Platforms you wish to hear - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 11-23-2007, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

It appears the laws are in place. Why aren't they being enforced?

Is there something else going on here?

I know you lean towards thinking I'm overly fond of "conspiracy theories", but I'll risk giving you my "take" to attempt to answer your question.

No one could downgrade the civilian and military components of government, in the short span of six years, at such greatly increased borrowing and spending levels, except by intent:

26 years ago, there was at least a fifteen year federal plan, in place and designed to dramatically lower US dependence on petroleum imports.
I detailed in these posts,

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...7&postcount=47

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=49

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...23&postcount=2

...the Reagan administration's almost immediate steps, upon taking office, to dismantle the program, crony-ize it, and prematurely privatize it. There was also a push to abolish the cabinet level department of energy. The poor and delayed appointments at the Synfuel Corp. were not unlike the rushed appointment by Bush of now indicted Bernard Kerik as directore of the Dept. of Homeland Security.

<h3>From this, six years ago: </h3>
09/30/2001 .. <a href="http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm">$5,807,463,412,200.06</a>

To this debt level, today:
<a href="http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np">$ 9,125,236,872,835.68</a>

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=111
ace....isn't it about the trend? The trend was reversed for the only time in the 30year period from 1970....from debt increasing at :

09/30/1993 .. $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 .. $4,064,620,655,521.66 from: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...t/histdebt.htm

..... $346 billion, YOY....by the end of the last GHW Bush budget.....DOWN to $18 billion....YOY.... between 9/30/99 and 9/30/00.

...the bulk of the increase here:

09/30/2001 .. $5,807,463,412,200.06 YOY increase= $133 billion
09/30/2000 .. $5,674,178,209,886.86

....was the result of the retroactive, 2001 tax cut.

I don't understand the comparison that you just tried to post. Don't you see any negative in a trend that ramps up from increasing federal debt from $18 billion, YOY...to $420 billion...just two years later....then to mid $500's....and it just stays there....at that high level.....and is spun as declining, when it isn't....by the officials directly responisble for it happening.....

and the complaint about government was:

Quote:

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/1999...nce_light.aspx

The Changing Shape of Government

Governance, Bureaucracy, Executive Branch, Civil Service

Paul C. Light, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Governance Studies

February 1999

....<h3>Without discounting the significant downsizing that has occurred</h3>, only one of the two ingredients for a leaner, more efficient government is in place. The girth of government—measured by the total number of federal employees—may be shrinking, but its height—measured by the management tiers between the top and bottom—continues to climb. Every year fewer front-line employees are reporting upward through what appears to be an ever-lengthening chain of command.

The Girth of Government

There is no question that the girth of government is shrinking. The proof is in the federal phone books and employment files.......

We are where we find ourselves now, and it shouldn't be a surprise. They hate government, they have no faith in it's potential, only in exploiting and
downgrading it's effectivenes, always at a higher cost than before.
[quote]http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...an#post2342862
...and I'm seeing a number of posters on this forum posting opinions that "government doesn't work", and we need Ron Paul to.....

So, is there a disconnect? Isn't the reason it looks like government "doesn't work", a result of an intenional movement to demonize the idea of government working?

Quote:

...."The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'" .....

-Ronald Reagan

<h3>Or, do you have the correct take on things. I'm "too partisan", or the government needs to be reduced in size to the point that it performs only security functions, the courts, and the military, under the reforms of Ron Paul?</h3>

Doesn't anybody else see that what is happening directly parallels what Grover Norquist said the republican agenda was?

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist#_note-7
(21) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=1123439

"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

Quote:

http://www.rollingstone.com/national...he-government/
7/18/07, 1:49 pm EST
Trust in People or the Government?

I like a good debate so here goes day two of <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2007/07/17/let-new-orleans-rebuild-itself/#comments">NA Daily vs. The Paul Patrol:</a>

[Day one started <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2007/07/17/ron-paul/">here</a>]...

...It’s true that many individuals and some companies were better prepared to offer relief than our socalled first responders at FEMA. But why was that the case?

That’s where the dark metastasis of anti-government ideology that I’ve been talking about came into play. Under Republican leadership, FEMA was downgraded in the federal pecking order, staffed with cronies, and had its budget slashed.

