Washington slapped with harsh economic warning
This baby ain't going away.
Everyone seems to agree that the hole at the heart of America's budget is a crushing problem for the country. Few can agree on what to do about it. A couple of men think they have the answer. But few like it.
So Washington's politicians were given a stark warning today by one of their own.
"The heat is on you. Poised outside this chamber are the denizens of darkness," said former Republican Senator Alan Simpson.
"Those are the groups waiting out there in the temples of this city waiting to shred this baby to bits."
Mr Simpson has made an extraordinary speech ahead of a vote on plans to deal with the hole in the US's spending. It would be easy to call this speech fierce and harsh, if it hadn't been delivered with a great deal of easy humour in the mild tones of your favourite granddad.
For me, that only added to the power of his words.
Mr Simpson, along with his colleague Erskine Bowles, Bill Clinton's former chief of staff, are co-chairs of the president's bipartisan committee on fiscal responsibility. Their plan shares out the pain, and it has been greeted by howls of outrage from left and right.
The Sisyphean nature of their task is highlighted by the fact that this speech was given to fellow members of the committee who may well vote against the plans.
Think, then, how hard it would be to get the House or the Senate to agree to something so controversial.
"Erskine and I will not and have not pleaded with you to support this plan. We sincerely hope you will, but that is solely your choice. I have been on and seen so many of these commissions in the past that come up with directives and solutions that are pure mush, watery gruel. Not for us. Not this time. Whether we get two votes or 18 this baby ain't going away," Mr Simpson said.
He acknowledged that the plan may soon be buried in an unmarked grave. But he warned "this cadaver will rise from the crypt" when the vote comes up next year on raising America's debt limit.
He said that after the crises in Greece and Ireland, times had changed. The American people had changed.
"This is it. No more fun and games. No more smoky mirrors. They've wised up. They're mad. They're tired of the bluster and the blather and the ego and the BS that has worked so well for all of us, including me, a master of it. So yes, times have changed."
I am not sure if this will make the headlines. But it should. Whether the details of the plan are right, it is not for me to judge. But its importance lies in the fact that it is not a plan of left or right - but rather a bipartisan one. It was a speech that had an almost presidential ring to it from a mature, retired politician.
But it could probably only be made by a man who is not looking for votes or a job.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~51~RS~)
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"... I am not sure if this will make the headlines. But it should ..."
Oh, yes. It will.
Complain about this comment
Many of our elected congressmen and senators are too naive and do not have the talent and desire to feel the same urgency to actively participate in carrying out their constitutional duties in protectiing long term American interest. For many of them, it is more like earing easy money (lucrative business without having much to lose) and power.
How many among republicans will agree with the report, particularly tax hike? Many Democrats will also oppose many issues in that report. Does anyone think they will take such aggressive stand against that report with long term US national interest in mind? Many may package it that way, but I doubt their real intension.
Complain about this comment
Everyone seems to agree that the hole at the heart of America's budget is a crushing problem for the country.
Everyone, that is, except the American people, who polls show think things like jobs are more important; and economists, who say that in the short term the deficit should increase, and that in the long term relatively modest measures will deal with it. But yeah, apart from that, everyone. As Paul Krugman puts it, the Very Serious People.
Also, the fact that the ECB and Angela Merkel are insisting on bad policy for Greece and Ireland doesn't mean Obama and Congress have to impose similar bad policy on America.
This is scaremongering, pure and simple, and, really, the BBC should know better than to be taken in by it. You aren't Fox News.
Complain about this comment
I'm amazed that the whole world turns a blind eye to the U.S. budget hole and accumulative debt... This is the real elephant under the carpet, not what's happening in the EU at present.
Don't expect any austerity measures by the U.S. government any time soon. Too big to fail?
Complain about this comment
The rightful role of the federal government is to secure the shores and borders, and make regular interstate commerce. Making regular does not mean "regulating everything, which in any form, crosses a state boundary." It means being vigilant that no state interferes with, or "makes irregular" the interstate commerce. Securing the boundaries, borders, and shores speaks for itself.
If the U.S. government just did it's Constitutional job and nothing more, there would be a much deeper cut than a 10 percent pay freeze over 2 years, or 200,000 positions. I for one would be happy to live with the unemployment which would result.
Just a reminder of what "they" are there for, and how deep "their" authority over the states should be. All else is "feature-creep" the result of a needy and entitled populace, a greedy and unnecessary banking system, and self-indulgent public employee Unions.
Complain about this comment
MM wrote "Their plan shares out the pain, and it has been greeted by howls of outrage from left and right."
I take that as a hopeful sign. If they han't been howling in outrage I'd have been worried the plan wasn't tough enough to have any real effect.
Complain about this comment
re. #2. At 11:11pm on 01 Dec 2010, Jay wrote:
Many of our elected congressmen and senators are too naive and do not have the talent and desire to feel the same urgency to actively participate in carrying out their constitutional duties in protectiing long term American interest. For many of them, it is more like earing easy money (lucrative business without having much to lose) and power.
How many among republicans will agree with the report, particularly tax hike? Many Democrats will also oppose many issues in that report. Does anyone think they will take such aggressive stand against that report with long term US national interest in mind? Many may package it that way, but I doubt their real intension.
--------------
As Mark pointed out the people are sick and tired of the posturing and foot dragging from both sides so Republicans and Democrats had better get over their objections and work something out and they'd better be quick about it--the next election is only two years away and if they can't get the job done the independent voters who make the difference in most elections are unlikely to be in a forgiving mood.
Complain about this comment
Mardell is increasingly becoming an apologist for right wing
America.
His near obsession with the Tea Party and what makes them tick begin to make me suspicious of his motivations but this piece today fawning over Alan Simpson was the clincher.
Old Alan... noted for his recent comment about people who draw Social Security....calling them "lesser people".
Mr. Mardell...,your bloodline please?
