# The march toward socialism continues to grow...



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

https://www.nwanews.com/adg/Editorial/186251/

David Brooks column...

"Security leads to freedom" Sounds like something the Soviets would have dreamed up.

But apparently this is what the people want.

From the column:

"Polls show voters prefer Democratic economic policies by 14 points, Democratic tax policies by 15 points, Democratic health care policies by 24 points, and Democratic energy policies by 20 points. If this is a country that wants to return to Barry Goldwater, it is showing it by supporting the policies of Dick Durbin.

The sad thing is that President Bush sensed this shift in public consciousness back in 1999. Compassionate conservatism was an attempt to move beyond the liberty vs. power paradigm. But because it was never fleshed out and because the congressional GOP rejected the implant, a new Republican governing philosophy did not emerge."


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Bush is responsible for what will probably be a Democrat takeover in 2008.

Maybe the next time Republicans have some power, they will use it more responsibly.

Democrat taxation will not be good for us, probably.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Bush is responsible for what will probably be a Democrat takeover in 2008.
> 
> Maybe the next time Republicans have some power, they will use it more responsibly.
> 
> Democrat taxation will not be good for us, probably.


If our choices are limited to borrow-and-spend or tax-and-spend, I think most Americans will prefer to pay their own bills rather than plunge their kids and grandkids into debt.

And as big a critic as I am of Bush, he's only one symptom or result of the problem, not the cause. The Republican Party brought electoral catastrophe upon themselves.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> If our choices are limited to borrow-and-spend or tax-and-spend, I think most Americans will prefer to pay their own bills rather than plunge their kids and grandkids into debt.


What most Americans prefer is to tax someone else so they can spend their money as they see fit. Otherwise they are fine spending their kids and grandkids money, that is what Social Security and Medicare is all about.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> If our choices are limited to borrow-and-spend or tax-and-spend, I think most Americans will prefer to pay their own bills rather than plunge their kids and grandkids into debt.
> 
> .


Pay their own bills? That is quite funny!

Why can't I have the chance to invest my social security dollars!???

That's right, they're not mine, they're going to your generation. The Boomers "earned" them paying for a small WWII generation.

Why do people want socialized medicine, if they want to pay their own bills? God forbid you would have a co-pay of more than $10.

Bush besides tax cuts has pretty much stunk economically, but you think Hillary or your man Obama will create more responsibilty among the American people. HA-HA!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

JRR said:


> Pay their own bills? That is quite funny!
> 
> Why can't I have the chance to invest my social security dollars!???
> 
> ...


The only president in the last 30 years who took on the Sacred Cow of Defense and managed to shrink the size of our federal government in real terms was Bill Clinton, and he's still blamed to this day for it -- by Republicans.

This is not about "socialism", but simply about priorities. Republicans have squandered over a trillion dollars on a fake war while claiming Social Security is going bankrupt. They spout off about the stock market while 55% of American families are living from paycheck to paycheck. They spout off about low unemployment while we have the greatest income disparity since the Great Depression. They "reformed" our bankruptcy law while forgiving $100+ billion in debts from foreign countries. They reward U.S. corporations for exporting as many quality jobs as possible. Etc etc.

Then they turn around and wonder why the American people are dissatisfied.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> The only president in the last 30 years who took on the *Sacred Cow of Defense* and managed to shrink the size of our federal government in real terms was Bill Clinton, and he's still blamed to this day for it -- by Republicans.


Yeah, the whole "national security" canard right? Who needs all those tanks, carriers and high tech fighters? You're right Frank, I think we should scrap the DoD and invest the money instead in New Orleans.



> They spout off about the stock market while 55% of American families are living from paycheck to paycheck.


When haven't there been people living this way? Why don't you talk about home ownership being at record levels?



> They spout off about low unemployment while we have the greatest income disparity since the Great Depression.


How are you doing? Ok? I'm sure you are. This nonsensical focus on "disparity" when what really matters is quality of life. I think I do pretty well but compared to Bill Gates? Should I bemoan the fact that I'll never have that kind of money. You want economic disparity go to Mexico or South America or Africa.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> The only president in the last 30 years who took on the Sacred Cow of Defense and managed to shrink the size of our federal government in real terms was Bill Clinton, and he's still blamed to this day for it -- by Republicans.
> 
> This is not about "socialism", but simply about priorities. Republicans have squandered over a trillion dollars on a fake war while claiming Social Security is going bankrupt. They spout off about the stock market while 55% of American families are living from paycheck to paycheck. They spout off about low unemployment while we have the greatest income disparity since the Great Depression. They "reformed" our bankruptcy law while forgiving $100+ billion in debts from foreign countries. They reward U.S. corporations for exporting as many quality jobs as possible. Etc etc.
> 
> Then they turn around and wonder why the American people are dissatisfied.


Frank, you try and make noises that you are not an ideologue but the things you present show that really, you are not much more than a Bush Basher. To praise Clinton for what he did to the military? I bet you "blame" Bush for 9/11 too.

What you leave out is very telling. Such as Bush attempted to make some real SS changes. That was his third rail, just like it has been for anyone else that has tried. And "they" (I assume you mean Bush here) do not reward US corporations for "exporting" "quality jobs". The US consumer does that.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> The only president in the last 30 years who took on the Sacred Cow of Defense and managed to shrink the size of our federal government in real terms was Bill Clinton, and he's still blamed to this day for it -- by Republicans.
> 
> This is not about "socialism", but simply about priorities. Republicans have squandered over a trillion dollars on a fake war while claiming Social Security is going bankrupt. They spout off about the stock market while 55% of American families are living from paycheck to paycheck. They spout off about low unemployment while we have the greatest income disparity since the Great Depression. They "reformed" our bankruptcy law while forgiving $100+ billion in debts from foreign countries. They reward U.S. corporations for exporting as many quality jobs as possible. Etc etc.
> 
> Then they turn around and wonder why the American people are dissatisfied.


Right you are.