In short: <h3>A formerly robust arm of the government with real power to save lives was degraded and gangrene-ized by small government ideologues.</h3> The government’s failures during Katrina, to my mind, are not an argument for smaller, more limited government, they’re the horrific side effect of such arguments implemented as policy.

Here’s the argument marshaled very succinctly at the time of the disaster by recently retired Massachusetts congressman <a href="http://www.house.gov/list/press/ma05_meehan/NR050902Katrina.html">Marty Meehan</a>:

<i>The reality is that this country is woefully unprepared to respond to a major disaster in this country because FEMA has been systematically dismantled over the past five years by incompetent leaders, anti-government ideology, budget cuts, and bureaucratic red tape.

FEMA’s current problems essentially began with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which demoted FEMA from cabinet-level status and reduced it to one of 22 organizations under the umbrella of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Next, its mission was reprioritized and its budget cut, taking the emphasis off of responding to natural disasters while the upper ranks of management were filled by patronage hires, five out of eight having had no emergency preparedness experience. At the same time, FEMA’s professional staff was becoming increasingly demoralized. By this week, nine out of ten regional director positions were vacant as were three out of five disaster response director positions. This brain drain left an agency without the proper leadership, resources, or influence in government to cope with a major catastrophe.

Responsibility, however, does not rest solely with the Bush Administration. This Congress has been a willing co-conspirator in the degradation of FEMA’s capabilities.

Since 2001, many federal disaster mitigation programs have fallen to budgetary pressures. FEMA’s Project Impact, a model mitigation program, has been canceled outright. Federal funding of post-disaster mitigation efforts designed to protect people and property from the next disaster has been cut in half, and now communities across the country must compete for pre-disaster mitigation dollars.

In 2003, Congress approved a White House proposal to cut FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program in half. Previously, the federal government was committed to invest 15 percent of the recovery costs of a disaster in mitigating future problems. Under the Bush formula, only 7.5 percent are given. Experts say that such post-disaster mitigation efforts are the best way to minimize future losses.

In 2004 alone, Congress cut FEMA’s budget by $170 million.

FEMA is not the only agency to feel the effects of budget cuts. Bush’s 2005 budget proposal called for a 13 percent reduction in the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget, down to $4 billion from $4.6 billion in fiscal 2004 and the New Orleans Corp of Engineers was to experience the largest cuts in its history of $71.2 million. This is the very agency who was responsible for the New Orleans levee system. Assistant Secretary of the Army Michael Parker was even fired for accusing the Bush Administration of failing to adequately fund the Corp of Engineers before Katrina struck. </i>

Walker, I hope that addresses your question. I don’t fault the individuals and organizations who attempted to aid their countrymen post Katrina. It’s shameful that their help was rebuffed. But I trace the failings of FEMA directly to the ideology encapsulated in Reagan’s famous joke that the most terrifying words in the English language are: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
-- Tim Dickinson

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/us/20army.html
By DAVID S. CLOUD
Published: March 20, 2007

FORT POLK, La., March 14 — <h3>For decades, the Army has kept a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division on round-the-clock alert, poised to respond to a crisis anywhere in 18 to 72 hours.</h3>

Today, the so-called ready brigade is no longer so ready. Its soldiers are not fully trained, much of its equipment is elsewhere, and for the past two weeks the unit has been far from the cargo aircraft it would need in an emergency.

Instead of waiting on standby, the First Brigade of the 82nd Airborne is deep in the swampy backwoods of this vast Army training installation, preparing to go to Iraq. Army officials concede that the unit is not capable of getting at least an initial force of several hundred to a war zone within 18 hours, a standard once considered inviolate.

The declining readiness of the brigade is just one measure of the toll that four years in Iraq — and more than five years in Afghanistan — have taken on the United States military. Since President Bush ordered reinforcements to Iraq and Afghanistan in January, roughly half of the Army’s 43 active-duty combat brigades are now deployed overseas, Army officials said. A brigade has about 3,500 soldiers.

Pentagon officials worry that among the just over 20 Army brigades left in the United States or at Army bases in Europe and Asia, none has enough equipment and manpower to be sent quickly into combat, except for an armored unit stationed permanently in South Korea, several senior Army officers said.....

