our UK right wing nutters have latched on to it now.
If you get state rights against federal rights then why don't you get opposition to federal takeover of the healthcare system? As I understand it, our system was fine until some politician noticed that some more profitable companies were giving health insurance as a perc to their top executives and other select employees, and figured they could glean a lot of votes if they could force all companies to give the same perc to all their employees. Of course, then it became an entitlement rather than a perc, meaning guaranteed demand ... meaning insurance companies could raise their prices ... meaning they would have more profits ... meaning they could spend more on politicians' campaign contributions and lobbyists to ensure even more such laws.
I don;t know enough about your system to make any valid comment
posted by accountable
Your history is that the gov't is responsible for the people. Responsibility to the people came later and is a concept with which we agree. Our history is that gov't is a tyrant and enemy of personal liberty. That's not to say that gov't doesn't have a place or a function, and it's not to say that gov't should be gotten rid of. Government is a tool, a weapon of great destructive power, which has proven its ability time and again to wreak havoc in the hands of even the best-meaning people. As I see it, you choose to continue to see government as being responsible for your well-being, and yield much of that decision-making to it (with the placebo that anyone can opt out whenever they wish), While I would choose to take those decisions on myself.
You don;t know much about our history if you think that. Actually our history is a long bloody one of forcing the powers that be to concede power to the masses and getting rid of kings that believed in the divine right to rule and all that crap. Parliamentary democracy was our idea as were bicameral legislatures which you incidentally copied. Albeit that was by historical accident rather than design. We have a welfare state because it was demanded by the grass roots and the govt of the day did as told. Any party that doesn't support the concept can forget about staying in power. Every now and then we still reach up and grab the bastards by the balls. Government by the people for the people is a straight lift from english civil war political pamphlets - you know when they chopped off the head of a scottish king because he was too much of a papist and believed in the divine right of kings. not a good argument to put if you want to stay king.
posted by accountable
And if the powerful are the ones running the gov't, what then?
They always will, right from the word go they acted to keep the great unwashed from having any real say - stand in line with a musket just don't expect a vote. so you change the voting system to break their hold. Roll on proportional representation in our case. In yours i suggest you ban contributions from companies to political parties. Change the constitution if you have to.
posted by accountable
Unload your question (if you can) and try again. Do you honestly believe it is a question of accepting all or none of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, full stop?
Government is government, responsible to The People - all of The People. As such it must not discriminate in any way. It must treat all citizens equally. In that, the CRA was good and valid, imo.
I'm not an american remember. I find it interesting but not as fascinating as it would be if I were. But you can't have it all ways there are some things you need to have a government that can force people to comply with laws they don't like. one man's freedom to do as he likes can be another's misery.
posted by accountable
A business is private property, responsible to the owner(s) of that business. Check that. Responsible to no one at all, because it is property and inanimate. The owners decide how to run that business, and if they want to throw away profits by restricting their clientele then who are we to keep them from being so stupid? The government's responsibility is to make sure that business owners are not cheating their customers or partners. In other words, to keep honest people honest. It is not the government's responsibility to force a businessman to make profit off of people he would rather not do business with. In that, the CRA overstepped, imo.
I see where you're coming from, I think, what if that business was the only doctor or hospital in town? or the only bank or if it was a school funded by taxes paid by all?
posted by scrat
GMC. The Tea Party movement is a red herring, it is not meant to be effective in changing the situation, most of the people associated with it are lunatics so no sane person pays much attention. It serves to discourage the normal people from participating.
be interesting to see what happens. In the our UK right wing nutters have latched on to it now.
Looking under the Label
Accountable;1342054 wrote: He would've been laughed at because presidents can't call for elections here. They're scheduled. He bit a huge chunk out of Liberty. The camel's nose is under the tent, which was all they really expected to accomplish anyway. The next step is to wait for the current catastrophe to play out, then use it as an excuse to make it even more comprehensive, more "welfare state."