Complain about this comment
America, right, left and center, needs to get with the plan, now, or, as Benjamin Franklins said so long ago, "If we do not hang together we will surely hang separately!"
Continuing on the road we have been on for decades is the way to national suicide. That is in no American's interest, right, left or center.
Complain about this comment
6. At 00:44am on 02 Dec 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
"I take that as a hopeful sign. If they han't been howling in outrage I'd have been worried the plan wasn't tough enough to have any real effect."
__________
Agreed.
Complain about this comment
9. JMM:
We are almost at the point where not only can we not agree but also can we not even entertain a new idea. That's more alarming than the disagreements.
I'd like to see their ideas fleshed out in greater detail. What we don't need are elected officials who behave like weeds, choking off new ideas.
Complain about this comment
Print more money while we still can. Easy peasy.
Complain about this comment
How about we stop paying for huge ribbons being hung on the white house for a behavior related disease?How about closing down the EPA,DHS,farm subsidies,big business tax breaks.Stop all the perks our political hacks get,Get rid of the federal reserve,stop shipping millions of dollars over seas in foriegn aid,pull out of the UN.Lets spend money on our own country not on the rest of the world.
Complain about this comment
In reality, US "democracy" is for sale since for last few years. More and more corporate and even foreign money is pouring in during and after any election here. After all, lobbyists and their patrons do not spend millions of dollars without getting something meaningful for them.
Just few days ago, NPR news reported that Wall-Street is preparing for THE biggest bonus in recent US history during this festive season. Consolidation of US industries and building of monetary reserve (even for banks)is at its highest after this financial mess.
It seems that many US congressmen and senators do not care much about either their constitutional duties or salary/benefits as per constitution. They are better taken care of by corporate houses and lobbyists in different state capitals and Washington.
With help of some rational and many irrational "logic" many of such elected public representatives will be happy to block any meaningful reform that benefit long term US national interest and general public; particularly, if that hurt big business and other corporate lobby in US and abroad. We have seen that many times before; including health care, immigration, education reform etc.
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile, the country is chock-a-block full of damned fools that would much rather expend their energy on gays in the military, illegal immigration and next year's tax policy.
America's working young men and women under 55 had better wake up and start paying attention -- they're the ones that are going to be doing the heavy lifting related to our debt and deficits. They could start by paying a little less attention to who picks the valley's lettuce and a whole lot more to what austerity actually LOOKS like in places like Greece, Ireland and the U.K. (so far).
In general, though, it seems we're back to the fundamental American conundrum, as articulated by Winston Churchill: "The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter.”
Complain about this comment
For many reasons I like to have “none of the above” option in next elections; in case any voter does not like any the candidates on the ballot. And if this “none of the above” option gets more vote than any candidate then the election in that particular constituency have to be re-elected or the seat will remain vacant till next election.
I also like to see at least one dedicated website where contesting candidates (and/or their designated representatives) will undertake a sustained debate ONLINE . Current TV debate is not much informative and has less chance for public interaction. During such TV debates public do not verify data the candidates mention, neither we get opportunity to cite relevant data/info to support or oppose specific argument. In that sense few weeks long online debate on specific issues (created by the candidates and/or general public) can help general public to know the opinions of the candidates on specific issues, his/her preparedness and ability better.
Complain about this comment
14. Jay:
"It seems that many US congressmen and senators do not care much about either their constitutional duties or salary/benefits as per constitution. They are better taken care of by corporate houses and lobbyists in different state capitals and Washington. "
***********
I think they have just forgotten how to govern. They're out of practice. It's been so long. Remember their giddiness when they reached agreement on TARP? They were like children, so excited that they had actually agreed on something.
There are a lot of ideological sacred cows that will have to be sacrificed to get them back on track. Same for voters.
Complain about this comment
"Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when they come for you!" Inner Circle
Yes for decades the inner cirle of congress, senate, and president have been spending, creating jobs for cronies, and the fever pitch is still there. Obamacare, what did it bring? Some 2800 pages of legislation (which most didn't read), it is also probably going to have 15,000 pages of regulation (I mean they couldn't read a thousand pages, now 15,000!), 18 members of a board to oversee this, 9 appointed by Obama, the other 9 (?), and just to round it off hiring 13,500 more IRS agents to track the payments for this ANHS (American National Health Service). No wonder we are going broke! Now take that and multiply illegal immigration, some 11 to 20 million estimated, when they pass the PipeDream act, what will that cost? When the 11 to 20 million bring in their families, perhaps some 22 to 40 million more mouths to feed, cloth, educate, and provide healthcare for. It will be like when West Germany absorbed East Germany, but with more confusion I am sure. Does the US need to get its house in order, hell yes. States like California spending like drunken sailors spending some one elses money will continue to do so until collapse. Then that is when the bodies hit the floor. Like a drug addict with a hot dose. Action will have been too little, too late.
Complain about this comment
Recent news say’s that the Fed loaned nine trillion dollars, at low interest rates, to the financial industry and other companies all across the globe during the 2008 crisis. Think about that, nine trillion dollars. What's more amazing is that, so far, they've been paid back seven of that nine trillion plus interest. I'm still digesting this piece of news, but I wonder how badly off are we with this kind of lending power. We should certainly align our budget to reflect actual revenue; we should also continue stimulus spending and other benefits until we see low employment and a strong economy again. It appears we have the ability so maybe things are not as bleak after all.
Complain about this comment
'"This is it. No more fun and games. No more smoky mirrors. They've wised up. They're mad. They're tired of the bluster and the blather and the ego and the BS that has worked so well for all of us, including me, a master of it. So yes, times have changed."'
So the Tea Party is an effective political force then? :)
Complain about this comment
Americans are ruled by greed and self interest. Let the other guy sacrifice I deserve my benefits. Cuts to benefits, cuts to the military, national service, and tax increases are all political suicide. The only "safe" solution is to run the printing presses.
