Bush Planed Invasion Within Days Of Inauguration

RE: REGIME CHANGE!

> Replace

>them with an Independent, Green, or Democrat--whatever,

>because whomever else you choose they couldn't possibly do

>more for big business or less for you, the voter then the

>current pigs at the trough!

This sort of class warfare rhetoric has become so obsolete that it's now humorous to hear it. This idea that there's a zero-sum-game between business and "you, the voter" is pure incoherence.

As former Sen. Paul Tsongas (D - Mass.) astutely observed, you can't pretend to be pro-jobs and anti-business at the same time. Who do you think creates jobs? Hint - NOT inner city welfare mothers. If you take all the money away from business and give it to the poor, who do you think is going to create jobs?

And major corporations are not owned by a small number of individuals. Most have large pension fund investors, so that the better corporations do, the better those with pensions do. And many "voters" own stock in corporations, so that when businesses prosper, so do the average voters.

And that great surplus under Clinton that people such as yourself are always yapping about? Whose taxes do you think generated that surplus? Hint - it wasn't the taxes paid by inner city welfare mothers. It appeared only because business - your enemy - thrived and propsered and made so much money that tax revenues swamped the federal treasury.

Didn't Bill Clinton teach you that class warfare and spewing this false "business/average guy" dichotomy is both bad politics and facially false? Didn't you learn anything from him? It's amazing how eager certain people in your party are to disregard the teachings of the only Democrat to achieve national success since Jimmy Carter 25 years ago.

>I think you are making an assumption that the Muslim world is

>anxious to have democratic governments.....

I think it's a human desire to be free and not to live under brutal dictatorships. I don't think that Muslims or Arabs are exempt from that desire, and the belief that they are is one which I find to be patronizing and more than a little bigoted (albeit unintentionlly).

>And these are the very people who are becoming

>terrorists....Muslim extremists who want a religious state

>instead of a secular one....a democracy where all religious

>factions are equal is not what these terrorists want...so our

>actions in Iraq only further inflame them.

Yes, you are correct that Muslim extremists don't want democracy. But the majority of Muslims are not extremists. They become sympathetic to the extremists' anti-U.S. hatred, however, when the U.S. is seen as propping up dictatorships to rule over them. Once we stop doing that, and start reversing what we have done in that region, that hatred will disappear, because of the cause of it will. That doesn't mean there still won't be crazed Islamic terrorists. It just means that the populations in those countries -- who support and provide the recruitments for terroists -- won't share their hatred for the U.S. the way they do now.

>Democracy is a European cultural concept, not a Biblical one.

Oh, really? Tell that to the people of Japan, or Korea, or Israel, or Mexico, or Argentina, or TURKEY, or any number of democracies outside of Europe. This notion that only cultures dominated by white people can be democratic is not just amazingly self-regarding, it's also empiracally false. This whole notion was peddled during our democracy-building efforts in Japan (and, for that matter, in Germany), and now they have thriving democracies.

>I think the tacet acceptance of despotic rulers in the mid

>east is mostly because democracy is at odds with Muslim

>theology.

How could you possibly think you know if the people living under brutal dictatorships "tacitly accept" their oppression? One of the hallmarks of these dictatorships is that dissent is not permitted. If you look at the behavior of people when such dictatorships fall (look at Afghanistan, or Iraq, or the Eastern bloc countries), you will see a huge release and celebration that obviously could not have occurred while the dicatatorships were in place.

>And this is a religious war.....the problem is Bush and

>company think their religion is "righter" than the others and

>in the end God will reward them with more oil contracts than

>they can dream of.

Does anyone at all remember 9/11? Do you happen to recall the numerous other terrorist attacks which have been perpetrated against the U.S. and other Western countries and their intersts here and abroad?

If, as you argue, transforming the region where that terrorism comes from into a democratic region isn't the solution, what, then, do you think is the solution to the war which is being fought against us regardless of whether certain sectors of our population (thankfully small) want to live in the fantasy world that this isn't happening?

< Very few of the American people would

>be able to earn any money were it not for tax-financed public

>facilities that they use, such as roads, schools, hospitals,

>airports, seaports and universities. The private sector of

>the economy could not survive without the public sector; the

>statements of conservatives about taxes make one think they

>don't understand that very simple principle.

>

i adhere to the general belief that government wastes money whereas the private sector is productive and creates something of value. in that same vein, i'm of the belief that the so-called 'robber barons' built america, NOT big government. you can cite any of your examples above and question whether they can't be done in the private sector and probably more efficiently. sure some entrepreneurs and capitalists might get 'filthy' rich; but, why is that any worse than government workers and politicians all the way up and down the line getting rich via bribes, kickbacks, et al that too many people seem to think is only done by big business.

>

>But you did state that you "deplore" big government. Maybe

>you can explain how a small government would have the ability

>to check on the maintenance of all the aircraft used by all

>commercial airlines in America. Or how a small government

>would be able to monitor all the facilities in America that

>produce meat for human consumption. Or how a small government

>would be able to regulate the prescription drugs that are sold

>to people.

i think the above quote falls into my general statement before it about what the government is necessary for, as opposed to what can be done privately. let's face it, you and i can try to book a seat next to each other on a future shuttle to mars and never agree on all the fine points of what should be done by the government or better left to the private sector.

>>you ask "what was the poverty rate among senior citizens

>>before social security and medicare were created"? i don't

>>have those figures readily at my disposal; but, certainly

>get

>>your point. this is another too large a discussion to get

>>into here,

>

>Too large? I asked for two numbers. I think there is enough

>bandwidth on this website to allow someone to post two

>numbers.

i wasn't saying the numbers were too large to post here. in saying that i get your point, i was implying that i didn't find it necessary to try to dig up figures. my reference to too large was, i thought clear, to a DISCUSSION here about what's right or wrong about social security, and/or how to fix it. there are endless views and ideas from experts all over the political and belief spectrum in print for that. as i stated about discussing the proper role of government, we could use the return trip from mars to discuss social security, and quite possibly not agree on that either.

>

>I would agree that changes need to be made in both programs to

>accommodate demographic changes that are taking place in our

>society. But you seem to be saying that because changes need

>to be made to keep those programs operating, that somehow

>proves that it's a bad idea for government to create and run

>such programs in the first place -- and that I do NOT accept.

>Medicare was created in the 60s precisely because the

>insurance industry was NOT dealing with the health care needs

>of seniors. Social Security was created because private

>pension and savings programs had proven inadequate to deal

>with the economic needs of seniors. These programs have been

>around so long that some people seem to forget why they were

>created in the first place -- because the private sector had

>FAILED to address the needs of a large part of our population.

