Join or sign in Register for your free TechRepublic membership or if you are already a member, sign in using your preferred method below. Use Your Email Use FacebookUse Linkedin

Obama proposes world welfare program at US tax payers expense

Locked

S. 2433: Global Poverty Act of 2007
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2433

Sponsored by Sen Obama.

[i]”To require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.”[/i]

[b]Full text here:[/b]
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2433

Originally called the [b]”United Nations Millennium Development Goals “[/b], because of the obvious bad record and name the UN has, their name has been removed. The money will STILL go to the UN (The US paying a tax to the UN) for world welfare.

Just as we should not be the world police, we should not be the world welfare office either.

Contact your Representatives and voice your opinion on this horrible proposed law.

Topic

Yet another source

In reply to Obama proposes world welfare program at US tax payers expense

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_2433.html

After several google searches, the information seems very consistent.

If the “War on Poverty” has been such a miserable failure in the US, what makes Obama think world welfare will life people up any more than local welfare did?

Wow

In reply to Yet another source

if this is what Obama will be like when\if elected, I am all for a revolution!

We need to work on the American Infrastructure first and foremost. We need to stop spending and start paying down our debt. We need to stop printing excess money so that ‘the books’ look good, and actually make our economy stronger.

Remember that all of the candidates

In reply to Wow

are basically the same. Same social class, same education levels, same number of martinis for lunch, same total lack of connection with the real world of the average American.
No matter what they do to health care, it will not effect them. No matter how they cut SS, it will not effect them. No matter how much they raise taxes, it will not effect them, they can always give themselves raises….
They have no incentive to actually do any good. So they tell us what they think we want to hear, and distance themselves from any accountability as best they can.
My cynical question is: What company/person/organization stands to make a mint in delivering “supplies” to third world countries to alleviate poverty? Because these are the people that purchased Obama’s votes.

It is all about the ideas

In reply to Remember that all of the candidates

and here are some people that like Obamas ideas:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/al_jazeera_reports_palestinian.html

People in Palestine like the change Obama will make in the US? Scary thought.

Have heard this from a few different sources so far.

And yes, the ONLY way medical/SS will ever get “fixed” is if we remove all government workers from the cake walk and put them into the same boat as everyone else. Once it affect THEM, instead of just being another stump issue to pretend to care about, we would see some progress.

The fact is

In reply to It is all about the ideas

The great majority of government workers are now covered by Social Security. This includes the military (since 1957), all federal workers hired after 1984 [u]including Congress[/u], and 75% of state and local workers. http://tinyurl.com/4st64y
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp

But it’s the stated US Policy “promote the reduction of global poverty”

In reply to Obama proposes world welfare program at US tax payers expense

This bill is just a tool to further this stated policy.

Here’s a civics lesson:

The officially stated goals of the foreign policy of the United States are:

“to create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community”.

The CIA State Failure Task Force, which has been in operation almost a decade, has shown in a number of studies that when economies don?t progress and when disease is rampant, you get the failure of states.

This becomes the breeding ground in which terrorism, criminality, drug trafficking, money laundering, weapons proliferation, mass migration movements, refugee movements, displacement of populations, can all take hold.

Look at Darfur, Nigeria, and those pirates from Somalia who attack every ship that goes near that country. Look at countries like Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and similar states.

We cannot fight the war on terror without also fighting the war on global poverty that provides the breeding ground for the ills that globalization transmits throughout the world.

The Global Poverty Act is a tool to further the stated foreign policy goals of the US.

It’s not some hair-brained scheme that Mr. Obama cooked up….the Millenium Development Goals were put together in 2002.

Well Said

In reply to But it’s the stated US Policy “promote the reduction of global poverty”

However,
One must ask ones self whether these stated goals are indeed in the best interests of our country. I tend to be an isolationist when we spend trillions of dollars trying to make the world a better place and are repaid with hatred, discrimination and attack.

The “New World Order” is not a new concept and has been slowly growing into a truism since George the first referred to it back in the late 80’s.

Why is it that the left will constantly say that we are not the “world police” and have no right to intervene in the affairs of other countries but will then, out of the other side of their mouths, want to offer up the wealth of the American taxpayer to every indigent around the world?

Because they’re not the 2% who have gotten richer from George W. Bush.

In reply to Well Said

[i]Why is it that the left will constantly say that we are not the “world police” and have no right to intervene in the affairs of other countries but will then, out of the other side of their mouths, want to offer up the wealth of the American taxpayer to every indigent around the world?[/i]

And, because I’d prefer, as long as my money is part of a wealth redistribution scheme, that it is wasted on inefficient food programmes than on Bechtel, Raytheon, Halliburton, Kellogg/Brown/Root & Blackwater.

Isolationists = Ignorance

In reply to Well Said

The problem with isolationism in the U.S. is that it ignores where our energy, foods, raw strategic materials, and manufactured come from. You can’t be an isolationist if you keep buying stuff from foreign countries. And you can’t buy stuff from foreign countries without creating and maintaining a world environment condusive to world trade.

If you’re an isolationist, I double dog dare you to go through your house and remove EVERYTHING that was made in a foreign country. Every appliance, every thing written by a non-american, everything that contains parts made or written by foreigners. Everything that exists because it was invented by a foreigner. By the time you’re through, you’re house will be damn near empty, and probably structurally unsound too.

You want to go pure American, you’re going to have to create an environment that will make it cost effective for americans to produce all those things we currently take for granted that come from other countries. And the first thing that you’re going to have to replace is fossil fuels.

political isolatioist vs closing the countries borders

In reply to Isolationists = Ignorance

We should stay out of the world affairs of other nations. No more being the worlds police, let the UN/Nato do that.

No more the worlds welfare office, again, give them the number for the UN/Nato/red cross.

only allow trade with countries that are willing to have an even trade agreement. if they overly tax our goods being brought in, then you penalize them in return.

the problem with that is

In reply to political isolatioist vs closing the countries borders

[i]let the UN/Nato do that.[/i]

What are we going to do when “they” want to police “us”?

If that were attempted

In reply to the problem with that is

the ONLY real threat to us is the liberals within our borders that have such a self-hate for doing better than so much of the world has.

Drill our own oil, grow our own food, make our own products. We don’t have to be as dependent upon other countries as “we” have allowed ourselves to become.

Besides, I don’t believe that either Canada or the UK would allow themselves to be regulated by the corrupt UN. Just look at the savage nations on the “human rights” boards and it is crystal clear what that whole organization is about, top to bottom. Hint, NOT the betterment of humans in general.

Going to the Extreme

In reply to Isolationists = Ignorance

That sir is a weak argument. When did I say ?close the borders and cancel international trade?? I have never advocated that and you can not put those words in my mouth. To focus on ones country does not equate to closing the borders and totally isolating ones self or ones nation from the rest of the world.

Here is a good analogy:

Let us say you live in your home comfortably with your family. You work hard and provide a good home for you and your family. One day you come home and find another family has walked through your open back door and is now sitting at your table eating your food and watching your tv. What do you do? Do you ask them to leave? Do you call the police? Or do you ask them to stay, give them rooms, cloth them, feed them, learn to speak their language, and do this all by your self. Do you ask them to do work around your house and then pay them less than you?d pay your own children? It?s one thing to hire your neighbor or his son to mow your lawn but another thing entirely if he or his son moves into your house. I think you understand where I am going here.

Our nation isn?t perfect. We (collectively) have a great deal of soul searching to do to figure out what it is to be an American in the 21st century. My point is that we need to focus on America and be American. Not Mexican or French (God forbid) or Spanish or German or anything else. Change begins with each of us in our own homes and in our own communities. Our nation needs to focus on what it is to be an American. Notice I didn?t say we need to isolate ourselves from the world. I advocate making our country a better place for our children and their children. My hope is that my children will get along with their neighbors and offer value to their community which is another way of saying that I wish the America of my children?s time will be a place where American?s will say with pride ?Made in America?.

Well phrased Robo

In reply to But it’s the stated US Policy “promote the reduction of global poverty”

I will have to think about this some.

On one hand I see and agree with what you say about fighting the source of terrorism, but on the other hand, I have seen how “successful” we have been at fighting poverty at home. Also I see no way we can afford to pay for this with the current cost of fuel and the war without raising taxes on the already over-taxed middle class.

Reduce subsidies to the wealthy, starting with the Farm Bill Bush vetoed.

In reply to Well phrased Robo

Write your representatives NOW to demand they NOT override the President’s veto of this despicable pile of largesse, which allows federal handouts to “poor” farmers earning no more [b]income[/b] than $1.5 Million/year — that’s [b]profit[/b], in business terms!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=ajmjDfhlIY1o&refer=australia

Luckily, somebody misplaced 34 pages of the bill, so maybe we’ll save $289 Billion on this when the matter is settled.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24759576/

[i]”We are trying to understand the ramifications of this congressional farm bill foul-up. We haven’t found a precedent for a congressional blunder of this magnitude,” said Scott Stanzel, a White House spokesman. “It looks like it may be back to square one for them.”[/i]

A couple years ago the Pentagon was unable to account for more than $1 Trillion dollars, which was allocated by foul-ups both congressional and presidential. Star Wars/SDI was a stupid idea when it was first proposed, and was no less stupid when Rumsfeld lobbied for it in early 2001. Bravo to the President for this veto, but this hardly makes up for his abject failure to keep his campaign promises of a non-interventionist foreign policy, a [b]moral objection[/b] to “nation-building,” and his occasional promises of responsible energy policies. Corn is not a sensible source of ethanol, Mister President.

The war on terrorism

In reply to But it’s the stated US Policy “promote the reduction of global poverty”

Let’s look at the bottom line.

Goal of terrorists:

1. Kill innocent people
2. Destroy infrastructure, buildings, etc.
3. Create fear
4. Disrupt normal life.

Bush’s war on terrorists:

1. Killed 4000+ soliders (they’re innocent, their only mistake was enlisting). Killed unknown number of innocent Iraqi cilivians.

2. Bombs away! Fortunately it’s Iraqi infrastucture that’s being destroyed. We will most likely have to rebuild it.

3. The fear has died down. We’re still at “yellow alert.”

4. Where do I begin? Once upon a time there was this document called the Constitution….,

Hope to God that Bush doesn’t label you an “emeny combatant”.

I used to enjoy flying, but now with TSA and the governemt’s knee jerk reaction to everything and the security theatre. Searching laptops at the border, etc.

The bottom line is: The cure is worse than the disease.

Though way over quoted:

In reply to The war on terrorism

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

The irony is that the war against terror, the war to preserve our American Way, has removed more of our civil liberties then they [terrorists] ever could. And we did it to our selves. Oh how they must be laughing at us.

Please provide the list

In reply to Though way over quoted:

Is it a lost liberty to provide ID to board a plane?

Is it a lost liberty to have your bags inspected to board a plane?

Is it a lost liberty to have your call listened to if you are talking to someone outside of the country that is on a terrorist watch list? (remember, it is ONLY calls to and from outside the country that were effected at all, and I don’t EVER call outside the country, except of course to talk to GG and I am sure THAT conversation melted the recording equipment….)

How have YOU, directly, ever lost ANY civil liberties? I would really love to hear a thoughtful reply, because I hear people say such things, but have never heard an example of how they were effected. Thanks in advance.

jd

Oh yeah, proud of you for not leaving out the [b]”ESSENTIAL”[/b] part that most people do when they throw that quote around.

Don’t believe that only to and from outside

In reply to Please provide the list

There have been many instances of grey or flat out illegal monitoring since at least the 50’s. Interesting to see some of the supporters in the first article.

Those companies are never required to reveal the extent of their involvement with Shamrock; on the recommendations of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and presidential chief of staff Dick Cheney, in 1975 President Ford extends executive privilege to those companies, precluding them from testifying before Congress.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=civilliberties&civilliberties_privacy=civilliberties_violations_of_rights_and_freedoms

Silly me

In reply to Don’t believe that only to and from outside

here I thought since you were refering to recent terrorists and the effect that they have had, that you were talking about effect that they have had.

It seems to me that anything that happened in ’75 still has NOTHING to do with 911.

[i]”US citizens and [b]international [/b]senders and recipients. “[/i]

[i]”“NSA systematically intercepts international communications, both voice and cable.””[/i]

Ah, as I get way down, I see reference to groups on a watch list being watched. Is it your intention to imply that MIGHT be going on, so based on what MIGHT be going on, your essential civil liberites have been taken away?

You are on a watch list?

Well, yes Silly you

In reply to Silly me

I wasn’t talking about anything. 🙂 That link could both assist and hinder your arguements.

I was just attempting to show you that not only has monitoring been going on, and that there have been admissions that domestic monitoring has happened recently, but that it has for quite some time.
If you really insist I will paste the many instances from that link and others, not just the couple that point out the partially legal monitoring. Note the FISA requires there be an international terrorist or foreign power and that there be a warrant.

global citizens

In reply to Silly me

Long ago, I heard someone describe the way it works. Calls are routed overseas so the Brits can listen to American calls, and vice versa. Many listening stations are located near downlink sites for telecommunications.

http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html

An ex-army person spoke about installing equipment in New York to store information from intercepted calls.

“The terrorists are attacking! Here, put on these chains!”

v.

Yes to all.

In reply to Please provide the list

“Is it a lost liberty to provide ID to board a plane?”

Yes. Until recently it was not necessary to carry “papers” of any kind especially if you are using public transportation.

If you lose your I.D. while traveling, you could have a serious problem getting home, even if you only went to Indiana.

“Is it a lost liberty to have your bags inspected to board a plane?”

Yes; it seems to violate some concept of search and seizure, some concept of privacy. I don’t really care much, but I’ve had quite a few things stolen during those searches and I don’t like my neatly folded clothing to come out all rumpled at the end of the flight.

“Is it a lost liberty to have your call listened to if you are talking to someone outside of the country that is on a terrorist watch list? (remember, it is ONLY calls to and from outside the country that were effected at all…”

The word is “affected” and yes, it is a violation of your privacy.

“How have YOU, directly, ever lost ANY civil liberties?”

See the above. When I joined the Navy, I flew regularly with no identification whatsoever, no inspection. They needed one thing only — money, coin of the realm.

When inspections and metal detectors first began to be used, one day I left my Botswains knife (pronounced “Bosuns”; big marlinspike on its back edge) in my pocket. The inspector says, “What is this?” Obviously a knife. I said, “It’s a Botswains knife and I’m a sailor” (I was in uniform). He said, “Okay” and that was that. If I were to try it today, I would lose the knife and possibly be detained.

More recently I carried my networking tools with me. They are expensive. Some are sharp. I can no longer carry my networking tools onboard aircraft, and I dare not check them into baggage and they don’t like the high power X-ray.

“I would really love to hear a thoughtful reply, because I hear people say such things, but have never heard an example of how they were effected.”

I was “effected” several decades ago by my parents 🙂 and as for being affected, I’ve describe a few of the effects above.

The best people to answer you cannot answer, for they have been detained without civil rights whatsoever.

Ah, the source of all solutions

In reply to But it’s the stated US Policy “promote the reduction of global poverty”

throw someone else’s money at the problem and hope it goes away?

There is not a current track record of the money we waste on other countries actually getting to the people in need.

For all the Anti-Bush ranting and raving, it is still a fact that the 911 terrorists were in this country planning this attack YEARS before, and have NOTHING to do with Bush or any of this policies. People like to blame Bush for “the world hating us”, but this is nothing new and the basstards have been attacking us for decades.

Can’t buy love, didn’t the Beatles teach you anything?

No you can’t buy love

In reply to Ah, the source of all solutions

but you can buy the next best thing.

BEER!!!!

Maybe so, but nothing

In reply to No you can’t buy love

is better than “FREE” beer…..

B-)

Maybe so, but nothing

In reply to No you can’t buy love

is better than “FREE” beer…..

B-)

actually

In reply to No you can’t buy love

Beer is better than love for the following reasons:

1) Beer never turns into resentment
2) Beer doesn’t have the risk of leaving you broken hearted
3) Beer doesn’t mean you have to buy someone gifts
4) No one makes fun of you for being full of beer at a cookout
5) You can make beer in front of your neighbor’s kids
6) You can always find beer at the 7-11
7) You don’t have to work hard to get a little beer.

TKOS has spoken lol

get it right, if your going to do it.

In reply to actually

not “spoken”, “ordained” is a much more fitting word. B-)

8) beer doesn’t get jealous if you grab another beer.
9) a cold beer is better than a cold woman (unless you’re Alice Cooper)
10) a beer doesn’t want to talk afterwards.
11) you only have to pay for a beer once
12) a young beer is legal

haha…

In reply to get it right, if your going to do it.

you’re using the 52 reasons a beer is better than a woman…

i was making up originals comparing it to love…

how dare you correct the King of Swill!!!! repent sinner!!! ]:)

does it count for something

In reply to haha…

if I was doing them from memory? 😀

perhaps…

In reply to haha…

i know those…and…the ones why a guitar is better than a woman…

you can put your hands on another guitar and yours won’t get jealous

guitars don’t whine

when you play a guitar, it stays with you

a guitar gets better with age

guitars are free to take on vacation with you

I am gonna get some hate mail….i just know it ]:)

email from guitar haters? :0

In reply to haha…

GASP! What is this world coming to?