I agree with the premise of maximizing liberty, but from my perspective, evening out the distriibution of resources is completely in line with increasing liberty (enjoyed by the average citizen). For example, I prefer the idea that if I ever get seriously ill, I am not shot like an old racehorse before I get a chance to get well. Otherwise, you get sick, you lose your job and your health insurance all in one fell swoop.
"Healthcare" and "jobs" need to be decoupled.
That's why I don't understand why the GOP or conservatives would oppose the move in this direction. Contrary to what the fearmongers have said, Obama just implemented the free market exchanges suggested by the moderate Republicans back when Clinton was in office. The free market of course won't work without a few restirctions, because it will clearly eliminate all the sick people if it's geared *purely* towards making a profit. . So there needs to be a couple requirements that they can't turn down some one with pre-existing conditions, some way to handle people without insurance, etc.
This isn't a "welfare state" idea ... it's a free market reform that assumes competition will produce cost controls. The main justification was cost savings to the government.
They're scheduled. He bit a huge chunk out of Liberty. The camel's nose is under the tent, which was all they really expected to accomplish anyway. The next step is to wait for the current catastrophe to play out, then use it as an excuse to make it even more comprehensive, more "welfare state."I agree with the premise of maximizing liberty, but from my perspective, evening out the distriibution of resources is completely in line with increasing liberty (enjoyed by the average citizen). For example, I prefer the idea that if I ever get seriously ill, I am not shot like an old racehorse before I get a chance to get well. Otherwise, you get sick, you lose your job and your health insurance all in one fell swoop.
"Healthcare" and "jobs" need to be decoupled.
That's why I don't understand why the GOP or conservatives would oppose the move in this direction. Contrary to what the fearmongers have said, Obama just implemented the free market exchanges suggested by the moderate Republicans back when Clinton was in office. The free market of course won't work without a few restirctions, because it will clearly eliminate all the sick people if it's geared *purely* towards making a profit. . So there needs to be a couple requirements that they can't turn down some one with pre-existing conditions, some way to handle people without insurance, etc.
This isn't a "welfare state" idea ... it's a free market reform that assumes competition will produce cost controls. The main justification was cost savings to the government.
Looking under the Label
The republicans like the health care legislation because its good for the business sector, they've just been denying that fact for election purposes. They will probably have some token vote to repeal or "fix" the legislation, however, they know Obama will veto anything too extreme. Its cat and mouse. They'll buy time until they figure out how to silence the tea baggers by the next election, and believe it, they will figure something out. If theres one thing republicans are good at, its manipulating voters. They are the #1 marketing machine on the planet. The best part about their gimmicks is that republican rank and file not only never quite get the fact that they've been had, but the voters actually provide cover for the politicians and argue that its been a good outcome. We really are not very bright as a species, and yes, that includes me.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Looking under the Label
Scrat;1342087 wrote: GMC. The Tea Party movement is a red herring, it is not meant to be effective in changing the situation, most of the people associated with it are lunatics so no sane person pays much attention. It serves to discourage the normal people from participating.The Tea Party we see today doesn't remotely resemble the movement of just a couple of years ago.
gmc;1342090 wrote: You don;t know much about our history if you think that. Actually our history is a long bloody one of forcing the powers that be to concede power to the masses and getting rid of kings that believed in the divine right to rule and all that crap. Parliamentary democracy was our idea as were bicameral legislatures which you incidentally copied. Albeit that was by historical accident rather than design. We have a welfare state because it was demanded by the grass roots and the govt of the day did as told. Any party that doesn't support the concept can forget about staying in power. Every now and then we still reach up and grab the bastards by the balls. Government by the people for the people is a straight lift from english civil war political pamphlets - you know when they chopped off the head of a scottish king because he was too much of a papist and believed in the divine right of kings. not a good argument to put if you want to stay king. Time and again I forget that your history is different from the British, which is who I was really referring to. I apologize that we kind of habitually lump you all together.
