Why McCain would be a mediocre president

[Edstock]

http://www.creators.com/opinion/pat-buchan...it-treason.html

 

And None Dare Call It Treason

 

Who is Randy Scheunemann?

 

He is the principal foreign policy adviser to John McCain and potential successor to Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski as national security adviser to the president of the United States.

 

But Randy Scheunemann has another identity, another role.

 

He is a dual loyalist, a foreign agent whose assignment is to get America committed to spilling the blood of her sons for client regimes who have made this moral mercenary a rich man.

 

From January 2007 to March 2008, the McCain campaign paid Scheunemann $70,000 — pocket change compared to the $290,000 his Orion Strategies banked in those same 15 months from the Georgian regime of Mikheil Saakashvili.

 

What were Mikheil's marching orders to Tbilisi's man in Washington? Get Georgia a NATO war guarantee. Get America committed to fight Russia, if necessary, on behalf of Georgia.

 

Scheunemann came close to succeeding.

[mulewright]

By saying that they were more or less the same thing, I was in no way condoning corporate taxes. I think they're a sham. However, in the end, without corporate tax, personal income tax would undoubtedly increase to make up for it. It's a double-edged sword.

 

I agree but it would not only be more honest, it would also make it harder for politicians to raise our taxes. When politicians shout things like "corporations aren't paying their fair share" etc... they get working class folks screaming "stick it to them" but in the end we're the ones paying the bill.

[NickF1011]

I agree but it would not only be more honest, it would also make it harder for politicians to raise our taxes. When politicians shout things like "corporations aren't paying their fair share" etc... they get working class folks screaming "stick it to them" but in the end we're the ones paying the bill.

 

Agree 100%. I wouldn't mind paying more income tax or more sales tax as long as I knew exactly what taxes I was no longer paying on the "back end" instead. There definitely needs to be more transparency in the tax code.

[methos]

(this is not directed at you Methos, but more of a general question to the forum)

 

I'm not going to directly address the author, however if we were to go back to the more equitable past, how would things progress from this point forward any differently than they have?

 

If we were to equally distribute all wealth in this country (by force), and eliminated all prejudice, kept the tax law the same and the same level of economic freedom, do you believe it would stay that way?

 

(put another way) Do you believe that if everyone had an "equal amount of stuff" now, you could come back in 30 years and it still be that way?

 

I know that many will say no, because you and I acknowledge that as different people we have different skills and priorities.

 

Those that strive to excel, will do so. Those that don't, won't. (NOTE: This is not an indictment of others' work ethic, because as intelligent persons, you know hard work alone is not the way to achieve. You've got to work smart, as well.)

 

My point is that you could say that Democrats make things more "fair", but I ask, to whom? To those that work? How about those that created the jobs in the first place? I never got a job from a poor person.

 

By raising taxes on 'only' the top 1/5/10% how does that make the person making at the bottom better? By making them happy to be there (at the bottom)? After all, if things are great at the bottom what is the incentive to get out of it? And just because the 'rich' can afford it, is that reason enough to take what they rightfully earned? If they didn't earn it, how did they get it? Did all rich persons lie/cheat/steal to get what they have?

 

Why is relying on government (a ruling class in itself) such a positive thing? I'm honestly not trying to be harsh or cruel to those in need, but why should we (as a society) be happy relying on government in the ways the Democrats advocate? I'm not saying the Republicans are the panacea our country needs, but many Democrats (based on what they advocate) seem to be a poison pill.

 

I really need to understand how I am wrong here. Please inform me.

 

I really want to understand how my life is made better by being a dependent on government services for my health, wealth, and security. From my viewpoint, to relent that level of omnipotent influence in my life is unacceptable. I really need to understand why I should go against every fiber of my being to believe that someone else could have my best interests, and knows what's best for me, better than me.

 

I just don't understand the argument. We've already been there, a century ago, small government and little in the way of regulation; the Gilded Age.

 

It's when just a handful of people held incredible wealth, and there was little or no middle class. What changed that is the progressive movement (liberals) pushing for government regulation of industry and the breakup of monopolies, passing legislation to allow for the formation of labor workers to form alliances and bargain, and provisions such as the inheritance tax. We've been there, and done that, and I think we have been much better off without it.

 

Sure, the rich aren't as rich as they could have been. Instead of a hundred billion, they've had to make do with twenty or thirty. But by breaking up those monopolies and preventing their creation, we've allowed for truer competition and thus more innovation; at least in our past. Some would argue, that's not the case today, for there are several clear monopolies.

 

As far as free trade, there are some major differences between the parties. The Republicans make trade pacts that include NO LABOR OR ENVIRONMENTAL provisions, but the Democrats favor and have passed several that have included the aforementioned provisions. Instead of a race to the bottom, which we're in now, having those provisions included would have been more of a leveler; meeting somewhere in the middle.

 

I don't believe in handouts either, but I do believe and know that we've been better off with more progressive views, and the data clearly shows this. This tired old argument of a poor man never gave me a job is just that, tired. I've seen the data, and trickle down or supply side economics is a failure, both under Reagan (investment actually declined) and Bush jr. It provides short term gain for sure, but only at the expense of the long term. Consider that seven of the 10 trillion dollar debt we not carry comes under those two presidents.