Your assignment is to get over to todays yuk and post the complete list of why guitars are better.

ThingOne is looking at a new ESP guitar. Requirements, he wants a flying V, and it has to have 24 frets. Found one for about $500, with the reviews favorable, just saying that the pickups suck, and we can change that later. He has saved almost $300 of it so far.

I should post my Washburn 7 string on ebay. I NEVER play it, and the local shops will only give me $50 for it, even though it is origianally about $1100. (accourding to on-line).

not just them…

In reply to haha…

but the drummers will probably join in too 😀

Ebaying is the smart idea. I’ve had to sell guitars before worth $500 for $150. Ebay will possibly get you a better return…maybe $400-700 if it’s in good shape and a desireable model.

assignment? professor jdclyde? lol. I might get to it…i’m working on something now that i’m back from lunch.

If I post a yuk, I’ll think of something funny to everyone…that way…guys will laugh…and the women keep adoring me ]:)

bbiab…time for work to get done…

I have seen the same model

In reply to haha…

going from between $350 and $450.

Not a bad return, considering I got it in exchange for an old server. B-)

Got that, a Dean V, and a Crate Combo for two old PII400 servers. We use the Dean, but have no intention of relearning to use that 7 string and there is NO demand for them in the area.

I never said that.

In reply to Ah, the source of all solutions

I never once said that Bush is the reason the world hates us… Bush is the reason the world PITIES and LAUGHS AT us. The combination of our MONEY and HEDONISM is the reason the world HATES us.

Yeah, that is the way it goes

In reply to I never said that.

people in sh1thole countries can’t stand that we would believe [i]” the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life”[/i]

Screw them.

Yes it is hairbrained

In reply to But it’s the stated US Policy “promote the reduction of global poverty”

“We cannot fight the war on terror without also fighting the war on global poverty…”

Wars are fought between opponents. Poverty is not an opponent, it is a word that describes a “lack”. You cannot “fight” a lack, therefore there can be no war against a lack.

A fellow by the name of Malthus assures us that we can never win this “war” of which you speak, we can never fill every cup.

Two thoughts:

1. If you feed squirrels, what do you get? More squirrels. You might fill every cup today and you’ll be filling ten cups in 20 years for each cup today.

2. Mark Skousen, economist and professor has much to say on this topic.(Google “skousen socialism”). An anecdote attributed to one of the Skousens (might be Cleon Skousen) is a classroom situation. After a test, the class voted to distribute the surplus test scores (those over 80 percent, let’s say) to those scoring under 80, and in this manner all can pass. On the next test, most failed; for what happened was that the hardworking students realized they needed only 80 and there was absolutely no reason to push beyond 80. The lazy students were still lazy, and the overall class average dropped substantially. This is the failure of socialism, a misplaced belief that there is “enough to go around” and the only problem is distribution. The failure of every large socialist economy in the world is proof that it does not work. On small scales it will work for a while (Iceland, Sweden) where you have strong social conditioning so that people do not immediately become lazy.

“It’s not some hair-brained scheme that Mr. Obama cooked up….the Millenium Development Goals were put together in 2002.”

Regardless of who cooked it up, Mr. Obama put this hairbrained scheme before Congress, it has his name on it.

Do you see a better solution to the same problems?

In reply to Yes it is hairbrained

I think a policy of symmetrical tariffs and ending all corporate welfare would have many of the desired effects, and very likely to a greater extent.

Same old same old

In reply to But it’s the stated US Policy “promote the reduction of global poverty”

Those countries will always have corruption. They have had more time to industrialize then we have and have only sat around and reproduced. If you want to help them, teach them birth control and how to feed themselves. Pouring my tax dollars in these breeding grounds helps no one.

s/e/a

In reply to Same old same old

“They have had more time to industrialize th[b]e[/b]n we have and have only sat around and reproduced.”

… and not a single reference to the content of the statute, either

Think about

In reply to Same old same old

why we haven’t modernized our electric grid. Apply to any infrastructure you’d care to.

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis

In reply to But it’s the stated US Policy “promote the reduction of global poverty”

The American people really need to start looking at what’s happening around the world with a radically different perspective. Unfortunately, thinking often cuts into leisure time in front of the boob tube.

You’re right, terrorism is caused by poverty and hopelessness. Obama seems to get that.

I remember the first time I really began thinking about voting for him. In a speech, he said he wanted to end the war in Iraq, which was good, exactly what I wanted to hear. But he went further than that. He said that he not only wanted to end the war but also change the mindset in this country that led us into Iraq.

Think about that for a moment…

“… changing the mindset that took us into this needless, illegal and immoral war.”

I was stunned. I just turned 50 last month and that was the very first time I’ve ever heard such a statement from a U.S. politician. It’s the very antitheses of the way U.S. foreign policy has been run for decades.

Obama thinks outside the box. He’s intellectually curious. He’s pragmatic and he’s a constitutional scholar — attributes we sorely need in a leader right now.

Thanks again.

Hmmm, seems that you have again twisted the facts

In reply to Obama proposes world welfare program at US tax payers expense

You could get a job for Rush or Hannity. 🙂
Our paying a portion does not mean that WE will pay for the program.
Bushes comments included in the bill actually makes sense.
Most of the spending proposals, we already spend money on.
The entire program cost is not stated but will undoubtably be less than 6 months in Iraq.
Your second link shows a cost of a penny a person (but it doesn’t show over what period).

But why not use that ‘penny a person’

In reply to Hmmm, seems that you have again twisted the facts

to reduce our debt, while the govt. ends programs that waste money?

Start with military spending that the Pentagon doesn’t want.

In reply to But why not use that ‘penny a person’

“…while the govt. ends programs that waste money?”

Mission Accomplished.

I have twisted? Just stated what is on the proposal

In reply to Hmmm, seems that you have again twisted the facts

We are currently WASTING our money trying to buy influence and friends in other nations, and as our Canadian and UK friends remind us, we are still hated world wide and have been long before Bush was elected.

Wasting money in Iraq does not justify wasting money anywhere else.

A nation that is having problems at home should look within her own borders first and foremost.

If you think this is such a good idea, you can write out a check to the UN for the both of us.

Perhaps it is not entirely as bad as they would have you believe

In reply to I have twisted? Just stated what is on the proposal

Reading the bill, here is Bushes take on the spending of money on foreign aid programs.

On March 22, 2002, President George W. [Struck out->]Bush stated

←→[<-Struck out] Bush participated in the International Conference on Finance for Development and endorsed the Monterey Consensus, stating : `We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror. We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity. We fight against poverty because faith requires it and conscience demands it. We fight against poverty with a growing conviction that major progress is within our reach.'. So if it could help to reduce terrorism is it still a waste of money? That was the purpose of my reference to Iraq (I know sometimes this work thing gets in the way of my making a fully coherant post 🙂 ). Most (if not all) experts agree that poverty is a fertile breeding ground for terrorist recruits. I agree that we should do more at home, but things could happen concurrently. How much do I write the check for, 2 cents? To Scummy, how much reduction would that be 360mil x 1 cent = 3 million hmm they fart that away every minute or so.

bwilmont

In reply to Perhaps it is not entirely as bad as they would have you believe

it does not actually state how much it will be, that is an estimate, and it does not say daily, weekly, yearly, etc.. But even yearly, if this and other programs were cut, and government spending was being reduced, then we could actually start paying off our debt.

As for this program and others, how exactly does it stop terrorism? Aid to many countries goes directly to the controlling parties of the borders, and not to the populace that it was intended for. Take a look at Africa, generals/warlords that control regions also control farming and water. If they decide to starve people, they do.
Many reports of farmers getting tortured and murdered because they try growing crops to feed themselves and neighbors.
The UN has had many a food programs go to waste to feed warlords troops. The troops take the food IN FRONT OF the distributors who cannot get involved. All the while watching starving people again, get no food/water.

Until we are able and willing to commit a global war to remove all hostiles from power, we should not intervene, and definitely, not provide aid at our expense. For all of our efforts, the monies that we spend rarely get to the intended targets in a significant amount to do any good. Instead it gets pilfered off all over the place and helps to pay for more terrorists

Those things do happen

In reply to bwilmont

and that is where we need to re-examine the process. However there are many humanitarian efforts that go directly to the people and not through the foreign war leaders. A good example is some of the missions conducted by the military. In certain cases they deliver the materials and stay to insure the proper distribution, often times directly as they also provide medical attention.
And please no N in Wilmot 😉
edited to fix a typo and add;
That was my point on there meter, it has no meaning because there is no correlation to a time frame.

Jeez, JD, you’re letting your biases blind you

In reply to Obama proposes world welfare program at US tax payers expense

Why aren’t you up in arms about something that’s going to cost us real money, like this one? http://tinyurl.com/6ntugw

break it down, please

In reply to Jeez, JD, you’re letting your biases blind you

where is your problem with the bill, and what should be done instead?

I am not against protectionism for our own citizens over any other countries citizens.

Don’t know where to start other than to ask:

In reply to break it down, please

How do you feel about protectionism for businesses at the expense of our own citizens? This is the farm bill, after all.

Let’s start with Title I – Producer Income Protection Programs. http://tinyurl.com/5pujh8
Wouldn’t you like to be paid by the government for doing your job?

Then there’s Title IX – Energy. http://tinyurl.com/6p6jks
Can you say Ethanol subsidies? I knew that you could.

There’s even a section that creates subsidies for [u]organic[/u] crops! http://tinyurl.com/5smph7 What are these people smoking?

If anything drives food costs up, this bill does, simply by setting minimum price levels regardless of market forces. And you have to ask why I’m against this.

edit: added links

Actually, was just asking

In reply to Don’t know where to start other than to ask:

for more details of the bill. Can’t comment about it if I don’t know what it is about.

Is this the same bill that Bush has already promised to veto? no, that is the mortgage scandal payoffs.

My stand would be not to pick and choose which abuses and wastes of our money to oppose and stand against them all?

Stop wasting money on 3rd world countries that hate us, and has the aid stolen by politicians anyways. Send them crates of condoms instead.

Stop wasting money paying farmers to NOT grow crops.

all of your links were dead, so not sure what information you were sharing.

I don’t see this as Democrat / Republican, but as right and wrong. Don’t take money away from the people who earn it and waste it on people that didn’t earn it. the old grasshopper and the ant story, let the grasshopper die, cold and alone.

Sorry, JD

In reply to Actually, was just asking

I didn’t even notice that the Library of Congress “Thomas” site doesn’t believe in permanent links. You’ll have go in through this link, http://tinyurl.com/6ntugw, then click on Read the Bill to get there, or search on H.R.2419, the Food and Energy Security Act. I’m using the “Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 (Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by Senate)[H.R.2419.EAS]” as my reference.

Yes, this is one of the bills that GWB has promised to veto and I surely hop it stands. Title I – Producer Income Protection Programs – is the continuation of all farm subsidy programs through 2012. Title IX – Energy – contains the following clause:

[pre] (b) Biomass Crop Transition Assistance-

`(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM-
The Secretary shall establish a program to provide transitional
assistance, including planning grants, for the establishment
and production of eligible crops to be used in the production
of advanced biofuels, other biobased products, heat,
or power from a biomass conversion facility.
[/pre]

What an absolute crock of sh|t! According to WashingtonWatch, this bill will cost a family of four $7,214.86 every year. The bill ought to be titled “The Stabilizing Agribusiness Through Increased Consumer Costs Act.”

edit: formatting

Ah, more fallout

In reply to Sorry, JD

from the scam of global warming and refusal to use our own oil.

This has “green” all over it.

Not sure i would go so far as to say global warming is a scam

In reply to Ah, more fallout

but I will let you know my opinion in a few hundred thousand years when everything has had a chance to cycle through a time or so, thus revealing any trends…

You don’t have to say it, because I already did.

In reply to Ah, more fallout

It really isn’t inconceavable that we could end up in a major world war here, with Osama trying to create the Islam Super State, the need for oil, the need for food, and the need for water.

I am more concerned that my boys can have a decent life as that is really in question RIGHT NOW. If they can’t, it won’t MATTER what happens thousands of years from now.

WWIII would show you the real meaning of global warming.

Global nuclear warfare

In reply to Ah, more fallout

would have the effect of either
1) enough successive blasts that our atmosphere is burnt away
2) enough blasts that dust and particulate block the sun from penetrating enough and we loose most life on dry land to starvation over 4-12 years (nuclear winter).
3)Mad Max and ThunderDome become our new world… ick.. leather chafes.

Leather chafes?

In reply to Ah, more fallout

Only if it’s not properly cured.

Jaqui, need some help here!

In reply to Ah, more fallout

Need to talk to the expert on wearing leather to get an answer to that. 😀

As for the type of war, even if it isn’t nukes going off, the next one will really mess things up badly.

side note, the Islamic Extremists are the most likely to use a nuke because they don’t care about collateral damage and they get an orgy in heaven. We couldn’t use one because the enemy hides in the middle of cities. Well, maybe to turn Iran into a sheet of glass, but that would be it.

Not so much.

In reply to Ah, more fallout

jdclyde:
This has “green” all over it.

“Press Room” of Gordon Smith, Republican US Senator from Oregon
http://gsmith.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=18d23d65-3ee3-4d18-b088-01ef61b55400&Month=5&Year=2008

Smith Lauds Farm Bill: “Best Ever For Oregon”

…
This bill, supported by agriculture and nutrition special interest groups across Oregon and the nation, will support subsidize farmers and ranchers [even those with annual incomes up to $1.5 Million], encourage innovation in agriculture, and boost food assistance funding for Americans in need increase Food Stamp payments, allowing members of both corporate parties to pretend to represent the people Diebold machines who elected them.

another politician who did that 7 years ago

In reply to Obama proposes world welfare program at US tax payers expense

NY Times, July 18, 2001:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5D91F3BF93BA25754C0A9679C8B63

The first paragraph says it all:

[b][i]”President Bush called today for a major change in the way rich nations help poorer countries, proposing that up to 50 percent of aid to those countries from the World Bank and similar institutions be given as direct grants rather than loans for needs like education and health.”[/i][/b]

Obama must have learned from him lol

I am amazed at what I learn by reading. I need to do more than read Ubuntu and WPF books lol

As the value of our dollar continues to drop…

In reply to Obama proposes world welfare program at US tax payers expense

[i]Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.”
[/i]

This one will come about by itself.

is it arrogance or stupidity that fuels efforts like this?

In reply to As the value of our dollar continues to drop…

First question, what is the currency conversion?

Second question, what is the local cost of living?

A dollar means a lot more in Ohio than it does in California because of cost of living. The same is true in these countries. CLEARLY if people are living on less than a dollar a day, the cost of living is much less.

So they haven’t been corrupted by the consumerism that is destroying the world from the inside out. They don’t buy $150 nike shoes, the better for them. They don’t buy a latte for $3.50 a pop. So?

It is funny how politicians care so much and are so generous, with OUR money, while they go back to THEIR mansions everynight.

We’re not talking poor, we’re talking poverty

In reply to is it arrogance or stupidity that fuels efforts like this?

Translation: people starving to death and dying from disease and lack of medical care.

Fighting poverty is in the best interest of the US.

The CIA State Failure Task Force, has shown in a number of studies that when economies don?t progress and when disease is rampant, you get the failure of states.

This becomes the breeding ground in which terrorism, criminality, drug trafficking, money laundering, weapons proliferation, mass migration movements, refugee movements, displacement of populations, can all take root.

Look at Darfur, Nigeria, and those pesky pirates from Somalia who attack every ship that goes near that country.

Look at countries like Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and similar states.

What bred the Taliban and our good friend Osama? The Taliban emerged as Afghanistan failed as a state.

Why is Afghanistan a failed state? It’s mostly about poverty. Afghanistan is dirt poor, has little infrastucture, and little of anything resembling rule of law, jobs, etc.
There are about 20 million unemployed people and little hope for the future.

So along comes the Taliban. With their Opium profits, they can pay a salary and you get to carry a shiny new AK-47.

Then along comes Osama, with his Arab oil money, and he’s the Taliban’s leader and paymaster….and we all know what happened next, no??

We cannot fight the war on terror without also fighting the war on global poverty.

Winning the hearts and minds of Afghanistan just means helping their farmers a bit. Maybe some wells, some medical care, and safety from the Taliban.

Personally I’d pay for digging a couple of wells for farmers in Afghanistan over ground zero any day of the week.

My take

In reply to We’re not talking poor, we’re talking poverty

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=263533&messageID=2498111

Personally, I would too.

In reply to We’re not talking poor, we’re talking poverty

[i]Personally I’d pay for digging a couple of wells for farmers in Afghanistan over ground zero any day of the week.[/i]

But I would not presume to make that choice for others.

That’s the difference between some of us and some of you… You want to FORCE us to spend our resources as YOU see fit. We want YOU to spend YOUR resources any way you like, and allow us to do the same.

Being an American, in a democracy, that’s why we vote

In reply to Personally, I would too.

If the majority decides we get all lovey-dovey with Afghanistan, dig a bunch of wells, and set up medical clinics, then so be it.

If we decide not to, that’s fine too.

I’m not forcing anybody to do anything. If the majority thinks it’s a good idea, then we gotta do it.

Something that was never intended

In reply to Being an American, in a democracy, that’s why we vote

was for people to have the abiltiy to vote away someone elses rights, as you are in favor of here.