Apparently all the mindless crap that passes for bread and circuses wasn't sufficient to keep enough people from recognising what's going on out there. Bush had a good run though, from an information control/marketing perspective anyway. Too bad about that reality thing. Sooner or later people are going to open the tin and wonder why what's inside bears little resemblance to what they were sold by the nice gentleman in the suit.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Frank, you try and make noises that you are not an ideologue but the things you present show that really, you are not much more than a Bush Basher. To praise Clinton for what he did to the military? I bet you "blame" Bush for 9/11 too.


I blame Bush for making a political career out of it.



Wayfarer said:


> What you leave out is very telling. Such as Bush attempted to make some real SS changes. That was his third rail, just like it has been for anyone else that has tried. And "they" (I assume you mean Bush here) do not reward US corporations for "exporting" "quality jobs". The US consumer does that.


Hogwash. Federal corporate income tax policy rewards corporations for exporting jobs. In fact we're the only major industrialized country to do so. In 1986 Congress proposed changes to the tax code which would have taxed income from foreign production and eliminated (or at least substantially reduced) economic incentive for U.S. corporations to export jobs. The proposal was dropped at the insistence of Ronald Reagan, and the exodus of manufacturing and other quality jobs began shortly thereafter.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Federal corporate income tax policy rewards corporations for exporting jobs. In fact we're the only major industrialized country to do so. *In 1986 Congress proposed changes to the tax code which would have taxed income from foreign production* and eliminated (or at least substantially reduced) economic incentive for U.S. corporations to export jobs. The proposal was dropped at the insistence of Ronald Reagan, and the exodus of manufacturing and other quality jobs began shortly thereafter.


So you are stating that a US company pays no tax on income from goods produced abroad? And how you are blaming Dubya in your rant for something you know ascribe to Reagan in 1986 is rather beyond me...but then again I do not seem to function at your level :icon_smile_big:

And you are stating this alleged tax code is the reason manufacturing jobs are leaving the US? Bloody brilliant!


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> The only president in the last 30 years who took on the Sacred Cow of Defense and managed to shrink the size of our federal government in real terms was Bill Clinton, and he's still blamed to this day for it -- by Republicans.
> 
> This is not about "socialism", but simply about priorities. Republicans have squandered over a trillion dollars on a fake war while claiming Social Security is going bankrupt. They spout off about the stock market while 55% of American families are living from paycheck to paycheck. They spout off about low unemployment while we have the greatest income disparity since the Great Depression. They "reformed" our bankruptcy law while forgiving $100+ billion in debts from foreign countries. They reward U.S. corporations for exporting as many quality jobs as possible. Etc etc.
> 
> Then they turn around and wonder why the American people are dissatisfied.


Re Clinton:

You are correct. We should cut defense, would greatly cut down on the budget. However, Republicans are just sucking up to their lobbyists, just like the Dems do with unions.

Re Social Security:

How is that Social Sec is going to run out of money in 2041 not going bankrupt. You might be dead then since you are a Boomer, but I plan on being alive, and would like to receive my benefits, or better my portfolio growth of a conservatively mixed portfolio of large cap stocks and bonds.

Re Income Disparity:

Why are people living paycheck to paycheck? Big screen TVs, stupid cell phones and other entertainment tech, buying cars every few years etc. If you aren't middle class, don't spend like you're rich. Take some responsibility.

As to income disparity and the Great Depression, it wasn't the income disparity that caused the pain in the GD. It was the lack of employment. What is unemployment now 5%? Not exactly Depression era levels.

Re Globalism:

Global economy, deal with it. Not the 50s any more. Go to school, get an education. Can't pull down middle class income working in factory? I'm supposed to care? I have two degrees and make less than some union workers. Or go into education, one of the last union strongholds.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Right you are.
> 
> Apparently all the mindless crap that passes for bread and circuses wasn't sufficient to keep enough people from recognising what's going on out there. Bush had a good run though, from an information control/marketing perspective anyway. Too bad about that reality thing. Sooner or later people are going to open the tin and wonder why what's inside bears little resemblance to what they were sold by the nice gentleman in the suit.


Bertie,

What's the option then? If the Democrats get the presidency and Congress, what will change. The only gurantees I can predict are higher taxes and bigger social programs. You say you are a fiscal conservative and this is progress?


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I blame Bush for making a political career out of it.
> 
> Hogwash. Federal corporate income tax policy rewards corporations for exporting jobs. In fact we're the only major industrialized country to do so. In 1986 Congress proposed changes to the tax code which would have taxed income from foreign production and eliminated (or at least substantially reduced) economic incentive for U.S. corporations to export jobs. The proposal was dropped at the insistence of Ronald Reagan, and the exodus of manufacturing and other quality jobs began shortly thereafter.


Reagan was president in the 70s when the Steel industry started to crack?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_Steel

The trends against high labor cost American based manufacturing started long before Reagan.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

JRR said:


> Reagan was president in the 70s when the Steel industry started to crack?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_Steel
> 
> The trends against high labor cost American based manufacturing started long before Reagan.


True, but the exodus began in earnest post-Reagan, e.g. states like Ohio and Pennsylvania have lost 30+% of their mfg jobs just since 2000.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

JRR said:


> Bertie,
> 
> What's the option then? If the Democrats get the presidency and Congress, what will change. The only gurantees I can predict are higher taxes and bigger social programs. You say you are a fiscal conservative and this is progress?


JRR, I wish I knew the answer. Although I think your question may be pointing us toward one possible clue: The two party system seems to have failed us. Or else the people who run for office in that system, and that we elect, are congenitally deficient in ways ruinous to the commonwealth. Actually, we might also start getting better candidates if we all pushed for substance rather than appearance. Our candidates too often are creatures of the camera, and I suspect some of us fancy them better that way. But until we're ready to forego the soundbite and demand more real answers from our representatives, we are likely to get only more of the same. Of course the elephant in the room is fundraising and special interest groups that may lobby in ways favourable to narrow parts of the community, but which may not particularly benefit most of us. I think we need to decide if we want to take a hard look at how campaigns are run in this country, and how they might be run differently/better.