>

in regards to social security i'll just say that perhaps we could agree that part of fixing the social security problem will probably end up as a combination of private/government involvement. as to why or whether it was necessary for government to take over the problems you state social security and medicare were started for, i'll just make the observation that; instead of solving the perceived problem, all government seems to be able to do is make things worse. i see it all included as part of the all-inclusive 'lie' i alluded to in my original post. yes, a lie involving all political parties, not just republicans or the current administration.

btw, i just saw this morning some more comments from o'neil concerning his book. he commented how some of the soundbites coming out before the release of the book were distorting why he actually wrote the book. the book is basically talking about the "broken BIPARTISAN political process. he then also stated that, given the choices he sees available right now, that, yes, he would vote for bush for relection.

RE: REGIME CHANGE!

>This sort of class warfare rhetoric has become so obsolete

>that it's now humorous to hear it.

No one is laughing. No one who is not a pathological liar denies that it has become harder and harder to afford a middle-class lifestyle in this country. Ample facts and figures to demonstrate this can be found in the recent book by Harvard scholar Elizabeth Warren, "The Two Income Trap."

> This idea that there's a

>zero-sum-game between business and "you, the voter" is pure

>incoherence.

The idea that if we just give corporations more tax breaks they will create more jobs for Americans is pure shit. They'll create more jobs -- in China.

>As former Sen. Paul Tsongas (D - Mass.) astutely observed, you

>can't pretend to be pro-jobs and anti-business at the same

>time.

So how did the Tsongas presidency work out?

>Who do you think creates jobs? Hint - NOT inner city

>welfare mothers.

Well, it sure as hell isn't the same big corporations who are busy cutting their work force and outsourcing jobs to China and India, so there's no point in creating programs to benefit THEM.

>If you take all the money away from business

>and give it to the poor, who do you think is going to create

>jobs?

See above.

>And major corporations are not owned by a small number of

>individuals.

No. But they ARE controlled by a small number of individuals. That's how people like Conrad Black and Dennis Kozlowski and Ken Lay were able to rob their shareholders blind for years.

>Most have large pension fund investors, so that

>the better corporations do, the better those with pensions do.

Really? With all the gains the stock market has made this year, how come so many corporations have unfunded pension obligations that the PBGC now has more obligations than it has money to pay for them? How come GM had to float a huge bond issue in 2003 solely for the purpose of raising money to meet its unfunded pension obligations?

> And many "voters" own stock in corporations, so that when

>businesses prosper, so do the average voters.

Here we go again with the mysterious "many" figure. The truth is that the vast majority of Americans have only a small portion of their assets in equity investments. If you take away those Americans who own no stock directly but who have only a beneficial interest in a pension fund that owns stock, the number is probably less than 25%.

That's one reason the American middle class is little better off today than they were twenty years ago, despite the "booms" of the 80s and 90s.

>And that great surplus under Clinton that people such as

>yourself are always yapping about? Whose taxes do you think

>generated that surplus? Hint - it wasn't the taxes paid by

>inner city welfare mothers. It appeared only because business

>- your enemy - thrived and propsered and made so much money

>that tax revenues swamped the federal treasury.

And how much money can business make without the tax-financed public facilities that make their operations possible? How long could UPS stay in business without the federal highway system? How could any manufacturing company stay in business without the tax-financed roads and airports and seaports that allow it to transport raw materials and finished goods? How long could any of the large homebuilders stay in business if the federal government stopped subsidizing home mortgages? It's time for the Right to stop lying and pretending that the public sector is some kind of nuisance to business -- they couldn't last an hour without it.

>Didn't Bill Clinton teach you that class warfare and spewing

>this false "business/average guy" dichotomy is both bad

>politics and facially false? Didn't you learn anything from

>him?

For the benefit of anyone who has amnesia, Bill "It's the Economy, Stupid" Clinton got elected by telling the voters they were working harder for less money than ever before and that Republican "trickle-down economics" was nothing but a fraud. It is not a coincidence that his 1992 campaign was run by Carville, who had just run a successful Senate campaign for Harris Wofford in Pennsylvania by using the exact same themes.

>It's amazing how eager certain people in your party are

>to disregard the teachings of the only Democrat to achieve

>national success since Jimmy Carter 25 years ago.

It's amazing to me that so many adults complain that our public school students don't know anything about subjects like the Civil War, when many of the very same adults can't even remember the major political events of their own lifetimes, like the 1992 presidential campaign.

RE: REGIME CHANGE!

from jamesks' post

<<And don't get me started on what the Republicans just did to Medicare. Doesn't Bush ever say, "We've given so much to big business, shouldn't we do something for the voters now?"?? Ha!>>

sorry, but this isn't just a republican problem, it's both political parties. it's basically why i feel government has no business interfering with business to the extent they do. yes, the perceived idea that republicans are beholden to big business is a good example of the extent of the problem. that's why i see the solution getting governments' over reaching hand out of business - democrats and republicans both. as i mentioned in my last post to woodlawn that o'neil is now saying the purpose of writing his book was to point out "the broken bipartisan political process". i see capitalism, unfettered by unnecessary involvment of government, as the answer.

as doug69 stated:

>This sort of class warfare rhetoric has become so obsolete

>that it's now humorous to hear it. This idea that there's a

>zero-sum-game between business and "you, the voter" is pure

>incoherence.

yes, and all-inclusive in the big lie i originally mentioned; we (democrats or republicans) are reduced to arguing semantics and what party is stealing the least, or helping what favorable group (depending on your viewpoint) the most. all the while they are BOTH feeding at the trough.

>As former Sen. Paul Tsongas (D - Mass.) astutely observed, you

>can't pretend to be pro-jobs and anti-business at the same

>time. Who do you think creates jobs? Hint - NOT inner city

>welfare mothers. If you take all the money away from business

>and give it to the poor, who do you think is going to create

>jobs?

>

>And major corporations are not owned by a small number of

>individuals. Most have large pension fund investors, so that

>the better corporations do, the better those with pensions do.

> And many "voters" own stock in corporations, so that when

>businesses prosper, so do the average voters.

not to mention, too many of us seem to forget, that as we keep raising business taxes, or add onerous rules to business, that ultimately everybody pays. you may blame it on the greed of corporations; but, it's the nature of the beast. i'm sorry the best businessman or person with the best idea gets rich, maybe 'filthy' rich. the same thing happens to entertainers and sports stars, who happen to be the best in consumers' eyes. where's the outcry about their outrageous fortunes they amass that businessmen or capitalists receive.

>

>And that great surplus under Clinton that people such as

>yourself are always yapping about? Whose taxes do you think

>generated that surplus? Hint - it wasn't the taxes paid by

>inner city welfare mothers. It appeared only because business

>- your enemy - thrived and propsered and made so much money

>that tax revenues swamped the federal treasury.