[RangerM]

I just don't understand the argument. We've already been there, a century ago, small government and little in the way of regulation; the Gilded Age.

 

-deleted the rest for space-

 

I do not advocate that we go back to the turn of the 20th Century, but I think we are getting to the point where if we are going to make a new regulation, we should get rid of an old one. I really don't think we suffer from a lack of regulation or taxation.

 

You make some valid arguments, however I believe we are going too far when we begin to promote things like windfall profits tax, elimination of the secret ballot for unionization (thus compelling it), government-run healthcare, and ever-increasing income taxes. Trading one master for another (that can execute policy with force) isn't the way to go. A billionare can't force me to do something against my will, like government can.

 

The debt is primarily the result of overspending, not insufficient taxation. Both parties are guilty of it. I just believe the dems would spend more.

 

The "tired old argument" still seems valid to me, when you consider that over half the American workforce is employed by small businesspersons. Those people would be directly affected by Obama's increased taxes of those making more than $250K.

[methos]

I do not advocate that we go back to the turn of the 20th Century, but I think we are getting to the point where if we are going to make a new regulation, we should get rid of an old one. I really don't think we suffer from a lack of regulation or taxation.

 

You make some valid arguments, however I believe we are going too far when we begin to promote things like windfall profits tax, elimination of the secret ballot for unionization (thus compelling it), government-run healthcare, and ever-increasing income taxes. Trading one master for another (that can execute policy with force) isn't the way to go. A billionare can't force me to do something against my will, like government can.

 

The debt is primarily the result of overspending, not insufficient taxation. Both parties are guilty of it. I just believe the dems would spend more.

 

The "tired old argument" still seems valid to me, when you consider that over half the American workforce is employed by small businesspersons. Those people would be directly affected by Obama's increased taxes of those making more than $250K.

 

 

Ever since Reagan, we have slowly deregulated most if not all industries. The problems we are facing now are not due to

regulation(s), but the lack thereof.

 

As far as windfall profits tax, why not? I mean for the most part, they are getting the resources off government land, subsidized in part by taxpayers. There are only 3-4 players in the industry, domestically, so it's not exactly regulated by normal market mechanisms. It has to be regulated, and the only reason it's not is due to bribery and corruption. The figures speak for themselves.

 

I disagree, in that both parties are responsible, the debt that is, the vast majority of is derived from Republicans. Half of it is due to the current administration. Don't get me wrong, the Dems do spend, but so far, they at least had the balls to ask us to pay for it, and not leave the tab for the next generation.

 

As far as the "tired old argument", taxing the wealthy, well, if not them then who? Before Reagan came into office, supply side economics had been tossed around for decades by economic theorists advocating change. Well, it bombed, investment actually declined, and that's why they longer call it such. It makes no sense, and I mean none to continue something that does not work. Like, I said, there are benefits, but only short term and at our future expense.

[Imawhosure]

If taxing people was the path to prosperity, then lets all just pay 100% taxes, and we should all instantly be rich!

 

Anyone who believes such a farce of an arguement that you become wealthier by paying more tax must not be able to add. All a tax is in reality is a built in cost. Are you now wealthier because you pay 4 bucks a gallon for fuel, or were you wealthier at 1.50?

 

And the wealthy are the business owners who ship, are they not? Now let me see, hmmmmmmm, fuel went up, and your cost for everything went up with it. Wouldn't you say by drawing logical conclusions that these people were not able to absorb the hike without passing it on to you the consumer?

 

So, if that is a logical point, then praytell; who will pay for the tax hikes on business? That is correct, YOU!!!!!! That is of course unless they say screw it and pick up their stuff and leave to another country. And how do these other countrys get businesses to move? By offering tax BREAKS for them to re-locate.

 

By the liberal logic, these other countrys ought to be threatening these busnesses with higher tax if they all come there, is this not correct? They would then flock over, right? Then explain why this is not the method used!

 

Using your own noodle, figure out why; besides being owned by Americans, any business would want to stay here with increasing taxes, excessive regulation which costs much denero to comply with, and a guy who MAY be elected who blames them for the poor peoples problems! NOT TO MENTION------------>why would ANYONE who has investments want to vote for a guy who wants to raise your capital gains taxes on any profit you incur from putting your money at risk?

 

If this was the way to go, WE instead of China, would be in the midst of tremendous expansion.

 

Let me ask all of you something simple---------->let us suppose that a person in China works for FREE!!!!!! Let us suppose that an American doing the same thing works for 16 bucks an hour. They build little wigets that are assembled using 3 screws. Both the Chinese National and the American build 50 wigets an hr. Those 50 wigets fit in a box about 4 times the size of a shoebox. Now all the American company has to do is ship these wigets to stores from Kansas City. The Chinese company has to ship it across the ocean, through inspection in both coasts, put them on a truck or a train and send them to a central dispersion point, then send them back out to the citys of America.

 

How long before that 16 bucks is burned up? Have you tried to ship anything anywhere lately? Then why are companys STILL going there?