Complain about this comment
"Americans are ruled by greed and self interest."
Eskimos are ruled by seal blubber.
Your turn.
Complain about this comment
ErnestPayne, (#21. At 08:50am on 02 Dec 2010)
"Americans are ruled by greed and self interest ..."
This is in contrast to ... ?
Complain about this comment
#3. The world according to vagueofgodalming is a truly wonderful place. Economics is an exact science and what some economists say (in that world) are undeniable truth. Maynard Keynes is in His Heaven and all is right with the world. (That world).
In the real world things are, of course, different. Economics is not an exact science, any models for the prediction of future trends make too many assumptions to be anything more effective than reading entrails.
The US, like the rest of the western world, most definitely including Greece and Ireland and the UK, cannot go on spending money they do not have, other people's money, Chinese money and German money; they have to get their deficits within control or the simple fact of the debt interest, apart from any other considerations, will drag them down to insolvency.
The ever expanding good times, living high on the hog, are over vagueofgodalming, except in your truly wonderful world.
Complain about this comment
This baby ain't going away, and it won't go away until the United States of America enacts some very powerful, meaningful financial insitution reforms:
- split investment and commercial banks
- tax all foreign exchnage transactions.
The American People do not deserve to carry this humunguous burden created by the greed of its investment banks "too big to fail".
Few can agree on what to do about it, except to dump the debt onto the shoulders of the people. If they drop, sink into their graves, the investment banks won't even miss them.
Republican Senator Alan Simpson: "The heat is on you. Poised outside this chamber are the denizens of darkness....Those are the groups waiting out there in the temples of this city waiting to shred this baby to bits."
I am assuming that Republican Senator Alan Simpson was lecturing the investment banks "too big to fail", and the groups waiting out there were waiting to shred, tear in two parts (commercial and investment)investment banking "too big to fail".
Mr Simpson delivered his speech with a great deal of easy humour in the mild tones of your favourite granddad. Yep, he must have been talking to the investment banks "too big to fail".
The United States does not need a bipartisan committee on fiscal responsibility; it needs to do something fierce with its investment banks "too big to fail" - the gambling, the derivative bundles, the negative credit defaul swaps, the easy credit that sours into debt...
I agree that the pain should be shared: in the same ratio as the entities who created the financial catastrophe =
financial institutoons "too big to fail" 95%,
common taxpyers 5%.
Oops, I see that I was mistaken: Republican Senator Alan Simpson's speech was given to fellow members of the committee. What a waste of breath! Think, then, how hard it would be to get the House or the Senate to agree to something as controversial as:
- split investment and commercial banks
- tax all foreign exchange transactions.
Commissions in the past have come up with solutions that are pure mush, watery gruel, sap for the investment banks - like repealing the Glass-Steagall Act.
Erskine Bowles, Bill Clinton's former chief of staff: "This is it. No more fun and games. No more smoky mirrors. They've wised up. They're mad...So yes, times have changed."
Does this mean that then Glass-Steagall Act will be resurrected, splitting commercial and investment banking?
The problem of endless debt will not go away until the United States of America enacts some very powerful, meaningful financial insitution reforms - not mush, gruel or sap:
- split investment and commercial banks
- tax all foreign exchange transactions.
Commercial banks will hardly feel the transaction tax because theu are mostly "local", helping local business and its customers.
Investment banks, with their front-end loading, computerized trading, and nefarious financial instruments will get walloped - thousands of foreign transactions daily, millions, maybe even trillions.
The foregoing is the solution - likely the only solution.
Get someone in Congress or the Senate, or on this so-called bipartisan committee to talk about this solution!! They won't - because they want to get re-elected and who do you think is going to contribute the big bucks to their campaigns?
Complain about this comment
As we have seen the Republicans have voted down the elimination of "pork" legislation. Hypocrits.
I am sure the commission has no provisions to increase the taxes on banking and financial services, the ones who caused the problems with their schemes and collusions. But these are big campaign contributors and with the constant denial of corruption they protect these interests.
Another pretense that congress will actually change...not a chance. Will cut programs for the poor, health insurance for the elderly and disabled and shift the responsbility for the greatest transfer of wealth upwards onto the middle class...it is the American way.
Complain about this comment
ref #9
JMM wrote:
America, right, left and center, needs to get with the plan, now, or, as Benjamin Franklins said so long ago, "If we do not hang together we will surely hang separately!"
Continuing on the road we have been on for decades is the way to national suicide. That is in no American's interest, right, left or center.
______________-
Agreed no sacred cows left off the table. but my fear is that both sides and although this will sound partsian (the Dems have been the most resisitant to the report)especially the progressive wing (ridgid) will fiddle while we burn
Complain about this comment
29. At 1:24pm on 02 Dec 2010, MagicKirin wrote:
"Agreed no sacred cows left off the table. but my fear is that both sides and although this will sound partsian (the Dems have been the most resisitant to the report)especially the progressive wing (ridgid) will fiddle while we burn"
Meanwhile, it's the Republicans that reject the end of most of the Bush tax cuts right now -- their action estimated to increase the deficit by $700B over ten years. And they base their rejection not on the fact of simple greed -- but on the very Keynesian economic arguments they claim to despise.
The GOP (with a few rare and notable exceptions) on both spending and taxes, are all hat and no cattle.
Complain about this comment
The debate is long overdue, and to the extent that they are now making a serious effort to do something, rather than merely posture, that's a good sign.
The elements of this plan were available on line a while ago, and really, they seem underwhelming for the most part.
For example -
The item that strikes me as the most pathetic is the timidity on fuel taxes. Here they propose 15 cents/US Gal., and think they're being bold.
Consider this -
Our fuel price for regular went up 20 cents/Imp. Gal., last night at midnight, (to the equivalent of $4.45/US Gal., for regular; super is about $5.25/US Gal.) apparently because of a tightening in demand for refined petroleum. This kind of jump in price is not that rare, and it is commonplace for the price to bounce up and down 5 cents in any given week. Yet we think nothing of it, everybody shrugs, the economy simply takes it in stride.