Quote:

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/06...loys-overseas/
As Hurricane Season Starts, Entire 82nd Airborne Redeploys Overseas
Jon Ponder | Jun. 11, 2007

....Earlier this year, with recruitment tanking and its forces strapped down in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army’s famed 82nd Airborne Division was forced to disband one of its best known missions, the “division ready brigade” — a contingent of troops on stand-by at all times ready to deploy anywhere in the world within 18 hours.

The 82nd’s ready brigade has been an integral part of the United States’ relief preparations for domestic disasters such as hurricanes for years. But now, as the 2007 hurricane season begins, the entire 82nd Division is leaving United States for the first time since it was deployed to Iraq in 1990 as part of Operation Desert Storm — and none of its divisions will return until September, when the season is over:

<i>When a jet lifts off Sunday at Pope Air Force Base with the commander of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team and the last load of his 3,300 paratroopers aboard, the 82nd Airborne Division will notch one more hard-earned mark in a history so often described as “storied.”

For only the second time since World War II, all of the division’s combat infantry brigades will be at war. Other 82nd units are deployed also, bringing the total overseas to nearly 17,000 paratroopers.</i>

One of the most memorable successful stateside deployments of the 82nd’s ready brigade was to South Florida in response to the Hurricane Andrew disaster in August 1992. The 82nd provided food, shelter and medical attention in the region for 30 days.

In 2005, however, Pres. George Bush’s incredible six-day delay after Katrina before sending the 82nd’s ready brigade to New Orleans was the worst of a cluster of bad decisions that came out of the White House. It was this failure of leadership that finally woke many Americans up to the depth of the president’s incompetence.

On Monday, August 30, 2005, the day after Katrina’s storm surge breached the levies and flooded New Orleans’ low-lying neighborhoods, the 82nd was put on alert at Fort Bragg, N.C., for deployment into the region:

<i>[A] battalion would have been ready to move as early as Tuesday, said Major Gen. Bill Caldwell, commander of the 82nd .

“We could have immediately responded within 18 hours,” he said. “We could have come here, had we been asked, at any point.”</i>

As the days dragged on in New Orleans — while thousands of people were stranded in the Superdome, dozens were rescued off roofs and others drowning in the flooded streets — millions of Americans watching the disaster on television were wondering — Where is the 82nd?

It wasn’t until six days after Katrina struck, at 10 o’clock Saturday morning, September 3, that the 82nd was called into New Orleans. Even then, Pres. Bush made the announcement to the media before he or anyone in his government officially notified commanders of the 82nd’s ready brigade.

The 2006 storm season was comparatively mild, but now as the 2007 season gets underway, the American South faces its first hurricane season without the 82nd Airborne on alert and ready to move in if the unthinkable happens — again.

Charlatan · 11-23-2007, 06:57 AM

Actually Host if you paid attention to my posting history you would know that I am not for reducing government for reducing's sake.

I am an advocate of a social saftey net, universal health care, etc. If I were to advocate for any reductions it would only be in an effort to maintain cost efficiencies. Many government bureaucracies can become bloated with fat and can afford to be trimmed from time to time.

As for the Reagan and Bush Admin having intent... of course they have intent. They both ran on platforms of reducing government. The philosophies that sit at the heart of the neo conservative (or whatever they are being called today) agenda is to lower taxes and reduce the size of the government.

People like Karl Rove devote time to making sure that their message is absorbed by the populace at large. It's what selling your position means. It's how you get your agenda carried out.

Why would you be shocked to see that they did what they said they would do?

host · 11-23-2007, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Actually Host if you paid attention to my posting history you would know that I am not for reducing government for reducing's sake.

I am an advocate of a social saftey net, universal health care, etc. If I were to advocate for any reductions it would only be in an effort to maintain cost efficiencies. Many government bureaucracies can become bloated with fat and can afford to be trimmed from time to time.

As for the Reagan and Bush Admin having intent... of course they have intent. They both ran on platforms of reducing government. The philosophies that sit at the heart of the neo conservative (or whatever they are being called today) agenda is to lower taxes and reduce the size of the government.

People like Karl Rove devote time to making sure that their message is absorbed by the populace at large. It's what selling your position means. It's how you get your agenda carried out.

Why would you be shocked to see that they did what they said they would do?

Charlatan, I didn't assume that you are favoring the Norquist/Reagan/Bush/Bush/Paul attitude about role and potential of government or methods for reducing it's size. I think that you're reaction to the damage that has been done by the current administration is too mild, but I wouldn't bet on it....