 

Yep, this arguement from the liberals point of view makes sense, lolol.

 

It is NOT that liberals are 100% wrong, they do have some decent points in some matters. But then even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile too!!!!!!!!

 

P.S. The longest modern expansion of the economy was under Bill Clinton. The second longest expansion was under Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan put in the stuff that caused the expansion under a dem congress, cause he went DIRECTLY to the American public and asked them to write congress, which they did. What happened when George the 1st took over? Do you remember read my lips, no new taxes, and he balked and raised them? Exactly what happened???? That is correct, RECESSION. Enter Bill Clinton. Clinton kept his hands to himself (as far as the economy) except for NAFTA. He then raised taxes, do you remember?!?!?!?! What happened as his term ended? That is right, RECESSION!!!!!!

 

It is not about raising taxes, it is about cutting spending, which GW did not do. This is why our economy SUCKS, along with the fact you are paying MORE for FUEL keeping the money OUT of the economy while sending it to who knows where.

 

And the Dems response?!?!?!?!?!?! Raise taxes, and no drilling, lololol, the very infamous double whammy!!!!!!

 

If you think that these two ideas from democrats is going to fix anything, you are probably correct----------->it is going to FIX YOUR CLOCK, nothing more, nothing less!

Edited August 26, 2008 by Imawhosure

[Floyd Lawson]

There are lots of differences, how many times do you think you should have to pay taxes on the same effort. By taking a cut from the corporation, then a cut at the point of sale and a cut from the money you were paid to produce the product the government takes a huge chunk without you getting up in arms about it.... when you buy a product, you pay all the taxes that were extracted before the product made it to market.

 

So... hows this apply to the auto industry? it's simple, in the free trade enviroment that both parties have embraced, these "corporate taxes" are only payed by domestic manufacturers giving the imports an advantage. To put it simply, raising corporate taxes not only raises the amount you pay, it also increases the possibility your job will go overseas.

 

Another problem with this is these corporate taxes aren't paid by the "richest Americans" they're disproportionately paid by the middle and lower classes. eg: you raise taxes on Ford Motor Co. and the person making $20,000 a year that scrapes enough together to buy a Focus actually pays that tax. The bottom 50% of all taxpayers only pay about 3 1/2% of the Federal income taxes but their share of this so called "corporate tax" is the same as anyone else buying that car.

You may want to check your facts about who's paying the most taxes

[mulewright]

You may want to check your facts about who's paying the most taxes

 

My apologies, I overstated it... according to the link you posted the bottom 50% of taxpayers only pay 2.99%

[mulewright]

As far as windfall profits tax, why not? I mean for the most part, they are getting the resources off government land, subsidized in part by taxpayers. There are only 3-4 players in the industry, domestically, so it's not exactly regulated by normal market mechanisms. It has to be regulated, and the only reason it's not is due to bribery and corruption. The figures speak for themselves.

 

Everyone likes to beat the oil companies up for the 40 billion in profits they made last year but as a % of revenues it's only just over 8%. The average profit % of all domestic industries in the US over the last 30 years is 8%.

 

It's pretty obvious to me that there isn't any difference between this Windfall profits tax and raising the gas tax at the pump. The consumer will pay it, and if you're thinking that they won't pass it on to the consumer... you're wrong, stockholders will demand it. If you hold any of the mutual funds that invest in Exxon etc... you will also, how? by moving your money into a more profitable fund.

Edited August 27, 2008 by mulewright

[RangerM]

Ever since Reagan, we have slowly deregulated most if not all industries. The problems we are facing now are not due to

regulation(s), but the lack thereof.

 

Working in the environmental industry, I know of no meaningful regulatory relaxation in the 16 years since I started, so I can readily dispense with that.

 

What specific regulations have been relaxed, to industry or individual, that resulted in a direct detrimental effect to the average person and no benefit?

 

As far as windfall profits tax, why not? I mean for the most part, they are getting the resources off government land, subsidized in part by taxpayers. There are only 3-4 players in the industry, domestically, so it's not exactly regulated by normal market mechanisms. It has to be regulated, and the only reason it's not is due to bribery and corruption. The figures speak for themselves.

 

What constitutes a "windfall"? How do you define it? Is it based on a raw number, or a profit percentage? At what value? If you are going to set a threshold for a company, are you also going to set one for an individual? What constitutes an acceptable profit or income in your opinion?

 

I disagree, in that both parties are responsible, the debt that is, the vast majority of is derived from Republicans. Half of it is due to the current administration. Don't get me wrong, the Dems do spend, but so far, they at least had the balls to ask us to pay for it, and not leave the tab for the next generation.

 

I agree that they want me to pay for their social welfare programs, but I don't want to give them the power necessary to carry out the program, nor do I want to pay for it. You don't want the war in Iraq, nor do you want to pay for it. Guess we are in the same boat.

 

In my personal life, I can't simply give myself a raise when I spend more than I earn. If I rack up a boatload of credit card debt, I'm still liable to pay it off. While I'm not for a balanced budget amendment, I see no reason the government can't be operated in a similar way.