Personally, I am not in favour of lots of taxes and I think too much money is constantly wasted by government (and plenty of companies too for that matter). But at this point I suspect a lot of people (and the polls seem to indicate this) are ready to vote for a (bloodless) tax and spend administration versus one that cuts our taxes but spends $6 billion a month on a war that many believe is a tragic failure, and an elective one at that.

For our collective sakes, I hope we can do better in the years to come. Really, we all stand to gain or lose together. Most of us anyway.

Cheers.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Could someone provide references/explanations to Frank's assertions re: the tax code? The steel industry has been mentioned and to my knowledge the tax code was an issue there, but it was in the notion of amortization tables for the capital intensive industry, not tax breaks for having workers abroad. If someone could delve into the paraphrased concept he put forth, "no tax for workers in foriegn countries" I would appreciate it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> True, but the exodus began in earnest post-Reagan, e.g. states like Ohio and Pennsylvania have lost 30+% of their mfg jobs just since 2000.


Do you have a citation or two to back up this figure?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Could someone provide references/explanations to Frank's assertions re: the tax code? The steel industry has been mentioned and to my knowledge the tax code was an issue there, but it was in the notion of amortization tables for the capital intensive industry, not tax breaks for having workers abroad. If someone could delve into the paraphrased concept he put forth, "*no tax for workers in foriegn countries*" I would appreciate it.


That's not what I said.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> That's not what I said.


Of course it is not. That is why I clearly stated it was a paraphrase. Please re-read my post. To be clearer, here is what you said:



FrankDC said:


> In 1986 Congress proposed changes to the tax code which would have taxed income from foreign production


"Would have taxed..." meaning the situation at that time was it was not taxed. You stated the change was not made, ergo one is left to believe the situation at that time is still in place, namely a corporation is not taxed on "foreign production". I am merely asking to be educated here with some proof. This very well could be the case, that a US corporation is not taxed on foreign production, I just want it confirmed and explained how this is. Here is your chance Francis, convince me!


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> The only president in the last 30 years who took on the Sacred Cow of Defense and managed to shrink the size of our federal government in real terms was Bill Clinton, and he's still blamed to this day for it -- by Republicans.


Through the Cold War, our total military size never dropped below 2 million troops. With the post-Cold War cuts, we're down to 1.4 million, where it stabilized. We went from 18 divisions to 10. Bush couldn't 'send enough troops to do the job' because of Clinton's military cuts. Our 'old Army' could have twice the boots on the ground as we do now. We're better at killing people and breaking things than we were 15 years ago, but those skills aren't helping us stabilize a country.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Bush is responsible for what will probably be a Democrat takeover in 2008.
> 
> Maybe the next time Republicans have some power, they will use it more responsibly


But _Bush the Dumber_, and his father _Bush the Dumb_ are really Democrats in disguise. They are the Liberal Northeatern Yankee Blueblood Patrician wing of the Republican party, which we thought was defunct, now masquerading as Conservatives.



FrankDC said:


> ...Bush, he's only one symptom or result of the problem, not the cause. The Republican Party brought electoral catastrophe upon themselves.


This is true. He is a sympton of the Democratic party. The Bushes should have left the party with the Rockefellars.



Wayfarer said:


> What most Americans prefer is to tax someone else so they can spend their money as they see fit. Otherwise they are fine spending their kids and grandkids money, that is what Social Security and Medicare is all about.


You are correct. I'd like to opt out of Social Security right now. They can keep what they have taken from me in exchange for not taking anymore from me, and for not having to pay me for anything when I retire. Same with any of the medical programs. I would like to be a free agent.

Give me liberty or give me debt! :icon_smile_big:

Cheers,

M8


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

crazyquik said:


> Through the Cold War, our total military size never dropped below 2 million troops. With the post-Cold War cuts, we're down to 1.4 million, where it stabilized. We went from 18 divisions to 10. Bush couldn't 'send enough troops to do the job' because of Clinton's military cuts. Our 'old Army' could have twice the boots on the ground as we do now. We're better at killing people and breaking things than we were 15 years ago, but those skills aren't helping us stabilize a country.


We flushed the lives of 54,000+ of our kids down the toilet in Korea, and another 58,000+ in Vietnam, and it didn't make a damned bit of difference. And the best you can do is blame Bill Clinton for our failure in Iraq. Just pathetic.

We could send another quarter million troops into Iraq and we still wouldn't win the "war", i.e. the hearts of the people. You just don't understand, do you?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

So you think the sacrifices we made in Korea were not worth it. The citizens of a prosperous and democratic South Korea would be thrilled to hear that a certain Francis feels they would have been better off under a North Korean style state.

I doubt you can stop ____________________. If you choose to remain the latter then be so kind as to stop posting here.

Karl


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> We *flushed* the lives of 54,000+ of our kids *down the toilet* in Korea, and another 58,000+ in Vietnam, and it *didn't make a damned bit of difference*. And the best you can do is blame Bill Clinton for our failure in Iraq. Just pathetic.
> 
> We could send another quarter million troops into Iraq and we still wouldn't win the "war", i.e. the hearts of the people. You just don't understand, do you?


Whatever your politics or your view on our military involvements I think to refer to the sacrifice of soldiers, sailor, marines and airmen as nothing more than a wad of soiled toilet paper being flushed says quite a bit about your character and more so how you view those in the military.

As to making a difference, its very easy to say that when the alternative will never be known to us. Cheap rhetoric is easy but I'm going to do my part to hold you to account. So please explain what *difference* failed to occur?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Whatever your politics or your view on our military involvements I think to refer to the sacrifice of soldiers, sailor, marines and airmen as nothing more than a wad of soiled toilet paper being flushed says quite a bit about your character and more so how you view those in the military.
> 
> As to making a difference, its very easy to say that when the alternative will never be known to us. Cheap rhetoric is easy but I'm going to do my part to hold you to account. So please explain what *difference* failed to occur?