My frustration and protest is because of the huge amounts of money the Bushes and Reagan borrowed while the size of government grew, while it's effectiveness decreased. They profess to have had no faith in improving the effectiveness and benefits of government, but signed bills that had the consequence of increasing it's size, even as they lowered morale of government workers, via policy, criticism and cronyism.

They didn't attempt to hire the best people...political appointees committed to improving government, they hired like minded folks who also do not believe in the role of government as an instrument to mitigate wealth inequity and abuses like those of O'Neal of Merrill Lynch and Prince of Citicorp.

They reduced taxes of their financial backers, and left all of us with huge new treasury debt obligations, and some of us with the impression that "government doesn't work". It's an impression strong enought to cloud the improvements that were achieved in between the two Bush administrations, reduction of federal non-military employees by 300,000, and annual federal debt increase (see my last post...) from $346 billion in year ending 9/30/93, to $18 billion in year ending 9/30/00.

Dramatic achievements...discounted, downplayed, ignored by the "government doesn't work", let us "reduce it in size", deregulate what remains, and let the "free market" "grow us" into a Randian utopia.

The approach of the newly installed, 1981 Reagan administration, towards the Carter energy independence plan, and towards the Dept. of Energy, heavy on a shift towards privatiization and reductions of federal incentives and research subsidies, combined with appointments of like minded cronies with profit motivated conflicts of interest, is an example of the approach taken toward the entire government these last seven years, especially evident in the "no bid" military and state dept. contracts related to Iraq and Afghanistan:

Quote:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...rustrate-bush/
Senate holds another quickie session to frustrate Bush

WASHINGTON (CNN) — With the nation’s attention focused on Thanksgiving leftovers and bargain shopping, the Senate held another brief but significant session on Friday as part of a continuing effort to prevent President Bush from making unconfirmed “recess” appointments.

Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota took on the task of gaveling the Senate in and out of session; the formalities lasted approximately 28 seconds and no other senators were present. Dorgan followed Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, who presided over a similarly brief meeting on Tuesday. By not going into recess, Democrats can prevent President Bush from filling federal government posts without going through the confirmation process. Dorgan’s holiday plans were not disrupted; he told CNN he was happy to preside, as he had already planned to be on Capitol Hill on Friday for an appropriations meeting.

– CNN Contributor Jamie Gray

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WOWII/
Baghdad Bonanza
The Top 100 Private Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan

By Bill Buzenberg

KBR, Inc., the global engineering and construction giant, won more than $16 billion in U.S. government contracts for work in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2004 to 2006—far more than any other company, according to a new analysis by the Center for Public Integrity. In fact, the total dollar value of contracts that went to KBR—which used to be known as Kellogg, Brown, and Root and until April 2007 was a subsidiary of Halliburton—was nearly nine times greater than those awarded to DynCorp International, a private security firm that is No. 2 on the Center's list of the top 100 recipients of Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction funds.

Another private security company, Blackwater USA, whose employees recently killed as many as 17 Iraqi civilians in what the Iraqi government alleges was an unprovoked attack, is 12th on the list of companies and joint ventures, with $485 million in contracts. (On November 14, the New York Times reported that FBI investigators have concluded that 14 of the 17 shootings were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq, and that Justice Department prosecutors are weighing whether to seek indictments.) First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting, which immediately precedes Blackwater on the Top 100, came under fire in July after a pair of whistleblowers told a House committee that the company essentially "kidnapped" low-paid foreign laborers brought in to help build the new U.S. embassy in Baghdad. First Kuwaiti and the U.S. State Department denied the charges.

Other key findings from the Center's analysis:

<h3>• Over the three years studied, more than $20 billion in contracts went to foreign companies whose identities—at least so far—are impossible to determine.</h3>

• Nearly a third of the companies and joint ventures on the Top 100 are based outside the United States. These foreign contractors, along with the $20 billion in contracts awarded to the unidentified companies, account for about 45 percent of all funds obligated to the Top 100....

They've conducted a slow motion coup that has looted our treasury and marginalized our bill or rights as effectively as if they had openly carried it out, the way Musharraf has in Pakistan, and the response from too many is "more privatization", less regulation, let "the free market" proceed!