gmc wrote: They always will, right from the word go they acted to keep the great unwashed from having any real say - stand in line with a musket just don't expect a vote. so you change the voting system to break their hold. Roll on proportional representation in our case. In yours i suggest you ban contributions from companies to political parties. Change the constitution if you have to.I've called for just that sort of action myself.
gmc wrote: I'm not an american remember. I find it interesting but not as fascinating as it would be if I were. But you can't have it all ways there are some things you need to have a government that can force people to comply with laws they don't like. one man's freedom to do as he likes can be another's misery.
[...]
I see where you're coming from, I think, what if that business was the only doctor or hospital in town? or the only bank or if it was a school funded by taxes paid by all? The hospital or bank could be handled on a case by case basis on the rare occasion that it might become necessary. There needn't be a blanket law covering everyone to address rare issues. Public schools funded by taxes are not private businesses so they would of course serve the public.
gmc;1342090 wrote: You don;t know much about our history if you think that. Actually our history is a long bloody one of forcing the powers that be to concede power to the masses and getting rid of kings that believed in the divine right to rule and all that crap. Parliamentary democracy was our idea as were bicameral legislatures which you incidentally copied. Albeit that was by historical accident rather than design. We have a welfare state because it was demanded by the grass roots and the govt of the day did as told. Any party that doesn't support the concept can forget about staying in power. Every now and then we still reach up and grab the bastards by the balls. Government by the people for the people is a straight lift from english civil war political pamphlets - you know when they chopped off the head of a scottish king because he was too much of a papist and believed in the divine right of kings. not a good argument to put if you want to stay king. Time and again I forget that your history is different from the British, which is who I was really referring to. I apologize that we kind of habitually lump you all together.
gmc wrote: They always will, right from the word go they acted to keep the great unwashed from having any real say - stand in line with a musket just don't expect a vote. so you change the voting system to break their hold. Roll on proportional representation in our case. In yours i suggest you ban contributions from companies to political parties. Change the constitution if you have to.I've called for just that sort of action myself.
gmc wrote: I'm not an american remember. I find it interesting but not as fascinating as it would be if I were. But you can't have it all ways there are some things you need to have a government that can force people to comply with laws they don't like. one man's freedom to do as he likes can be another's misery.
[...]
I see where you're coming from, I think, what if that business was the only doctor or hospital in town? or the only bank or if it was a school funded by taxes paid by all? The hospital or bank could be handled on a case by case basis on the rare occasion that it might become necessary. There needn't be a blanket law covering everyone to address rare issues. Public schools funded by taxes are not private businesses so they would of course serve the public.
Looking under the Label
posted by accountable
Time and again I forget that your history is different from the British, which is who I was really referring to. I apologize that we kind of habitually lump you all together.
For some reason I can't access smilies so assume I'm laughing. British is a generic term used for all on these islands the only ones with a claim to be descended from the original british inhabitants are the welsh, british/english are not synonymous but I shall refrain from drifting off topic.
I made the comment because like many americans you seem to think we live in some kind of socialist paradise where we all do what we are told and have no real say. It's not quite like that and your american revolution owes a very great deal to those in the UK who chopped off a kings head and made parliament sovereign which then shafted the ordinary people who made it possible, just as your first congress did the same thing in restricting then power of ordinary people by not introducing a universal one man one vote. My understanding is that the idea behind the electoral colleges was to contain the great unwashed in case they voted for the "wrong" candidates. Although it's years since I read about this kind of stuff so I make no claim to know what I am talking about.
The hospital or bank could be handled on a case by case basis on the rare occasion that it might become necessary. There needn't be a blanket law covering everyone to address rare issues. Public schools funded by taxes are not private businesses so they would of course serve the public.
Why do you prefer to have private hospitals rather than publicly owned ones available to all?