>

>Didn't Bill Clinton teach you that class warfare and spewing

>this false "business/average guy" dichotomy is both bad

>politics and facially false? Didn't you learn anything from

>him? It's amazing how eager certain people in your party are

>to disregard the teachings of the only Democrat to achieve

>national success since Jimmy Carter 25 years ago.

>i adhere to the general belief that government wastes money

>whereas the private sector is productive and creates something

>of value.

Yeah? It's government that wastes money, is it? Shall we talk about Dennis Kozlowski's $17 million New York apartment with the $6,000.00 shower curtain and the $1 million dollar birthday party for his wife in Sardinia, all paid for by the shareholders of Tyco, though the poor bastards didn't know about it at the time?

Or shall we talk about the vast amounts of money spent by Microsoft and AT&T during the 90s to acquire Internet companies that ended up producing nothing but huge losses? How is WebTV doing these days?

Government wastes money, whereas business is productive? So what happened to the vast fiber optic networks built in the 90s by companies like Qwest and Global Crossing? As I understand it, less than 10% of the capacity of those networks is currently being used. You sure you want to talk about waste?

>you can cite any of your examples above and question whether

>they can't be done in the private sector and probably more

>efficiently.

Why don't you explain to us why private HMOs have administrative costs that are a double-digit percentage of revenues, while for Medicare the percentage is a fraction of that? Well?

>sure some entrepreneurs and capitalists might

>get 'filthy' rich; but, why is that any worse than government

>workers and politicians all the way up and down the line

>getting rich via bribes, kickbacks, et al that too many people

>seem to think is only done by big business.

So which politicians do you know these days who have gotten rich from bribes? Or are you under the impression that you can just make shit up and the rest of us will pretend it's a fact for the purpose of this discussion?

>But you did state that you "deplore" big government. Maybe

>>you can explain how a small government would have the

>ability

>>to check on the maintenance of all the aircraft used by all

>>commercial airlines in America. Or how a small government

>>would be able to monitor all the facilities in America that

>>produce meat for human consumption. Or how a small

>government

>>would be able to regulate the prescription drugs that are

>sold

>>to people.

>i think the above quote falls into my general statement before

>it about what the government is necessary for, as opposed to

>what can be done privately.

Yeah? But I am still waiting for you to tell me about all the government functions that can be taken over by the private sector. So far you have come up with a big zero.

> let's face it, you and i can try

>to book a seat next to each other on a future shuttle to mars

>and never agree on all the fine points of what should be done

>by the government or better left to the private sector.

Well if you can't even come up with a single example -- if instead you just cop out by saying it's "too big" to discuss -- the discussion isn't going to last very long.

>>Too large? I asked for two numbers. I think there is

>enough

>>bandwidth on this website to allow someone to post two

>>numbers.

>i wasn't saying the numbers were too large to post here. in

>saying that i get your point, i was implying that i didn't

>find it necessary to try to dig up figures.

And I don't find it necessary to pay any attention to any of your arguments if you can't come up with any facts to support them. I say that Social Security and Medicare have vastly reduced the poverty rate among seniors. Can you refute that?

>there are endless views and ideas from experts all over

>the political and belief spectrum in print for that.

No, there are NOT endless views and ideas. Anyone who can add and subtract can figure out what the alternatives are for a pension plan for which contributions are decreasing and claims are increasing. There are only three. You either increase contributions, decrease the amount paid out in claims, or do both. I could summarize the various ways of pursuing each of these alternatives in about one page.

>as i

>stated about discussing the proper role of government, we

>could use the return trip from mars to discuss social

>security, and quite possibly not agree on that either.

Your pattern seems to be to make large generalizations but when called on to back them up, run away claiming the discussion is "too big."

>in regards to social security i'll just say that perhaps we

>could agree that part of fixing the social security problem

>will probably end up as a combination of private/government

>involvement.

No, we couldn't.

as to why or whether it was necessary for

>government to take over the problems you state social security

>and medicare were started for, i'll just make the observation

>that; instead of solving the perceived problem, all government

>seems to be able to do is make things worse.

Once again, the decrease in the poverty rate among seniors is NOT making things "worse," unless you think more poverty among seniors is a good thing.

>btw, i just saw this morning some more comments from o'neil

>concerning his book. he commented how some of the soundbites

>coming out before the release of the book were distorting why

>he actually wrote the book.

I don't know about that. I do know that I saw an interview with him in which he described in no uncertain terms how disengaged Bush was in his meetings with him. Nothing distorted there.

It looks as though subject drift has taken hold, so, I'll jump in . . .

I personally get tired of the "taxes are too high" mantra I keep hearing. In my lifetime, federal income tax rates are much lower than they were in the late 70's. At that time I was in college, majoring in accounting, and soon after that began working as a tax accountant. At that time the highest federal income tax rate, IIRC, was 70%. I do remember that earnings (as opposed to interest, dividend income and capital gains) were capped at 50%. I'm not proposing to return to those days, but, tax rates have come down dramatically.

One major issue I have with the current administration is their lack of restraining spending (and, by that I mean the $87 billion for Iraq) combined with massive tax cuts.

On this board and others I've read many unending strings about "government vrs private industry". I will agree that private industry can do some things much better than govenment. However, I also strongly believe that the federal government needs to provide a strong oversight of private industry. There is one aspect that I've not seen mentioned in various discussions. That is the difference between looking at today vrs looking at the future. For example, environmentalists will argue that electric utilities with coal fired plants should reduce polution. The electric utilities respond that the cost of polution control is too expensive. So, the government can force the utilities to install polution control equipment, or, agree with the utilities the cost (today) is too high. Eventually, residents near these power plants will get sick and medical costs will increase. When medical insurance companies get hit with higher costs, they will pass along the costs to all customers. And/or, depending on how bad the situation becomes, the insurance companies will go to the government for help, and all taxpayers will pay (in the future) for the cost of medical care due to pollution. To use another (real) example, when the banking industry was deregulated and a number of savings and loans went bankrupt, (remember Silverado, connected to Neil Bush??), taxpayers ended up paying the tab for many years . . . and, for that matter, may still be paying the tab.

I do think too many current political issues are being decided based on expedience rather than what's best.

If you were a tax accountant, you know that there were tons more deductions, tax credits, exemptions and tax shelters available in the days of 70% top tax rates. Very few people actually paid those rates, since anyone making that much money could shelter their income fairly easily.

The drop in marginal tax rates during the Reagan era was matched with the elimination of almost all of these tax avoidance opportunities. And rates have been rising steadily since then thanks to Bush I and Clinton. These days the roughly 40% top tax rate with few ways to escape it is in some ways more onerous.

RE: REGIME CHANGE!

>If you take all the money away from business

>and give it to the poor, who do you think is going to create

>jobs?