 

As far as the "tired old argument", taxing the wealthy, well, if not them then who? Before Reagan came into office, supply side economics had been tossed around for decades by economic theorists advocating change. Well, it bombed, investment actually declined, and that's why they longer call it such. It makes no sense, and I mean none to continue something that does not work. Like, I said, there are benefits, but only short term and at our future expense.

 

We really need to lose the "wealthy" part (I know I'm guilty of it, too). Our tax system doesn't tax wealth, it taxes work (ie income). If you REALLY want to tax wealth, you should advocate for the FairTax as I do. It is the only tax system that TRULY taxes wealth, and NOT income.

 

If everyone in the country contributed to the government purse, perhaps the Congress would feel a little more heat when they raise taxes. That is why I am for the FairTax. If the rate is increased, it hurts everyone, and if the Congress knows they will answer to everyone (and not just the 'rich' minority), they may be a bit more fiscally responsible. I'm sure you can agree that the more people affected by a Congressional fiat, the more careful the Congress will be not to piss them off.

 

I can only say that when you want less of something, you tax it, or you increase the tax on it. I see no reason why you and I are so far apart on that. I just can see no way how I am better off by paying higher taxes and the Government having a larger role in my life. Other than military protection, I have received no Federal Government benefit since I graduated college, nor do I want any. I just want to be left alone.

 

If I were dirt poor, and the Federal Government came along to give me the benefits of its taxing of "the rich", do I have more or less incentive to excel and get out of being dirt poor? Welfare reform accomplished its goal of getting people off welfare. Why did it work so well?

 

Once the capital gains tax is increased again, do you think that will help or hurt investment? Is there a study that shows with increased capital gains taxes, you get increased investment?

 

You previous example of Labor and Environmental obligations in Free Trade Agreements sounds intriguing, but may I propose an alternative? How about if you absolve any/all exports from any/all taxation? Rather than giving a foreign company less incentive to import here, how about giving the company here MORE incentive to export? Would that not seem to promote more production, therefore more employment here?

[fmccap]

Ever since Reagan, we have slowly deregulated most if not all industries. The problems we are facing now are not due to

regulation(s), but the lack thereof.

Let's take the auto industry and have you point out all the deregulation please. As far as I can see it's been do this and do that(more regulation).

 

As far as the "tired old argument", taxing the wealthy, well, if not them then who?

Let's make a new arguement??? We cut out all the waste and entitlement spending(leave a little for the dependent ones in a transition period and don't let any more in) and massivley shrink the size of our government. Then we don't worry about who to tax(because we don't need to) and go out and have a beer with the extra money in our pockets????

[methos]

Working in the environmental industry, I know of no meaningful regulatory relaxation in the 16 years since I started, so I can readily dispense with that.

 

What specific regulations have been relaxed, to industry or individual, that resulted in a direct detrimental effect to the average person and no benefit?

 

 

 

What constitutes a "windfall"? How do you define it? Is it based on a raw number, or a profit percentage? At what value? If you are going to set a threshold for a company, are you also going to set one for an individual? What constitutes an acceptable profit or income in your opinion?

 

 

 

I agree that they want me to pay for their social welfare programs, but I don't want to give them the power necessary to carry out the program, nor do I want to pay for it. You don't want the war in Iraq, nor do you want to pay for it. Guess we are in the same boat.

 

In my personal life, I can't simply give myself a raise when I spend more than I earn. If I rack up a boatload of credit card debt, I'm still liable to pay it off. While I'm not for a balanced budget amendment, I see no reason the government can't be operated in a similar way.

 

 

 

We really need to lose the "wealthy" part (I know I'm guilty of it, too). Our tax system doesn't tax wealth, it taxes work (ie income). If you REALLY want to tax wealth, you should advocate for the FairTax as I do. It is the only tax system that TRULY taxes wealth, and NOT income.

 

If everyone in the country contributed to the government purse, perhaps the Congress would feel a little more heat when they raise taxes. That is why I am for the FairTax. If the rate is increased, it hurts everyone, and if the Congress knows they will answer to everyone (and not just the 'rich' minority), they may be a bit more fiscally responsible. I'm sure you can agree that the more people affected by a Congressional fiat, the more careful the Congress will be not to piss them off.

 

I can only say that when you want less of something, you tax it, or you increase the tax on it. I see no reason why you and I are so far apart on that. I just can see no way how I am better off by paying higher taxes and the Government having a larger role in my life. Other than military protection, I have received no Federal Government benefit since I graduated college, nor do I want any. I just want to be left alone.

 

If I were dirt poor, and the Federal Government came along to give me the benefits of its taxing of "the rich", do I have more or less incentive to excel and get out of being dirt poor? Welfare reform accomplished its goal of getting people off welfare. Why did it work so well?

 

Once the capital gains tax is increased again, do you think that will help or hurt investment? Is there a study that shows with increased capital gains taxes, you get increased investment?

 

You previous example of Labor and Environmental obligations in Free Trade Agreements sounds intriguing, but may I propose an alternative? How about if you absolve any/all exports from any/all taxation? Rather than giving a foreign company less incentive to import here, how about giving the company here MORE incentive to export? Would that not seem to promote more production, therefore more employment here?