Time and again I forget that your history is different from the British, which is who I was really referring to. I apologize that we kind of habitually lump you all together.
For some reason I can't access smilies so assume I'm laughing. British is a generic term used for all on these islands the only ones with a claim to be descended from the original british inhabitants are the welsh, british/english are not synonymous but I shall refrain from drifting off topic.
I made the comment because like many americans you seem to think we live in some kind of socialist paradise where we all do what we are told and have no real say. It's not quite like that and your american revolution owes a very great deal to those in the UK who chopped off a kings head and made parliament sovereign which then shafted the ordinary people who made it possible, just as your first congress did the same thing in restricting then power of ordinary people by not introducing a universal one man one vote. My understanding is that the idea behind the electoral colleges was to contain the great unwashed in case they voted for the "wrong" candidates. Although it's years since I read about this kind of stuff so I make no claim to know what I am talking about.
The hospital or bank could be handled on a case by case basis on the rare occasion that it might become necessary. There needn't be a blanket law covering everyone to address rare issues. Public schools funded by taxes are not private businesses so they would of course serve the public.
Why do you prefer to have private hospitals rather than publicly owned ones available to all?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Looking under the Label
gmc;1342186 wrote: posted by accountable
For some reason I can't access smilies so assume I'm laughing. British is a generic term used for all on these islands the only ones with a claim to be descended from the original british inhabitants are the welsh, british/english are not synonymous but I shall refrain from drifting off topic.
I made the comment because like many americans you seem to think we live in some kind of socialist paradise where we all do what we are told and have no real say. It's not quite like that and your american revolution owes a very great deal to those in the UK who chopped off a kings head and made parliament sovereign which then shafted the ordinary people who made it possible, just as your first congress did the same thing in restricting then power of ordinary people by not introducing a universal one man one vote. My understanding is that the idea behind the electoral colleges was to contain the great unwashed in case they voted for the "wrong" candidates. Although it's years since I read about this kind of stuff so I make no claim to know what I am talking about. You're accurate. Now the parties are in control of it. Electors are "selected" based on the popular vote of that state, and are sworn to support their particular party. Bush wins, the republican set votes; Obama wins, the democrat set votes. A popular vote state-by-state makes much more sense to me. I'd vote for that amendment.
gmc wrote: Why do you prefer to have private hospitals rather than publicly owned ones available to all?I don't, necessarily. My beef is with the federal government working outside its constitutional bounds, especially when it does so at the neglect of its actual constitutional responsibilities. We still have no constitutionally mandated budget proposal, for instance. If our federal gov't were stripped down to its constitutional core, we'd have no national fiscal problem.
I might entertain the idea of a Texas health system. At least I'd be willing to have that conversation. I don't mind at all that Massachusetts has their own, and wouldn't care if California went full-on communist. I just don't see why the gov't should be taking care of people who can take care of themselves. It doesn't make sense to me.
For some reason I can't access smilies so assume I'm laughing. British is a generic term used for all on these islands the only ones with a claim to be descended from the original british inhabitants are the welsh, british/english are not synonymous but I shall refrain from drifting off topic.
I made the comment because like many americans you seem to think we live in some kind of socialist paradise where we all do what we are told and have no real say. It's not quite like that and your american revolution owes a very great deal to those in the UK who chopped off a kings head and made parliament sovereign which then shafted the ordinary people who made it possible, just as your first congress did the same thing in restricting then power of ordinary people by not introducing a universal one man one vote. My understanding is that the idea behind the electoral colleges was to contain the great unwashed in case they voted for the "wrong" candidates. Although it's years since I read about this kind of stuff so I make no claim to know what I am talking about. You're accurate. Now the parties are in control of it. Electors are "selected" based on the popular vote of that state, and are sworn to support their particular party. Bush wins, the republican set votes; Obama wins, the democrat set votes. A popular vote state-by-state makes much more sense to me. I'd vote for that amendment.
gmc wrote: Why do you prefer to have private hospitals rather than publicly owned ones available to all?I don't, necessarily. My beef is with the federal government working outside its constitutional bounds, especially when it does so at the neglect of its actual constitutional responsibilities. We still have no constitutionally mandated budget proposal, for instance. If our federal gov't were stripped down to its constitutional core, we'd have no national fiscal problem.