I wasn't necessarily speaking of money, nor the redistribution of wealth. The simple fact is, corporations can only be trusted to do what is profitable for them. Yet the right screams deregulation at every opportunity and is all for agribusiness pollution, slave-wages overseas as our jobs flock there, and even though big business has recently shown they'll lie about their basic accounting if given half a chance--by all means, less regulation and oversight!

Why should corporations (such as Halliburton) get multi-billion contracts from our government when they are based in the Caribbean for tax reasons?

Why shouldn't corporations have to pay to clean land and entire communities they've polluted (superfund)?

The right is all for 'invisible hand' BS until a corporation needs a bailout, needs to get out of liability for their product killing people, or needs some way to consume more resources or pollute more... don't mind 'big government interference' so much then, do you?

>And major corporations are not owned by a small number of

>individuals. Most have large pension fund investors, so that

>the better corporations do, the better those with pensions do.

> And many "voters" own stock in corporations, so that when

>businesses prosper, so do the average voters.

Ah yes, trickle down to the small-guy stock owner. But why can't the average-guy stock owner, most of whom's stock is in pension/retirement funds, vote on the way the companies he owns stock in are run? If he chooses, why can't he/she tell HP that not another fucking job is to go to India, tell Chrysler to stand on it's own two feet instead of selling out in a 'merger of equals', etc? Oh yeah, because some rich stock holder gets to control the votes all these average people's stock is entitled to...

>Didn't Bill Clinton teach you that class warfare and spewing

>this false "business/average guy" dichotomy is both bad

>politics and facially false? Didn't you learn anything from

>him? It's amazing how eager certain people in your party are

>to disregard the teachings of the only Democrat to achieve

>national success since Jimmy Carter 25 years ago.

It's a pity you guys had to crucify Clinton then, isn't it? You had a pro-business Democrat, a great economy, control of the house and senate, and you showed your true nature, that enough is never enough, put a puppet in the white house and showed us that appeasement/middle-of-the-road can not work... Thanks for the kick in the ass, we needed it. Prepare for us to return the kick, it'll be at the same general height, but we don't kick people with their backs turned... :o

>>i adhere to the general belief that government wastes money

>>whereas the private sector is productive and creates

>something

>>of value.

>

>Yeah? It's government that wastes money, is it? Shall we

>talk about Dennis Kozlowski's $17 million New York apartment

>with the $6,000.00 shower curtain and the $1 million dollar

>birthday party for his wife in Sardinia,

well, you did pick a great example here; but, in this case it's a matter of theft and fraud, being tried in the court system as we type. i believe it's common knowledge there are thiefs in all walks of life, including government (sorry i don't have a poll or figures to post for you).

>Or shall we talk about the vast amounts of money spent by

>Microsoft and AT&T during the 90s to acquire Internet

>companies that ended up producing nothing but huge losses?

>How is WebTV doing these days?

>

>Government wastes money, whereas business is productive? So

>what happened to the vast fiber optic networks built in the

>90s by companies like Qwest and Global Crossing? As I

>understand it, less than 10% of the capacity of those networks

>is currently being used. You sure you want to talk about

>waste?

this is exactly how the market place works. how it sorts out the winners and losers. it might not be pretty at times; but, i think it beats having a government trying to pick out who should be rewarded or helped to succeed. this is where the republican party deserves the bad rap they get for being beholden to big business. yes i think both parties are quilty of interfering in the market place instead of letting capitalism work and thrive. again, no polls or figures to post or refer you to. just my opinions based on my experiences in the world, my schooling and reading over the years. you've certainly formed vastly different opinions and ideas from your influences; but, hey, that's the beauty of mans mind.

>Why don't you explain to us why private HMOs have

>administrative costs that are a double-digit percentage of

>revenues, while for Medicare the percentage is a fraction of

>that? Well?

my answer to that would be the government bureacracy and red tape they have to pay people to deal with. i'm not sure there's a logical way to compare the cost of running a profitable business with a particular section of government, but am sure you'll share if you do.

>

>>sure some entrepreneurs and capitalists might

>>get 'filthy' rich; but, why is that any worse than

>government

>>workers and politicians all the way up and down the line

>>getting rich via bribes, kickbacks, et al that too many

>people

>>seem to think is only done by big business.

>

>So which politicians do you know these days who have gotten

>rich from bribes? Or are you under the impression that you

>can just make shit up and the rest of us will pretend it's a

>fact for the purpose of this discussion?

i don't know how many other people will be as amused as me by that last comment, but at least i enjoyed it. i'll just throw out one name off the top of my head, since he's an ex-congressman from my state. bud shuster, head of the congressional transportation committee for many years. sorry you'll have to do the research on his transgressions and HUGE amounts of transportation dollars funneled into his rural district in the middle of pennsylvania if you think i'm just making shit up.

i will type in a current article from my sunday paper that i have in front of me to give a recent example:

HARTFORD, conn. "republican rep. rob simmons yesterday became the first member of connecticut's congressional delegation to call on gov. john g. rowland to resign, saying the governor had lost his 'moral authority' to lead.

rowland, also a republican, has faced increasing calls for his resignation and threats of impeachment since he admitted accepting gifts to improve his lakefront summer cottage from politically appointed state employees."

>>But you did state that you "deplore" big government. Maybe

>>>you can explain how a small government would have the

>>ability

>>>to check on the maintenance of all the aircraft used by all

>>>commercial airlines in America. Or how a small government

>>>would be able to monitor all the facilities in America that

>>>produce meat for human consumption. Or how a small

>>government

>>>would be able to regulate the prescription drugs that are

>>sold

>>>to people.

interesting how the mere mention of 'big government' or high taxes never fails to have someone bring up any number of gvmt agencies, bureaus, functions that can't be done without, or by anyone other than government. i choose not to retort any and every single thing you can come up with; but, i will throw one out for your amusement - the post office. i'll also give you another generalization; that the proper functions of a government fall into three broad categories.

1) the police 2) the armed services and 3) the law courts. sorry, i just don't have the interest to bother continually discussing all the rest here. i admit i can be mentally lazy at times, not to mention plenty else to do with my time. spin it any way you want

>>and never agree on all the fine points of what should be

>done

>>by the government or better left to the private sector.

>

>Well if you can't even come up with a single example -- if

>instead you just cop out by saying it's "too big" to discuss

>-- the discussion isn't going to last very long.

well, i'm sure not to your satisfaction; but i covered this above.

>

>

>And I don't find it necessary to pay any attention to any of

>your arguments if you can't come up with any facts to support

>them. I say that Social Security and Medicare have vastly

>reduced the poverty rate among seniors. Can you refute that?

i agree social security helped many people in the beginning. i don't need to quote figures and proof any more than you do. what i will say is that current seniors have less poverty now along with all age groups being in better shape. a function of a much larger economy and overall wealth. i will also state my OPINION that the wealth of future generations will definitely be affected by social security; but in a very bad way.