The American economy could handle increases in gas tax of 5 cents/month in stride relatively easily. At the end of 36 - 48 months the price for gas in the US would be just about equal to what the price for gas is now in Canada. It would still be hardly more than half he price of gas in the EU.
----------
That measure, alone, would close roughly 1/6 to 1/5 of the budget gap, and would have hugely beneficial consequences for America's trade balance, national security, energy policy, transportation policy, health policy, and the defense budget.
It would go a long way toward ending the huge implicit public subsidy of the oil industry through the defense budget, and, consequently, allow cuts in those portions of the defense budget that are most heavily directed to supporting the overseas entanglements of the oil industry.
And, best of all, unlike income tax, if you don't want to pay the higher tax, you likely have options that permit you to pay less tax - like driving less or buying a more efficient vehicle. It is "user pay", so that the tax is borne by the people who use the fuels according to their use, not by the entire tax base. Given that a majority of North American vehicles will be replaced over that time period, there is ample time for consumers to adjust as the tax is raised.
But politicians are so afraid of, or in thrall to, the oil industry that the most they are prepared to raise gasoline tax - even as their most "extreme" opening bargaining position - is 15 cents.
America doesn't need a gas tax increase of 15 cents. It needs a gas tax increase of $ 1.50 - $ 2.00, brought in over a period of 3 - 4 years at 5 cents/month.
Complain about this comment
31. At 3:17pm on 02 Dec 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
"Consider this -
Our fuel price for regular went up 20 cents/Imp. Gal., last night at midnight, (to the equivalent of $4.45/US Gal., for regular; super is about $5.25/US Gal.) apparently because of a tightening in demand for refined petroleum. This kind of jump in price is not that rare, and it is commonplace for the price to bounce up and down 5 cents in any given week. Yet we think nothing of it, everybody shrugs, the economy simply takes it in stride.
And, best of all, unlike income tax, if you don't want to pay the higher tax, you likely have options that permit you to pay less tax - like driving less or buying a more efficient vehicle. It is "user pay", so that the tax is borne by the people who use the fuels according to their use, not by the entire tax base. Given that a majority of North American vehicles will be replaced over that time period, there is ample time for consumers to adjust as the tax is raised."
You seemed pissed that you pay a high gas tax and want the US to also. I could use your logic by saying to "fix" the Canadian health care problem (long er waits and a scarcity of gp doctors) all Canada needs to do is have a two tier system.
What you don't realize is that increasing the gas tax is regressive. It will put an enormous burden on the working poor. And your assumption that vehicles will be replaced is also way off. Again if the working poor are going to replace a vehicle it certainly won't be a hybrid.
And finally while you say that an increase in the fuel tax doesn't effect Canada's economy. Well, Canadian population is very concentrated in a few areas. The US population is spread out.
What really needs to be done is to cut expenses and it has to come from two places - entitlements (social security, medicare, medicaid) and the military.
Entitlements should be means tested and there should be no income limit to the SS taxes.
The largest line item in the military budget is for personnel. The US needs to get out of or shut down NATO, NORAD, and all other cold war relics. Let Germany, France, Canada, Japan, etc build up their own forces.
Complain about this comment
re.#14. At 02:54am on 02 Dec 2010, Jay wrote:
"It seems that many US congressmen and senators do not care much about either their constitutional duties or salary/benefits as per constitution."
Agreed, and you can add presidents, cabinet members and other government officials to that list--nor is it confined to the members of one party. It seems that many, if not most, of those in Washington these days are willing to twist, bend, or even outright ignore consitutional restrictions on government power when it suits their purposes to do so. It is that trend by our own government, not terrorism or a foreign foe, which is the greatest threat to our republic.
Complain about this comment
re#31. At 3:17pm on 02 Dec 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
"But politicians are so afraid of, or in thrall to, the oil industry that the most they are prepared to raise gasoline tax - even as their most "extreme" opening bargaining position - is 15 cents."
It's not the oil companies American politicians are afraid of, it's the voters. Americans are fond of driving their cars and trucks and not fond of taxes. An attempt to raise gasoline taxes too quickly would produce screams of outrage from the public and could easily cost politicians who supported it their jobs. And there are the economic consequences to consider.
Any fuel tax increases have to be phased in slowly in small stages, not only to avoid the political backlash over the tax hike itself but to avoid disrupting an already fragile economy. Everythind we buy has been transported by ship, truck, train or airplane that burns fuel so a fuel tax increase affects the price of almost everything. Too big of a price shock and consumers could cut back their spending even more and leave state and local governments in even worse shape regarding tax revenues.
Complain about this comment
31. At 3:17pm on 02 Dec 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
"America doesn't need a gas tax increase of 15 cents. It needs a gas tax increase of $ 1.50 - $ 2.00, brought in over a period of 3 - 4 years at 5 cents/month."
In the absence of mass transit infrastructure, gasoline taxes are extremely regressive in both their direct and indirect effect. The working poor are less able to absorb the tax rise from discretionary income than the wealthy are -- but still need to get to work every day, go to the market -- and so on.
Indirectly, higher production and transportation costs for all commodities -- say milk, for example -- as a result of the tax rise will be passed on to consumers. And again, the working poor are less able to absorb those increases.
That said, a number of the progressive coalitions that I subscribe to came out strongly -for- a gasoline tax significantly higher than $0.15/gal. when prices peaked in mid-2008. We wanted the revenue to go toward mass transit infrastructure and alternative energy development, and indirectly toward changing energy consumer behavior.
My point here is that the very modest fifteen cent tax hike is not the economic slam-dunk you might think it is. Like everything else in the DRC report, it has a downside, and represents an effort to strike some sort of balance.