I might entertain the idea of a Texas health system. At least I'd be willing to have that conversation. I don't mind at all that Massachusetts has their own, and wouldn't care if California went full-on communist. I just don't see why the gov't should be taking care of people who can take care of themselves. It doesn't make sense to me.
Looking under the Label
posted by accountable
You're accurate. Now the parties are in control of it. Electors are "selected" based on the popular vote of that state, and are sworn to support their particular party. Bush wins, the republican set votes; Obama wins, the democrat set votes. A popular vote state-by-state makes much more sense to me. I'd vote for that amendment.
So how do you get back control? Is the corporate side of it not relatively recent? I thought there were moves afoot to ban companies being allowed to contribute - incidentally we have the same kind of problem. Our first past the post system needs reform as well. maybe a coalition government might be able to fix it.
You're accurate. Now the parties are in control of it. Electors are "selected" based on the popular vote of that state, and are sworn to support their particular party. Bush wins, the republican set votes; Obama wins, the democrat set votes. A popular vote state-by-state makes much more sense to me. I'd vote for that amendment.
So how do you get back control? Is the corporate side of it not relatively recent? I thought there were moves afoot to ban companies being allowed to contribute - incidentally we have the same kind of problem. Our first past the post system needs reform as well. maybe a coalition government might be able to fix it.
Looking under the Label
Accountable;1342196 wrote: I don't, necessarily. My beef is with the federal government working outside its constitutional bounds, especially when it does so at the neglect of its actual constitutional responsibilities. We still have no constitutionally mandated budget proposal, for instance. If our federal gov't were stripped down to its constitutional core, we'd have no national fiscal problem.
I just don't see how healthcare violates the Constitution. What's clearly allowed is taxation for the general welfare and taxation for defense. Healthcare falls under both from my perspective. The only restriction there is that the taxation must be uniform across the states. Ben Nelson was the only guy I recall who proposed something possibly unconstitional, in trying to get a special deal for his state. And this special treatment was taken out by amendment I thought?
Accountable;1342196 wrote:
I just don't see why the gov't should be taking care of people who can take care of themselves. It doesn't make sense to me.
From my perspective, we are the government, or should be. So saying the government shouldn't take care of people who take care of themselves is hard to parse:
The people shouldn't take care of the people who take care of themselves?
By the identity relation, people necessarily always take care of the people that take care of themselves.
IMO the problem isn't "the government" but the line of seperation between the government and the people. It's a conslidation of power that was grabbed on the pretense of protecting ourselves from ourselves.
I just don't see how healthcare violates the Constitution. What's clearly allowed is taxation for the general welfare and taxation for defense. Healthcare falls under both from my perspective. The only restriction there is that the taxation must be uniform across the states. Ben Nelson was the only guy I recall who proposed something possibly unconstitional, in trying to get a special deal for his state. And this special treatment was taken out by amendment I thought?
Accountable;1342196 wrote:
I just don't see why the gov't should be taking care of people who can take care of themselves. It doesn't make sense to me.
From my perspective, we are the government, or should be. So saying the government shouldn't take care of people who take care of themselves is hard to parse:
The people shouldn't take care of the people who take care of themselves?
By the identity relation, people necessarily always take care of the people that take care of themselves.
IMO the problem isn't "the government" but the line of seperation between the government and the people. It's a conslidation of power that was grabbed on the pretense of protecting ourselves from ourselves.
Looking under the Label
The people shouldn't take care of the people who take care of themselves?