The sacrifice of our armed forces is precisely WHY I take issue with the military adventurism and Executive Branch genital waving that's occurred since the end of WWII. Eisenhower explained it better than I ever could:

"We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

As to your other question, the facts require no further comment: Vietnam is still a Communist country. Korea is still in an official state of civil war -- FIFTY YEARS LATER. And Iraq?


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

It's pretty obvious to anyone who's not a Marxist lap dog that North and South Korea have taken drastically different paths in the last 50 years. One is one of the worst places in the world to live, the other is the third largest economy in Asia and 11th in the world. Not to mention that our actions in the Korean war _did_ stop the spread of Stalinism in that region.

If military adverturism to stop the spread of Stalin & Mao's brand of totalitarianism, 'reeducation' camps, and state-controlled famines isn't worth it, then what is? I guess we shouldn't have stopped Hitler either?

But yeah, it was all a worthless waste.

Incheon Memorial


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Hogwash. Federal corporate income tax policy rewards corporations for exporting jobs. In fact we're the only major industrialized country to do so. In 1986 Congress proposed changes to the tax code which would have taxed income from foreign production and eliminated (or at least substantially reduced) economic incentive for U.S. corporations to export jobs. The proposal was dropped at the insistence of Ronald Reagan, and the exodus of manufacturing and other quality jobs began shortly thereafter.


I'm glad to see a Democrat actually admit that incentives in tax policy actually do modify the behavior of corporations. It's a nice change from the rhetoric that corporations (and the wealthy) will continue their current course despite increased tax rates.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

*Stock buybacks*



hopkins_student said:


> I'm glad to see a Democrat actually admit that incentives in tax policy actually do modify the behavior of corporations. It's a nice change from the rhetoric that corporations (and the wealthy) will continue their current course despite increased tax rates.


...

"Researchers at the Federal Reserve have found evidence that company decisions about stock buybacks are strongly influenced by "agency conflicts," a genteel term for self-dealing by corporate insiders. In the 1990s that kind of self-dealing often led to excessive investment, which at least left a tangible legacy behind. But today the self-interest of management may be standing in the way of productive investment.

Whatever the reasons, we now have an economy with incredibly high profits and surprisingly low investment. This raises some immediate, short-run concerns: with housing still in free fall and consumers ever more stretched, optimistic projections for the economy depend on vigorous growth in business investment. And that doesn't seem to be happening.

...

In any case, next time someone tells you that any action that might reduce corporate profits a bit - like actually enforcing health and safety regulations or making it easier for workers to organize - will reduce business investment, bear in mind that today's record profits aren't being invested. Instead, they're being used to enrich executives and a few lucky stock owners.

Another Economic Disconnect
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 30, 2007


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> I wish I knew the answer


A lot of people know the answer. People have been shouting the answer from the rooftops for a couple of hundred years. All you have to do to know the answer is listen.

Even FrankDC (inadvertently?) mentioned the answer early on in this very thread:



> most Americans will prefer to pay their own bills


Just pay your own bills.

In other words, a voluntary economy.

No medical socialism. No retirement fund socialism. No steel mill socialism.

Pay your own bills.

Thanks, FrankDC!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

There is a myth we lost in Vietnam. The entire strategic 'domino theory' postulated if it fell all of SE Asia would follow. Well, we lost Indochina true. But the communist bloc was just as spent as we were. Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore,Burma today are a mixed bag from repressive dictatorships to Democracies. But they are not communist. Reality is a decadent system giving lip service to a compassionate german philospher has failed. There are vestigal regimes hanging on as have older states from earlier empires. The question we should concern ourselves with is, did we win, or merely not lose as badly? And if either, what must we do to transend the shortcomings of the past so we may win outright, or not lose quite as badly as before? Bush, Clinton and the whole Washington chorus are all singing a very old Greek play behind masks, the roles interchangable, the song the same.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

pt4u67 said:


> Yeah, the whole "national security" canard right? Who needs all those tanks, carriers and high tech fighters? You're right Frank, I think we should scrap the DoD and invest the money instead in New Orleans.
> 
> I cannot believe this heartless response! How would you like it if you lived in New Orleans? It is not about scrapping the DoD anyway.
> 
> ...


Concern about income disparity is not nonsense! Your example is a red herring. All the studies show that once you get an income disparity of about 100 fold between the average income of the top earners and the average income of the bottom earners you get social unrest. It is to do with the disenfranchisment of the poor and not to do with whether the poor can afford bread.

There is a lot of right wing crap being written on this thread - what is wrong with paying taxes. Am I my brother's keeper - damn right I am!! You all benefit and I bet not one of you is rich enought to pay your own way. A study was done in teh UK of four rich families who thought like you guys. A man from the Prudential Insurance Company went to visit them becaue they thought we should all pay for our own health care, schooling for our kids, and provide for ourselves in case of unemployment. It would have cost them all more than they earned every month and these families were very high earners. The message is WE NEED EACH OTHER

I certainly wouldn't call the Democrats socialists either - that is an extreme assessment of their politics.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Paul Krugman hath spoken. End of discussion!


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Leather man said:


> I certainly wouldn't call the Democrats socialists either - that is an extreme assessment of their politics.


I'd say it's an assessment of their extreme politics.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Leather man said:


> Concern about income disparity is not nonsense! Your example is a red herring. All the studies show that once you get an income disparity of about 100 fold between the average income of the top earners and the average income of the bottom earners you get social unrest. It is to do with the disenfranchisment of the poor and not to do with whether the poor can afford bread.
> 
> There is a lot of right wing crap being written on this thread - what is wrong with paying taxes. Am I my brother's keeper - damn right I am!! You all benefit and I bet not one of you is rich enought to pay your own way. A study was done in teh UK of four rich families who thought like you guys. A man from the Prudential Insurance Company went to visit them becaue they thought we should all pay for our own health care, schooling for our kids, and provide for ourselves in case of unemployment. It would have cost them all more than they earned every month and these families were very high earners. The message is WE NEED EACH OTHER
> 
> I certainly wouldn't call the Democrats socialists either - that is an extreme assessment of their politics.