>>there are endless views and ideas from experts all over

>>the political and belief spectrum in print for that.

>

>No, there are NOT endless views and ideas. Anyone who can add

>and subtract can figure out what the alternatives are for a

>pension plan for which contributions are decreasing and claims

>are increasing. There are only three. You either increase

>contributions, decrease the amount paid out in claims, or do

>both. I could summarize the various ways of pursuing each of

>these alternatives in about one page.

well, yes, you make it very simple on paper; but, if there aren't numerous views and ideas to fix the problem, why doesn't the government have it solved.

>Your pattern seems to be to make large generalizations but

>when called on to back them up, run away claiming the

>discussion is "too big."

this i freely agree with you. i am basically mentioning ideas, opinions, a different viewpoint. yes, some large generalizations. i feel i'm mostly voicing my viewpoint on things, concepts, if you will. they can get bogged down in too much detail. if you or anyone else have any interest in knowing more, or hunting up numbers and details that may prove something wrong, knock yourselves out. there's plenty of reading material available for reference.

>Once again, the decrease in the poverty rate among seniors is

>NOT making things "worse," unless you think more poverty among

>seniors is a good thing.

here i'll insert my opinion that, just like the current mess in social security, we havn't seen anything yet. wait til we do the same thing with the medicare/medicaid program. think of all the seniors now and soon to be demanding the government take care of their medical bills. sure they'll probably feel sorry about their future generations being stuck with the bill. but what do you think will happen?

AGAIN, NO FACTS AND FIGURES TO QUOTE YOU; but, i've spent enough time in toronto the last couple years. read newspaper articles about their medical care system that sounds so rosy. what i've read is that there are shortages of hospital beds, long waits for elected surgery; people with money pay for private care, even coming to the united states to get the care they want. i don't know what if any relation it has to their health care system, but it seems to me there's more homeless street people in toronto than i've seen anywhere else. granted, i might not be spending time in the right areas of nyc or other places to make a good comparison.

>>>i adhere to the general belief that government wastes

>money

>>>whereas the private sector is productive and creates

>>something

>>>of value.

>>

>>Yeah? It's government that wastes money, is it? Shall we

>>talk about Dennis Kozlowski's $17 million New York apartment

>>with the $6,000.00 shower curtain and the $1 million dollar

>>birthday party for his wife in Sardinia,

>well, you did pick a great example here; but, in this case

>it's a matter of theft and fraud, being tried in the court

>system as we type. i believe it's common knowledge there are

>thiefs in all walks of life, including government (sorry i

>don't have a poll or figures to post for you).

If there are people in all walks of life who misuse the funds of the organizations they run for things like a $6,000.00 shower curtain, then you need to explain your assertion that it is government that wastes money while business does things that are productive. Those two statements contradict each other.

>>Or shall we talk about the vast amounts of money spent by

>>Microsoft and AT&T during the 90s to acquire Internet

>>companies that ended up producing nothing but huge losses?

>>How is WebTV doing these days?

>>

>>Government wastes money, whereas business is productive? So

>>what happened to the vast fiber optic networks built in the

>>90s by companies like Qwest and Global Crossing? As I

>>understand it, less than 10% of the capacity of those

>networks

>>is currently being used. You sure you want to talk about

>>waste?

>this is exactly how the market place works. how it sorts out

>the winners and losers. it might not be pretty at times;

But if the "market place" functions by wasting huge amounts of money on acquisitions that produce nothing, how does that square with your statement that government wastes money while business spends it in ways that are productive? Again, those two statements contradict each other. So which is true?

>but,

>i think it beats having a government trying to pick out who

>should be rewarded or helped to succeed.

Why? Why is money wasted by corporations in acquiring businesses that never make a profit "better" than money wasted by government on some unproductive venture? Well?

>>Why don't you explain to us why private HMOs have

>>administrative costs that are a double-digit percentage of

>>revenues, while for Medicare the percentage is a fraction of

>>that? Well?

>my answer to that would be the government bureacracy and red

>tape they have to pay people to deal with.

But that answer tells us nothing. If the issue is whether it's better for the public sector or the private sector to provide health insurance, why shouldn't we pick the sector that shows it spends the least amount of money on administrative costs and other expenses besides actually providing health care?

>>So which politicians do you know these days who have gotten

>>rich from bribes? Or are you under the impression that you

>>can just make shit up and the rest of us will pretend it's a

>>fact for the purpose of this discussion?

>i don't know how many other people will be as amused as me by

>that last comment, but at least i enjoyed it. i'll just throw

>out one name off the top of my head, since he's an

>ex-congressman from my state. bud shuster, head of the

>congressional transportation committee for many years. sorry

>you'll have to do the research on his transgressions and HUGE

>amounts of transportation dollars funneled into his rural

>district in the middle of pennsylvania if you think i'm just

>making shit up.

I'll continue to think and to say that you're just making shit up until you post some facts. If you think I'm going to do research to find facts to support YOUR arguments, you need a reality check. That's your job, not mine.

>i will type in a current article from my sunday paper that i

>have in front of me to give a recent example:

>HARTFORD, conn. "republican rep. rob simmons yesterday became

>the first member of connecticut's congressional delegation to

>call on gov. john g. rowland to resign,

I've heard of Rowland's troubles. What I haven't heard is any evidence that he gave anyone anything in return for the benefits he received. Got any? So far as I know, Rowland is accused of lying about the fact that he accepted gifts from state employees and contractors, but not of bribery.

>interesting how the mere mention of 'big government' or high

>taxes never fails to have someone bring up any number of gvmt

>agencies, bureaus, functions that can't be done without, or by

>anyone other than government. i choose not to retort any and

>every single thing you can come up with; but, i will throw one

>out for your amusement - the post office.

Around here when people say they "choose not to retort" it usually means they've been caught saying something they can't back up. As for the post office, you've chosen a remarkably poor example considering that it was separated from government long ago and now pays its own way without appropriations of taxpayer funds.

>i admit i can be mentally lazy

>at times, not to mention plenty else to do with my time. spin

>it any way you want

No spin here. Just the fact that if you want anyone to take your arguments seriously you'll have to stop making excuses for failing to support them when challenged.

>i agree social security helped many people in the beginning.

>i don't need to quote figures and proof any more than you do.

Yes, you do. Here is a figure for you. Today, more than 50% of the seniors in America derive at least 50% of their annual income from Social Security. Can you challenge that?

>well, yes, you make it very simple on paper; but, if there

>aren't numerous views and ideas to fix the problem, why

>doesn't the government have it solved.