If you're ill then you cannot take care of yourself surely? The point about universal healthcare is that everybody pays for it so it is there as and when they need it, you're not just paying for someone who won't pay their own you are pre-paying yours. My understanding is that of you lose your job through ill health you can also lose your employer funded healthcare. that just seems silly and why should an employer pay for it anyway? In a capitalist economy looking after the eklfare of the workers is just eminent good sense.
What's clearly allowed is taxation for the general welfare and taxation for defense.
How come nobody calls for cuts in defence spending? bring home all the troops in europe at least we can shift for ourselves. The UK and france have just signed an alliance - if germany and russia sign one watch out, look what happened the last time they did that.
If you're ill then you cannot take care of yourself surely? The point about universal healthcare is that everybody pays for it so it is there as and when they need it, you're not just paying for someone who won't pay their own you are pre-paying yours. My understanding is that of you lose your job through ill health you can also lose your employer funded healthcare. that just seems silly and why should an employer pay for it anyway? In a capitalist economy looking after the eklfare of the workers is just eminent good sense.
What's clearly allowed is taxation for the general welfare and taxation for defense.
How come nobody calls for cuts in defence spending? bring home all the troops in europe at least we can shift for ourselves. The UK and france have just signed an alliance - if germany and russia sign one watch out, look what happened the last time they did that.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Looking under the Label
yaaarrrgg;1342207 wrote: I just don't see how healthcare violates the Constitution. What's clearly allowed is taxation for the general welfare and taxation for defense. Healthcare falls under both from my perspective. The only restriction there is that the taxation must be uniform across the states. Ben Nelson was the only guy I recall who proposed something possibly unconstitional, in trying to get a special deal for his state. And this special treatment was taken out by amendment I thought?Managing the individualized health regimen of every citizen is hardly what I would term "general". It's about as specific as you can get.
yaaarrrgg;1342207 wrote: From my perspective, we are the government, or should be. So saying the government shouldn't take care of people who take care of themselves is hard to parse:
The people shouldn't take care of the people who take care of themselves?
By the identity relation, people necessarily always take care of the people that take care of themselves. Then try distinguishing the individual from the group, such as: The collective shouldn't take care of the individuals who can take care of themselves.
yaaarrrgg wrote: IMO the problem isn't "the government" but the line of seperation between the government and the people. It's a conslidation of power that was grabbed on the pretense of protecting ourselves from ourselves.Okay, I can't put this statement on the same plate with supporting gov't run healthcare. A little help, please?
yaaarrrgg;1342207 wrote: From my perspective, we are the government, or should be. So saying the government shouldn't take care of people who take care of themselves is hard to parse:
The people shouldn't take care of the people who take care of themselves?
By the identity relation, people necessarily always take care of the people that take care of themselves.
Then try distinguishing the individual from the group, such as: The collective shouldn't take care of the individuals who can take care of themselves. yaaarrrgg wrote: IMO the problem isn't "the government" but the line of seperation between the government and the people. It's a conslidation of power that was grabbed on the pretense of protecting ourselves from ourselves.Okay, I can't put this statement on the same plate with supporting gov't run healthcare. A little help, please?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Looking under the Label
QUOTE=gmc;1342209]If you're ill then you cannot take care of yourself surely? I meant take care of yourself financially, as in paying your own way.
The point about universal healthcare is that everybody pays for it so it is there as and when they need it, you're not just paying for someone who won't pay their own you are pre-paying yours.Mandated by the gov't with the gov't decision on what gets treated when. If I don't want it, I still have to pay and pay again for what I want. No thanks.
My understanding is that of you lose your job through ill health you can also lose your employer funded healthcare. that just seems silly and why should an employer pay for it anyway? I agree. Employers offer healthcare to tie employees to them. Since the money's coming from a corporation instead of a person with a severely limited budget, insurance companies happily support the arrangement and jack up their prices. Some of the extra profits were used to bribe, erm, lobby politicians to mandate such coverage.