Because with welfare we have PAID low income people to over breed, now give them the abiltiy to vote away (steal) something that belongs to someone else.

Maybe it will be your home taken from you for the next hotel? Seemed like a good idea at the time…..?

I don’t agree with a mob

In reply to Being an American, in a democracy, that’s why we vote

deciding things which should be decided by the individual, whether I agree with the particular “thing” or not.

[i]If the majority thinks it’s a good idea, then we gotta do it.[/i]

The majority once thought it was a good idea to make black people drink from different water fountains… so forgive me if I don’t have a lot of confidence in their ability to decide how I should use MY resources.

But it was majority rules

In reply to I don’t agree with a mob

so it HAD to have been a good idea…

The mental picture I have,

In reply to I don’t agree with a mob

Is of a herd of stampeding cattle going over a cliff. I choose to stay away from herds for that reason.

What, the mob isnt right??

In reply to I don’t agree with a mob

better watch out for that horse head in the morning for that statement :^0 — oops, wrong mob, sorry

To re-do this — So the sheeple following someone else is not always right?? Oh, the shock! :^0

pop quiz

In reply to Personally, I would too.

What is the single category in which most of your tax money is wasted?

Why prop up failed governments with our money?

In reply to We’re not talking poor, we’re talking poverty

huh…

If you have to ask the question,

In reply to Why prop up failed governments with our money?

You’re obviously not qualified (according to them, of course) to try to answer it 🙂

Why not continue the great tradition ?

In reply to Why prop up failed governments with our money?

The US and many other large western govts have been doing this for centuries.

The “why” usually comes down to money. Sometimes power and territory but those reasons usually find their way back to money.

Why go against tradition???

edit shpellink

🙂

Good question.

In reply to Why prop up failed governments with our money?

I ask myself the same thing, every time I look at the amount deducted on a pay stub.

Your reasoning needs facts…

In reply to We’re not talking poor, we’re talking poverty

> So along comes the Taliban. With their Opium profits, they can pay a salary and you get to carry a shiny new AK-47.

The Taliban would execute you for growing opium because it violates muslim principles.

> Why is Afghanistan a failed state? It’s mostly about poverty. Afghanistan is dirt poor, has little infrastucture, and little of anything resembling rule of law, jobs, etc.
There are about 20 million unemployed people and little hope for the future.

Ever hear of the Soviet Afghanistan war.

> What bred the Taliban and our good friend Osama?

See above comment.

Rule of fallacy: if it contradicts itself, it is false. A rule about logic, it is not supported by facts.

“see above”?

In reply to Your reasoning needs facts…

[i]> What bred the Taliban and our good friend Osama?

See above comment.[/i]

Not fair to say that the Soviet war was responsible instead of the US. It is much more important to blame us for “creating” osama than to take an honest look at actual facts. After all, it was the US policies that created terrorism, right? oh wait, facts don’t support that either. damnitallanyways…..

Perhaps…

In reply to “see above”?

The United States government trained and supplied Osama Bin Ladin and the Taliban during the Soviet/Afghanistan war.

So in this respect, yes, the US is at fault.

How we forget fairly recent history.

But WHY was he trained

In reply to Perhaps…

Was it or was it NOT a valid reason for his training?

Even the best of dogs can turn and bite the hand that feeds them, and needs to be put down.

Osama is a dog that now needs to be put down. If only Clinton would have taken him out on the several chances he had.

Was it a valid reason?

In reply to Perhaps…

Good question. In light of the politics of the time – yes. In light of the fear driven presidential politics of now – no.

Bin Ladin was trained as an insurgent gorilla to fight the soviet invasion force in Afghanistan by the United States government and worked closely with the CIA. This was after he earned his MBA from, I forget, either Harvard or Yale. He and his troops were supplied with American and other arms by the United States military and later refused to capitulate to the US politico’s wishes(Hmmm, sounds like Castro, Noriega and Saddam Husein).

While I have no proof that Bin Ladin ever engaged in what we term “terroristic” activities, I also have seen no direct proof that he was not. I personally believe that at some point, outside of the Soviet/Afghanistan war he has committed terroristic acts. The closest I have seen that he was involved with 9/11 was a video in which he was discussing how the towers collapsed compared with how he thought they would after that kind of impact and fire.

If you corner and threaten a mouse, it will bite and defend itself. Humans are more aggressive than a mouse.

I personally do think that the current presidentially instigated fad or fear of terrorism is a cover for detracting from the rights of Americans and cleaning up daddies black eye from Desert Storm.

You need to read more….The Taliban use Opium profits to buy guns

In reply to Your reasoning needs facts…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/27/AR2007082701356.html

“Seven years ago, the Taliban leader Mohammad Omar banned the cultivation of opium poppies — but not their export — on the grounds that growing them violated the principles of Islam. But the report says that Taliban leaders have reversed their position and are now using drug profits to buy weapons and logistical equipment and to pay the salaries of their militia.”

To clarify on the ‘what bred the Taliban and Bin Ladin’

You say the Soviet Afghanistan war bred the Taliban and Osama Bin Ladin….I disagree.

Bin Ladin and the Taliban were our allies during the Soviet Afghan war.

I mean what bred the Osama who is our mortal enemy -whose sole purpose in life is our doom…the Obama who did 9/11.

His power, influence, and hatred for the US grew at the same time the power and influence of the Taliban grew (~1996).

During the the Soviet Afghanistan war, Osama was, for all intents and purposes, an ally of the US through his ties with Maktab al-Khidamat. Osama was not an ememy of the US at that point.

During the 1980s, the U.S. dumped over $3 billion into Afghanistan to fight a surrogate war with the Soviets.

After the Soviets left, so did the American support, even humanitarian aid of any sort. Direct aid to the Taliban furthered the goals of building the Unocal pipeline in the 1990s, until things started blowing up in 1998 or so.

All while the Taliban was basically being the taliban, killing civilians, and destroying 1500 year old Buddha statues…

The point is that US policy decisons towards Afghanistan, led to a ‘humanitarian catastrophe’, and led to so the rise of the Taliban and Osama.

The lack of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan most certainly fueled the rise of the Taliban, and gave a nice safe haven for Bin Ladin, and that’s part of the reason they hate us so much.

Is It So?

In reply to You need to read more….The Taliban use Opium profits to buy guns

From the article you assert as the source of your facts:
“Tuesday, August 28, 2007; Page A07

UNITED NATIONS, Aug. 27 — Opium production in Afghanistan has increased by 34 percent over the past year, and the country is now the source of 93 percent of the heroin, morphine and other opiates on the world market,…”

Notice the date at the top. Is this before or after the Taliban was destroyed?

“The surge in opium production has frustrated U.S. and NATO military commanders, who believe that the trade plays a major role in funding a Taliban insurgency…”

Insurgency:
“insurgency, insurgence
1. the state or condition of being in revolt or insurrection.
2. an uprising. ? insurgent, n., adj.”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/insurgency

Place emphasis on uprising in this case because of usage in the article. The words are saying that the Taliban is making a new come back.

Please also note the heavy use and emphasis of:”who believe”, and “Commanders also believe”.

Now look at the final paragraph:
“The Afghan situation looks grim, but it is not yet hopeless,” the drug agency’s executive director, Antonio Maria Costa, said in a prepared statement. He cited evidence that several provinces in central and northern Afghanistan have eradicated their opium fields. The northern Afghan province of Balkh has seen a decline in opium cultivation from 17,000 acres to zero. The report attributes the drop to economic incentives and security guarantees that “have led farmers to turn their back on opium.”

They eradicated their opium fields.

Now ask: how much is truth, how much is spin, how much is speculation, and what is/where is the evidence they cite?

I vote for hubris.

In reply to is it arrogance or stupidity that fuels efforts like this?

They think they know better than everybody else what’s good for everybody else.

McCain is proposing interesting stuff too

In reply to Obama proposes world welfare program at US tax payers expense

here is a site where he is going to propose how his administation will be like.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080515/D90M2VDO0.html

” A “League of Democracies” has supplanted a failed United Nations to apply sanctions to the Sudanese government and halt genocide in Darfur.”

Is this not similar to Obama’s proposal?

how is that even close to the same?

In reply to McCain is proposing interesting stuff too

applying sanctions against a country that is abusing the citizens it nothing like sanctions against the US citizens for doing well.

Did you hear what Harvard told the state

In reply to how is that even close to the same?

when they wanted to tax their endowment?

“You’d be taxing success here,”

http://tinyurl.com/58qmqh

It’s different when the liberal ox is being gored 🙂

Taxes

In reply to Did you hear what Harvard told the state

Taxes are a fine for doing good
Fines are a tax for doing bad

LOL

In reply to Taxes

I wish I could pay taxes by using checkmarks next to what I am willing to help pay for! Maybe some of the useless programs would get cut due to people not putting into it.

Or better yet

In reply to LOL

let the people that care so much be generous with their OWN money for a change.

bleeding heart doesn’t HAVE to equal stupid, does it?

That would be the outcome of what I was trying to get accross

In reply to Or better yet

If we got to choose where our tax dollars went, person by person, then those forced programs may just go away, or the govt. would need to explain and request money for them better.

This would go a long way into reducing unwanted spending, and would help those programs that people want!

Vote with your wallet!! this would be a good term for use 😀

I would say, the tax laws should be changed, maybe a 8-10% tax accross the board, this would cover some required items such as military, base govt ops, infrastructure, etc.. Everything else would fall under other spending, and each person would choose where their money went.

Start up a USE TAX for optional services

In reply to Or better yet

The DNR already does that with fishing and hunting, as well as boating and other forms of recreation. Want to go to a park, pay for the pass.

Want to send money for a well in Afganistan? pay for the pass.

careful, jd

In reply to Or better yet

remember…

golf and scots whisky…are optional 😀

of course, so are my 7 computers at the house and my internet and my televisions.

ya better get to work on the loophole! 😉

What you miss in your thought process

In reply to Or better yet

is that those examples are NOT provide by the government, in any way, shape, or form.

Those are activities that an individual participates, based on their own ability to aquire the proper funds.

And because of they way they are run, they are ALREADY “pay to play”. The only difference is a governmental org would be a not-for-profit, so it doesn’t require that it is competative, so they don’t try as hard and they waste more money. The reason most government run orgs are so horrible.

This proposed medical that obama and clinton both would force down on us, they would be as poorly managed as medicade/medicare. Both are clear examples of people that care more than they think.

medicare/medicaid that bad?

In reply to Or better yet

Maybe in Michigan, but down here it works pretty darn good for my parents.

As for that…you think blue cross is any better? or Aetna? private coverage is just as sucky.

That’s why i took a job paying 50% more and has less stress but has no health/dental insurance, and why I am gonna drop COBRA in july…it’s a racket…i can bank $10k+ a year, and i have only been in a hospital 2 times in my life. So, I don’t think I’ll have an issue with my cash reserve building and having more time and a life to workout and be healthy.

i just hope one day they nationalize medical care, and bankrupt health insurance corporations who have been draining americans for decades now.

Not if Obama or Clinton win

In reply to Or better yet

They both have said that you will be FORCED to pay for their system.

Cost less than your COBRA, but non-optional either way.

my work recently moved to the medical savings accounts, where HALF of what I was paying before goes directly into that, pretax. I can use that for medical bills, optical, dental, or even asprin and bandaids, all with pre-tax dollars, using half of what I was paying out before anyways.

Because, like government, they’re a bureaucracy,

In reply to Or better yet

[i]As for that…you think blue cross is any better? or Aetna? private coverage is just as sucky.[/i]

and they think like one, with similar results.

One medication my wife is on, for example, would cost me $165 copay for a three month supply if I got it through my employer’s plan. K-mart has it for $15.00 for a three month supply! No fuss, no muss, no paperwork except for a script from a licensed physician.

I wouldn’t mind paying into it…

In reply to Or better yet

so long as it was like Australia’s or other country’s with social medicine.

God knows…i’m paying $650+ a month right now for medical and dental…and a not much worse plan from the same insurance carrier is shown to me on their website for…$214.

I’m getting ripped…and ya know what? I wouldn’t mind paying our government $2500 a year more for unlimited health coverage. I’d give up my tax refund every year for that…and save myself about $5500 every year.

Beware the pre-tax flex account…you don’t spend it, you might lose it…and, it’s not always just provide a receipt…

I lost $318 in one 2 jobs ago…because, the original store receipt was not enough for a refund on items like an ace bandage, etc. What the hell was I supposed to give them? an affidavit?

Medicare/Medicaide

In reply to Or better yet

Im glad it works well for you all. For most people it does. But when it goes south, it goes fast and hard, leaving many people totally at a loss, unable to pay for NEEDED prescriptions, bills, rent, etc.
And a note: the number one source of fraude in medicare/medicaide is the local providers, the agency that disperses the money to all other agencies in the county, look it, each incident involves multi millions per year.
The trickle down, effect of medicaid means that the local “hub” [many times this is the county health services] has no accountability to medicaid, while everyone needing to receive any funding is 100% accountable, with yearly audits and paper work that changes at least quarterly.
A needed system? Yes. Well run? No. Its like a train, as long as its on the tracks, momentum will plow it through most obstacles [including getting your benefits back if for any reason, valid or not, they decide to revoke them. Lawyers specialize in these cases, thats how common they are. $30,000 back pay on benefits is not uncommon], but de-rail and its a major mess.

Start with Halliburton

In reply to Or better yet

Continue onto Raytheon, Kellogg/Brown/Root, Bechtel, Boeing, Lockheed/whatchamacallit and Blackwater.

After you’ve eliminated all military spending passed by Congress but not requested by the Pentagon — all of which, by definition is, wasteful — only then you’ll have some ground to whine about assistance to the poor. Until then, it’s the military corporations which are the worst thieves of the taxpayers’ earned wealth.

The US can’t force sanctions without paying for it

In reply to how is that even close to the same?

With a League of Democracies, instead of a UN, which we pay a large part for now, other contries might pull out and make the US still pay most of the cost. In the countries where sanctions would have to be made, the people are starving. When you save people you become responsible to help them. We helped Japan and Germany after we fought them in a war. Do you not think we would not pour money in feedig the world under this policy?

I am if full agreement that you should clean up your own yard before helping the neigbors clean up theirs. But the US does not have a history of doing that. We would send money for disaster relief to 3rd world countries with New Orleans still a disaster needing help promised by the US government!

Arrgh!!! edited so I could read it.

That is another whole can of corrupt worms

In reply to The US can’t force sanctions without paying for it

That whole region had been driven into the ground after more than 50 years of absolute Democrat rule, showing that when Democrats completely run a region, it will end up being the poorest in the nation.

We ARE still supporting a lot of people from that. When does the free ride end? how about now?

Where do we vote? :D (NT)

In reply to That is another whole can of corrupt worms

.

Pay, of course :)

In reply to The US can’t force sanctions without paying for it

but use the currency that has tail fins and a warhead 🙂

A “comprehensive strategy” could be as benign as equalizing tariffs.

In reply to Obama proposes world welfare program at US tax payers expense

And considering how long the Congress has been [b]forcing higher budgets than it requests[/b] onto the Pentagon, and that the $50 Billion proposed aid to Africa in 2010 is a mere drop in the bucket next to annual United States military spending, I really have no problem with this. In fact, it is a much more efficient means of providing for the common defense and securing the general welfare, because it recognizes the pragmatic value of soft power in diplomacy.

Novel Idea…

In reply to Obama proposes world welfare program at US tax payers expense

Why don’t we take care of the poverty in our back yard first, then maybe worry about the rest of the world?

We have some of the worst poverty in the world in our southern states – wait, this is the U.S. it can’t happen here.

Now seriously, why don’t we take care of our own needs first, then, perhaps, think about the rest of the world?

Mutually exclusive?

In reply to Novel Idea…

If so, why?

Yes, mutually exclusively.

In reply to Mutually exclusive?

We own no debt to any nation, but we have a large debt to “Our” people.

If we fail to lift ourselves first, how can we lift others.

I think zero-sum thinking is incorrect.

In reply to Yes, mutually exclusively.

Trade tariff symmetry would do more to solve both foreign and domestic poverty than any [b]spending[/b] project, and that can be accomplished unilaterally: by sliding our tariffs to exactly equal whatever US-based companies are being charged, to do business … wherever. I suppose that would inconvenience the ultra-wealthy, but there’s fewer o’ them than there is of us, so that’s still much better than a zero-sum game. It’s a major improvement, with only a minor cost, or a side benefit, depending whether you have any ultra-wealthy friends.

Now THAT’s funny!

In reply to Novel Idea…

[i]We have some of the worst poverty in the world in our southern states – wait, this is the U.S. it can’t happen here.[/i]

The South may have some of the worst poverty in the United States, but it doesn’t begin to come close to what I saw when I was in the military.

Have you been in…

In reply to Now THAT’s funny!

the deep bayous in the south? Have you seen the swollen bellies from hunger? Have you seen infants dieing from hunger and disease?

This happens right here in our own backyard. Because we are acclaimed to be the most prosperous nation in the world, it is overlooked. Everything you find in Ethiopia and Somalia you will find in our own south – and more.