 

I like the idea of a "fair tax". I wish they would implement it.

 

As far as the trade agreements, there are three examples of such that Clinton signed. The only reason it's not done is that it would be detrimental to corporations in the long-run. They still start out with the same cheap labor, but unions eventually form e.g. Cambodia, and they face the same environmental restrictions as they face here. The principle behind that is to bring them up instead of bringing us down. It works, no question, we've already seen it. It makes sense, but it is less profitable for corporate execs, and since lobbyist has so much influence, it's not been incorporated into the trade pacts since Bush took office.

 

As far as deregulation, I can cite a dozen examples, the savings and loan crisis, the California energy crisis, the lack of investment in the electrical infrastructure, due to deregulation, the lack of anti-trust enforcement, and the finally, the banking and mortgage crisis, to name a few. No, I am far from a socialist, but there has to be some kind of balance. It's due to regulations that we found our way out of the Gilded Age and made last century, America's Century. Now, we seem to be reverting back to it, the Gilded Age.

 

As far as FMCAP suggestion that due to regulation, Ford is in decline is nonsense. Ford, in a desperate attempt to stay afloat is risking everything to bring over more economical cars & trucks from Europe. It has nothing to do with regulations, it’s about survival. In the thread you posted, about the energy loans, what party do you think included those provisions? What party created legislation protecting the formation of labor? What party instituted agencies overlooking the fair treatment of workers?

 

To hell with welfare, give a person a hand, give everyone good education and/or training, then let them sink or swim. If an industry is failing like the auto industry is, they need to step in and provide funds, like Clinton did in his term so no worker is left behind. They Feds have programs, but it requires co-funding from the six states affected and of course those states are hurting and are unable to do so. It's not socialism to help the workers, it’s just common sense, for helping them helps keep this country strong, both financially and morally.

[Imawhosure]

In the thread you posted, about the energy loans, what party do you think included those provisions? What party created legislation protecting the formation of labor? What party instituted agencies overlooking the fair treatment of workers?

 

LOL, such logic deserves a rebuke.................using this persons own logic!!!!!!!!!!

 

LIBERAL LOGIC---------------->If this is the way we should think, then therefore, otherwise, then, there, for, every BLACK AMERICAN should vote for Mcain!!!!!! Why? Because Lincoln freed the slaves, and Lincoln was a republican, lololololol!!!!

 

Drawing such broad conclusions by what they DID instead of their own statements of WHAT THEY WILL DO IF ELECTED, is ridiculous.

 

As far as AUTOWORKERS, what do you people think is a better deal for YOU; drilling to lower prices of fuel as much as possible, or blocking it, lol. (DUH!)

 

It is almost comical that the union would back a party who wants to block it, but then I guess that is what happens when you were born of socialism. (actually, COMMUNISM) You revert back to your roots, and try to take your constituency with you, lolololol.

 

Fortunately, most AUTOWORKERS are NOT that stupid!!!!!! All they ever wanted was a level playing field, and how 6,7, or 8 bucks a gallon helps them is beyond reason. (Ala Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi, adding Mr Obama as the leader of the GREEN, GREEN, SOCIALISTIC MACHINE) Pols already show Mcain passing Obama, even as the Dems convention is in progress thnx to Pelosi and her Socialists. (when was the last time you have seen a candidate lose ground during their partys convention? Look it up if you haven't been around long enough to know, or have been around and don't remember, lolol)

 

Figure out how to spin that away when the the primarys are over, and you will be a millionaire!!!!!! Not gonna happen, Mcain is President.

Edited August 28, 2008 by Imawhosure

[RangerM]

I like the idea of a "fair tax". I wish they would implement it.

 

As far as the trade agreements, there are three examples of such that Clinton signed. The only reason it's not done is that it would be detrimental to corporations in the long-run. They still start out with the same cheap labor, but unions eventually form e.g. Cambodia, and they face the same environmental restrictions as they face here. The principle behind that is to bring them up instead of bringing us down. It works, no question, we've already seen it. It makes sense, but it is less profitable for corporate execs, and since lobbyist has so much influence, it's not been incorporated into the trade pacts since Bush took office.

 

I understand what you are saying, but given that many foreign governments don't allow such restrictions (as Mexico didn't with NAFTA, and Chile won't) it ends up having a stifling effect on trade. With this in mind, I'd rather focus on how we can help our own industry than their labor/environment. Those countries may come around, but in the meantime, I'd rather focus on creating the societal wealth that allows such concerns to take precedence.

 

As far as deregulation, I can cite a dozen examples, the savings and loan crisis, the California energy crisis, the lack of investment in the electrical infrastructure, due to deregulation, the lack of anti-trust enforcement, and the finally, the banking and mortgage crisis, to name a few. No, I am far from a socialist, but there has to be some kind of balance. It's due to regulations that we found our way out of the Gilded Age and made last century, America's Century. Now, we seem to be reverting back to it, the Gilded Age.

 

I'll go along with the S&L crisis (1980s) to a point, but the rest were not the result of deregulation.