At the end of the day though, while we might disagree on details, I agree with your sentiment. Fifteen cents -- regressive bad taste and all -- is too modest, and the social benefits of a greater increase would go beyond just deficit reduction.
Complain about this comment
And today we learn that with all the bad news about America's deficit and ballooning debt the Obama administration has committed to giving the IMF another 900 billion dollars to lend to European governments like Greece and Ireland.
(sigh)
Complain about this comment
Well, it looks like Russia gets World Cup 2018 and Qatar gets the World Cup 2022...Russia also has Olympics 2014 and Brazil Olympics 2016.
(I'm sorry allies that you didn't get the upcoming World Cups or Olympics)
How can a country win if it doesn't stand a chance?
I'm not disappointed, although I imagine a lot of England fans are- cause' thats their favorite sport and especially because they lost out to Russia.
Sadly, in some world competition sports, international politics trumps everything...
That's why I like American football so much. And I imagine that's why the English like English football so much, too...
Go BEARS!!!!!!!!!!!! Da Bears!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)
Complain about this comment
Senate Republicans made a recent agreement not to vote on any bill before addressing tax cuts and government spending, so clearly Congress is at last focusing on decreasing America's debt (rather than more social issues), which is very positive...
As least Congress is talking and discussing new ideas, getting them out into the open and communicating with each other.
Congress knows that we are counting on them to find something that works...
Complain about this comment
39. At 4:44pm on 02 Dec 2010, fernando sancho wrote:
"In the old days when I was a young one only rich business people (generally white men) and some superstars like Bob Marley and the Wailers* could drive a BMW"
Janis Joplin once sung:
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
Complain about this comment
http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/11237_luisgutirrezandcominglatinorevolt
An exerpt:
The DREAM Act, Gutiérrez says, is for now his final legislative maneuver. He’s finished waiting for the mythical 60th vote to materialize in the Senate. No, when the lame duck ends, Gutiérrez and his movement allies will ask for a divorce—from the Democratic Party, from the entire lawmaking process. To hear Gutiérrez tell it, Hispanic leaders are about to stage a full-tilt campaign of direct action, like the African-American civil-rights movement of the 1960s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
What will happen when the illegals revolt against Americans?
Complain about this comment
Sadly, in some world competition sports, international politics trumps everything...
--------------------------------------------------------------------http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101202/ts_nm/us_soccer_world
An exerpt:
The voting process took place against a highly charged background after British media outlets made allegations of corruption against a number of FIFA's executive committee members
The executive committee, reduced to 22 after two were suspended over the allegations, voted in secret. No details of the counts were made available by FIFA but bid member Gary Lineker told Reuters England had gone out in the first round of voting for 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Just like how USA went out in the first round of voting for Olympics in Chicago 2016...
Complain about this comment
36. At 4:33pm on 02 Dec 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
"And today we learn that with all the bad news about America's deficit and ballooning debt the Obama administration has committed to giving the IMF another 900 billion dollars..."
Should we assume that you know better and that your use of the word "giving" was just another failed attempt to say something interesting, or should we assume that you really -don't- know better and are simply ignorant?
Complain about this comment
Another sign that the man who called Cameron "light weight" now takes his lead.
Complain about this comment
From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_and_2022_FIFA_World_Cup_bids
(About Russia)
The country does not currently have a stadium with 80,000 capacity, but the bid calls for the expansion of Luzhniki Stadium in Moscow, already a UEFA Elite stadium, from a capacity of slightly over 78,000 to over 89,000. Russia hopes to have five stadiums fit to host World Cup matches ready by 2013 – two in Moscow and one stadium each in St. Petersburg, Kazan and Sochi, which is due to host the 2014 Winter Olympics.[47]
------------------------------------------------------------------
(About Qatar)
The first five proposed stadiums are planned to employ cooling technology capable of reducing temperatures within the stadium by up to 20 degrees Celsius. Additionally, the upper tiers of the stadiums will be disassembled after the World Cup and donated to countries with less developed sports infrastructure.
------------------------------------------------------------------
(About USA)
In April 2009, the bid committee identified 70 stadiums in 50 communities as possible venues for the tournament, with 58 confirming their interest.[86][87] The list of stadiums was trimmed two months later to 45 in 37 cites,[88] and then in August 2009 to 32 stadiums in 27 cites.[89] In January 2010, 18 cities and 21 stadiums were selected for the final bid.
With several large American football stadiums, the 21 venues have an average capacity of 77,000, and none seat fewer than 65,000. Seven of the stadiums seat at least 80,000.
Complain about this comment
Alright, this is my last one about the World Cup...if people are irritated, I'm sorry, and just ignore my comments and go back to discussion about debt...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_and_2022_FIFA_World_Cup_bids
An exerpt:
England's 2018 World Cup bid team withdrew a complaint to FIFA about Russia's campaign following an apology from their rival bidder. The Russian sports minister Vitaliy Mutko apologised for comments made by Alexei Sorokin, who is general director of the nation's bid team. England's official complaint was that Russia had broken bidding rules when he made disparaging comments about London. FIFA's committee met on 28 October to receive reports on the bids. The English bid team had complained on October 26, that Sorokin highlighted London's "high crime rate" and youth alcohol problems in an interview with Russian media that appeared to contravene FIFA's rules about talking about rival bidders. Tensions between the two bids then intensified after Viacheslav Koloskov, honorary president of the Russian Football Union, referred to England's 2018 bid as "absolutely primitive" and "comical."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
So if they broke the rules and insulted other countries, but then apologized, it doesn't matter and they get the bid?
Interesting how world politics works...
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner wrote:
The debate is long overdue, and to the extent that they are now making a serious effort to do something, rather than merely posture, that's a good sign.
The elements of this plan were available on line a while ago, and really, they seem underwhelming for the most part.
For example -
The item that strikes me as the most pathetic is the timidity on fuel taxes. Here they propose 15 cents/US Gal., and think they're being bold.