In a capitalist economy looking after the eklfare of the workers is just eminent good sense.This statement stands in direct contrast with your previous one.
gmc;1342209 wrote: How come nobody calls for cuts in defence spending? bring home all the troops in europe at least we can shift for ourselves. The UK and france have just signed an alliance - if germany and russia sign one watch out, look what happened the last time they did that.We could cut our defense spending by half, even 75%, and still have ample defense for our nation. Our military has become little more than an expensive jobs program. Imagine the unemployment rate if half our troops were suddenly cut loose.
The point about universal healthcare is that everybody pays for it so it is there as and when they need it, you're not just paying for someone who won't pay their own you are pre-paying yours.Mandated by the gov't with the gov't decision on what gets treated when. If I don't want it, I still have to pay and pay again for what I want. No thanks.
My understanding is that of you lose your job through ill health you can also lose your employer funded healthcare. that just seems silly and why should an employer pay for it anyway? I agree. Employers offer healthcare to tie employees to them. Since the money's coming from a corporation instead of a person with a severely limited budget, insurance companies happily support the arrangement and jack up their prices. Some of the extra profits were used to bribe, erm, lobby politicians to mandate such coverage.
In a capitalist economy looking after the eklfare of the workers is just eminent good sense.This statement stands in direct contrast with your previous one.
gmc;1342209 wrote: How come nobody calls for cuts in defence spending? bring home all the troops in europe at least we can shift for ourselves. The UK and france have just signed an alliance - if germany and russia sign one watch out, look what happened the last time they did that.We could cut our defense spending by half, even 75%, and still have ample defense for our nation. Our military has become little more than an expensive jobs program. Imagine the unemployment rate if half our troops were suddenly cut loose.
Looking under the Label
Accountable;1342323 wrote: Then try distinguishing the individual from the group, such as: The collective shouldn't take care of the individuals who can take care of themselves.
That's a valid point --I see where you are coming from. Here's my point of view: when someone is sick, they are almost always taken care of by someone else in the group. A surgeon doesn't do his own surgery when he has a heart attack. They don't produce their own medicine in a test tube, mining raw materials out of the ground. You can only take care of yourself when you are well. So in healthcare it's hard to reduce the function of a group to a collection of self-sufficient individuals on anything other than an abstract level.
Accountable;1342323 wrote: Okay, I can't put this statement on the same plate with supporting gov't run healthcare. A little help, please?
When you hear "government" you hear "them." I hear "we." IMO what needs to happen is we have more direct control over the allocation of the resources. I'd like to have more of a vote on these issues. Not delegating everything to an elected lobbyist or corporate CEO.
That's a valid point --I see where you are coming from. Here's my point of view: when someone is sick, they are almost always taken care of by someone else in the group. A surgeon doesn't do his own surgery when he has a heart attack. They don't produce their own medicine in a test tube, mining raw materials out of the ground. You can only take care of yourself when you are well. So in healthcare it's hard to reduce the function of a group to a collection of self-sufficient individuals on anything other than an abstract level.
Accountable;1342323 wrote: Okay, I can't put this statement on the same plate with supporting gov't run healthcare. A little help, please?
When you hear "government" you hear "them." I hear "we." IMO what needs to happen is we have more direct control over the allocation of the resources. I'd like to have more of a vote on these issues. Not delegating everything to an elected lobbyist or corporate CEO.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Looking under the Label
I'm guessing you mean unelected lobbyist, in which case I agree. I'd love to know who cranked out those thousands of pages of who knows what, that we call the healthcare bill, stimulus bill, etc, in weeks or even days. I mean, give the real authors credit for a good job or expose the sponsor for the lobbyist hack if that's true. If I had my way, omnibus bills would be a thing of the past. One law at a time, thankyouverymuch, and one of the first clauses in that bill must show a direct link to that portion of the Constitution it supports.