Charlatan, I perceive that you are "on the fence", as far as what is playing out in the tug of war between the executive branch and a senate controlled, with the slimmest possible majority, by democrats (Lieberman I-CT) is the 51st vote, and he sides with the administration too often, so there is no clear democratic majority...)

<h3>You asked why there is no regulation or enforcement.</h3> It is because it has been thwarted at the highest levels. If Steven G. Bradbury can continue to serve illegally at DOJ, what does it say about the executive branch's commitment to "the rule of law"?

What would it take to "fire you up"? What could the administration of GW Bush do to truly offend your sensibilities? The 28 seconds long "session" in the Seante today will have no effect on a president unconcerned about whether his recess appointees even serve legally:

Quote:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200707/071807a.html
July 17, 2007

The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Gonzales:

...8.This Committee recently became aware of a memorandum dated July 10, 2007, and signed by Steven G. Bradbury as “Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General” for the Office of Legal Counsel. It contends that Harriet Miers, who is a former White House Counsel, is “immune from compelled congressional testimony.” Pursuant to what legal authority did Mr. Bradbury issue this memorandum, and how is Mr. Bradbury’s issuance of this memorandum consistent with the Vacancies Act? At the end of the last Congress, Mr. Bradbury’s nomination to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel was returned to the President....

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003728.php
Senators: Justice Department's Chief Counsel Breaking the Law
By Paul Kiel - July 19, 2007, 4:24PM

Nothing surprises me any more.

Four Democratic senators <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/miers-gonzales/">wrote</a> Alberto Gonzales today to inquire whether Stephen Bradbury, the apparent acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, was illegally carrying out his duties.

Bradbury was nominated for the top spot at OLC last year, but the Senate Judiciary Committee returned his nomination to the president, refusing to hear it until Bradbury's role in approving the National Security Agency's surveillance program became clear. The President shut down an internal Justice Department investigation of the matter last year by taking the unprecedented and unexplained step of <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002861.php">denying security clearances to investigators</a> from the Office of Professional Responsibility.

In <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/miers-gonzales/">the letter</a>, written by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), along with Sens. Durbin (D-IL), Kennedy (D-MA), and Feingold (D-WI), the senators say that since it's been more than 210 days since the Senate returned the nomination to the President, Bradbury should not be carrying out the duties for the spot under the Vacancies Act. But that certainly appears to be what is happening.

It's enough to make your head spin. Bradbury <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/doj-exec-priv/?resultpage=1&">signed a letter last week</a> that advised that "the President and his immediate advisers are absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a Congressional committee." Both the White House and Harriet Miers <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003667.php">relied</a> on that advice when she refused to appear before the House Judiciary Committee.

Think about it: Bradbury's advice meant that Miers did not need to testify to Congress about whether she plotted to circumvent the Senate confirmation process in order to replace independent-minded U.S. attorneys with political cronies. As a committee staffer put it, <h3>"This appears to be yet another attempt by this Administration to circumvent the confirmation process in order to install a controversial nominee in a key Justice Department post, and now, ironically, that nominee is involved in protecting the Administration’s efforts to circumvent the confirmation process."</h3>

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/doc...?resultpage=1&
Request to Withdraw OLC Nomination of Steven Bradbury
10-16-2007

<img src="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/files/1192562919Bradbury%20withdrawal%20letter_Page_2.jpg">

Charlatan · 11-23-2007, 08:02 PM

Host, as a Canadian, I don't have any real desire to get "fired up" about how the US has decided to fuck things up. I am merely a fascinated spectator when it comes to America's internal operations.

I only get fired up when those policies extend beyond its borders.

As for being on the fence. I am much more of a centrist when it comes to the discussion of right vs. left politics. I see positives from a capitalist system and I see positives from a socialist system.

The can bring balance and rationality to the worst elements of either when they are viewed in their most extreme forms (as I have suggested, neither is system is ideal in its purest form).

What Bush and Reagan's lot have done is to enact (or attempt to enact) a particular philosophy. Doing so, take more than just changing the laws, it also takes changing public opinion.

They have been masterful (as you point out) in changing public opinion. The one thing they have proven though, is that their execution of this "brave new system" has been largely a failure. It has been rife with the same corruption and nepotism that they claimed was rife in the preceding system.