Because all of the solutions involve asking someone to make sacrifices. And politicians don't like doing that.

>>Your pattern seems to be to make large generalizations but

>>when called on to back them up, run away claiming the

>>discussion is "too big."

>this i freely agree with you. i am basically mentioning

>ideas, opinions, a different viewpoint.

But not doing anything to back it up.

>but what do you think will happen?

I think that we will wind up with a single-payer health insurance system for everyone because the alternative is to have large groups of people whose health suffers because they can't afford insurance. In the 1990s we listened to the HMOs who told us they could solve the problem of out-of-control growth in healthcare costs by removing inefficienies from the system. They failed, and now we are back to double-digit cost increases every year. Time for the public sector to step in and do what the private sector failed to do. Again.

>AGAIN, NO FACTS AND FIGURES TO QUOTE YOU; but, i've spent

>enough time in toronto the last couple years. read newspaper

>articles about their medical care system that sounds so rosy.

>what i've read is that there are shortages of hospital beds,

>long waits for elected surgery;

Here's a fact for you: While people in Canada, the UK and other countries complain endlessly about the inefficiency of their national health insurance systems, how many of them would be willing to scrap their systems in return for the every-man-for-himself system America has? You will not find any major political leader in any of those countries who is willing to advocate that because he knows no one would support it.

I am continually amused by the discussions regarding government vrs corporate "waste". IMHO, both government and private corporations waste a great deal of money. The difference is that when the government wastes money, it's "newsworthy".

I can recall two specific examples in my life of corporate waste -

I was a consultant at a private company for several years. There were 8 to 10 consultants in this group. We were all paid by the hour. When we were busy, we got paid for every hour we worked. When work was slow, we sat around for days at a time getting paid. All we needed to do was to show up at the office. Why the employer didn't make us employees I'll never know. I will say I got paid very well during those years.

Recently I was contacted about another consulting job. Company X has outsourced a function to Company Y. So, Company X is paying company Y for a service, plus some amount of administrative cost and profit for Company Y. Company Y needed more people to work on a project and contacted Company Z to find them. So, anyone hired under this system would be an employee of Company Z, providing a service to Company X and Company Y. Therefore, there's a chain of intermediary companies making some money on this person's hourly wage. Possibly, this may be the cheapest way to find an employee, but, somehow, I doubt it.

It's very easy to find examples of waste in any organization. I do recall stories of a $6,000 toilet seat purchased by the military many years ago. However, there are times that examples of "excessive spending" may have a purpose. (I'm not saying, or implying, that the $6,000 toilet seat falls in this category.)

The bottom line is that, IMHO, waste can be found in all organizations, public and private. And, "waste" is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. I do think this is not the same issue as trying to figure out which organizations, private or public, can do things best. Neither the government nor private industry can do EVERYTHING better than the other. The issue is trying to figure out which organizations can do what best.

Yes, but quite simply when the government wastes money it's directly taxpayer money. When the government screams about domestic spending but gross waste like a $6000 toilet seat is un-earthed, your damn right it's newsworthy (and one must assume that it's the tip of the iceberg...)

Corporations hire consultants as opposed to full-time employess because then they need not pay them any benefits, and they're easily disposable in an economic downturn. I agree with you that, even considering those facts which I don't think you mentioned (and I'm sure someone more knowlegeable about this from the corporation's viewpoint will be able to add more cost savings to this equation), it may still not be cost-effective, but then again I suppose we'd both need to see the actual numbers so respective of that it's mere assertion. But, like I said, it's easy still to see it the way you are seeing it, I'm just not sure that's the whole picture.

At any rate a corporation's waste is not MY waste, UNLESS they're doing government work OR if they've clearly broken the law. Hence, while interesting it's not newsworthy.

>At any rate a corporation's waste is not MY waste, UNLESS

>they're doing government work OR if they've clearly broken the

>law. Hence, while interesting it's not newsworthy.

But corporations, like governments, get their money from other people. The money corporations spend belongs to their shareholders. Large public companies like ATT and Tyco have hundreds of thousands if not millions of shareholders -- certainly millions if you count all the beneficiaries of pension funds and all the shareholders of mutual funds and hedge funds that own their stock. And corporate waste can have just as bad an effect on society as government waste. The overinvestment by telecoms in capacity that no one wanted in the 90s, for example, led to hundreds of thousands of layoffs. Cities and states where those layoffs were concentrated lost a fortune in tax revenue and had to cut back on services and hiring as a result. Lucent alone laid off more people in the past five years than the entire population of the town where I was born. It's absurd to say that corporate waste isn't newsworthy.

>If there are people in all walks of life who misuse the funds

>of the organizations they run for things like a $6,000.00

>shower curtain, then you need to explain your assertion that

>it is government that wastes money while business does things

>that are productive. Those two statements contradict each

>other.

yes, it does seem to contradict. it has to do with the general principle i believe that people will make more careful decisions concerning their own money or life choices than some government entity will with tax dollars. same thing that will happen (even assuming i'm basically honest) to how well i might manage your finances if you handed them over to me, as opposed to how much more careful i will handle my own money, by nature. consider the vast amounts of tax money spent in trying to buy our votes; or, if you like, rewarding corporations or individuals for their campaign contributions. conversly, i believe the majority of businessmen are trying to do what's best for them, their employees, and shareholders. in spite of the one's making all the headlines, i don't automatically make the jump that anyone in business has to be corrupt (nor the jump that there are not plenty of honest, well-meaning people in government). the same way that i believe, in spite of the general feeling many people have about ambulance-chasing lawyers; or that by nature lawyers are nothing but liars protecting criminals, that there are plenty of ethical, highly principled people in that profession. no, i don't have polls and numbers to throw at you to quantify my beliefs.

>But if the "market place" functions by wasting huge amounts of

>money on acquisitions that produce nothing, how does that

>square with your statement that government wastes money while

>business spends it in ways that are productive? Again, those

>two statements contradict each other. So which is true?

in addition to my reply above, i'll just emphasize the part about all the programs and boondoggles politicians use to enable them to stay in power.

>>but,

>>i think it beats having a government trying to pick out who

>>should be rewarded or helped to succeed.

>

>Why? Why is money wasted by corporations in acquiring

>businesses that never make a profit "better" than money wasted

>by government on some unproductive venture? Well?

i wouldn't say it's better in an immediate sense. in spite of the short term misery that can be caused individually, those making the right investment or decisions will be rewarded (and the consumer will benefit ultimately in price efficiencies), while those making the wrong decisions and investments will suffer. again, a function of the marketplace. conversly, when government spends money in a wasteful way, there is no clear reward or penalty. just more taxpayer money to continue the cycle. it comes down to whether you think capitalism is morally right, or do you think socialism, or what we have now, a mixed economic system, is right.