If you want to take it out of the south, have you ever heard of “Dogtown” in Los Angeles. If you have not, it was, when I lived in L.A. a small area just to the north and east of the University of Southern California. It is named so because the city dog pound is not far away. For the fortunate few a cardboard house was good luck. So that you know, skid row was about three miles away on Main street. Dogtown was so dangerous that the police refused to enter.

Lets spread a little, have you ever been in the hobo camps? Ahh… railroad tramps who needs them?

I stand by my statement, some of the worst poverty in the world. Take care of our own first!

Who is taking care of us?

It’s a matter of scale

In reply to Have you been in…

I’m not saying it’s right that Americans live in poverty, but to try to compare pockets of poverty in America to the widespread abject poverty elsewhere strikes me as disingenuous.

The statistics I’m finding indicate that about 13% of Americans live below the poverty line, with about 10 million people (only 3 in every 100,000 Americans) going hungry daily. Compare that to [b]billions[/b] of people, about a billion of them children, in the rest of the world.

Half these people are living on less than a dollar a day. Their children are dying before the age of 5, of malnutrition and disease, in annual numbers equal to the populations of larger US states. Their governments don’t care about them and they don’t have a local food kitchen or shelter. I don’t see where it begins to compare.

Links:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty.html
http://www.secondharvest.org/learn_about_hunger/fact_sheet/poverty_stats.html
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp
http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp

Edit: to answer your emotional straw man:
No I’ve not been in the bayous, but I’ve been in Kurdish and African refugee camps. Multiply your bayou child or two by dozens or hundreds to get an idea of the difference in scale.

All that and more.

In reply to It’s a matter of scale

As you said, it is a matter of scale:
“A little anecdotal nugget. In January 1996 the exchange rate was 3,000 Saddam dinars to US$1.00.”
http://old.krg.org/docs/articles/clarrysf-economic-problems-ik-june03.asp

Wish I was poor because I could not live on $3000 per day.

A few years ago, I did a research report on poverty in the U.S. for an English class. To be polite, it was difficult finding relevant research on U.S. poverty that was not politicized. One thing was certain in this though, that one thing is that the Web is the worlds biggest rumor mill. The information that you present from the census dept. is dated at best and downright wishful at worst (there are three kinds of lies – lies, damned lies, and statistics).

I often use the Web to begin research, but I approach the data with cynicism and pessimism. After I have the basic data, I then begin looking in journals and other research papers. I always look for what the person is trying to spin and ask why.

I think I answered your “Straw Man” argument. There is a huge difference between the refugee camp and the country.

For those affected, it’s truly a matter of perspective

In reply to All that and more.

My father was in the USAF and was killed (car wreck) when I was six. My mother (and her four sons) moved back to upstate New York to be close to her family. Our only income was survivor’s benefits; she never worked full time. Hand-me-down clothes was something [u]everybody[/u] wore. TV? For 10 years, we had a 14″ black & white that got 2-1/2 channels (ABC only came in good half the time). We ate casserole for dinner three or four nights a week, and a lot of leftovers. I only remember going out to eat once or twice. Don’t remember eating steak at all until after my first summer helping with haying (everybody got paid with a half-cow, cut and wrapped.)

We weren’t rich by any stretch of the imagination, but I never thought we were poor. It wasn’t until I was in my twenties that I realized I had grown up in “poverty.”

Poverty exists in the US. I know it does and those in deep rural areas usually have no way out without assistance. But it irritates the crap out of me to see a segment on poverty shot in an urban neighborhood, with a car (or two!) at the curb, and Dad holding a beer, puffing away on a cigarette. That’s not poverty, that’s poor spending.

Aside: Most of the developing countries [u]are[/u] primarily rural. The camps are the shining lights that obscure the background.

hey JD, not news you know. Bush implemented it already…

In reply to Obama proposes world welfare program at US tax payers expense

after all, once the US troops destroy everything, the US taxpayer pays to replace it all.

so Bush implemented a world welfare program by declaring war on terrorism.
[ an act of terrorism in and of itself ]

Rubbish!

In reply to hey JD, not news you know. Bush implemented it already…

Oh and by the way – I saw Canadians there when I was there. So, your country is (or rather was before they ran away from their commitment) fighting the war on terror along side it’s southern ally.

Canadians versus the country of Canada

In reply to Rubbish!

Canada was committed to Afghanistan since day one. In fact we even agreed to change our role from security in Kabul to leading the fight in the much less secure area around Khandahar.

Canada, as a country, NEVER committed to support the US in Iraq. Before the invasion Canada did try to broker a deal that would see once last chance for Saddam to come clean (and a chance to have the whole UN come in) but both the US and France/Germany rejected it without any consideration. Canada at no time joined the coalition in Iraq.

If you are trying to say Canada ran away, how about you PM me your address so I can give it to the buddies of some Canadian soldiers who have died in Afghanistan, I’m sure they’d love to convince you that they never ran away from anything. Of course you could apologise…

If you saw Canadians in Iraq, you saw them there as people working for contractors or NGOs. There was some talk about asking Canadians to train the police (as they have done in Haiti and Afghanistan) but our government never accepted that role.

James

Your mis-informed

In reply to Canadians versus the country of Canada

I saw them, spoke with them, and interacted with them as part of the MULTI-NATIONAL FORCES in IRAQ. I wasn’t hallucinating (while I was surprised to see them there) and their presence was slightly smaller than the contingency sent from MONGOLIA but they WERE there and DID participate in the “Coalition”.

Regardless of what you think you know or what you want to believe this is the truth. From what I remember the Canadians played a large role in training the newly hired civilian police officers who daily put their lives on the line (and often times lost them) in an effort to stabilize their own country.

Iraq is the way it is because of external Islamic terrorists from Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Persian Shiites from Iran are delivering ordinance to the Shiite Militia inside Iraq (operated by that murdering sycophant Muqtada El Sadr). Sunni factions are getting weapons and money from their Al Qaeda backers in Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. There is no vested interest for these countries (who are ruled by oligarchies and fiefdoms) to support a stable Iraq. They pay lip service to the west indicating they want their Muslim brothers to prosper in Iraq but silently plot to destabilize Iraq. Democracy is inherently liberal to the ideologies that the Muslim leaders espouse. It is contrary to their own best interests and so they will not stand by and watch as Iraq prospers under a democratic government. They need to show the Muslim world (the vast majority of which is illiterate) that democracy is a bad idea and that the average Muslim is better served by adhering to the fatwa?s of his Mullah.

Splitting hairs

In reply to Your mis-informed

Canada has never been part of the “Coalition of the willing” and no Canadian units have gone to Iraq to participate in war.

Canada naval units did provide escort to the US fleet during the active period of invasion, since they were already in the area for the Afghanistan efforts to ensure arms didn’t arrive in the gulf that were destined for the Taliban.

I also understand that some CAF C130s made training runs in Iraq.

When the peacekeepers were kidnapped a few years back some of our special forces (JTF2) came in for the raid on the compound where the kidnappers were.

The RCMP (not a military unit) trained Iraqi cadets in Jordan (not in Iraq proper).

Some Canadian officers participated in training command in Bagdhad – under NATO command.

Of course, since you were there, you would be aware that at any given time, there are hundreds of exchange forces personnel between the US and Canada. And if and when the unit that the exchange soldiers are in goes to Iraq, then of course the Canadians on exchange go along. There were Canadians in the invasion, but they were attached to US units.

If you wanna back up the claims, come up with a unit name.

We did also contribute by increasing our contributions in Afganistan which allowed the US to reallocate units from there to Iraq.

James

That’s funny!

In reply to Your mis-informed

[i]Iraq is the way it is because of external Islamic terrorists from Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.[/i]

I haven’t had such a good laugh in weeks.

Iraq is the way it is today because the US invaded. All other “causes” are insignificant in the face of that one.

I’m not laughing.

In reply to That’s funny!

You’re absolutely right about the rest of that, though.

A big difference

In reply to hey JD, not news you know. Bush implemented it already…

Establishing a tax and handing it over to the bastaards in the UN is NEVER a good idea or good policy.

The Truth about Obama

In reply to Obama proposes world welfare program at US tax payers expense

http://www.eyeblast.tv:80/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036

Nuff said.

Have always wondered

In reply to The Truth about Obama

How he COULD condemn Imus but then make excuses for his spiritual guide.

National Duplicity

In reply to Have always wondered

I was talking with my nine year old the other day about the ?N? word and why it is a bad word to say. We had a long discussion about racism, civil rights, equal rights and the duplicity of our national culture. This duplicity was displayed in full force by B. Hussein Obama when he referred to his grandma as a ?typical white person?. So what would happen if John McCain would have referred to a black person he knew as a ?typical black person?? His chances of becoming president would have been flushed down the toilet with those unfortunate words.

Why is there a double standard in our country? Why do we allow a group known as the ?National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? to exist when its mere existence is racist? What would happen if we had the ?National Association for the Advancement of White People?? They would be lauded as ?racists? and ?bigots?! So why the double standard? Why do we have ?Miss Black America?? Or ?Black Entertainment Television? The duplicity is astounding!

I have for years espoused a single standard for all. ?Equal rights for all; Special rights for none!? is my battle cry! That is what it is to be an American. What ever happened to Dr. King?s message where he said his dream was a future where each person was judged NOT by the color of their skin but by the content of their character?

B. Hussein Obama has been indoctrinated in this very ideology that throws mud onto the words of Dr. King and raises the history and lamentations of one race over those of any other. He openly supports world communism and will if elected push our country more toward a Marxist government. I for one, pray we never see the day.

Election of a racist

In reply to National Duplicity

The double standards are everywhere.

If you are against affirmative action, you are called racist. how is refusing to discriminate against non-blacks racist?

The very idea of affirmative action in this day says that blacks are NOT as good/smart/qualified to make it based upon their merits and so we need to lower the standards for these substandard people? how can that NOT be insulting to treat people like that based upon the color of their skin?

Anyone here ever met a token black hire? I have, and they are rarely qualified or pleasent to be around. They don’t HAVE to try because no one will say “boo” to them for fear of being called a racist over expecting them to do a days work for a days pay.

It was a great day in Michigan when we repealed affirmative action.

I agree

In reply to Election of a racist

Affirmative Action should be banned. It is, at its very core, discriminatory.

As for what ProtiusX said before you…

I am sure that when Barack Obama called his grandmother a “typical white person” he didn’t mean it derrogatorily or in a racist manner. He probably meant it as “average”. He wouldn’t be the first politician who worded something wrong.

If so, then John McCain should be booted out of congress for calling his wife a “c**t” and being a total a$$hole.

I disagree

In reply to I agree

Maybe his wife IS a c**t. That doesn’t make him unelectable.

Maybe he IS and a$$hole. Character doesn’t matter, right?

The WAY Obama implied about his grandmother was that TYPICAL white people ARE racist, just like his dear old Grammy that raised his ungrateful a$$. Speaking of Grammy, I don’t suppose you noticed at the beginning of his run they had a pic of his Grammy, but while it was the NAME of the Grammy that raised him, it was his BLACK Grammy that didn’t raise him. They were afraid of him being “to white” for him to get the black vote.

There isn’t a one of the three that is worth two bits, nor would any of the three be representing Us, the average citizen.

Obama will destroy our fragile economy, and is the single worst selection.

The other two will still be horrible. That is why none of THEM will get my vote.

Anyone voting for Obama just hasn’t been paying attention and are giving him a free pass because he is black, plain and simple.

I disgree

In reply to I disagree

While I wouldn’t vote for him myself, I can see why alot of people do want to vote for him, beyond the fact that he is black.

He is young – and Hillary is associated with a gang who got elected 16 years ago – and therefore, an old generation who had their chance (and blew it in many eyes).

He is optimistic – he talks about change (without being real specific and letting you decide what that means). Hillary and John are both Washington establishment types. He gives hope for change and presents himself as an outsider. Very JFK of him (both had been senators).

He is trying (with mixed results) to stay away from the mud that his opponent is slinging. That very mud slinging, IMNSHO, is one of the things that alientates young voters and drives them to stay home in droves. Wether he changes when he gets the nomination and faces off against McCain is anybody’s guess.

Now those wouldn’t attract me cause I’m an old fart, and I’d like to think a wise old fart, and I think leadership is harder than Obama is portraying.

JD you sound like that Manhattanite who got kicked out of the DNC rules committee meeting….

But hey, what do I know….

James

lol…sure she is…

In reply to I disagree

McCain called his wife that for saying that he was “thinning a little up there” (in reference to his hair. I guess that makes her a real c*nt? Go figure.

I don’t think McCain is an a$$hole. I just think he’s going senile at this point in life. And, I don’t want a puppet in office. I want someone who’ll lead. We are finishing having 8 years of a puppet being in office.

And, the day you find ANYONE on capital hill that comes from a common background and who isn’t paid and bought…you let me know and I’ll be their campaign manager for president.

Obama can’t destroy our economy. Bush already did. let over 3M jobs go overseas…has ran the national deficit up to the highest level ever.

I’ve been paying attention. Obama (of the 3…which is now 2, cause Obama got enough superdelegates now…as of about 15 mins ago) is the least tied to Washington politics.

Oh and btw…Obama about 2 years ago made a speech in front of a black organization…and told them he didn’t want them to vote for him because he’d be the black president…but he wanted their vote because he’d be the best president.

How many other blacks in politics have you ever seen do that?

If I had to choose between McCain and Obama, I’d vote Obama.

I’m just as leary of Bob Barr from the Libertarian party. I think he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

I have to look at some real obscure candidates now and decide.

Toronto Board of Education

In reply to Election of a racist

Has gone down a terrible path.

Because there have been major issues with a very high drop out rate with black students, the board was pressured into creating a “Afro Centric” school. It won’t be exclusively “Afro Centric” content , and students of other ethnicities will be allowed to attend.

While I think these people are thinking that they are helping, in reality, they are simply trying to focus on one group, to the exclusion of others. In fact there are other groups, including kids from Portugese backgrounds who have a similar drop out rate. Do we build each of these groups a school? How do we avoid ghettoizing them.

Would not the better solution be to look at ALL the issues around early drop out? I don’t mind specific actions around specific groups but surely the fastest way to lower the drop out rate is to focus on the issues in common.

This is only one school at the moment, but I don’t like the trend. And many of the black community fought against this, arguing with words right out of Doctor Kings mouth. But the loudest and best organized group got their way.

James

Boo!

In reply to Election of a racist

[i]If you are against affirmative action, you are called racist. how is refusing to discriminate against non-blacks racist?[/i]

No, I give you a hard time about this, because it’s so minor in comparison to redistribution of wealth to corporations, and because the group receiving special treatment is still, as a group, less advantaged than average. That’s a pragmatic, not a moral argument. I won’t bother arguing whether it’s “right” to have some quotas, or which ones. Being white myself, I have worked hard enough to inform myself that I know it isn’t the blacks, or the Hispanics, or the illegal immigrants who sent 3 million jobs overseas. When whites carry on about the “special preferences” granted to blacks like it’s the end of the world, I’m reminded of Don Quixote, tilting windmills.

I don’t think Quixote was crazy. It’s just easier to win a joust against a windmill.

Let’s test whether his chances would be “flushed down the toilet.”

In reply to National Duplicity

I’d like to see McCain field questions, so obviously based on racial stereotyping as Obama has taken. I would be very interested in a comparison of his composure and eloquence, under more similar circumstances. And, without some race relations advisor rescuing his ignorant punk @ss like Joe Lieberman did, on who Iran supports, trains or equips.

Update on that, NO Iranian parts found in Iraq. It seems they’re not so stupid as to sh*t in their own backyard.

Huh?? Link please

In reply to Let’s test whether his chances would be “flushed down the toilet.”

First of many hits for Iranian parts in Iraq.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8NHMIB81&show_article=1

Others to choose from;

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Iranian+parts+found+in+Iraq

They’re making it up; only 4 out of 700 mortars were from Iran.

In reply to Huh?? Link please

Fifteen others [b]might be[/b] from Iran. Only four can be confirmed. Compare that ratio to this country’s own data on weapons confiscated from previously-convicted felons. These findings do not indicate Iranian government support for the Iraqi insurgency. Such a small number of Iranian weapons, so nearby, indicates better control over weapons smuggling than the government of the United States can dream of.

http://www.alternet.org/audits/86280/
[i]Reports by the U.S. command in Iraq over the past 15 months cited only a handful of Iranian weapons out of hundreds counted in caches found in Shiite areas. Nearly 700 mortars and rockets were reported by specific caliber size, along with a handful of RPGs, in nearly two dozen caches. Of that total, only four rockets were reported as being of Iranian origin, and another 15 were listed as possibly being Iranian.[/i]

I also found some links to US military reports of Iranian weapons in Iraq. But if you follow each “report” until the detailed follow-up, you’ll find that the links of the Iraqi insurgency to the Iranian government are as tenuous as the previous links of Iraq to Nigeria’s yellow cake, or to Al Qaida.

But Abs

In reply to They’re making it up; only 4 out of 700 mortars were from Iran.

There really is no comparision there;
(for your closing statement, the first part, I have not had a chance to do any in-depth reading, yet).

Your quote “But if you follow each “report” until the detailed follow-up, you’ll find that the links of the Iraqi insurgency to the Iranian government are as tenuous as the previous links of Iraq to Nigeria’s yellow cake, or to Al Qaida.”
That is simply no comparision; your quote 0%, weapondary at least a few percent. 😉

No “but” about it!