Consider this -
Our fuel price for regular went up 20 cents/Imp. Gal., last night at midnight, (to the equivalent of $4.45/US Gal., for regular; super is about $5.25/US Gal.) apparently because of a tightening in demand for refined petroleum. This kind of jump in price is not that rare, and it is commonplace for the price to bounce up and down 5 cents in any given week. Yet we think nothing of it, everybody shrugs, the economy simply takes it in stride.
The American economy could handle increases in gas tax of 5 cents/month in stride relatively easily. At the end of 36 - 48 months the price for gas in the US would be just about equal to what the price for gas is now in Canada. It would still be hardly more than half he price of gas in the EU.
----------
That measure, alone, would close roughly 1/6 to 1/5 of the budget gap, and would have hugely beneficial consequences for America's trade balance, national security, energy policy, transportation policy, health policy, and the defense budget.
It would go a long way toward ending the huge implicit public subsidy of the oil industry through the defense budget, and, consequently, allow cuts in those portions of the defense budget that are most heavily directed to supporting the overseas entanglements of the oil industry.
And, best of all, unlike income tax, if you don't want to pay the higher tax, you likely have options that permit you to pay less tax - like driving less or buying a more efficient vehicle. It is "user pay", so that the tax is borne by the people who use the fuels according to their use, not by the entire tax base. Given that a majority of North American vehicles will be replaced over that time period, there is ample time for consumers to adjust as the tax is raised.
But politicians are so afraid of, or in thrall to, the oil industry that the most they are prepared to raise gasoline tax - even as their most "extreme" opening bargaining position - is 15 cents.
America doesn't need a gas tax increase of 15 cents. It needs a gas tax increase of $ 1.50 - $ 2.00, brought in over a period of 3 - 4 years at 5 cents/month.
______________-
Most of us would not object to an increase gas tax if the other side would be totaly in the pocket of the eviuronmentally lobby when it comes to off shore drilling.
It is small minded people who are using the BP spill to further an agenda that hurts most americans.
Drill Baby Drill!
Complain about this comment
ref #42
As far as the world cup who cares, futbol is as boaring as watching golf and the winner is determined by flopping ability.
Basketball is the real international sport
Complain about this comment
41. At 4:52pm on 02 Dec 2010, LucyJ wrote:
"What will happen when the illegals revolt against Americans?"
Very similar to the question that was being asked all across the deep south in 1831.
Time to move on LucyJ.
Complain about this comment
32. At 3:52pm on 02 Dec 2010, diverticulosis wrote:
"You seemed pissed that you pay a high gas tax and want the US to also."
[[No, as I have posted several times here, I don't think gasoline taxes are particularly high in Canada at all.
Nobody here complains much about the price of fuel - although it made the news this morning as a one-line item. People still drive like mad fools. There roads are still jammed, night and day. They are still jammed with great big hulking SUVs.]]
"What you don't realize is that increasing the gas tax is regressive. It will put an enormous burden on the working poor. And your assumption that vehicles will be replaced is also way off. Again if the working poor are going to replace a vehicle it certainly won't be a hybrid."
[[Regressive? How is taxing the entire population to subsidize the petroleum industry through the defense budget any less regressive? The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars works out to be something like $ 1.50/ US Gal. That is but one portion of the existing subsidy to the oil industry. Why shouldn't that subsidy be borne on a user pay basis? How is it any more, or less a burden on the working poor than anybody else?
In this town, the real working poor use public transit, and what is happening is that their taxes are cross-subsidizing the people who are driving Hummers. And you want to talk about regressive?]]
----------
[[Let's consider what we are talking about here. A typical mid-sized sedan has a 15 US Gal. tank. It gets filled perhaps once a week. 5 cents per month means that each month the weekly fill-up is going to cost 75 cents more. Big deal. Skip one cup of coffee.]]
[[You're right that over a year it's going to be a $ 9/week jump. That's true. But it still isn't very much, and it is abundantly clear that the price of gas here isn't stopping anybody from driving their cars. As noted, the roads here are jammed all the time. People here aren't avoiding driving because the cost of gas is too high.]]
[[Nobody has to replace their cars with a hybrid. There are many, many options. The automobile market is pretty competitive that way. Try getting rid of an SUV and buying a Toyota Camry or something similar? It seems unlikely we will ever buy another SUV, but it costs next to nothing to keep the old one around. And for most things we use our smaller car. We cut our fuel consumption roughly in half by making a consumer decision that we were going to have to make, anyway.
In any five year period more than half the automobiles in North America are replaced as a matter of course. Cars wear out, people buy new ones.]]
----------
"And finally while you say that an increase in the fuel tax doesn't effect Canada's economy. Well, Canadian population is very concentrated in a few areas. The US population is spread out."
[[Do you really want to try and make that argument?
Yes, Canada has an highly urbanized population. But the US has an even more highly urbanized population than we do.
If you are going to suggest that Canada is a less intensive user of energy products than the US, I'd be guessing that's a tough argument to make. As far as I know, among major industrial nations per person we are the biggest fuel hogs on the planet. Whether we are or are not the gold medal winners in this dubious category, our pattern of fuel use is essentially the same as the US, yet we pay the equivalent of $ 1.50 - $ 2.00/US Gal., more for fuel.
Fuel prices are, for the most part, simply not a big issue here. Nobody notices it. Gasoline is still an incredible bargain. A dollar of fuel will move a 3000 lb object and its passengers ten miles, and more. Try that with a dollar of bananas, a dollar of Coca-cola, or a dollar of potato chips.
The US has significant financial problems. The budget gap is not going to be closed without raising taxes, let alone make any effort to reduce accumulated debt.
Of all the taxes that can be raised, my suggestion is that raising fuel tax is the easiest and most painless of the lot. What's more, raising fuel tax helps solve many other public policy problems facing the US.