 

Case in point, the California energy crisis was the direct result of regulation, as in price controls of electricity at the retail level. Price controls create shortages, and companies like Enron gamed the system to the point that shortages became common. The mortgage crisis can trace its origin to speculation and persons borrowing money they could not afford to repay.

 

To hell with welfare, give a person a hand, give everyone good education and/or training, then let them sink or swim. If an industry is failing like the auto industry is, they need to step in and provide funds, like Clinton did in his term so no worker is left behind. They Feds have programs, but it requires co-funding from the six states affected and of course those states are hurting and are unable to do so. It's not socialism to help the workers, it’s just common sense, for helping them helps keep this country strong, both financially and morally.

 

I'm for a basic safety net, albeit with some restrictions that many would likely find unacceptable.

 

I have no problem with education, but it has to come with freedom of choice in education. I'm also in favor of retraining workers, but at what cost? I am the product of public education, attended a public university, and repaid all my student loans early. I don't feel that I am owed anything, but I also don't feel like I owe anybody anything, either.

 

I can sympathize with the states that are hurting, but why are they hurting? What is it about their legislature that makes them (apparently) unable to provide for their people as they need? What is the common thread of these affected states?

 

My state has a lottery which I was against. They had a shortfall last year in education because they didn't get the revenue they were counting on. I say good. They have to put back the money they took away when they implemented the lottery. They just cut something else. That is the way to do it.

 

If they have another shortfall, cut something else. You should see the elementary schools they build around here. They are like country clubs, and they only hold about 850 students. It's ridiculous to spend the kind of money they do to build these Taj Mahals. At my daughter's school, they actually hired architects for each building, spending 7 figures in the process. That is just wasteful.

[mulewright]

As far as AUTOWORKERS, what do you people think is a better deal for YOU; drilling to lower prices of fuel as much as possible, or blocking it, lol. (DUH!)

 

It is almost comical that the union would back a party who wants to block it, but then I guess that is what happens when you were born of socialism. (actually, COMMUNISM) You revert back to your roots, and try to take your constituency with you, lolololol.

 

Fortunately, most AUTOWORKERS are NOT that stupid!!!!!! All they ever wanted was a level playing field, and how 6,7, or 8 bucks a gallon helps them is beyond reason. (Ala Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi, adding Mr Obama as the leader of the GREEN, GREEN, SOCIALISTIC MACHINE) Pols already show Mcain passing Obama, even as the Dems convention is in progress thnx to Pelosi and her Socialists. (when was the last time you have seen a candidate lose ground during their partys convention? Look it up if you haven't been around long enough to know, or have been around and don't remember, lolol)

 

One of the amazing things to me is that more autoworkers can't see that it's the Democrats policies that have created this energy crisis and that their energy plan will destroy the domestic auto industry.

[Imawhosure]

One of the amazing things to me is that more autoworkers can't see that it's the Democrats policies that have created this energy crisis and that their energy plan will destroy the domestic auto industry.

 

You are exactly right Mulewright, regardless of what SOME of these people say that it is the OILMEN, lolol. All they can do is create stories to get people who are to dizzy to look it up. I can't believe that ANYONE buys the storys of Methos and friends; although I see more people are telling them to take the walk of shame because it is biting their pocketbook, which means they look it up.

 

Good for all of you!!!!!!!

 

I am not here to tell anyone to NOT vote for Mr Obama. I am here to tell you that BEFORE you vote, look at what HE stands for, and how that affects your job, and the American way of life.

 

If you believe that it is worth the sacrifice, then by all means, vote for the SOCIALIST! The choice is simple; no matter how hard these liberal wack-jobs try to paint a different story.

 

Drill, or not to drill........that is the question!!!!!!!

 

Go ahead Meth and liberal Meth friends, convince these people that NOT to drill is a good thing. I dare ya, I double dare ya!!!!!!

[methos]

I understand what you are saying, but given that many foreign governments don't allow such restrictions (as Mexico didn't with NAFTA, and Chile won't) it ends up having a stifling effect on trade. With this in mind, I'd rather focus on how we can help our own industry than their labor/environment. Those countries may come around, but in the meantime, I'd rather focus on creating the societal wealth that allows such concerns to take precedence.

 

 

Labor standards precedes societal wealth, thus, you don't get the latter without the former. In addition, getting that type of agreement is difficult, but if they want to trade with us, and THEY DO, they will go along with it and they have in the past. It not only benefits broad growth for them, but it benefits us, because it allows for rising labor standards abroad and stems the flight of industry for cheap labor.

 

It benefits 95% of the populace of both countries having labor/environmental standards included in trade pacts. It helps create a middle-class in their country and preserves our middle-class at home. It makes no sense not to have those standards. The only reason it's not done is because lobbyist for the most part, represent the top 5% and the top tier of this country does not want a middle class, they want cheap labor and no environmental constraints.

 

 

I'll go along with the S&L crisis (1980s) to a point, but the rest were not the result of deregulation.

 

Case in point, the California energy crisis was the direct result of regulation, as in price controls of electricity at the retail level. Price controls create shortages, and companies like Enron gamed the system to the point that shortages became common. The mortgage crisis can trace its origin to speculation and persons borrowing money they could not afford to repay.