Has there ever not been economic disparity. The question is one of justice; does one have what he needs and the answer is yes. Food, water, shelter and companionship and everything else is gravy. Look around those who are "poor" and you will see property ownership, creature comforts such as cell phones, well running automobiles and time for leisure/recreational pursuits. Just because I make more than someone else or someone higher up the income food chain makes "a 100 times more" than me is not a recipe for social unrest. Just because someone lusts after material possessions one cannot afford does not justify falling back on the economic disparity argument; it is a sign of a culture of materialism.

The key also is that here there is an opportunity to achieve that type of success. All the avenues are open to each of us. We may not all get to be like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet but with sweat equity we can achieve much, if not for ourselves than for the next generation.

As for needing each other, you're right we do. However higher taxes is not always the answer. Sure we should be taxed but to use the tax code as a weapon of "social justice" is crap and leads to class warfare. The top 10% of income earners in this country already pay a disproportionate amount of the collected income tax in this country. As for the UK, well this is not the UK. We need each other but government is not the answer. We engage in charitable giving, service consisting of material goods as well as time and effort.

If we depend on government to provide then those being provided for become socially crippled. Do you want an example; just look at the failed experiment with public housing. A monument to the stupidity of socialism as it created generations of concentrated poverty and a veritable ghetto in the inner cities where drug use and crime ran rampant. Why? Because those who came to depend on public housing took no care to preserve that which they did not own.

You speak of needing one another, then how about the capitalist who opens a business and affords someone the opportunity for honest work and a means for providing for his/her family. Within a generation or two the descendants of that worker will rise to fill positions of power in our culture, provided they work and put forth the effort. The rewards beget greater effort and the cycle continues. Or one can choose to ignore that choice and opt for an easier route. Either way it is a decision that is made freely.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Leather man said:


> A study was done in teh UK of four rich families who thought like you guys. A man from the Prudential Insurance Company went to visit them becaue they thought we should all pay for our own health care, schooling for our kids, and provide for ourselves in case of unemployment. It would have cost them all more than they earned every month and these families were very high earners.


LM,

I ALREADY pay for my health care with private insurance, and will pay for my kid's schooling since we are not using the crappy PC public schools. Haven't been unemployed in over 5 yrs, but have always saved enough so we have several months salaries in reserve.

Of course, the car I drive has 140K miles, my mortgage is under control, and I don't drop hundreds on stupid gadgets and entertainment each month

This is the crux of my argument. We are marching toward socialism because people don't want to man up and PAY ALL OF THEIR BILLS. People will gladly pay for fun stuff, but not boring stuff like health care, retirement savings, education etc. It is somehow believed that it is govt responsibility to provide for these items.

A great example is the whole subprime BS that is going on today. People took out loans that quite frankly they never should have taken out. Now there are people in the govt (mainly Dems) who want to bail out the idiots.

So you can make risky decisions and the govt will come and bail you out. Sheesh. What happened to personal responsibility?

Cheers


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Has there ever not been economic disparity. The question is one of justice; does one have what he needs and the answer is yes. Food, water, shelter and companionship and everything else is gravy. Look around those who are "poor" and you will see property ownership, creature comforts such as cell phones, well running automobiles and time for leisure/recreational pursuits. Just because I make more than someone else or someone higher up the income food chain makes "a 100 times more" than me is not a recipe for social unrest. Just because someone lusts after material possessions one cannot afford does not justify falling back on the economic disparity argument; it is a sign of a culture of materialism.
> 
> The key also is that here there is an opportunity to achieve that type of success. All the avenues are open to each of us. We may not all get to be like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet but with sweat equity we can achieve much, if not for ourselves than for the next generation.
> 
> ...


Great post PT


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

crazyquik said:


> Through the Cold War, our total military size never dropped below 2 million troops. With the post-Cold War cuts, we're down to 1.4 million, where it stabilized. We went from 18 divisions to 10. Bush couldn't 'send enough troops to do the job' because of Clinton's military cuts. Our 'old Army' could have twice the boots on the ground as we do now. We're better at killing people and breaking things than we were 15 years ago, but those skills aren't helping us stabilize a country.


A couple of things about Clinton and the Military: Downsizing the Military has historically been done by both Republicans and Democrats (although I think more often by Republicans). Don't forget, Rumsfeld was a champion of downsizing the Army and Cheney and Rumsfeld have both been champions of "privatizing" ie pay huge sums of money to companies like Blackwater to do what our military should be doing but without any public oversight or control.

The ground war in Iraq was won by the Army that was developed under the eight years of Clinton. Much of the modern equipment that was so successful in Iraq was developed then.

When Bush sent troops into Iraq, he, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in their arrogance and short-sightedness, choose to ignore what the top generals and Secretary of State Powell said about the need for a large army.

There was never any question that Iraq (or any other existing army/country for that matter) could beat even a small US Army in a conventional war due to our technical superiority and the professionalism of our army. That was a given. We did not however have enough troops on the ground to control the stockpiles of weapons and really do anything to prevent the start of the insurgency.

It seems like with their arrogance and lack of knowledge about other cultures, the big three though this would be like liberating France in WWII where all of the people would come out of their houses waving American flags and being eternally grateful to us (and then of course giving Cheney's buddies all of their oil). (Isn't it interesting the Dick's old company, Halliburton with all of its no bid contracts and very shady dealings just moved its headquarters to a Middle Eastern country with which I do not think we have an extradition treaty).

Anyway, don't blame Clinton for the failures in Iraq. Blame it on the people whose arrogance kept them from listening to the generals etc. We had more than enough troops available in our army from the very beginning; our "leaders" however chose to ignore the top generals and the people who actually had military training and knowledge and send in too small of a force. After invading with too small of a force and failing to stop the insurgency from starting, increasing the size of the army in Iraq much later may be too little/too late no matter how many troops we put in now. (A lot of counter insurgency experts are now saying that we can not win this type of war with conventional tactics.