In reply to They’re making it up; only 4 out of 700 mortars were from Iran.

4 out of 700, or 15 out of 700, it doesn’t matter. Either way, that’s a quantity that passes across borders [b]despite[/b] the governments’ best efforts to prevent it. That is [b]Absolutely not[/b] the result of Iranian sponsorship.

[b]Bush and his military-industrial sponsors are making up an Iranian threat, just like they did about Iraq. Don’t be a lemming.[/b]

What world do you live in???

In reply to Let’s test whether his chances would be “flushed down the toilet.”

No Iran parts found in Iraq?!?!? What are you smoking? I think it?s illegal (oh wait you probably live in Canada).

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/233662.php

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297777,00.html

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/me_iran_10_22.asp

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-33396420080505

It appears as though they will drop their fecal matter anywhere it suits them.

As to your first comments you are avoiding the issue and that is one of racism, and bias.

The real one.

In reply to What world do you live in???

http://www.alternet.org/audits/86280/?page=2
[i]No 240mm rocket has been reported found in a Mahdi Army weapons cache over the past year, but a single warhead for a 240mm rocket was reported to have been found in Basra Apr. 19. No official claim has been made that it was manufactured in Iran, however.

After a rocket fired at Camp Victory on Sep. 11, 2007 killed one and wounded 11 others, U.S. officials told the news media that the command spokesman, Gen. Bergner, would display fragments of a 240mm rocket — complete with Iranian markings — at his next press briefing in order to “show the link between the Iranian weapons and the damage they are doing”.

But Bergner admitted to the media that there were no discernible Iranian markings on the fragment, and that a number of countries manufacture 240mm rockets. He was able to assert only that ordnance experts “assess it is of [sic] consistent with the rockets of Iranian origin we have seen used in other attacks.”

That was a very weak claim, because Bergner had not provided any evidence to the media that previous attacks had involved Iranian 240mm rockets either.[/i]

The Bush administration, and the couple of million voters that still support it, effed up about Iraq and don’t want to admit it. I understand.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE24Ak02.html
[i]When Major General Kevin Bergner was asked that question at a briefing on May 8, he did not answer it directly. Instead, Bergner reverted to a standard US military line that these groups “could not do what they’re doing without the support of foreign support [sic]”. Then he defined “foreign support” to include training and funding as well as weapons, implicitly conceding that he did not have much of a case based on weapons alone.

Bergner’s refusal to address that question reflects a fundamental problem with the US claims about Iranian weapons in Iraq: if there are indeed any Iranian rockets and mortars and RPGs in the arsenal of Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army’s stand-off weapons, they represent an insignificant part of it.[/i]

I’m really, really puzzled why

In reply to Let’s test whether his chances would be “flushed down the toilet.”

you think that there would NOT be Iranian munitions in Iraq.

The US and its allies have invaded Iraq, an adjacent country with a long land border with Iran. The Iraqis are not grateful – whatever you may think – so the chances of either of us packing up and leaving in the near future is slim.

You have made covert and overt threats against Iran.

It is therefore in their interest to give you the hardest time possible so that you will be tied down to the point that another invasion could not be considered by even the most stupid hawk in your government.

The Iranians are Shi’ite Muslims. A fault or a virtue of the Islamic religion – depending on which end of the gun barrel you are situated – requires them to stick together. Shi’ite in Iran will be aiding their Shi’ite “brothers” in Iraq at all levels. Whether this is with the knowledge or complicity of the top levels of the Iranian government, I don’t know and neither do you.

Iranian arms are available all over the World – as are French, Russian, US, etc. Iran is the closest country to Iraq. No arms dealer has a conscience.

I could go on listing reasons why but you probably get the big picture.

THEY DON’T LIKE US.

“Why is there a double standard in our country?”

In reply to National Duplicity

Because, alas, during my lifetime you had places where blacks had to sit at the back of the bus.

It may be that the societal pendulum has swung past the centre but you’re just going to have to wait until it finally stops.

Neil 🙂

I hardly think that the white people have needed an association for [b]their[/b] advancement and I suspect that they don’t need one now.

I also reckon that you need to check on what “Marxist” actually means.

No, I will not wait

In reply to “Why is there a double standard in our country?”

Just as discrimination was wrong a long long long time ago (when you were younger..zing!) does not make reverse discrimination right now.

And yes, we DO need associations for the advancements of whites. If you are a minority, you can get extra funding for college, but if you are white, you are SOL.

When my boys were born, I was making raising a family of four on $6/hour, but because I wasn’t black I didn’t qualify for any government assistance to help get a start.

Race should not be used as a qualifier for anything.

Nobody is preventing you from forming one.

In reply to No, I will not wait

[i]And yes, we DO need associations for the advancements of whites. If you are a minority, you can get extra funding for college, but if you are white, you are SOL.[/i]

SOL? Google “merit scholarships” & “financial aid.”

actually, there is something preventing it

In reply to Nobody is preventing you from forming one.

societal stereotyping.

just like 60 years ago, blacks were thought to be thought of by some as “lessers”…

today, a white person who goes and starts an organization established to guarantee that whites have equal rights…would be labelled as at least a “troublemaker”, if not a “racist” or “radical”.

actually, i think i should go make one for German descendants. my ancestors were endentured to work on railroads and abused by anglican taskmasters. and i have cherokee indian on mom’s side…damn…i have been left out.

i want my money! and my land!!! and my free commodity cheese!!! (that stuff was awesome for grilled cheese sandwiches lol 😀 )

Horsepucky

In reply to Nobody is preventing you from forming one.

Many immigrant societies exist that are specific to heritage of one European nation. I assume they accept hybrids, provided you can trace your lineage back to at least one member of the nationality of the group.

It is nobody else’s fault if those societies we’re eligible to join do not offer scholarships to you or me or jdclyde or our offspring, but the membership [b]of those societies[/b].

you are…

In reply to Nobody is preventing you from forming one.

confusing nationality with race. they are not one in the same. one is geographic. one is genetic.

if there were a “Miss White America” pageant, there would be protests and law suits and Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson callin it “keeping the people down” or something. it is thought to be socially and politically incorrect for whites to exclude others of other races from participation in their events and/or organizations.

however, “Miss Black America” is acceptable. They can exclude other races from their pageant. that is accepted by society.

Can you explain that?

1. Historical record of compulsory illiteracy

In reply to Nobody is preventing you from forming one.

… makes specific knowledge of one’s national heritage absolutely impossible, within a generation.

2. Race is based on phenotype, not genotype. Africans can tell neighboring tribes from their own — also by phenotype, not genotype.

3. “Exclusion” is normally defined in terms of mainstream society, not from sub-cultures. I think the main reason that Miss Black America doesn’t offend women who are prevented by their heritage from participating, is that they have no shortage of other beauty contests to compete in. Blacks, on the contrary, have apparently felt that there were shortages in access to mainstream activities. Some of those shortages, at least, have been well-documented. But I’ll defer (for now) to your superior knowledge of beauty pageants. They’ve never been an interest of mine.

actually what America needs…

In reply to No, I will not wait

is to stick to the premise of what we’re supposed to be about: everyone getting a fair chance to make a better life for themself.

jdclyde is right. it is appauling that someone is given preference in our country (mainly by government-run funding programs) because of the color of their skin.

that, if done by an individual, is called “racism”.

that, if done by government, is called “affirmative action”.

that, by the name i give it, is hypocrisy.

the first thing i think is…any law in the country…national, state, local…that gives preference, indifference, leniency, or other favorable direction to someone…because of race… gender… religion… sexual orientation… should be removed from the books. everyone who is a citizen here should have equal legal right under law.

there should have never been a law giving “gays” the right to marry anywhere. they should have that right under law already.

legal marriage is [b]NOT[/b] the same as holy matrimony…no matter how much religious conservatives wish it was.

therefore, no religion should dictate that law make legal marriages/unions only between man and woman.

and ya know, it is really sick, jdclyde. there you were with a family…makin $6 and you couldn’t get any help. but someone who sits on their butt and doesn’t do the best they can for their family…gets all the freebies in the world there are.

i feel for ya man. i’m glad ur in a better place now.

How many nations have full gay marriage?

In reply to actually what America needs…

Just curious if it is just the mean ol’ US that doesn’t recognize a gay marriage to be equal in every way to a traditional marriage?

We know they don’t in Iran because their aren’t any gays in Iran…. :0

poor Toronto

In reply to actually what America needs…

Tourism in Toronto has gone down dramatically since 9/11. Whether its the high(er) cost of gas, the need for more ID at the border(not getting into Canada, but getting back to the US) or the rising Canadian dollar (or rather the sinking US dollar) we are hurting.

The one bright spot was gay marriages. US citizens who were gay would come up and get married all nice and legal like and spend money on receptions and dinners etc.

Now I hear it will soon be legal in California, and so our little business will dry up and our tourist operators will be out in the cold again.

Dang Swarteneger.

James

Actually, what America needs is to choose her battles intelligently.

In reply to actually what America needs…

What’s the total financial cost of those assistance programs which grant the status of preferred recipient to one or more ethnic groups? How much do those programs pay to whites? A: still a majority of their payroll, merely a slightly smaller majority than you’d prefer. How many jobs has it really cost you in your life?

[i]it is appauling that someone is given preference in our country (mainly by government-run funding programs) because of the color of their skin.[/i]

Slavery was appalling. Affirmative action amounts to chump change — hell, include all social programs and [b]individual[/b] financial assistance! — compared to military waste. Where are your priorities?

Need to look at it all

In reply to actually what America needs…

All wasteful and improper spending by government should be looked at, not just based upon if you find it worthy or not.

Yea, look at wasteful government spending. End of story.

Slavery? Ancient history. No one alive in the US today was a slave. None of my ancestors were slave owners. Get over it and move on. Descendants of slaves are better off today than many of the people currently living in Africa. It is done, they are free and given equal rights and opportunities based now upon their efforts and abilities.

countries

In reply to actually what America needs…

[i]We know they don’t in Iran because their aren’t any gays in Iran….[/i]

Iran is a religious state, where Islam is the state religion and all laws are founded in that religion. That is why mullahs have the power they do there.

America is based on freedom of religion.

As for what countries? Well, if you make that question “modernized countries”, then most of them allow it. Even England legally recognized them now.

I just don’t see what the big deal is. If your religion/belief/creed/values forbids it, then don’t do it. Just dont push your own value set on others.

Equal Justice Under Law: isn’t that what it says on the front of the US Supreme Court?

“modern” countries?

In reply to actually what America needs…

how many is that? Why would you have to make such an exclusion? Weren’t you just telling me how it is morally wrong to impose “our” beliefs on other nations? does that include gay marriage and abortions?

IMO, if the flambers hadn’t come out so “in your face” being intentionally repulsive, I don’t believe there would still be so much opposition to this. One big non-issue intenionally used to distract from real issues. And yes, abortion is used the same way.

Then, look at it [i]all[/i]

In reply to actually what America needs…

… and put these two subjects into a reasonable context: they’re not bothering you.

[i]All wasteful and improper spending by government should be looked at, not just based upon if you find it worthy or not.

Yea, look at wasteful government spending. End of story.

Slavery? Ancient history. No one alive in the US today was a slave. None of my ancestors were slave owners. Get over it and move on.[/i]

You first.

JD, Why should governments even be in the business

In reply to actually what America needs…

of marriage? [b]Any[/b] marriage?

Do you really not know Tony?

In reply to actually what America needs…

Marriage has been more than a joining before God. It has been for centuries a way for property rights. It helps hold the welfare party (democrats) from trying to tax money for the fourth time. First, when a company makes the money as profit, second when it is paid as a wage, third when sales tax are charged against the purchases, and the fourth when you die and go to leave your home to your spouse. The leaches of “that” party start circling like the scavengers they are, looking to pick at the body of the dead because they smell money. A spouse doesn’t have to pay the inheritance leach tax.

A marriage DOES make for a more stable house hold than people who are just shacked up, in general. Because of that, it has been given benefits. Oh sure, a lot of marriages fail, but I know I have lived with more women than I have married, and the marriage lasted a lot longer, and it is better for children to have both of their parents in their lives on a daily basis.

yes, there are exceptions, just because some people have no business breeding in the first place. Thankfully, many of these people are learning they don’t HAVE to have kids and the picket fence.

Look at the stats, and kids that have both parents involved in their lives do better than when one or both have taken off. You FINALLY see people like Bill Cosby standing up and telling black men to stand up and be men for a change and stand beside their children. Why? Can you honestly say that children do NOT do better when the father or mother has taken off?

Damaged kids grow up to be damaged adults, and many end up being less than productive. Having a productive crop of future tax payers is a good thing.

Still waiting for some kind of count, how many countries do vs don’t have legal gay marriage. It is dishonest to try to paint the US as the haters of the world because they have voted repeatedly to keep with the traditional meaning of marriage. In many places a civil union HAS been offered to gays, and as long as it has the same legal rights, where is the problem? You want to do something new, give it a new name.

I agree with everything you said,

In reply to actually what America needs…

so in theory, a gay couple who are married would be more stable than one who isn’t, right?

You mean you agree with almost everything….

In reply to actually what America needs…

As I said, why does the existing institutions have to be changed of their meaning all the time?

If a NEW relationship comes out, fine, you make a NEW institution for the new relationship.

But then comes the valid question, if a marriage isn’t one man and one woman anymore, then how can it be limited to just a couple? It can’t. Do we really want that? If we question that, then how about age limits? Isn’t that legislating morality as well? 100 years ago, it was common for a 14 year old to get married. I wouldn’t want that to come back.

jdclyde: that is a “straw man”

In reply to actually what America needs…

[i]But then comes the valid question, if a marriage isn’t one man and one woman anymore, then how can it be limited to just a couple? It can’t. Do we really want that? If we question that, then how about age limits? Isn’t that legislating morality as well? 100 years ago, it was common for a 14 year old to get married. I wouldn’t want that to come back.[/i]

Still waiting for the valid question here. The topic was 1 gay man and another gay man; or 1 gay woman and another gay woman. Note the adult words for male & female, and that we’re talking about couples, not harems. Those would be separate threads

re: Do we really want that?

In reply to actually what America needs…

I do not pretend to speak for you and the mouse in your pocket. If [b]I[/b] don’t want that, [b]I[/b] won’t do that.

[i]If we question that, then how about age limits? Isn’t that legislating morality as well?[/i]

No, that’s legislating the age of consent. In addition: In most states, some minors may marry … with parental and/or the court’s consent.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/79gzu

Isn’t legislating age of consent legislating morality?

In reply to actually what America needs…

What basis is there for us to determine when WE think people should be allowed to have consensual sex?

If we follow the evolutionists train of thought, it would be as soon as they are physically able to, just like the animals we are suppose to have evolved from?

You look at the different states, some have 16, 17, 18. based on what? I know I don’t have that answer.

As for lighting the strawman on fire, pretend that it is not a valid next step, that once you change to include a new definition of marrage as just two humans, who is going to be able to argue only two? What is the basis of that refusal?

Strawman would be if I brought in marrying your sheep or something stupid like that. I am talking just real world practical examples.

Not morality

In reply to actually what America needs…

a judgment by our lawmakers that children are not mature enough to make certain adult decisions. Sex is one. Contracts are another.

[i]As for lighting the strawman on fire, pretend that it is not a valid next step, that once you change to include a new definition of marrage as just two humans, who is going to be able to argue only two? What is the basis of that refusal?[/i]

There is none. That’s why I think the government should not be involved. I suggest the terms civil union and marriage should be two different things. Marriage is whatever the people involved believe it to be (usually a religious definition). A civil union is a contract with the government, and requires a license.

“judgment by our lawmakers”??? :0

In reply to actually what America needs…

Now that is a scary thought.

What do these people base their laws upon? Did they go and analyze the average child to determine when they should be allowed to hump like bunnies?

Was it phychological evidence? [i](a field that is a crock. Give them a pill and they will feel better about themselves?)[/i]

Was it medical evidence? [i](physically able)[/i]

Or a MORAL judgement call on when THEY thought it was approprate? [i](I will take what is behind door three, Monty.)[/i]

Indeed it is…

In reply to actually what America needs…

[i]Now that is a scary thought.[/i]

… but we have only ourselves to blame. The trick is going to be doing something about it.

[i]Or a MORAL judgement call on when THEY thought it was approprate?[/i]

One might assume that it is the morals of the people who elected those lawmakers, in theory anyway, but I think it’s just another control thing… The bureaucracy’s first duty is to the bureaucracy.

Where are you, A!

In reply to actually what America needs…

Come sort all this out.

Lay down the Law of moral import.

JD – I know you were joking but

In reply to actually what America needs…

When you commented that there are no gay men in Iran (yes I caught the humour, there are no OPENLY gay men in Iran) it reminded me of a movie, the Kite Runner.

Actually an excellent movie, shot in Kabul. Two young boys are friends (a kite flyer and a kit runner) in a kite flying tournament. In short, one guy, now much older, travels from America back to Kabul to compete in this tournament (with the country now under Taliban rule).
Anyhow, the relation was as young kids the kite runner (th eguy who collects the losers kite when teh line gets severed) is tackled by a local bully.