Here, in my opinion, is what is missing from the picture.

The Bush-Reagan agenda has managed to control public opinion. As I have suggested elsewhere, they are winning the media war by controlling the discussion.

The opposition hasn't offer a coherent counter message. They haven't been able to sufficiently change public opinion in their favour. And the kicker is that the time is ripe. Bush's ratings are in the basement. A new election is on the horizon. People are hungry for a new plan. A new deal. A fresh start.

Yes, a lot of damage has been done to the infrastructure but it isn't impossible to fix. It will take time and imagination and... leadership but it can be fixed.

Where is this leadership?

Willravel · 11-23-2007, 08:15 PM

Well if it means anything, a lot of us are doing our best to stop the irresponsible leaders while simultaneously trying to get better leaders. Really, though, what happens in the US does effect the rest of the world including our neighbors to the north, Canada.

Sun Tzu · 11-23-2007, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

It is our opinion that an individual who is skilled in the accumulation of capital in the face of and in oppositition to every human and social consideration will be found lacking in the necessary skills to run a corporation which is based on achieving public good, bot ammassing capital and profit.

By no means to I especially want the biggest capitalists to clean toilets... I said if they insisted on working in their former organisation then this is appropriate.

When someone leads a private company we must understand that the wealth they have ammassed is directly the result of the exploitation of their workers and of society. To allow them to maintain any kind of power within the democraticised corporation would undermine it.

These capitalist fat cats have exploited sometimes millions and billions of dollars by exploiting the working class, pillaging the environment and ripping off the consumers.. We do not propose ANY punishment for this. We even allow a VERY COMFORTABLE living wage to be paid to these individuals after we have returned all assets of the business and their person to the public, where ownership rightly belongs.

The capitalistic environment (if uncorrupted- regulated in the wrong direction) stimulates innovation, encourages good customer service, and produces quality based on freedom of choice.

If company A produces a better product than company B, then company B will be forced to raise its standards.

Employees are not forced to work for their companies (at least in the US). If an employee views their wages, benefits, or anything else they view as disagreeable from their employer there is nothing stopping them from looking for other employment opportunities.

Uncorrupted is the key phrase here. Walmart didnt become what it is because of being good to its employees or putting out good products. In many cases where employees have ownership in the company the products and services are usually outstanding. If your suggesting that this be forced would go against many of the reasons why we had a tea party a few hundred years ago.

A vision that always comes to mind when having this discussion is- if we were all taking a test, and it was common knowledge that everyone is going to get a C- there wouldn't really be a need to study.

Pan Im almost aligned with everything you stated except the $1000000. Although you wouldnt see me out in the streets protesting it either.

Willravel · 11-23-2007, 09:24 PM

Capitalism promotes corporatism. Corporatism can easily become an economic form of fascism or fascist corporatism, much like the international oil industry.

Charlatan · 11-24-2007, 08:00 AM

Will capitalism does not promote corporatism per se. Corporations are a way that certain capitalists can hide from their responsibilities. Change the laws a bit and the benefits of a corporation will remain while the more egregious problems of corporations will fade away.

Strange Famous · 11-24-2007, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

The capitalistic environment (if uncorrupted- regulated in the wrong direction) stimulates innovation, encourages good customer service, and produces quality based on freedom of choice.

If company A produces a better product than company B, then company B will be forced to raise its standards.

Employees are not forced to work for their companies (at least in the US). If an employee views their wages, benefits, or anything else they view as disagreeable from their employer there is nothing stopping them from looking for other employment opportunities.

Uncorrupted is the key phrase here. Walmart didnt become what it is because of being good to its employees or putting out good products. In many cases where employees have ownership in the company the products and services are usually outstanding. If your suggesting that this be forced would go against many of the reasons why we had a tea party a few hundred years ago.

A vision that always comes to mind when having this discussion is- if we were all taking a test, and it was common knowledge that everyone is going to get a C- there wouldn't really be a need to study.

Pan Im almost aligned with everything you stated except the $1000000. Although you wouldnt see me out in the streets protesting it either.

And in the days of serfdom, the peasant was not forced to work the Lord's land... he was perfectly free to starve to death instead.

Capitalism offers a choice marginally less stark, but fundamentally the same.