We have been wasting the lives of our youth who have been giving their lives for our country.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> A man from the Prudential Insurance Company went to visit them becaue they thought we should all pay for our own health care, schooling for our kids, and provide for ourselves in case of unemployment. It would have cost them all more than they earned every month and these families were very high earners.


This makes no sense.

Who is this "man from the Prudential Insurance Company"? Was he a part of this "study"?



> The message is WE NEED EACH OTHER


Absolutely. Our modern way of life is only possible through the efficiencies gained by the division of labor. If every person had to do every single thing every day in order to provide for the necessities of life, then there would not be enough time to get everything done. Productivity would drop to starvation levels.

"Division of labor" makes civilization possible. It is simply another term for "cooperation for mutual benefit."

*When two people cooperate on a voluntary basis, both of the participants benefit. They would not enter into the transaction in the first place if they both did not expect to gain by it.*

In contrast, when one person is forced at gunpoint to provide for someone else, then that is a crime. It is theft at best, and slavery at worst.

These crimes are no less economically destructive and morally offensive merely because they are done under the color of governmental authority.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Paul Krugman hath spoken. End of discussion!


 
Exactly. Consider the source.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> The sacrifice of our armed forces is precisely WHY I take issue with the military adventurism and Executive Branch genital waving that's occurred since the end of WWII. Eisenhower explained it better than I ever could:
> 
> "We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions......


Liberals love to seize on Ike's farewell address as a condemnation of the military. In retrospect it was more a condemnation of the military industrial lobby and how the military should be kept pure of its corruption. He was very much in favor of a strong military and in fact under his administration the overall defense budget grew. So please spare us the MIC argument. Don't use people's words as a substitute for your own ideas, it only signifies that you don't have any of your own.



> As to your other question, the facts require no further comment: Vietnam is still a Communist country. Korea is still in an official state of civil war -- FIFTY YEARS LATER. And Iraq?


Viet Nam is communist however if the Democratic congress had not cut off support to the south thing may, and I emphasize may, have turned out differently. As it is Viet Nam is rising in southeast asia and is becoming a larger trading partner with the west and more importantly with us. As for Korea, it was never the intention of the U.N. mandate to invade or occupy the North. South Korea was secured and it is experiencing growth and relative stability.

The more important question however is what you would like to have seen. I'm afraid as I read your posts I fail to recognize the point you are trying to make, unless of course it is that we should never engage in military conflicts. That we didn't succeed in Viet Nam is not a reason to say we should never have tried, in fact one could argue that militarily we were never defeated. The ill fated Tet offensive failed to secure any ground for longer than a few months and by then the VC had been defeated as an effective force. Viet Nam is a classic example of what Clausewitz referring to when he talked about military effort being in sync with political will. The political will was missing, therefore the military will followed suit.

I'm afraid the same thing may be happening in Iraq. Politicians who enthusiastically voted to authorize war now are turning tail. Its truly despicable.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Frank:

Just going to ignore my question to you concerning your claim a US company does not pay taxes on "foriegn production"?

For the black and white thinkers: disagreeing with punative and burdensome taxation is not disagreeing with the concept that a government needs money to operate. Learn to think in grey.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Frank:
> 
> Just going to ignore my question to you concerning your claim a US company does not pay taxes on "foriegn production"?
> 
> For the black and white thinkers: disagreeing with punative and burdensome taxation is not disagreeing with the concept that a government needs money to operate. Learn to think in grey.


Oh come on, at least let him explain how double taxation would benefit the American economy?


----------



## lee_44106 (Apr 10, 2006)

I'm very cynical. The whole government has taken on a distinct identity and assumed an autonamous nature. Every so often we "elect" people to fill in the gaps. In the process these "elected" become more of the same: Tax and spend or borrow and spend. Despite what we would like to believe, the actions of both parties show me that they are fundamentally the same; keep themselves in position of power by appealing to the widest majority. 

Of course it anger me that, depsite my SS contributions, I will most likely not see any when I reach retirement age. I'm responsible for myself and my family, but a large segment of the society refuses to be so and rely on handouts. 

I don't know about any of you, but I am preparing myself now to deal with a future where the government will be bankrupt.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Liberals love to seize on Ike's farewell address as a condemnation of the military. In retrospect it was more a condemnation of the military industrial lobby and how the military should be kept pure of its corruption. He was very much in favor of a strong military and in fact under his administration the overall defense budget grew. So please spare us the MIC argument. Don't use people's words as a substitute for your own ideas, it only signifies that you don't have any of your own. .


I am as liberal as anyone can get and I never condem the Military for something like this. In the Iraq war, it is not the Military that is at fault, it is very clearly our political leadership who in their arrogance, blindness, and apparent pre-set agenda from day one in office did not listen to what the military experts were telling them.

We are very lucky in this country that our Military does not get involved in policy. The army at least used to teach this at West Point (or did when my father and both grandfathers went there).

As to the statement about the people who voted to authorize the war now wanting to get out of Iraq: This is very understandable as may congressmen/women's vote to authorize the war was based on a series of mis-truths, out and out lies, and trutyh bent so far from reality that we now realize these ploys wouldn't be acceptable as plausible in the worst thriller novels.

(I wonder if my bias about our present administration shows in these posts?)


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> As to the statement about the people who voted to authorize the war now wanting to get out of Iraq: This is very understandable as may congressmen/women's vote to authorize the war was based on a series of mis-truths, out and out lies, and trutyh bent so far from reality that we now realize these ploys wouldn't be acceptable as plausible in the worst thriller novels.


That's the biggest crock that's floating about the ether right now; "If I had known the truth and had not been misled I would have never.....". Baloney!! The senate had access to the same intelligence as the administrative branch did. Every foreign intelligence agency thought the same thing. The 9/11 commission and internal investigations have shown that there was no coercion of intel by the adminstration (indeed this is what Tenet has said in his book) so lets drop the charade.