His punishment “Now I’ll show you you are not a man. You’re gona get it now! I’ll show you!” is to getting buggered by the teenage thug. (Quite a shocking ‘sidebar’ in the movie that they rally didn’t need to add I don’t think) 🙂

So now that I have a movie education of the area, I guess there are no GAY men in the Middle East at all, because they are all considered tough guys and bully’s for buggering other guys and not called fa@s like they would be here.

@jdclyde: If it’s about taxes …

In reply to actually what America needs…

anybody not receiving government handouts should be eligible.

[i]Marriage has been more than a joining before God. It has been for centuries a way for property rights. It helps hold the welfare party (democrats)[/i] [which was the “welfare party,” “centuries” ago?[i] from trying to tax money for the fourth time. First, when a company makes the money as profit, [/i][common corporate-welfare apologists’ model; pretends independent contractors & family businesses don’t exist][i] second when it is paid as a wage, third when sales tax are charged against the purchases, and the fourth when you die and go to leave your home to your spouse. The leaches of “that” party start circling like the scavengers they are, looking to pick at the body of the dead because they smell money. A spouse doesn’t have to pay the inheritance leach tax.[/i]

So you’d rather give a gay man’s inheritance to “the scavengers” than recognize his rights at law. Despicable.

AB, if you wish to join in the conversation

In reply to actually what America needs…

then keep up and read what has actually been posted, not what you thought you read as you scanned over a few posts.

I said I DO support giving the same rights for this new relationship, but you seem to have missed that.

Despicable.

You can take your myth and

In reply to actually what America needs…

think about it for just a second.

I don’t remember EVER reading about gay marriage in the bible.

I never said there were not gay people, just not gay marriage.

That is ok, I am adult enough to allow you to be wrong.

You know, JD, don’t you,

In reply to actually what America needs…

that the Bible was put out by what were, in their day, the politicians and the press. As such, there is probably a lot that they didn’t want you to know, so it was omitted. 🙂

You were the one to mention it AB

In reply to actually what America needs…

[i]”And by the way, how do you define “new” to exclude the
homosexuality recorded in myth & history as old as the
Bible, and including it?”[/i]

Will put it nice and simple for you, there was homosexuality, but there were not gay marriages. THAT is what makes it “new”. Get it?

Not paying attention?

In reply to actually what America needs…

If there has NEVER in history been Gay Marriage, and they WANT Gay Marriage NOW, that is something NEW (something new is considered “new”).

Still waiting for someone to give a head count of the number of countries in the world that HAVE legal gay marriage vs the number of countries that do NOT have legal gay marriage.

Why? To see how “out of sync” with the rest of the world the US is on this subject. EVERYTIME it has been put on a ballot, the majority of Americans has voted against this, even in rabidly liberal California.

What new relationship?

In reply to actually what America needs…

Very slowly, so you can understand it:

G o v e r n m e n t – s a n c t i o n e d   (” l e g a l”)

h o m o s e x u a l   m a r r i a g e.

Edit: slowed it down some more.

Waste of time Nick

In reply to actually what America needs…

He knows exactly what I have said and understands it just fine.

He is just being a fuckwit trying to push buttons. Unfortunately, he needs to find someone that cares what he thinks to get the rise he is do desperately looking for.

It should be clear if you look at history AB

In reply to actually what America needs…

That it is you always following me around like a dog in heat, and not the other way. Get off my leg.

Rarely do I seek you out and reply to you out of the blue.

Be a good little fukwit and go about your business of looking to argue for the sake of arguing. You are not able to shout me down, so scamper along and find someone that you can.

Sweet irony

In reply to actually what America needs…

You’ve screwed yourself for the better.

I will hear no more from you of not knowing what I say to you.

In reply to actually what America needs…

.

:D Priceless, santee.

In reply to actually what America needs…

.

HEYHEYHEY! None of THAT here santee!

In reply to actually what America needs…

No Smooching at ME! :0

Or was that Nick you had your eye on? ;\

:^0

The Disappeared One

In reply to actually what America needs…

Argentine junta at work (a post that vanished).

That is what they all say….. :D

In reply to actually what America needs…

Yeah, I know.

Was making fun of what the removal did to the discussion, not you. B-)

One of many reasons why I preferred the editing of posts over the removal of them. When someone reads this a year from now, ABSOLUTELY no one will even know about the pseudo-intellectual poster known as Absolutely, and think strange things….. ;\

I knew it wasn’t me, JD

In reply to actually what America needs…

Santee has much better taste than that! :p

What?

In reply to actually what America needs…

I didn’t pay you enough for your silence?

“Better taste”?

In reply to actually what America needs…

or tastes better? :0

I will leave the two of you alone now. Here, let me get the light on my way out…. ;\

:p

It wasn’t the quantity

In reply to actually what America needs…

It was the brand. Olympia?

In reply to actually what America needs…

.

Well…

In reply to actually what America needs…

there’s a memory that could have been left under the dust.

cf., Uncle Remus, Tar Baby

In reply to actually what America needs…

.

…

In reply to actually what America needs…

You [i]are[/i] a marvel.

yeah,

In reply to actually what America needs…

[i]Here, let me get the light on my way out….[/i]

They put ‘off’ switches on ’em for a reason 🙂

PS I’m not “avoiding” anything, I’m discussing what I want to discuss.

In reply to National Duplicity

Do you have a problem with that?

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=263533&messageID=2514573
[i]As to your first comments you are avoiding the issue and that is one of racism, and bias.[/i]

I considered everything you said, and picked one part of it to shine back at you, in a different light. If you think I should give more credit to some specific thing you’ve said, what?

And, what do you say to my claim, that Obama is just getting more questions about his race? He is not more preoccupied with race than the other candidates, they are, the paparazzi asking him are, and judging by the fact that they’re still in business, many of us are, too. You can’t blame a person for what other people say to him. His answers are not always great, but more often than the other candidates, his answers are very good.

What we need…

In reply to Obama proposes world welfare program at US tax payers expense

…is a third term for Bush 43…only then will jd et al be happy. The rest of the world on the other hand…

Horrible.

In reply to What we need…

I was going to try to make a crack about the Surge, working eventually, but it really isn’t funny.

Pleased to see you again, at least for the time being.

[I vaguely recall some disagreement, but as long as GWB is the subject, I promise not to say anything very nice. It looks like we can agree on that.]

Part of the problem…

In reply to Horrible.

…was user-names. That and advanced gray hair. I believe I once confused you with a similar sounding user-name. But, like my late father used to say when he was my age about forgetfulness; “The best thing about it is all the new friends I meet everyday.” Sorry.

Horrible?

In reply to Obama proposes world welfare program at US tax payers expense

The U.S. has cut it’s food programs from more than a billion to roughly 300 million while we PAY farmers not to grow food, and spend most of what we do contribute to world hunger on transportation. “President Bush recently requested an additional $770 million in funding for humanitarian food aid, but that money will not be available until October, when the new budget year begins.” Why is it okay to have hundreds of private and public food programs but not okay to have one which all countries can and individuals can support? And why is it okay to give the richest percentage in the world tax cuts but not feed those that are starving? AND……..I thought this was a TECH site, not a political assassination site!!!

That is what you get for thinking

In reply to Horrible?

It is a site for techs as much as it is a site for tech. If you pay attention, you will see the “off-topic” tag.

On to your point.

the only reason you give tax cuts to anyone is because that person/group is already paying more than their share, and if they do not have the money take from them by government to be wasted in the bureaucracy, they will re-invest the money in other ventures or buy themselves goods, either way, giving other people jobs.

Do you think the current progressive taxes are “fair”? Not only are you paying taxes on a larger amount, but you’re paying a higher RATE on the larger amount?

Fines are a tax for doing bad.
Taxes are a fine for doing good.

If someone EARNS their money, who are you to vote it away?

People like you then turn around and cry because companies move off shores because of being overly taxed. YOU are chasing jobs from our shores with your mentality of class envy.

As for food banks, if individuals wish to donate, fine. Money taken from US citizens via taxes are meant for one thing, and that is the betterment and running of THIS country. There is nothing in the US Constitution giving our government the right to tax us and give the money to other nations.

Taxes are like tithing…

In reply to That is what you get for thinking

…and only engender resentment inversely proportional to the gratitude you feel for being part of a community. Ask not what tax break the country can give to you…

Just when did this become a right-wing political site?

In reply to Obama proposes world welfare program at US tax payers expense

In a word, bullpucky.

There is absolutely nothing in the words of the bill that you quoted that says that the USA will (or even should) pay “a tax to the UN”, nor that the USA taxpayer is going to fund a “world welfare program”. You sound to me as though you are an extreme right wing ideologue at best.

Make your views clear instead of merely trying to disparage an honorable senator. Come right out and tell us about your isolationist views, about your xenophobia, and about your belief that the USA has no obligations as the worlds “sole remaining superpower” and yet has the right to dictate to every other country how it should behave. And, while you’re at it, be sure to tell us why sticking our collective heads in the sand means “We’re Number One!” when every bit of evidence suggests that we’re far from number one in many (not all!!) aspects of quality of life.

I, for one, strongly support a US foreign policy that treats everyone with respect, that exercises its power wisely, also exercises its responsibility wisely, and is not afraid to use its wealth to help the less fortunate instead of condemning them for being poor. That, IMHO, is a much more dependable road to peace.

But, thanks for raising this subject to my consciousness. I’ll be contacting my senators and asking them to vote FOR the bill.

So, will it work as well as the war on poverty in the US?

In reply to Just when did this become a right-wing political site?

How many failed wars on poverty do you think we should “fight”?

Yeah, lets send our money over seas to the corrupt leaders that have CAUSED the poverty in the first place, who will KEEP the majority of all aid, like they have been doing all along.

We don’t have any poor in this country that could use that money, do we?

What “war on poverty in the US?”

In reply to So, will it work as well as the war on poverty in the US?

Did poverty pose a clear and present danger?

Did Congress vote to declare war?

In Europe, a lot of the motivation for this kind trade sanction against policies that increase poverty originated in authentic guilt for colonialism. Until the unprovoked attack on Iraq, it was very difficult to make the case that North Americans should help pay that debt. Until the US decreases its presence abroad, expect more of this.

Just don’t hold your breath :)

In reply to What “war on poverty in the US?”

[i]Until the US decreases its presence abroad, expect more of this.[/i]

I suspect that we’ll be there in one form or other for at least several decades, regardless of who is elected president.

I’ve got a better idea…

In reply to So, will it work as well as the war on poverty in the US?

You can’t fight terrorism by killin’ all the Muslims in the world; like George W. Bush would have us try to do. We’re spending billions every week just to make more enemies.

We can take care of our own poor — and — spread democracy abroad the right way, i.e., distribute aid for food and education.

Like Obama said: It’s time to change the mindset of war. But first…

End the freakin’ war!

You haven’t been paying attention for the last few decades

In reply to I’ve got a better idea…

we have been sending money and food overseas for decades, and it hasn’t done any good.

The money/food/supplies are always taken by the corrupt governments or the “guerrilla fighters”, and the people we intend to help are not any better off than before we wasted our money and time.

Cap in hand to the US of eh?

In reply to Obama proposes world welfare program at US tax payers expense

People of the US. Prepare to pay for the world as it is collection time.

WOW.

mindblowing

In reply to Cap in hand to the US of eh?

that people are stupid enough to allow such to continue.

The US has to STOP being two things to the world. The world police and the world welfare office.

Get out of other peoples business and take care of our own.

After our own house is in order, THEN and only then should we look outside the borders.

That is NOT isolationist, it is priorities.

Couple of points

In reply to mindblowing

The US intervenes when and if it chooses. There have been many instances where the UN called upon it, and the US turned them down.

As for food aid, its not so simple. Yes, millions of lives have been saved by providing food aid and thats a good thing. Its also helped US farmers make more money -don’t overlook that. But it has created dependence. When too much food aid comes in, where is the incentive for the locals to farm – they can’t compete with free. So they get out of the business and the farms don’t get kept up and bam, there goes the capacity.

James

BLack and white?

In reply to mindblowing

Just like your politics it is extreme in either direction, there’s no middle ground, no grey area etc. Just YES or NO, BLACK or WHITE.

How about, okay here’s a stretch, BALANCE?

Balance allows yuo to have a bit of both without focusing solely on one agenda. I know, I know, it’s an odd concept; sorry but you’ll have to give it time to sink in a bit.

Balance would allow you to offer aide and support those in need, while also taking care of your own and focusing on internal affairs.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to screw with everyone’s heads, I know it is a bit far fetched for most, that’s actually how the rest of teh prosperous world operates.

We all know that all the other countries in the world are ruled by communists and fascists that would let Arabs wipe them out with WMD, while they focus on the complete mind control of their citizens, but they are onto something aren’t they? 😀

Well, if the US were to stop for a while

In reply to BLack and white?

the maybe (just maybe) the rest of the world that we always hear that HATES the US will see that we HAVE been more of an asset to the world than a hindrance?

I CONSTANTLY hear how you have to explain you are currently a canuk to get accepted.

I feel no obligation to further aid to an ungrateful world that doesn’t want our “interference” in their affairs.

You only get kicked so many times before you stop putting yourself in a position to get kicked. Let the world decide if they really want US “interference” or not by removing ALL interference, both good and bad.

And NEVER go back to the policy of “My enemies enemy is my friend”.

Now you understand how the rest of the world feels

In reply to Well, if the US were to stop for a while

Take Canada for example, you NEED Canada to make it as a country, you would be SOL without us. On that same note, Canada relies on US money, if your economy tanks, our does in concert until we establish new trading relationships outside of North America.

The UK relies on US money; the US relies on the UK. Germany relies on the US, the US relies on Germany.

Any free democratic nation that has a strong economy or something to offer is a needed ally of the USA, and the USA’s money is needed by everyone else, it’s a two way street.

So when people in Germany get slammed as useless abusers of America’s helping hand, they get rightfully pi$$ed off.

When people in the UK have their sons fighting beside US troops and then hear the USA state how much better they are then the British and how the British owe them so much, THEY rightfully get pi$$ed off.

When all everyone hears from the USA is how the USA is helping out the rest of the world, saving their butts and offering them welfare, the rest of the world gets rightfully pi$$ed off.

If your citizens were taught just how dependant the USA is on the rest of the world, perhaps that arrogance and ignorance would be less visible around the globe.

We HAVE oil, electricity, grains, fish and lumber in Canada, while we would feel the economic hit of losing that trade relationship, it could be reestablish with other commonwealth nations.

If America cuts off such supply, America simply loses out due to the last few hundred years being focused on isolation and independence through assumed supremacy.

If your government actually showed Americans just how much you rely on the rest of the world to stay alive, then perhaps citizens of the USA would have a more humble voice towards the rest of the world. Is it the fault of eth US citizens? Of course not, just as it was not the fault of the German citizen when Hitler dragged Germany’s name through the mud, Germans actually believed what they were told, propaganda and all that.

What the world sees is an ungrateful nation with a lot of ignorant citizens who have been told not to trust anyone but America and that America is merely out to help the world rotate, with no self agenda. no wonder people oppose America, your government made it that way.

As for getting kicked, that’s exactly how others feel, no matter what you do to help America, America keeps it quiet and simply trumpets what they do for others. THAT is simply kicking your allies in the same way you feel you are being kicked.

Wake up and smell the bacon, the world is no longer a private, isolated place made of individual nations, the internet has opened up a global community, and yet you don’t want to play along unless you can be seen as the leader and savior of all.

As you noted, when in other parts of the world, being from America is not a good thing. Having to constantly correct people that I am Canadian is not a good thing either, I would much rather people didn’t make such an association and have it mean you are either on the good side or the bad. I don’t think America will ever hold the same ‘friendly neighbour’ status that Canada has with the commonwealth and allied nations; when I was younger, it was not such a BAD thing to be American, people saw Americans as arrogant and undereducated and didn’t take them too seriously but not as such an enemy as they do these days.

A little humble pie in the governments face would help, you can still be respected and looked up to, without the constant need to ignore what others do for the USA and focus only on what you do for others.

The loudest, most ‘in your face’ guy in the club is never the favorite and is always the target of others aggression.

You confuse trade partners

In reply to Now you understand how the rest of the world feels

with welfare projects.

I never said anything about trade, now did I?

Simply let other countries run themselves (no more world police, let the UN do it for a change).

Simply let other countries run themselves (nomore world welfare, let the UN do it for a change).

I don’t believe other than trying to give Neil a hard time, that I have ever put down the UK, nor gone on how you “owe us”. Everyone knows the brits were tough bastards that took more of a pounding than most, but never backed down.

And yes, Canada needs the US just as much as the US needs Canada.

Neither of them should EVER have a need for oil or food from anyone but the other if things were run properly. Of course, things are not run properly.

How I was mislead

In reply to Well, if the US were to stop for a while

[i]”…(just maybe) the rest of the world that we always hear that HATES the US will see that we HAVE been more of an asset to the world than a hindrance?

I CONSTANTLY hear how you have to explain you are currently a canuk to get accepted.”[/i]

The above statements fall into the UK/Canada spectrum as well as third world countries.
the problem with being confused with Americans has happened to me in a few places, but was most noticeable ( as I spent more time there)in Egypt and the UK.
It is also big in Brazil, don’t let them think you are American you will have a LOT of trouble. In Canada it’s not such a big thing, poeple just KNOW Americans right off the bat. When I have a group to speak to and it is mixed Canadian and Americans, you can pick out the Americans in a heartbeat, there’s a major difference in how you walk, talk and come across to others.