I would not speak of the American Revolution in terms of freedom personally... it did not create much freedom for the blakc population, who were enslaved; for the Indian people, who were butchered - did it?

The American Revolution was simply one band of exploiters fighting another band... the common people merely were forced to die for the rich.

The position of the slave in America was horrific even in comparison to the many crimes committed by the European colonialists; the murder of the Indian's carried about by the invaders a crime almost without equal in all human history. And what benefit for the working men and women of the nation, whether the gang master and the capitalist exploiter will pay some tax to a bigger exploiter, or keep it all for himself?

None. The American Revolution was meaningless to the ordinary citizen, other than a symbolic thing.

The Working People of the world have no nation, they are one people - united against the master class and the exploiter in cause, and divided by those exploiters in order to maintain the misery of the people.

Willravel · 11-24-2007, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Will capitalism does not promote corporatism per se. Corporations are a way that certain capitalists can hide from their responsibilities. Change the laws a bit and the benefits of a corporation will remain while the more egregious problems of corporations will fade away.

It was my understanding that pure capitalism basically operates in a governmental vacuum, with no interference whatsoever. My economics teacher my freshman year was a raging capitalist just like most economics teachers I know of here in the US.

Governments can step in and make the necessary rules to prevent corporatism, and then the corporations that do make it buy politicians and you get corporatism again. With no government interference, it just skips the bribery (or rather lobbyists, same diff) phase.

Sun Tzu · 11-24-2007, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

And in the days of serfdom, the peasant was not forced to work the Lord's land... he was perfectly free to starve to death instead.

A very passionate, but exaggerated comparison. Not forced to work the Lord’s land? They weren’t allowed to leave the manor either- so it sounds as close to slavery as I would define it.

Quote:

Capitalism offers a choice marginally less stark, but fundamentally the same.

Capitalism offers this certain reality- the greater the reward, the greater the sacrifice. The level of what a person is willing to sacrifice (time, work, etc) is going to dictate what they create. Serfs and seignorialism had a caste system which a person was born into. Here in the United States anyone is capable of creating anything they choose to, it comes down to their level of intention.

Quote:

I would not speak of the American Revolution in terms of freedom personally... it did not create much freedom for the blakc population, who were enslaved; for the Indian people, who were butchered - did it?

The position of the slave in America was horrific even in comparison to the many crimes committed by the European colonialists; the murder of the Indian's carried about by the invaders a crime almost without equal in all human history. And what benefit for the working men and women of the nation, whether the gang master and the capitalist exploiter will pay some tax to a bigger exploiter, or keep it all for himself?

I agree with your point here. It is the great paradox this country was founded on, but I see you have your interpretation of history, I have mine. As I learned it, the colonies didn’t agree with the King’s vision what their economic future was going to be. So much, they were willing to go to war over it. Yes indeed, as any other point in history, and in virtually all regions; there were profiteers. There were also people of honor that gave thought about the generations that would follow them. There was a division between those that were pro-slavery and those against it. The side against it knew they would never beat England without being unified with the slavers. They acknowledged the reality that the slave issue was a fight that would be fought in the future. They were confident enough the verbiage of the Declaration would set the stage for a future constitutional amendment that would ultimately set them free. Have you ever heard of picking your battles?

Quote:

The position of the slave in America was horrific even in comparison to the many crimes committed by the European colonialists

I don’t understand, where did the colonists originate from? What crimes are you comparing to slavery? (which was a crime).

Quote:

The American Revolution was simply one band of exploiters fighting another band... the common people merely were forced to die for the rich.

The common people? What are you talking about? The “common people” were the ones fighting the King. Untrained militias went against a well equipped army for reasons that were clearly obvious, if you have another historical perspective please provide a link to it, I would be very interested to research it.

Quote:

the murder of the Indian's carried about by the invaders a crime almost without equal in all human history.

Without equal? I'm not going to get into that even though I disagree. As far as what happend to the Indians, there is really no arguing that. The Native Americans were shafted. America has done actions (usually by a small group influencing political policy that was not in the best interest of the US) that are not very nice. So have allot of countries. I don’t agree with how the Indians were treated. At this point all I can do is acknowledge that, and accept that I was born in a country known as the United States. Hopefully all anyone can do is do their part to strive for the global mindset that humanity as a whole has progressed from then, and such actions are not acceptable in the human community. The way the British handled the Palestine issue is going to have far more implications in the years to come.