I might also add that a lot of the needed infrastructure repair and replacement in the US is for roads, bridges, and tunnels. It doesn't seem unfair or unreasonable to me that a higher proportion of that money should come from fuel tax which is associated with the activity that necessitates those expenses. Again, it sounds a lot to me like "user pay". Usually Republicans are all in favour of "user pay". Just not when it comes to the petroleum industry. Why not?
If I were the CEO of BNSF or UP or CSX or NS, I would be making that point at every opportunity, because those public subsidies put private sector transportation services, such as the railroads, at an unfair competitive disadvantage.
(In the interests of full disclosure, I admit that I own shares in three of these railroads. Warren Buffet beat me to the punch in buying BNSF, though, and it would have been unseemly for me to get into a bidding war with him in public. So, with regret, I let him have BNSF. But I can be big about it: I wish him well, just the same. No hard feelings. Well, at least not many hard feelings - provided I don't think about it too often.)
The problems you point out exist, fair enough. But that isn't the real issue. The issue is weighing the available options - all of which have warts. Which option gives the best result with the fewest warts?
If you can name another area in which taxes can be raised with as little genuine pain to the economy, and with as much benefit in other policy areas, then say so.
Or, alternatively, admit that there is no easier or better option on the revenue side.
I'll end with this point: even if there were no need to raise taxes, I would still be in favour of shifting the tax burden so that there is more reliance on gas tax and less reliance on income tax. It's the one area of the economy where the Republican party is starkly against user-pay. Why?]]
----------
"What really needs to be done is to cut expenses and it has to come from two places - entitlements (social security, medicare, medicaid) and the military."
[[I agree with this. But even then, I think you'll find that there is no reasonable way to close the gap without raising taxes, and fairly substantially, too. The arithmetic just doesn't work.
The second biggest area where I feel the proposals are far too timid is in reducing SS entitlements. Basically, the proposed cuts aren't going to take effect for 20 - 50 years. That is nowhere near soon enough. They need to be raising the age of retirement one month for every four months, for the next twelve years until the age of retirement is 68.
Let's suppose, against all actuarial logic, that big cuts (10%+) can be made in medicare and medicaid. Let's also suppose that the defense budget can be cut by 25 - 35% over five years
But even if that is done, I still believe that income and other taxes are going to have to rise by 5 - 6 % of GDP in the short term. Well, you can get about 1.3% out of fuel taxes, perhaps 2% out of increased sales taxes (net of reductions in income tax to re-balance the tax system to stop forcing savers to subsidize people who have no discipline with credit cards or mortgages).
That leaves 2.5% to come out of income taxes. Ok, end the Bush tax cuts and go back to the tax rates in the Clinton years. The economy can handle that. America did pretty well during Clinton's time in office.
Well, if those things were done, you'd almost be there.]]
----------
"Entitlements should be means tested and there should be no income limit to the SS taxes."
"The largest line item in the military budget is for personnel. The US needs to get out of or shut down NATO, NORAD, and all other cold war relics. Let Germany, France, Canada, Japan, etc build up their own forces."
[[I don't disagree with this, to a point.
Nonetheless, shutting down either NATO or NORAD would be a big foreign policy mistake.
Notwithstanding the extent to which the French, for example, can be exasperating allies, NATO in particular is a club that ties together the critical common security interests of a very large number of western democracies, including Turkey. That's nothing to sneeze at.
Once disbanded, it will be very much harder to put it back together again later in the midst of a crisis. That is the same reason America should be really slow to scrap carrier groups - it is the kind of decision that has very long term consequences, and that can't be reversed in a hurry.
Also, the single biggest thing the military tends to lack, and the thing it needs most in dealing with terrorist insurgencies - the most common problem of our times, it seems - is good old boots-on-the-ground. So cutting numbers is, itself, difficult.]]
[[Tough choices. Lots of warts, no matter what you do.]]
Complain about this comment
Don't feel too bad, England, cause' USA lost out too, and we have over 70 stadiums with at least seven of capacity of 80,000...super-nice already built stadiums...especially the new Dallas stadium, which is absolutely gorgeous with the world's biggest screen...the highest attendance record at Dallas Cowboys Stadium is 105,121.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_cowboys_stadium
An exerpt:
A highlight of Cowboys Stadium is its gigantic center-hung high-definition television screen, the largest in the world, sometimes referred to as "Jerry-Tron". The 160-by-72-foot (49 by 22 m), 175-foot (53.34m) diagonal, 11,520-square-foot (1,070 m2), scoreboard surpasses the 8,736 sq ft (812 m2) screen that opened in 2009 at the renovated Kauffman Stadium in Kansas City, Missouri as the world's largest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer
An exerpt:
The modern rules of association football are based on the mid-19th century efforts to standardise the widely varying forms of football played at the public schools of England. The history of football in England dates back to at least the Middle Ages.
---------------------------------------------------------
I think you have everybody beat on that Middle Ages part...
England, you are the original footballers, so no matter what, hold your head up high cause' no one else can claim that. Besides, doesn't it make you feel good that you invented the world's most popular sport and that others also enjoy it so much? (Imitation being the highest form of flattery and all that) :)
So we just have to do our best and be good sports.
Congrats to Russia and Qatar on their big wins.
Complain about this comment
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/opinion/01friedman.html?emc=eta1
Complain about this comment
Extending the tax cuts for the richest Americans in a time of great debt isn't right- the poor and middle class are suffering, not the wealthy. Even Warren Buffett has stated that he thinks he should pay more in taxes- Warren Buffet!
If the wealthy paid normal taxes all those years before Bush, then why can't they do it now?
Also, our economy tanked under Bush. Is part of that due to Bush's tax cuts for wealthy?
Some say that the rich are the ones providing jobs, but we don't know that. Many may be investing in more property domestic or foreign or even investing in foreign companies or overseas. Some may even be hiring illegals at less than minimum wage, which is wrong- everyone in our country should earn minimum wage.
President Obama told us during his election campaign that he would not extend Bush tax cuts. Now its up to Obama to make good on his word.