The truth is that many of the Dems, and Reps too, that voted for the war did so thinking it would be a cake walk and they could benefit politically from having supported a then popular war and come out smelling like roses. If anyone has betrayed the troops it is those who voted to authorize sending them in and now have cold feet and want to pull the plug. So we get nonsense instead of real policy. Comparisons to Viet Nam bandy about because many of these pols are so shallow they think the history of American military operations begins and ends in southeast Asia.

Some conveniently "apologize" for their vote or stand proud that they never supported the war when in fact when the votes were cast they were busy with backroom real estate deals and writing dopey books about hope and the promise of America.

George Bush may be lacking many things. He may lack the charm of Kennedy or Reagan. He may lack the forced and empty empathy of Clinton feeling everyones pain, as well as the rear ends of many a women, but at least he hasn't wavered from this convictions. He may have made mistakes but instead of the normal political instinct to cut losses and try to preserve his place in history he is going to try to make things right, history and judgement by the liberal press be damned.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> As to the statement about the people who voted to authorize the war now wanting to get out of Iraq: This is very understandable as may congressmen/women's vote to authorize the war was based on a series of mis-truths, out and out lies, and trutyh bent so far from reality that we now realize these ploys wouldn't be acceptable as plausible in the worst thriller novels.
> 
> (I wonder if my bias about our present administration shows in these posts?)


It shows.

What amazes me is that on one hand the liberals want you to believe Dubya is a total moron and can barely breathe and walk at the same time. On the other, he is such an evil genius he can fool braintrusts like Hillary and Kerry. You want the simple truth? The Dems that voted to support the war initially did it because it was polling well. When the War stopped polling well, their stance changed. I will bet my last dollar that if it suddenly polled 100% positive for the war, these same people would be back supporting it.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> It shows.
> 
> What amazes me is that on one hand the liberals want you to believe Dubya is a total moron and can barely breathe and walk at the same time. On the other, he is such an evil genius he can fool braintrusts like Hillary and Kerry. You want the simple truth? The Dems that voted to support the war initially did it because it was polling well. When the War stopped polling well, their stance changed. I will bet my last dollar that if it suddenly polled 100% positive for the war, these same people would be back supporting it.


I think you're mostly right on this assessment. It's all a bunch of evil nonsense and anyone voting for the war, regardless of party, should stew in the fruits of their decision. (Think we can ship them over to help with stop loss?)

Just because I have zero faith in the Republican Party does not mean I have any more faith in the Democratic Party.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> I think you're mostly right on this assessment. It's all a bunch of evil nonsense and anyone voting for the war, regardless of party, should stew in the fruits of their decision. (Think we can ship them over to help with stop loss?)
> 
> Just because I have zero faith in the Republican Party does not mean I have any more faith in the Democratic Party.


Bertie: good to see we can come to a solid agreement on something like this. I think we both agree the current two party system with media anal probe for any quality candidate, ensures we get nothing but second rate people running for any major office. The two party system is broken IMO.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> That's the biggest crock that's floating about the ether right now; "If I had known the truth and had not been misled I would have never.....". Baloney!! The senate had access to the same intelligence as the administrative branch did.


Uh, the Senate didn't go before the American people and claim there was "no doubt" Saddam Hussein still possessed WMDs. The Senate didn't take an essay written in California and intentionally turn it into bogus "proof" of uranium sales to Iraq. The Senate didn't meet repeatedly with Hollywood's media moguls to devise a propaganda campaign to associate Hussein with 9/11. The Senate didn't give us "Countdown to Iraq", 24/7, for EIGHT MONTHS, as MSNBC did.

And that's just a VERY tiny sampling. In 2004 the U.S. House assembled a list of hundreds of half-truths and outright lies told by Bush and his Administration on this issue:

https://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/h031604.html



pt4u67 said:


> George Bush may be lacking many things. He may lack the charm of Kennedy or Reagan. He may lack the forced and empty empathy of Clinton feeling everyones pain, as well as the rear ends of many a women, but at least he hasn't wavered from this convictions. He may have made mistakes but instead of the normal political instinct to cut losses and try to preserve his place in history he is going to try to make things right, history and judgement by the liberal press be damned.


That makes no sense at all. If Bush was correct about Iraq, there would be no need for him to cut his losses or preserve his place in history. But as it is, he's wrong about Iraq, so his stubbornness is accomplishing nothing except to ruin any chance he had for a positive legacy.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Uh, the Senate didn't go before the American people and claim there was "no doubt" Saddam Hussein still possessed WMDs. The Senate didn't take an essay written in California and intentionally turn it into bogus "proof" of uranium sales to Iraq. The Senate didn't meet repeatedly with Hollywood's media moguls to devise a propaganda campaign to associate Hussein with 9/11. The Senate didn't give us "Countdown to Iraq", 24/7, for EIGHT MONTHS, as MSNBC did.
> 
> And that's just a VERY tiny sampling. In 2004 the U.S. House assembled a list of hundreds of half-truths and outright lies told by Bush and his Administration on this issue:
> 
> https://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/h031604.html


Thanks. I wish people in his country would wake up to what is being done to us. The lies and bulls--- being spewed by the white house and right wing media continue unabated. It is so easy now to say what is being said here, that the people in Congress had access to the same information that the administration had, but more and more is coming out about how that is really bull. The administration twisted intelligence and outright lied to congress, the UN and the citizens of this country about WMD's and terrorist connections to Iraq(I mean come on, who could really see a secular dictatorship with a self interest in keeping religion down cooperating with religious fanatics bent on setting up a religious tyranny?).

Where is the outrage over losing our right to habeas corpus, over corrupt government no-bid contracts given to our vice president's old buddies, over blatant lies causing the deaths of thousands of our young men and women, over the terrorist schools we have created in Iraq (don't any of these people read history or at least Kipling) , the 600% and more profits being made by oil companies with which Cheney met in closed door meetings to set our country's energy policy (where is Harry Truman when we need him and his bulldog attacks on wartime corruption), over the private militias ie Blackwater or should we call a spade a spade and say mercenaries conducting military operations under no oversight other than that of a closed corrupt administration, etc..