 

You said it yourself, that after they deregulated the market, Enron gamed the system to spike prices. There are reams of information available, so I won't bother posting links. They were obviously desperate, as we later learned, desperate enough to do something so low on such a massive scale. I do agree in that price controls on one end and the lack thereof worsened it, but it never would have occurred if Enron literally would not have been so treacherous.

 

As far as the mortgage crisis, that harkens back to when Gramm repealed regulations allowing for such speculation. It's actually due to two laws being repealed, the other under a departing Clinton cabinet member. In my opinion, and in the opinion of most I suspect, it's more of a confluence of events rather than a single entity, but the lack of regulation played a key role.

 

For whosure, there really is little difference between the candidates on energy. Both want clean coal; both want nuclear, or at least are willing; both want or are willing to drill offshore; and both do not want to drill in ANWR. Pray tell, can you show me any differences? Save your some self some time, there is nothing substantive.

[rc38]

You are exactly right Mulewright, regardless of what SOME of these people say that it is the OILMEN, lolol. All they can do is create stories to get people who are to dizzy to look it up. I can't believe that ANYONE buys the storys of Methos and friends; although I see more people are telling them to take the walk of shame because it is biting their pocketbook, which means they look it up.

 

Good for all of you!!!!!!!

 

I am not here to tell anyone to NOT vote for Mr Obama. I am here to tell you that BEFORE you vote, look at what HE stands for, and how that affects your job, and the American way of life.

 

If you believe that it is worth the sacrifice, then by all means, vote for the SOCIALIST! The choice is simple; no matter how hard these liberal wack-jobs try to paint a different story.

 

Drill, or not to drill........that is the question!!!!!!!

 

Go ahead Meth and liberal Meth friends, convince these people that NOT to drill is a good thing. I dare ya, I double dare ya!!!!!!

 

IMA

 

As you have heard by now,McCain picked Sarah Palin Governor of Alaska for his VP choice. Bobby Jindal was my first choice,but he removed himself from the list to concentrate on the issues facing the state of Louisiana.

Brings the conservative base and some of those undecided independents and women over to McCain.

[sprinter]

For whosure, there really is little difference between the candidates on energy. Both want clean coal; both want nuclear, or at least are willing; both want or are willing to drill offshore; and both do not want to drill in ANWR. Pray tell, can you show me any differences? Save your some self some time, there is nothing substantive.

 

 

mccain goes after the good looking gals.

[RangerM]

Labor standards precedes societal wealth, thus, you don't get the latter without the former. In addition, getting that type of agreement is difficult, but if they want to trade with us, and THEY DO, they will go along with it and they have in the past. It not only benefits broad growth for them, but it benefits us, because it allows for rising labor standards abroad and stems the flight of industry for cheap labor.

 

It benefits 95% of the populace of both countries having labor/environmental standards included in trade pacts. It helps create a middle-class in their country and preserves our middle-class at home. It makes no sense not to have those standards. The only reason it's not done is because lobbyist for the most part, represent the top 5% and the top tier of this country does not want a middle class, they want cheap labor and no environmental constraints.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with what you have said is true in this country, but there is one key difference.

 

In this country, such reforms happened from the bottom-up, not top-down. This is important because for us to impose our beliefs/values on another country is what many would call imperialist. Such reforms should be allowed to progress on their own, unless it is a matter of our national security.

 

When we (essentially) threaten them with isolation, as in no trade with us, we come across as a bully. If we do trade with them and their people gradually pull themselves up, they will demand the labor/environmental protections we have. If they are kept down, revolution is inevitable.

 

You said it yourself, that after they deregulated the market, Enron gamed the system to spike prices. There are reams of information available, so I won't bother posting links. They were obviously desperate, as we later learned, desperate enough to do something so low on such a massive scale. I do agree in that price controls on one end and the lack thereof worsened it, but it never would have occurred if Enron literally would not have been so treacherous.

 

I would appreciate the links, because I do not see how imposing price controls is de-regulation. It only leads to the same types of shortages we saw in the 1970s with Nixon's price fixing.

 

As far as the mortgage crisis, that harkens back to when Gramm repealed regulations allowing for such speculation. It's actually due to two laws being repealed, the other under a departing Clinton cabinet member. In my opinion, and in the opinion of most I suspect, it's more of a confluence of events rather than a single entity, but the lack of regulation played a key role.

 

I think that most of the mortgage crisis was a result of speculation and fraudulent loan applications. The Community Reinvestment Act could also have contributed in part, but if regulations had been lessened (as in allowing banks to charge the interest they deemed necessary to offset risk), perhaps we would not have had the rampant fraud (on the part of brokers and borrowers).

Edited August 29, 2008 by RangerM

[methos]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you have said is true in this country, but there is one key difference.

 

In this country, such reforms happened from the bottom-up, not top-down. This is important because for us to impose our beliefs/values on another country is what many would call imperialist. Such reforms should be allowed to progress on their own, unless it is a matter of our national security.