>I'll continue to think and to say that you're just making shit

>up until you post some facts. If you think I'm going to do

>research to find facts to support YOUR arguments, you need a

>reality check. That's your job, not mine.

i totally agree with what you say here. i am just saying that i can post my thoughts and ideas as easily as anyone else does here. obviously, you're free to agree, disagree, accept at face value, or whatever. depends what you think you're ever going to accomplish here. i just don't see this board as anything close to being on a witness stand, or preparing to introduce a bill in a legislature that i need to do exhaustive research for. i've spent plenty of time reading long back and forth posts between you and any number of posters. i've been alternately entertained, enlightened, exposed to different viewpoints than mine, or just sometimes made to think about some subjects i don't normally. if i ever have the desire, based on what someone posted, to check or learn more about a subject, i can find the resources to do so. i have no need or desire for you to do my research. i understand that what i post here will simply be what it is - one persons ideas and opinions; please take them for what they're worth.

>Around here when people say they "choose not to retort" it

>usually means they've been caught saying something they can't

>back up. As for the post office, you've chosen a remarkably

>poor example considering that it was separated from government

>long ago and now pays its own way without appropriations of

>taxpayer funds

i'm sure you're right about the first sentence. it can also mean just how much time does one want to spend here. as a friend asked me yesterday, "what are you spending so much time on a bulletin board discussing politics for"? i don't claim to be some great 'scholarly mind'. i would prefer to be spending this time reading up on my passions and interest in these concepts, so, for sure, this discussion, on my part will have to end soon. addictions are just SO hard to break.

as to the post office example i recall it being set up as some separate entity; but i believe it's still a government function. i don't recall reading any profit or loss figures in a while.

>No spin here. Just the fact that if you want anyone to take

>your arguments seriously you'll have to stop making excuses

>for failing to support them when challenged.

i'll consider this advice, thank you.

> Here is a figure for you. Today, more than 50%

>of the seniors in America derive at least 50% of their annual

>income from Social Security. Can you challenge that?

i might be able to, but without the desire to bother checking it i will respectfully accept it as true. i will just cite my personal example in an attempt to make my point about the difference now as opposed to people who were and still are benefitting from social security. i retired eary at 55, with a defined pension plan, along with a 401k plan. i was fortunate to work for a company that kept their defined pension plan when 401k plans were established; unlike many companies that dropped their defined plans to replace them solely with 401k plans. these (401k plans) were a good thing, i think, unfortunately made mindboggingly complicated, like so much congress ends up doing with things meant to solve some problem. i know i have to wait til i'm 62 to collect any social security, but i said, what the hell, who knows whether there will be any social security then anyway. i know i have to accept personal responsibility if i end up in poverty in my later years due to my decision. i would feel better about my chances of getting the money i put into social security back had it been invested privately, than how the government managed to spend it all on social programs, defense, what have you.

>Because all of the solutions involve asking someone to make

>sacrifices. And politicians don't like doing that.

therein lies the problem with all the open ended cost of entitlement programs started by government to fix every perceived problem. their easy to enact, but next to impossible to take away, once costs spiral out of control. now the people see it as a right, that they don't want taken away, just hoping that someone else will end up paying for it. yes, it is next to impossible for politicians to do, short of continually raising taxes as costs keep mounting.

>>AGAIN, NO FACTS AND FIGURES TO QUOTE YOU; but, i've spent

>>enough time in toronto the last couple years. read

>newspaper

>>articles about their medical care system that sounds so

>rosy.

>>what i've read is that there are shortages of hospital beds,

>>long waits for elected surgery;

>

>Here's a fact for you: While people in Canada, the UK and

>other countries complain endlessly about the inefficiency of

>their national health insurance systems, how many of them

>would be willing to scrap their systems in return for the

>every-man-for-himself system America has? You will not find

>any major political leader in any of those countries who is

>willing to advocate that because he knows no one would support

>it.

the same principle i mentioned above...once you start an entitlement program it's next to impossible to do away with it by politicians, whether it's working well or not.

btw, i inadvertently erased your point about the newspaper article about the conn. governor...no i have no details about bribary per se. i'd just happened to have read about it before i'd logged onto the computer so thought i had some actual evidence to back up my point, for a change.:7

<<I agree with you that, even considering those facts which I don't think you mentioned (and I'm sure someone more knowlegeable about this from the corporation's viewpoint will be able to add more cost savings to this equation), it may still not be cost-effective, but then again I suppose we'd both need to see the actual numbers so respective of that it's mere assertion. But, like I said, it's easy still to see it the way you are seeing it, I'm just not sure that's the whole picture.>>

another example: i worked in a corp managing teamsters. we paid a HUGE amount of overtime at considerable expense. the justification was its still cheaper to pay the overtime than the considerable cost of hiring someone, paying all the fringes and benefits you have to pay an extra worker, not knowing how long would need an extra worker, and the difficulty and expense of layoffs or the expense of fringes having to be paid even if a person isn't getting in 40 hrs. not to mention, it is near IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of someone once their 30 day probation is up and they are a full-fledged teamster. believe me or not, it is amazing how fast a work ethic can change when many people go from the probation to being a teamster.

Interesting on this board since the majority of the people here have posted about how Bush was doing a tax cut for the rich. The story comes out that he was actually trying to get some tax relief for the middle class and now the government can't give back what it has not already taken, ergo Bush could not have a tax cut for the middle class. Amazing!!

If you look at some of the older entries in this message center, the Clinton Justice Dept in 1998 claimed that there were definite links between Al Quaeda, bin Laden and Saddam where Saddam would furnish training sites for the Al Quaeda. The link between 9/11 and Iraq is in the training that was provided. The money came form Saudi Arabia and so did the terrorists. The statement has been made before by the president that there was not a definite direct link between Saddam and 9/11 but that there was an indirect link between them which consisted of the training.

Just as a rule of thumb, and I worked in the payroll/personnel/benefits side of computing for a lot of years, the general figure that is bandied about is that the benefits of hiring a person run around 35% of his total pay. This includes his health care (generally the companies pay around 80%), the company part of FICA, and the rest of the benefits involved including pension, etc. That is just a general rule of thumb and varies based on the position of the person in the company. CEO's generally have a much higher % because of their taking a lot of their compensation in deferred and company matching offerings.

Dick, everyone who pays income taxes received a tax cut and the middle class received much larger percentage cuts than the higher income groups. The idea that the middle class did not get a tax cut is just plain wrong. The only people who did not receive a tax cut are the ones who didn't pay an income tax, AND, many of them received a 1000 gift from the government in the form of the family tax "credit". In general, the people who were paying the most taxes got the most dollars back. Hence the Democrat's dishonest pretense that it was a tax cut for the rich. O'Neill's claim about what Bush said doesn't make much sense, but it may be because the comment was made before the final tax plan was completed.