I mean for God's sake, what right do they have to look at our library records and then tell the Librarians that they can not say if they gave information out about their patrons? Are the terrorists going to insert mind altering substances into The Cat and the Hat? Should we be worried about people reading James Joyce's Ulysses (a real American doesn't want to read such subversive stuff, when he or she can zone out to perfectly good re-runs of Happy Days, Leave it to Beaver, and Father knows Best and think we are still in the 1950's).

Are you now, or have you ever been a member of: the Moslem faith, the communist party, the Democratic Party, the Libertarian party.

Sorry for the rant, I'll shut up now and concentrate on what to wear now that spring has finally made an appearance in VT.

Michael


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

*MichaelS*,

I see you are from Vermont.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Hi, Michael.

Good to see another Vermonter on the boards. Also good to see another lefty--we seem to be a minority here, although we hold our own.

Excellent post. Sadly, for the most part it will fall on deaf ears.

Jack


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Uh, the Senate didn't go before the American people and claim there was "no doubt" Saddam Hussein still possessed WMDs. The Senate didn't take an essay written in California and intentionally turn it into bogus "proof" of uranium sales to Iraq. The Senate didn't meet repeatedly with Hollywood's media moguls to devise a propaganda campaign to associate Hussein with 9/11. The Senate didn't give us "Countdown to Iraq", 24/7, for EIGHT MONTHS, as MSNBC did.


Frank, how do Hollywood and MSNBC figure into this. By the way I really don't remember "Hollywood moguls" coming out and beating the war drums.



> And that's just a VERY tiny sampling. In 2004 the U.S. House assembled a list of hundreds of half-truths and outright lies told by Bush and his Administration on this issue:
> 
> https://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/h031604.html


Would you be even willing to consider the slightest chance that perhaps "misleading" does not equal a lie. In other words, imperfect intelligence may cause one to conclude facts incorrectly. That's not the same as a lie. Intelligence is often imperfect however this is not a court of law where evidence has to be presented with a chain of custody and proof beyond a reasonable doubt is necessary. The administration was faced with a regime that had in its possession, and used previously, WMD. Saddam's own behavior in playing a shell game with inspectors (you can't look here its one of my palaces, we want advance notice of inspections, intercepted radio communications) must lead one to conclude that he did possess them. Just out of curiousity, is this the same Conyers committee that met in the basement of the house on poker tables?



> That makes no sense at all. If Bush was correct about Iraq, there would be no need for him to cut his losses or preserve his place in history. But as it is, he's wrong about Iraq, so his stubbornness is accomplishing nothing except to ruin any chance he had for a positive legacy.


If there were an award for building straw men the grand prize would go to you!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Frank:

I see you continue to post in this thread yet continue to ignore my direct question to your assertion quoted. Please provide some proof, I am more than open to being convinced. Another tactic might be to tell us you were speaking out of your anal orifice if you cannot supply said proof. Seriously, I am willing to believe it, all I need is some data.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Frank, how do Hollywood and MSNBC figure into this. By the way I really don't remember "Hollywood moguls" coming out and beating the war drums.


These "summits" between the Bush Administration (Karl Rove actually) and major media execs were very well publicized. If you don't remember them you probably need additional sources for your news.

The result of these meetings was programming like "Countdown to Iraq" on MSNBC and similar 24/7 infomercials on the VRWC Network. The propaganda campaign was stunningly successful: in December 2001 less than 10% of the American people believed Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11; by March 2003, 71% had been hookwinked into believing a lie.



pt4u67 said:


> Would you be even willing to consider the slightest chance that perhaps "misleading" does not equal a lie. In other words, imperfect intelligence may cause one to conclude facts incorrectly.


Facts are facts. Conjecture is conjecture. Bush is either unable or unwilling to distinguish between the two. The fact remains, three days before he invaded Iraq he addressed the American people and claimed there was "no doubt" Hussein still possessed WMDs. You can call it a lie, or a mistake, or poor judgment, or incompetence but it doesn't change anything.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Facts are facts.


Exactly Frank! And I am seriously still hoping to get some from you regarding your earlier assertion. Please educate me on this topic!


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> . The propaganda campaign was stunningly successful: in December 2001 less than 10% of the American people believed Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11; by March 2003, 71% had been hookwinked into believing a lie.


Never doubt the stupidity of the American people


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Exactly Frank! And I am seriously still hoping to get some from you regarding your earlier assertion. Please educate me on this topic!


I've been telling you for months. Do your own homework. Turn off your computer and visit a library for God's sake.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I've been telling you for months. Do your own homework. Turn off your computer and visit a library for God's sake.


And I have been telling you for months, this is how debate works:

Frank makes a seemingly outlandish claim

ergo

Frank must support or have egg on his face.

Perhaps I should suggest you visit a library and take out a book on debate?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

JRR said:


> Never doubt the stupidity of the American people


But you're _so_ above it right?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Hi, Michael.
> 
> Good to see another Vermonter on the boards. Also good to see another lefty--we seem to be a minority here, although we hold our own.
> 
> ...


Did somebody say something?


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> But you're _so_ above it right?


Of course, I am never wrong. LOL


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*France might become more socialist...*



> Seated directly opposite one another, they traded arguments on ways to cut government debt and re-organize France's army of civil servants, getting especially heated over the 35-hour working week that the last Socialist government introduced.
> 
> "The 35-hour week was a complete catastrophe, it has to be said, for the French economy," said Sarkozy


Sarkozy is of course the right leaning French Presidential candidate in their upcoming elections. His opposition, Royal proposed this during the debate:



> ...the Socialist candidate when she announced a plan to tax earnings from share dealings in order to pay for higher pensions...


I am of two minds on this. If Royal wins, France will be that much less of an economic competitor but on the other hand, economic blight could lead to further unrest there and that is not good for the Western world.


----------