 

When we (essentially) threaten them with isolation, as in no trade with us, we come across as a bully. If we do trade with them and their people gradually pull themselves up, they will demand the labor/environmental protections we have. If they are kept down, revolution is inevitable.

 

 

 

I would appreciate the links, because I do not see how imposing price controls is de-regulation. It only leads to the same types of shortages we saw in the 1970s with Nixon's price fixing.

 

 

 

I think that most of the mortgage crisis was a result of speculation and fraudulent loan applications. The Community Reinvestment Act could also have contributed in part, but if regulations had been lessened (as in allowing banks to charge the interest they deemed necessary to offset risk), perhaps we would not have had the rampant fraud (on the part of brokers and borrowers).

 

Revolution? For what, spreading wealth? I mean if they are making more money, working in safer conditions, who is going to revolt - the Barons?

 

The most important part of the labor standards is that the corporations/government can no longer stop the workers from forming coalitions and practice collective bargaining for better/safer working conditions. Is that imperialistic - empowering the workers?

 

As far as the deregulation of the electricity market in California, what links do you need? They put price controls in place, right before they deregulated the industry in hopes of a more competitive market. I am not saying that price controls is deregulation. They put the price controls in places because they were paying much more on average than the rest of the country. What I did say is that after they deregulated (on the supplier end), Enron, in a desperate move, later, we found out why, inflated the prices in a desperate move to increase their profits.

 

As far as speculation in the mortgage crisis, there would have never been such speculation had the banking/investment rules not been changed. We had the The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 repealed in 99 by Clinton, while Gramm led the charge in the Senate passing additional legislation to deregulate the industry.

The vacations over, good luck…

[Savetheplanet]

[quotee.

Methos wrote------

For whosure, there really is little difference between the candidates on energy. Both want clean coal

 

 

 

 

the coal industry's front group--American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity--is spending nearly $2 million to ingratiate themselves among Democratic Party members. (They'll do the same with the Republicans next week.)

 

In truth, this "Clean Coal" charade has more to do with another convention, back in the cold winter of 1992. The National Coal Council held a conference to come to grips with a disturbing marketing reality: "Coal has a dismal image." Coal was "maligned and misunderstood." Worse yet, according to the Coal Council, "Most Americans do not think about coal at all."

 

The convention of coal companies grappled with these popular images: Air pollution and visibility, mine safety and labor regulations, unregulated strip mining, local apprehension, global warming, acid rain, soot and particulates, acid mine drainage and abandoned mines and more subsidence, the dreaded images of coal-draped Eastern Europe, and an unfair media. Coal was destined to play the villain unless "effective actions are taken to alter the public's perception of coal."

 

What to do? Welcome back to "Clean Coal."

 

Dirty Coal has been peddling their "clean coal" propaganda for over a century. Coal companies ran ads as early as 1907 in newspapers in Obama's adopted state of Illinois for smoke-free "clean coal" to burn in your stove or furnace. Former Illinois Governor Dan Walker touted illusory "Clean Coal" ideas during the OPEC crisis in the 1970s.

Story continues below

advertisement

 

Sixteen years after that fateful coal convention, not a day goes by that we don't hear or view an advertisement about "Clean Coal." Even a proposed coal-to-liquid gas plant in Kentucky, one of the most outrageous boondoggles and emission polluters in our times, has been renamed a "Clean Coal" project. While the nation's debut FutureGen "Clean Coal" plant in Mattoon, Illinois was scrapped by the Bush administration due to economic realities last year, the blur of TV ads financed by the coal lobby would make you think this has been the summer of "Clean Coal."

 

The Democrats would be wise to wake up to this century-old marketing campaign.

 

This latest version of "Clean Coal" is only a marketing slogan, a chimera of emission sequestration that no card-carrying scientist claims will be a reality for the next 20-30 years. And it's a crying shame some clean energy proponents and Democrats have attached dirty coal like meaningless bumper stickers to their bandwagons.

 

, the truth is that dirty coal is still extracted, stripmined, trucked, trained, processed, and burned in a daily violation of our environment and communities--and this is before it ever reaches an imaginary "clean coal" plant.

 

Across the country, residents outraged by coal slurry impoundments have even been forced to file suits in court to protect their groundwater.

 

 

"Doubtless the end of the coal, at least as an article of a mighty commerce, will arrive within a period brief in comparison with the ages of human existence. In the history of humanity, from first to last, the few centuries through which we are now passing will stand out prominently as the coal-burning period."

Edited August 29, 2008 by Savetheplanet

[Len_A]

IMA

 

As you have heard by now,McCain picked Sarah Palin Governor of Alaska for his VP choice. Bobby Jindal was my first choice,but he removed himself from the list to concentrate on the issues facing the state of Louisiana.

Brings the conservative base and some of those undecided independents and women over to McCain.

mccain goes after the good looking gals.

So basically, McCain picks a MILF, and the conservative base, some of the undecided independents, and what's left of the disaffected Hillary supports are supposed to be thrilled and ready to vote for McCain? OMG, this is another silly election season.

[Pioneer]

Palin bio.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080829/ap_on_...bio_box_palin_1

 

I don't see the qualifications of somebody that would be President if/when McCain dies in office.