In the UK, thet just think anything with an accent is American, you get lumped in. Once people in your group know you are Canadian,they then start to stick up for you when they introduce you to others, ”
This is …..he’s Canadian, not American.” (No kidding that’s exactly how it goes down and you are instantly accepted for it.”

I don’t think its a good thing, but it IS a reality. If you don’t like that attitude from starving, needy nations, it is the same as you will get from allied trading partners too.

What I think you object to is the needy nations that don’t give you any credit in return, but open your eyes and you will see the same go towards all the other nations that help them too. America isn’t the only one helping out others with no thanks to be found.

America does hand out the most in gross monetary value, but relatively it is the same hit for one guy in one nation to offer $10 as it is for another with a weaker economy to offer $2.

We all hand out a great deal for very little in return. We are supposed to do it and accept it whether they are ungrateful baystards or not though, that’s called being human I guess, we ALL get kicked, not just the USA. This is a key issue that others don’t like about teh USA, it is always YOU and never others that are facing these issues.
Others accept it as a way of life when you actually care about others, hearing endless complaints from the states about how you give and never get is another part that makes you look ignorant and arrogant too. Not just you, this is an age old complaint of Americans, “What we do for the world”.

In other eyes, everyone does thier share and they don’t expect a big hug and thank you for it.

Where should the first priority of a nation be

In reply to How I was mislead

to their own citizens in need or other countries citizens in need?

chasing the white fluffy clouds

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

we’ll never solve all of our own issues/problems/turmoil.

we, as humans, are all chaos machines who try to put some order to a chaotic world so that we feel we have a place.

if we take the stance that everything has to be right here before we can help elsewhere…would make us extremely isolated…as well as rather self-serving.

selflessness is an admirable trait. it’s when charity and giving to do good turns into gluttonous expenditure for insignificant return or effect that it becomes a detriment.

kind of like us rebuilding the same buildings and streets and oil facilities in Iraq over and over and over for the past 3 years.

Iraq has enough money from oil. Let them recruit and pay their own army and police and defend themselves now.

Our government raised an army, trained them, and had them battle ready in less than 3 years. Why can’t the Iraqis do the same?

I say…give Iraq 6 months. Tell them we’re leaving then. Better get your ducks in a row. We’re done paying for you, even though you’re sitting on trillions of dollars in oil. We’ve done our good deed. The gravy train stops here. Time to step up or get over-run by Al Qaeda and or the Taliban. Up to you. Good luck.

Then bring that $300B a year back to the USA…feed homeless…build roads…educate kids…and yes…even send some food to desperate nations who *need* help and teach them how to self-sustain.

And if other nations do the same and don’t learn to stand on their own…cut them off too.

We are the world, we are the children…

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

Sorry I couldn’t help it….

Doctors have to first take care of themselves, cause if they get sick, they can’t help others.

Much the same is true with countries. Their first duty is to themselves.

Having said that, I do think that it is in our own enlightened self interest to help others. If we give food to some starving children in Africa, we make some of our own farmers happy and we make the world more stable, which benefits us all.

Of course my preference would be a hand up, not a hand out. I would rather see us help them get their own farms going, so they can build their own wealth, and some day be able to trade with us, than to make them dependant on food aid. But even if we decide thats the right course, we can’t go from starving people to self sufficient farmers overnight.

I do think even those on welfare in Canada/US/Europe live better than the poor in Africa. But in some cases, like Zimbabwe, there isn’t much we can do given the corrupt dicatorship.

James

Isn’t that what I am saying? Why, yes it is!

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

Although you did talk yourself into a circle after that.

If we have a choice, help person X or help person Y, there is nothing selfish about helping person X who is your citizen over person Y who is someone elses citizen. NOTHING.

And yes, GTF out of Iraq and stop [b]wasting[/b] our money on them. The whole world is in agreement that they are not worth it.

Question to James

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

In the case of the “corrupt dicatorships”, do we actually make matters worse by sending in aid that is taken by the dictators and never reaches the people in need?

Is it also wrong to stand up and call thse “corrupt dicatorship” EVIL? OR quietly say we shouldn’t be imposing our values on other people around the world?

yeah…you said that about Iraq…

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

but you also apply the same mentality to people who have not been given the same opportunities…like it was their fault.

And I agree with James…a hand up…not a hand out. And, we need to do that in our country too. If you’re on welfare…and there’s a job you’re able to do that the government can place you in…and you turn it down…you lose your check. Period.

I can understanding supporting the young and the old/infirmed. But, this letting 20-somethings sit on their but and collect unemployment and welfare and spend it on beer and pot and play Wii all day? That’s BS.

Missed my point John

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

Not talking about welfare in the US, but that is always something to keep an eye on.

If we don’t WASTE our money on other nations, we could invest it HERE, making new jobs, and better paying jobs.

Change the import laws to stop making it so attractive to move jobs offshore to save on the insane taxes we put on corporations, that have chased the jobs away.

I was reading today that there are STILL “homeless” from Katrina and they are upset because their payments are on the chopping block that Pelosi is looking at. How long do “we” support these people? When is enough, enough? Because there was shelters setup instead of work programs, we have put MORE people on forced dependency. Give them a shot at a job, and then it is sink or swim, move to the next person and give them a chance to save themselves.

i didn’t miss your point

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

i understood what you’re saying…however…tell me…define “WASTE”?

very ambiguous term. the other day, you thought it was a waste to try to feed people in starving countries just because they haven’t moved on from the Kalahari desert.

i just equated that to, when the steel mills closed in PA…everyone should have moved from Pittsburgh…cause if not, they weren’t going where they could be more prosperous.

i absolutely agree that we should not waste…and, Iraq is the biggest waste of money this country has ever spent a dime on…well…other than the current welfare system…which pays for people to sit on their butt and not try…and have more and more children that the system has to support.

and i agree about not letting them off-shore jobs. but at the same time…do you know how many $20-40 per hour jobs were off-shored in the last 30 years? If the government would have stuck up for labor (yes…those guys in labor who support leftist wingnut politicians)…this country wouldn’t be going to hell in a handbasket.

And actually the person i blame most for letting a corp like Wal-Mart get away with off-shoring?

Bill Clinton.

Someone get jd a heart pill…i think he’ll need it after that statement lol

Can you say redirection, sure you can

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

What relationship is there between a hand up and corporate welfare. NONE. Either can exist totally independantly of the other.

If I didnt know better, I’d swear you were reading Marx about the class struggle.

I don’t believe in corporate welfare. Has nothing to do with my stance on welfare or foreign aid.

James

Holy Cr@p!

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

I look away for a few minutes and there’s a whole side thread to read!

As to your question, I agree that a country needs to take care of its own first (uh, oh, welfare again!). I wish Canada blew more cash on helping Canadians as opposed to others but its a necessary evil for all stable countries; otherwise we’d be happier and more prosperous and that would just be wrong.

jck “We’re done paying for you, even though you’re sitting on trillions”

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

Firstly I don’t disagree with your mindset that they should be able to fund and generate their own forces by now.

But you must consider the trillions that Middle Eastern billionaires have invested in the US to stockpile the Petrodollar. With those investments removed it would have a horrendous effect on your real estate and economy as a whole. That’s also another reason that the US has to make good in the Middle East and try to retain a strong dollar value, some are already switching to the PetroEuro and that has direct effect on the USA.

You can’t afford to play hardball when your economy sits in the palm of thier hands.

Let’s not forget how proud we all were

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

I think you guys remember when we had a major pi$$ing contest in 2005 over which country helped more after the tsunami hit Asia.
Actually it started out quite nice, with Max, Julian and I all in total shock and agreement (odd as I am sure we were all fighting in the war trenches at the time).
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=165852&messageID=1695842

Then it did get nasty,
[i]Did you know that although Americans make up only 5 percent of the world’s population, they give about 35 percent of the aid? One-third of all aid given to others comes from the USA.

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in 2003, the U.S. gave $37.8 billion out of a total $108.5 billion in foreign aid from the world’s major countries. This is THREE TIMES the amount from the next largest donor, the Netherlands, who gave $12.2 billion.

You’re welcome. [/i]

LOL 😀 here’s a few more titles (all taken out of order):

Worldwide Generosity
USA #2 in donations worldwide
This is not a generosity contest
pssst..um…the govmnt has pledged $350 Mil
How Much???? [i](LOL, Maxwell)[/i]
A hair over 8,000 UK pounds
Australia Wins!!!
Some per capita perspective

At this late stage in the discussion
I just think maybe everyone’s baked
Amen brotha, now pass that bowl…

LOL the good ole days.

What is it, an area of national pride or wasting your money?

One minute everyone is arguning about who is more generous and which country should be more proud of thier donations to help the world. The next thing you know (well, 3 years later and during an endangered economy)the argument is why countries should be helping themselves and not handing out to others.

Just struck me as funny; the war hits home financially in many indirect ways too.

The difference, Oz

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

Voluntary vs. compulsory.

Abs: one simple question for you

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

What costs more:

a) Investing the money for 1 year to get someone trained in a vocation that makes them self-sufficient?

b) Investing the money for multiple years to pay someone to sit on the welfare dole and never to make them do for themself?

I’d personally opt for plan a, if i was going to endorse a spending plan.

Hand-ups are better than hand-outs in my book.

Oz: about our “real estate and economy as a whole”

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

For all the trillions the USA has invested in the Middle East, where is our economy and real estate market as a whole?

Doesn’t seem to have been the insurance we needed to solidify our markets, has it? OPEC hasn’t increased their output sufficiently to ease concerns in trade for our generousity, have they?

Of course, it still doesn’t help that the refining capacity is still under what the world needs. Yet, several American oil companies who have profited (at all-time record levels) $100Bs over the past 3 years still won’t spend the $100Ms to upgrade and put into operation idle refining facilities in the USA.

Between OPEC and corporate greed, America is going to hell in a hand basket.

Saddest thing is: The American government is doing nothing to help.

Go figure.

“the government” this and “the government” that, jck?

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

“the government” does not set oil prices.

“the government” does not set gas prices.

“the government” does not set house prices.

“the government” does not set food prices.

You really scare me when you get your red coat on and start talking about all the governmental controls you want. And then you wonder why I often don’t believe you are or ever have been anything but a die-hard bleeding heart liberal?

The things “the government” can do is either drill our own oil (despite what the ecoweenies say), take over a country and TAKE their oil (Like Saddam tried years ago), or walk in, hat in hand and beg.

Heard on the news the Saudies are pledging to increase the supply AND do something about what THEY call manipulated prices. Will be interesting to see how that goes, since they do have a vested interest in us doing well.

you’re absolutely right

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

they don’t set oil prices

they don’t set house prices

they don’t set food prices

they don’t set gas prices.

thanks for stating the obvious

But, it [b]is[/b] government’s job to protect and promote the general welfare of its people…[i][b]ALL[/b][/i] of its people…not just their campaign’s big money donors.

That duty includes keeping business or any other entity from endangering the welfare of its people from assault: whether foreign or domestic…ballistic or economic.

I have [b]NEVER[/b] said they should “take over” anything other than healthcare, and that is because healthcare is ESSENTIAL. And, healthcare insurers have been gouging the consumer for years now much as the oil industry is doing today. Government has done nothing about that either.

However with the mentality of business to do as they wish, government needs to, on occassion, implement measures to keep the American public from being wronged. For example, some car dealers are selling hybrid cars now at 15-25% above MSRP simply because of “supply and demand”.

Prices of those cars have gone up that much in less than a year. It is far above the inflationary measure (some 6 times the rate of inflation?), which should be considered price-gouging IMHO.

Government is not doing its job. It’s obvious. They are letting big business run over the American public.

If a grocer sells a bottle of water after a hurricane in FL for $5, government calls it price gouging.

If a Toyota dealer raises the price of their Prius $4000 just because they can, government calls it supply and demand.

I don’t want government takeover. I want government protection…that’s what I pay taxes for.

Lets here your plan then?

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

What would/could “the government” do about the price of gas?

What would/could “the government” do about medical insurance?

Is raising taxes even higher, and then “the government” giving the equivilent to medicaid to everyone a solution even though the COST of Medicaid is higher because of the government overhead, costing all of us more?

Ok, should “the government” have stepped in and forced Apple to lower the price of the iPhone because $400 was to much to ask for it?

Socialism is not the answer.

You agree that government doesn’t set prices, so what DO/CAN they do then about the prices, short of nothing?

Ab: i understand

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

but taking the first step to solve problems is the best step. i see something like welfare, as it is today, like a dentist giving someone pain reliever for a tooth infection, rather than an anti-biotic. it helps in some ways, but it doesn’t solve the real issue.

as well…with offshoring. i have been there too. and, my current employment is now threatened with programming farms overseas. so, that’s one of the reasons why i’ve been contacting law programs.

of course, i guess one day those will get off-shored too.

jd: my plan

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

let the government do [b]oversight[/b] with essential infrastructure things, much like states do with utilities.

for example, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission once fined Southwestern Bell Telephone over $200M for not keeping promises made, including charging fees to customers for upgrading phone systems but not doing so, etc.

of course, the US congress probably already has that power. but since oil and banks and insurers donate so much, they wait til it festers up so bad they have to do something or get voted out.

Again my plan is: make government protect people.

they call a convenience store charging $5 for a bottle of water after a hurricane price gouging…

but they call a Toyota dealer hiking the price of a Prius $4000 over MSRP because he can…supply and demand.

gouging is gouging. government should protect the public from it in all forms. not just what is the easiest target.

i heard congress is trying to get a windfall tax on oil companies passed now, because they’ve made record profits for years during the Iraq deal.

of course, they said it’s not going to happen because…the republicans won’t vote for it.

go figure.

Ref Gov take over

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

It is a bit ironic that even though the government doesn’t set the price of oil, we sure pay a lot to protect shipping lanes, invade countries, open government lands for drilling and then subsidize the oil companies.
No the gov. doesn’t play a part 😉

Please define a “windfall tax”

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

What is an acceptable percent a company will be allowed to make, or do we set a cap on the total income?

Of course since MS has a higher profit return, will they be the next victoms of your wrath because you don’t think Gates should be allowed to make so much money?

We all know that the clowns in Congress are not qualified to make a decision like that as most have never worked in the private sector and held a real job.

One of the MAIN promises Pelosi (As the Speaker of the house) promised was lower gas. Two years later and the price is over double and they have the majority. What have they done that this is a “Republican” problem? Yeah, go back and blame Republicans for everything, like you ususally do.

ok jd…

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

a) i’m not going to tell you what a “windfall tax” is. if you don’t know, go back to high school economics. if you do, stop pretending to be obtuse.

b) congress is trying to pass it. if you want to know what limits they are thinking of setting…write your congressman…i’m not friggin psychic…or a politician.

c) do you know what is driving up prices right now? mostly refining capacity.

do you know how many million barrels per day US oil companies have off-line because of not wanting to have to spend part of their billions per quarter profit on retrofitting them to meet EPA standards? hundreds and hundreds of thousands.

but, they don’t want to bring that online. why? because if they did, supply goes up, their profits go down. and they are liking driving the price up artificially. it’s nice for them. they get big new houses and condos in the bahamas and a new bentley again this year.

while me and you figure out how to afford a tank of gas.

real fair, isn’t it?

wouldn’t it be nice if your government stepped in and went “hey guys. it’s time to belly up and do what’s right.”

but of course, i guess that you will tell me exploitation of the market is just fair business…right?

jck, the reall problem isn’t offshoring

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

the real problem is [b]exposed[/b] by offshoring. The real problem is that wages and costs here have been artificially manipulated… by other than market forces… That can work… as long as you don’t try to play in the world’s sandbox… then what you get is what we are now seeing.

Tony: then the solution to that

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

is what the government did to Japanese car makers for years when their cars were only produced in Japan: tariff the hell out of them.

I guarantee if Wal-Mart had to pay a 200-300% tariff on any product coming into the United States from a foreign manufacturer, they would go back to using American companies.

The basic, root problem is: our government is not protecting the best interests of its citizens.

Of the people, by the people, and for the people?

I think not nowadays.

Nick, it was no different at all

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

YOu didn’t have a choice when your government shelled out 350 million in relief for teh tsunami relief fund. Everyone was so proud of how much MORE money that teh USA coughed up compared to other, much smaller countries.

That was 100% compulsory, you had no choice in the matter but applauded the government for it all the same.

jck you got it backwards – Bush actually needs higher oil costs

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

Bush wants higher oil prices, later in the post: but for now, your comment about the trillions the USA has invested in the Middle East.

My comment was that the MIDDLE EAST has invested many trillions into the US, they own a massive chunk of Florida AND California to keep money in a US dollar reserve.

If they pulled THAT money out of your economy, America would have a hard time of it al for sure!

After 911, thier investments in the USA dropped a great deal, in 2005 there was a sudden spike in investments again (buying up a share of Daimler Chrysler, 21,000 apartment complexes in the sunbelt cities and more in New York) , but that has dropped considerably. The Middle Eastern investors also OWN Churches Chicken, Caribou Coffee, Loehmann’s, TLC and several US publications such as American Banker, the Middle East has a great investment in the US economy and loves to see your businesses fail and lose money, offering them a cheap investment that is funded by your buying thier oil at higher prices.