It still happens, but not all of us agree with it. Blemishes of the past have little to do with 21st century free enterprise, unless there is private influence corrupting national policy. That I disagree with, I believe it is possible for one to exist without the other.

Quote:

And what benefit for the working men and women of the nation, whether the gang master and the capitalist exploiter will pay some tax to a bigger exploiter, or keep it all for himself?

Believe me, I think there is a small group of elite that have big plans and are currently implementing them, just as they have done for hundreds of years. I call it the parasitic society. If you want any clarification of how deeply I think this conspiracy goes, go over the to the Tilted Paranoia area and enter the Endgame thread. That sums up what my views on that are. I don’t think the answer to this is socialism.

Quote:

The American Revolution was meaningless to the ordinary citizen, other than a symbolic thing.

It may seem this way to some that observe our evolution. It may also seem that some of our leaders haven’t taken any wisdom from lessons that should have been learned studying the history of other empires, but I disagree with this statement on so many levels that it would turn into a thread jack to list them. I will just leave it as you being entitled to your opinion.

Quote:

The Working People of the world have no nation, they are one people - united against the master class and the exploiter in cause, and divided by those exploiters in order to maintain the misery of the people.

This sounds very similar to slogans that were being promoted by the Germans just prior to WWII.

or

Marxism

11-23-2007, 06:57 AM	#42 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Actually Host if you paid attention to my posting history you would know that I am not for reducing government for reducing's sake. I am an advocate of a social saftey net, universal health care, etc. If I were to advocate for any reductions it would only be in an effort to maintain cost efficiencies. Many government bureaucracies can become bloated with fat and can afford to be trimmed from time to time. As for the Reagan and Bush Admin having intent... of course they have intent. They both ran on platforms of reducing government. The philosophies that sit at the heart of the neo conservative (or whatever they are being called today) agenda is to lower taxes and reduce the size of the government. People like Karl Rove devote time to making sure that their message is absorbed by the populace at large. It's what selling your position means. It's how you get your agenda carried out. Why would you be shocked to see that they did what they said they would do? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

11-23-2007, 08:02 PM	#44 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Host, as a Canadian, I don't have any real desire to get "fired up" about how the US has decided to fuck things up. I am merely a fascinated spectator when it comes to America's internal operations. I only get fired up when those policies extend beyond its borders. As for being on the fence. I am much more of a centrist when it comes to the discussion of right vs. left politics. I see positives from a capitalist system and I see positives from a socialist system. The can bring balance and rationality to the worst elements of either when they are viewed in their most extreme forms (as I have suggested, neither is system is ideal in its purest form). What Bush and Reagan's lot have done is to enact (or attempt to enact) a particular philosophy. Doing so, take more than just changing the laws, it also takes changing public opinion. They have been masterful (as you point out) in changing public opinion. The one thing they have proven though, is that their execution of this "brave new system" has been largely a failure. It has been rife with the same corruption and nepotism that they claimed was rife in the preceding system. Here, in my opinion, is what is missing from the picture. The Bush-Reagan agenda has managed to control public opinion. As I have suggested elsewhere, they are winning the media war by controlling the discussion. The opposition hasn't offer a coherent counter message. They haven't been able to sufficiently change public opinion in their favour. And the kicker is that the time is ripe. Bush's ratings are in the basement. A new election is on the horizon. People are hungry for a new plan. A new deal. A fresh start. Yes, a lot of damage has been done to the infrastructure but it isn't impossible to fix. It will take time and imagination and... leadership but it can be fixed. Where is this leadership? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

11-24-2007, 08:00 AM	#48 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Will capitalism does not promote corporatism per se. Corporations are a way that certain capitalists can hide from their responsibilities. Change the laws a bit and the benefits of a corporation will remain while the more egregious problems of corporations will fade away. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

11-23-2007, 08:15 PM	#45 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Well if it means anything, a lot of us are doing our best to stop the irresponsible leaders while simultaneously trying to get better leaders. Really, though, what happens in the US does effect the rest of the world including our neighbors to the north, Canada.

11-23-2007, 09:24 PM	#47 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Capitalism promotes corporatism. Corporatism can easily become an economic form of fascism or fascist corporatism, much like the international oil industry.