>Just as a rule of thumb, and I worked in the

>payroll/personnel/benefits side of computing for a lot of

>years, the general figure that is bandied about is that the

>benefits of hiring a person run around 35% of his total pay.

We also add one-time costs. These include hiring costs related to search, interviews, background investigations and drug screening. We have to budget 50% of the corporate severance package up front and, believe it or not, for employees in California, we apply an ‘X’ factor that is used for legal fees incurred by wrongful termination suits. Needless to say, we make extensive use of contractors!

I agree. I was being satiric or ironic or something. It seems Bush just can't cut a break with these people. If it turns out he did what they want, then he is doing it only for political reasons. If not, then he is being Hitlerlike or lying or only for big business or something. Meanwhile, the demmie dwarfs can do and say anything and they will applaud their little hands off. Doesn't matter that the dwarfs said exactly the opposite thing an hour earlier. They applauded that too.

RE: REGIME CHANGE!

>No one is laughing. No one who is not a pathological liar

>denies that it has become harder and harder to afford a

>middle-class lifestyle in this country.

Oh, so then I guess we need to take away more money which the rich have earned and give it to people who haven't earned it. That will solve the problem. That way everyone can be equal! Sounds like a great idea.

Ample facts and

>figures to demonstrate this can be found in the recent book by

>Harvard scholar Elizabeth Warren, "The Two Income Trap."

So Bush caused the middle class to disappear in 3 short years? Amazing what that man can single-handedly achieve.

>The idea that if we just give corporations more tax breaks

>they will create more jobs for Americans is pure shit.

>They'll create more jobs -- in China.

You've expressed putative concern here before about the loss of jobs. If you don't think corporations will create jobs, who do you think will? Welfare moms? Government bureaucrats? Who?

And the reason that corporations go to China to hire workers is because there's no free market here, because unions and government regulations - you know, the things you love - make it too expensive for corporations to be able to afford U.S. workers. So people like you drove out American jobs. Good going.

>>As former Sen. Paul Tsongas (D - Mass.) astutely observed,

>you

>>can't pretend to be pro-jobs and anti-business at the same

>>time.

>

>So how did the Tsongas presidency work out?

So you think you can be anti-corporation while pretending to be pro-job? You must think so, since this is exactly what you do.

>Really? With all the gains the stock market has made this

>year, how come so many corporations have unfunded pension

>obligations that the PBGC now has more obligations than it has

>money to pay for them? How come GM had to float a huge bond

>issue in 2003 solely for the purpose of raising money to meet

>its unfunded pension obligations?

You appear not to have heard, but the stock market didn't do so well from 2000 until 2003, and as a result, pension funds ran into difficulties. That didn't happen in the 1990s - you know, the same time when big, bad corporations prospered. Gee, do you think there's a relationship between the prosperity of pension funds and the prosperity of the corporations in which they invest?

"We need more jobs."

"Let's soak the rich and the corporations and tax them more."

"I see no inconsistency between those two sentences."

To whatever force in the Universe is responsible for making me a person who does not utter sentiments such as this, I thank thee.

RE: REGIME CHANGE!

>I wasn't necessarily speaking of money, nor the redistribution

>of wealth. The simple fact is, corporations can only be

>trusted to do what is profitable for them.

Yes, that's called capitalism. You have any better ideas?

Yet the right

>screams deregulation at every opportunity and is all for

>agribusiness pollution, slave-wages overseas as our jobs flock

>there, and even though big business has recently shown they'll

>lie about their basic accounting if given half a chance--by

>all means, less regulation and oversight!

Don't you see the inconsistency in this rant? Why do you think corporations hire overseas workers instead of American workers? Do you think it might be because the regulations and the unions that you love so much have made it prohibitively expensive to hire American workers?

People like you drove jobs out of this country with your meddling in the free market, and now you whine about the jobs which go overseas. Liberal meddlers, heal thyself.

>The right is all for 'invisible hand' BS until a corporation

>needs a bailout, needs to get out of liability for their

>product killing people, or needs some way to consume more

>resources or pollute more... don't mind 'big government

>interference' so much then, do you?

No, actually I hate corporate control of government and the pork that the GOP gives out to corporations just as much as I hate the pork that Democrats give out to labor and every other interest group they can find. Too bad you're not as consistent.

>Ah yes, trickle down to the small-guy stock owner. But why

>can't the average-guy stock owner, most of whom's stock is in

>pension/retirement funds, vote on the way the companies he

>owns stock in are run?

Becuase he CHOSE (I know how much you hate it when people do that, because you can do it so much better for them) to invest his money in a pension fund which is run by an investment manager, rather than invest his money directly into corporations which he selected. If he had chosen to do the latter, he would have a vote in the affairs of a corporation.

If he chooses, why can't he/she tell

>HP that not another fucking job is to go to India, tell

>Chrysler to stand on it's own two feet instead of selling out

>in a 'merger of equals', etc?

Stockholders can do this, if they convince a majority of their fellow shareholders to go along with them. That's called shareholder democracy. You seem not to like it. What a surprise.

And - there's a seriously line of thought that argues that the LAST thing you want is corporations becoming social activists because of how anti-democratic that can become. If the rich will always run corporations, wouldn't you want them to pursue profit rather than pursue political goals?

>Oh yeah, because some rich

>stock holder gets to control the votes all these average

>people's stock is entitled to...

What the fuck are you talking about? Publicly traded corporations are purely democratic. With few execptions - 1 share, 1 vote. You seem to be angry that some people are able to buy more shares than other people, but that's what capitalism is about. The alternative that you seem to want - everyone has an equal number of shares - is called communism, and that hasn't worked out very well historically. That fact doesn't seem to have stemmed your admiration for it though.

>It's a pity you guys had to crucify Clinton then, isn't it?

Who is "you guys"?

>You had a pro-business Democrat, a great economy, control of

>the house and senate, and you showed your true nature, that

>enough is never enough, put a puppet in the white house and

>showed us that appeasement/middle-of-the-road can not work...

Can you admit that the primary reason the economy was great under Clinton was due to the Intenet boom and not to Clinton? I mean, who the fuck would deny that? And do you think that the Internet collapse, recssion, the 9/11 attacks and war has had a somewhat harmful effect on the economy? I mean, who the fuck would deny that?

I think Clinton was a perfectly competent President and I was glad when he beat depressingly mediocre Bob Dole and won a second term. But the reason Clinton was so successful was precisely because he avoided the type of class warfare and neo-socialist wealth distribution for which you seem to yearn.

Clinton ran as a New Democrat who kept telling people in your party that Government was not the solution to every problem. Didn't you learn anything from him?

Are you implying that "liberty" and "democracy" are one in the same?