This was a marker, 3 years ago, when the Middle Eastern investors first topped other foreign investors from the UK and Asia to becoem the largest foreign investors in the USA.

[b]Here’s one for you, they pay US workers workers at their companies a lot more than US companies in America do to, according to the Wash Post [/b]http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2611

“Average annual compensation per worker at U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies is about $60,500, 34 percent higher than the rate at all U.S. companies, according to the Organization for International Investment.”

At one time, GWB had opened the investment floodgates, seeking mreo foreign investment into the USA. A hiccup was found when Dubai Ports World tried to buy Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company and in essence have control of 6 major US seaports. DPW also has close ties to the Taliban and a parnership with the UAE. They did find the relationship and DPW backed down from the bid.

Close one George!

Face it, the USA would not survive the way you are today without close relations and investments from the Middle East.

Severing those relationships would also sever the US economy.

They raise the price of oil, and invest MORE money in the USA.

So it is technically a balancing act between gettign oil at lower prices, which hurts foreign investment in the USA or paying ridiculous prices, which fills foreign pockets and increases thier investment in the USA, which is desparately needed.

The more the US pays for oil, the more Middle Eastern money is invested, Bush encourages and wants a greater Middle Eastern investment, so thus Bush encourages high oil costs.

JD – but the government does benefit from higher oil prices

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

[b]A solid fact: The US NEEDS the trillions in foreign investments in order to survive. You are the largest investor in other nations but also require the largest foreign investment back in America.[/b]

Higher oil prices mean richer Arabs.
Richer Arabs means more foreign investments/money in the US.

Why would GWB push for lower oil prices if his best interests are to make Arabs rich?

That’s the coward’s solution, jck

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

[i]tariff the hell out of them. [/i]

It’s a crutch for the lazy, and it stifles innovation.

As jck is a believer of the Union way of life

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

innovation is not of concern, protectionism is.

That, and “The Government” taking care of us from womb to tomb.

tony: then what is the “manly” solution?

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

Do we make Americans take $5,000 a year jobs in tech center call technician roles like the people in India?

Do we make factories in our country 14 hour per day sweat shops like in China?

Just how do we, as Americans compete against 3rd world labor rates?

Fact is, you can’t. Because, you can’t make companies in India or China pay their people what people get paid here.

So, just exact how would you propose we deter corporations like Wal-Mart from using the low-cost Asian labor markets to pad their pocket even further?

I would love to hear this.

News flash about world wages

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

Yeah, people in third world countries make a lot less. Lower cost of living combined with the going wage does that.

The same happens of working in Ohio vs California. The person working in California will make a lot more than the Ohio person. Are you saying California can not compete with California and that it is unfair somehow?

Protectionism needs to be a last resort, and looked at carefully.

I would take that low paying job if my cost of living were as low as theirs is.

After all, “who are we to impose our values and way of life on someone else”, right?

jck

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

[i]Do we make Americans take $5,000 a year jobs in tech center call technician roles like the people in India?[/i]

You take a job commensurate with your skills and work ethic at whatever the market will pay. Then either live within your means, or learn to have more means, all the while competing against the up and comers who are willing to work for less.

[i]So, just exact how would you propose we deter corporations like Wal-Mart from using the low-cost Asian labor markets to pad their pocket even further?[/i]

Ah, another Wal-Mart hater… That explains a lot. Funny thing is, if your socialist friends were in charge, society would be run much like you think Wal-Mart is run. 14 hour days? Bah! Adults only need 7 hours of sleep, so you’ll be working 17!

one flaw in that, jd

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

California and Ohio are not in China. People in China don’t pay US income tax.

If you are taking the stance it’s okay to offshore because it’s just business, that’s fine then.

But for someone who is so about doing right by their country and making it the best, you sure know how to say you want us to have a strong, healthy homeland and then go and say it’s natural for offshoring to occur because of labor costs… even though it kills your country’s tax base which in turn kills your infrastructure and hurts your fellow Americans somewhere down the pipe.

You’ve offered no solution to stopping the bleeding of jobs out of this country (that I recall) that the twits in Washington won’t stop because they’re paid for like two-bit hookers by companies like Wal-Mart.

I say, government needs to (and it is their DUTY to) protect people. Part of that would be to level the playing field.

We can’t go back 150 years to where $.25 was a good day’s wage…so guess what? We need to make the product pricing similar on goods that are imported.

How do you do that? Golly gee. Is there a magic price fairy we can call to wave her wand and make it happen?

No, there isn’t. So, you do as the US government did years ago when Japan was shipping all of their cars in here: you tariff them.

Or are you really so anti-union that are you against Americans having blue collar jobs? You think everyone should be an office jockey?

There were some words once written that said that Americans were trying to, among other things “…promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity…”.

I don’t see how sending jobs out of this country is promoting the welfare of the people or the nation, or securing liberty for ourselves and our future. All it does is weaken our economy and infrastructure and lower the moral of Americans on a daily basis.

In essence, allowing business the “freedom” you are mentioning…and letting them continue to offshore… is in essence allowing business to rape our country from inside and out all in the sake of individual gain. The companies prosper, but those outside of it don’t. Especially those people in the sweatshops in China who are still worked half to death.

Perhaps my ideas are just falling on deaf ears though, and I’m not willing to try and explain what seems to me to be blatantly obvious to me.

But what do I know other than beer and .NET, right?

Tony: as i figured…you offer no solution either

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

Taking a job for what the market offers is kind of hard when there are no jobs within your job market.

Just ask the people who worked at places like RCA/Thomson, Huffy, Rubbermaid, and dozens of other companies who were [b]FORCED[/b] by Wal-Mart (and yes, it’s been documented) to lower their prices so much for product that they had no other option than to close shop in the United States and off-shore the work because they could not pay people enough to live and still make a profit to keep the company afloat.

Now again, I ask:

What is your so “manly” solution to stopping the bleeding of jobs out of this country? You called mine “cowardly”, so I would like to know your solution.

Thank you.

Being competative with the rest of the world

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

How can Americans be competative with the rest of the world?

First, make a better product.

Second, let people know you make a better product.

Third, don’t pay everyone in the company more than they are worth.

Looking at the auto industry, there is nothing about working on the line that is worthy of making 60 to 100K a year, and is the cause of the prices being charged for the cars. Of course, the bonuses for the execs are out of line as well.

Where could government help THAT? Make sure that we penalize any and all countries imports that do NOT have an open policy for what we send them.

Dumping should be watched, to a point. I know this happens with Africa, to keep them from destroying our sugar industry. I know it is done with out steel trade as well.

No single good answer. A start? it is hard to even say “Buy American” because even the cars by GM/Ford have many of the parts shipped in from overseas or from Mexico.

If a company ships their jobs overseas, we need to do several things. Look at the taxes that chased them out of the country and see where the break point is where it is better to collect a lower amount of taxes than to lose the jobs.

We SHOULD raise taxes (teriffs) even higher on these companies when they go to bring their former amercian products into the US.

It should be looked into so that it is not cheaper to offshore, and it should be held up for all to see who is doing it.

Unions? A joke. Maybe if the union employees become union WORKERS again, but I don’t see that happening. The unions are only looking to do as little as possible for as much as possible, and that pathetic lack of work ethic is another MAJOR stumbling block for Amercians to be competative. When I worked in a union shop, I got yelled at by the union old timers more than I ever did from management. “working to fast”.

Don’t shop borgmart.

nice points…

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

but i really don’t think most are going to do any good:

[i]How can Americans be competative with the rest of the world?[/i]

yes…please tell me….

[i]First, make a better product.[/i]

We did that for years. Didn’t matter. If someone could get a cheaper Chinese made product for 10-15% less at Wal-Mart instead of a better brand at a local store…they buy Wal-Mart. That’s what Wal-Mart banks on…and have won with.

It isn’t product quality that matters anymore to most people. It’s about having that extra buck to get your kid a kids meal and shut them up on road trips, etc. America people don’t shop for pride anymore. They shop to get as much as they can for a buck.

[i]Second, let people know you make a better product.[/i]

Lots of places do. Of course, try finding a standard television or children’s bicycle that is manufactured in this country…i believe there are no more.

[i]Third, don’t pay everyone in the company more than they are worth.[/i]

Most businesses don’t. If they did, they would go out of business fast. They only pay their executives too much usually.

[i]Looking at the auto industry, there is nothing about working on the line that is worthy of making 60 to 100K a year, and is the cause of the prices being charged for the cars. Of course, the bonuses for the execs are out of line as well. [/i]

I wouldn’t say that. I’d say the head repair tech is worth that much. If he wasn’t there, the company loses millions in lost production and work time waiting for someone from the outside to come in.

[i]Where could government help THAT? Make sure that we penalize any and all countries imports that do NOT have an open policy for what we send them. [/i]

Problem is, there’s not a lot made in America anymore. So, how do you send things from here to there if there isn’t product or a market to sell it?

We need to rebuild our production by getting suppliers to buy from American manufacturers first. Once we have capacity and product to send other places (like we did in the 70s and early 80s), then we can make trade agreements.

[i]No single good answer. A start? it is hard to even say “Buy American” because even the cars by GM/Ford have many of the parts shipped in from overseas or from Mexico.[/i]

It was a misnomer that things in the 70s and 80s were even entirely made in the USA. Car parts, electronic components, materials, etc, were often brought in from out of the country. Curtis Mathes televisions were touted as “American”, but parts of their electronics were from Taiwan.

[i]If a company ships their jobs overseas, we need to do several things. Look at the taxes that chased them out of the country and see where the break point is where it is better to collect a lower amount of taxes than to lose the jobs.[/i]

That I have ever heard, taxes have not chased ANYONE out of this country in the manufacturing industry and were never a motivating factor to offshore.

It has been sheer greed on part of companies (the biggest one of them: Wal-Mart) to demand manufacturers provide a product at a certain price level so they can maximize their profit margins.

For example: when Rubbermaid (back then, they were manufacturing their product in the USA) was the ONLY full-line of plastic containers product in Wal-Mart stores nationwide, Wal-Mart wanted a higher profit margin and a lower price than anyone else…so they told Rubbermaid they would only pay them so much per unit for their product. Rubbermaid said that would not be possible without cutting their profits, and they were not willing to do that to their shareholders. So, Wal-Mart for a while got rid of Rubbermaid and went to Sterilite only in their stores, because it was a cheap Chinese knock-off of Rubbermaid and got them the profits they wanted.

Rubbermaid was forced to move to an off-shore manufacturer in Asia to compete…or go bankrupt. Wal-Mart almost ruined them. And, it was directly because of Wal-Mart. Former Rubbermaid executives and management have said it in on- and off-camera interviews.

And, people nowadays would buy anything that just gets things done and don’t care about quality. America is now a “disposable society”. Buy Cheap. Use it til it breaks. Throw it away. Get another cheapy.

As I said. That’s what Wal-Mart banks on: complacency with the minimum needed, and acceptance of mediochrity.

[i]We SHOULD raise taxes (teriffs) even higher on these companies when they go to bring their former amercian products into the US.[/i]

I say put tariffs on everything manufactured outside of the USA that is coming into the country, so that it is an INCENTIVE to American companies to buy from American manufacturers.

[i]It should be looked into so that it is not cheaper to offshore, and it should be held up for all to see who is doing it.[/i]

I agree. Shame them all for stabbing their fellow Americans in the back in the name of simple, pure greed.

[i]Unions? A joke. Maybe if the union employees become union WORKERS again, but I don’t see that happening. The unions are only looking to do as little as possible for as much as possible, and that pathetic lack of work ethic is another MAJOR stumbling block for Amercians to be competative. When I worked in a union shop, I got yelled at by the union old timers more than I ever did from management. “working to fast”.[/i]

I don’t know what union you worked for, but I have talked to truck drivers (teamsters), transmission dispatchers (IBEW), and government workers (NAFSCE,et al). Their unions usually do a good job representing them and taking care of them.

But answer me this:

Is it any less wrong for an employer to give you a job, define your duties, pay you a rate for that job, yet within your first few months task you with other jobs or more work hours in the company as they see fit for the same compensation?

No is the right answer. And, that is why unions are there. To speak as a voice for workers. It is just as wrong for an employer to ask an employee to do more than what they compensate someone to do, as it is for a union person to not do their job well. Both are abuses of the other involved.

I do agree. Some union expectations of employers are ridiculous. But something else you have to understand too. Union employees are often bound by rules of the contract that limit what they WANT to do. I knew guys at the power company i worked at who were union. And, they said often “I can’t do that because of the bargaining agreement”. They wanted to, but legally were restricted from it. So it’s not always the worker’s fault.

And btw, most union guys do work…and REALLY hard. Just because you’ve run into problems with unions and their people where you are…doesn’t mean all unions are bad…or their members

[i]Don’t shop borgmart. [/i]

As I said before. I only go in Wal-Mart 2-3 times a year if i need something either in an emergency, or it is the only place i can get it.

I’ve probably not spent more than $200 in there in recent times.

I do shop at Sam’s Club tho. That service desk girl is HOT! mmmmmmmm ]:)

One last thing: You say it’s wrong of union workers to want to produce the least effort for the most money.

If it’s so wrong, then shouldn’t a business be held to the same standard, instead of being like Wal-Mart and putting out the cheapest, sellable product in their stores at the highest profit possible?

I just wonder…if personal greed and lazyness is so bad…then what is corporate greed and lazyness amount to?

And, at least a union worker isn’t putting another American by working slow.

Companies offshoring to get the cheapest product possible for greed’s sake is putting Americans out of work.

Awwww

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

[i]Taking a job for what the market offers is kind of hard when there are no jobs within your job market.[/i]

poor baby…

[i]What is your so “manly” solution to stopping the bleeding of jobs out of this country? You called mine “cowardly”, so I would like to know your solution.[/i]

The solution is for the crybabies to quit whining that they are “entitled” to anything more than any other human on the planet has simply because of where they were born.

Take charge of your own destiny. Don’t wait around for someone to “give” you what you think you are “entitled” to. If you don’t, you deserve exactly what you get.

Our problems aren’t other countries’ fault.

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

[i]We can’t go back 150 years to where $.25 was a good day’s wage…so guess what? We need to make the product pricing similar on goods that are imported.

How do you do that? Golly gee. Is there a magic price fairy we can call to wave her wand and make it happen?[/i]

As a matter of fact there is. It’s called FairTax.

http://www.fairtax.org

[edit fix link]

You throw that word around a lot

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

“greed”.

People start up a business for one reason, to make themselves money.

When you put money away, do you look for the best rate of return for yourself, even if it lowers the profits of the group you are getting the rate from? Greed.

The union shop I was at is gone. The lazy union people are out the door and mexicans are doing the job for $5 less and hour, at a faster pace.

If YOU finish a programming project ahead of schedule, do you get put directly onto the next job or do you get to sit around until the allotted time is up?

When the union people DEMAND work comes to a stop until the one union person who’s job it is to change that lightbulb comes along and does it, shows why unions are causing people to lose their jobs. They, in their lazy, greedy ways, have corrupted the unions to be for doing little, instead of standing up for the worker to demand a decent days pay for a decent days work, under safe working conditions. The decent days work just isn’t there anymore.

America built quality products?

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

We did? When? We were the 800-pound gorilla of the world economy during the two decades between 1945 and 1965 because ours was the only national economy that wasn’t significantly damaged during WW2. When American companies started facing significant competition from outside North America, they didn’t make sure their products were of the same or better quality, they went to Congress to get protective tariffs.

The reasons American companies that existed then no longer exist now are many and varied, but one significant fact remains: Had American industry [u]not[/u] ignored the teachings of W. Edwards Deming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming) until the early ’80s, our economy would be much different today.

The only talent

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

well, it would be nice if you had even that to fall back on, but sadly, all you can resort to is mimicking back ever since I called your punkass a fuckwit. Ever since then, every one of your crying posts had that in it, like the kid in the school yard that just heard the big kids say something cool.

Sorry I hurt your feelings, little boy. Please stop crying, now that I have apologized. The tears might ruin your keyboard, and that wouldn’t be very “professional” of you.

I think the quality started sufferring

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

when demand started rising through the roof.

When my aunt passed a couple years ago, she still had the Philco refrigerator she bought in 1953. My cousin has it in his garage now.

quality American products

In reply to Where should the first priority of a nation be

did exist even into the 1980s

My parents had a console stereo that they purchased in the 1970s. It worked even up until the day they gave it away in the 1990s.

My parents bought a 25 inch RCA console television in 1981 that lasted until they moved to Florida in 1998 and they gave that away.

I have, in my garage, the original refrigerator from my house (can’t remember the brand…I think it’s a Kenmore) that was bought with the house in 1983. It still runs like a champ. Never had to put a penny into it.

American products did exist that were quality past the 1950s and 1960s.

Just that nowadays, Americans are willing to pay somewhat less and get something that will probably last 10-25% of the lifespan that better products would that cost more.

America has become a here-and-now, throw-away society.

Investing in our future has seemed to become an afterthought to hardship caused from poor planning…whether that’s investment in property or lifestyle.

Sad case, but the truth.

[Author]

Replies