President Obama and Congress, please do not extend Bush era tax cuts!!!
Complain about this comment
Don't forget, governments are run by elected politicians. If the electorate don't want to sacrifice anything about their current lifestyle then no one else is going to get elected. All the electorate want is to do as little as possible in exchange for as much as possible and anyone standing in their way hasn't a hope in getting elected.
Complain about this comment
Curt wrote: Very similar to the question that was being asked all across the deep south in 1831.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If there was another Mexican-American war WITHIN America between Americans and illegals, I personally believe Americans would win...
Thanx for the vote of confidence, Curt.
Complain about this comment
50. At 6:05pm on 02 Dec 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
"""And finally while you say that an increase in the fuel tax doesn't effect Canada's economy. Well, Canadian population is very concentrated in a few areas. The US population is spread out."
[[Do you really want to try and make that argument?
Yes, Canada has an highly urbanized population. But the US has an even more highly urbanized population than we do.""
Since you are a Canadian, I'll give you a pass here, but you really do not understand poverty in the US>
The gas tax will hit the poor and the poor hard. They don't live in urbanized areas (yes there is urban poor but the majority of the US poor are in rural areas), they live far away from their work and don't replace cars every 5 years. They will turn in their 1980 Reliant K for a 1995 Honda Civic when the 1980 Reliant K dies.
The map of American poor:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/18/americas-poor-a-regional-look_n_766852.html
Notice it's not NYC, LA, Boston, or Chicago, but more like Alabama, New Mexico and Alaska----places with out public transit.
Complain about this comment
Now this Republican Vice president is being charged of bribery by one of the most corrupt governments in the world, Nigeria.
"Nigeria's anti-corruption agency is to charge former US Vice-President Dick Cheney over a bribery scandal that involves a former subsidiary of energy firm Halliburton.": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11902489
And Dick is a typical representative of US congressmen and senators with big industry connection. Such people can never think anything beyond their personal interest. Constitutional power is just another tool to fulfill their personal ambitions in form of more wealth and power (mainly business power that comes with constitutional authority).
Complain about this comment
27. At 1:18pm on 02 Dec 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:
"As we have seen the Republicans have voted down the elimination of "pork" legislation. Hypocrits."
Just where do you get your information from!?
From the US Senate website (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00255)
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session
As compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Motion (Motion to Suspend Rule XXII Re: Coburn Amdt. No. 4697 )
Vote Number: 255 Vote Date: November 30, 2010, 09:17 AM
Required For Majority: 2/3 Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4697 to S. 510 (FDA Food Safety Modernization Act)
Statement of Purpose: To establish an earmark moratorium for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013.
Vote Counts: YEAs 39
NAYs 56
Not Voting 5
Eight GOP senators voted to preserve earmark spending, including Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), James Inhofe (Okla.), Dick Lugar (Ind.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Richard Shelby (Ala.) Retiring Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio) and defeated Sen. Bob Bennett (Utah) also voted against it.
Two Democrats facing potentially tough re-election battles in 2012 also voted for the earmark moratorium: Sens. Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.).
Retiring Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and defeated Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) also voted for the earmark ban, as did Colorado Sens. Michael Bennet (D) and Mark Udall (D).
In speeches on Monday, Coburn said the ban was the only way to rein in out-of-control spending. He did not speak on Tuesday morning, but Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who supports the ban, alluded to the issue in remarks about the current debate over tax cuts.
"Republicans have heard the voters loud and clear," McConnell said. "They want us to focus on preventing a tax hike on every taxpayer, on reining in Washington spending and on making it easier for employers to start hiring again."
But Democrats repeated the argument they laid out in floor speeches on Monday, asserting that the earmark process has already been made transparent.
"We have put in place the most dramatic reform of this appropriations process since I've served in Congress," said Majority Whip and
Appropriations Committee member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). "There is full
disclosure in my office of every single request for an appropriation. We
then ask those who have made the requests to have a full disclaimer of
their involvement in the appropriation, so it's there for the public
record. This kind of transparency is virtually unprecedented."
What Sen. Durbin and others seem to miss is that whereas transparency may be all well and good, using taxpayers money to get yourself re-elected or to benefit some of your political cronies is something that the Americian people have had enough of.
Like other Democrats and some Republicans, Durbin said he would not abdicate any earmarking authority.
Complain about this comment
We need to change out outlook towards society. Current working habit of average American is not much conducive to have a healthy family life. According to many politicians (both republicans and Dems) it is not sufficient to sustain a family of four with single income anymore. As wealth is becoming more and more concentrated into few hands, more and more american families are forced to work harder to meet their basic demand. When both parents are busy (or forced to keep the job) in working late, what type of home the kids will like to go/live! No wonder family values are deteriorating while divorce, single parent children, teen pregnancy and other social crimes are on rise in US.
Even in school, I see that teachers are more interested to teach very young kids how to become a good salesman than a good student. I find it disgusting to send kids as young as 6-10 years old to go door to door and ask for donations for something in the school (and highest raiser get a lunch with his/her teacher)! Neither the teachers nor the (majority) parents understand that it is NOT the obligation of students to go door to door and ask money, for whatever reason. It gives them a very bad impression about life and value of money at that young age. There are civilized ways to meet school's financial needs (local tax hike, meeting of parents to donate etc).
It is widely believed that deliberate lack of usable public transport sytem and huge subsidy to oil industry is mainly due to huge influence of our auto and oil industry. Now they practically force even a poor family to have at least one car.And now such industry lobbyists will argue that any increase in gas price will affect poor the most! Of course it will for the short term and probably that will force our self-serving politicians to improve our public transport system (beyond few big cities).
Complain about this comment
BBC: I have to say that I find it highly suspect that you're running US loses bid to hold 2022 World Cup as your headline. We had it in '94. You haven't had it since '66. Didn't you invent the game?
England finished dead last in the 2018 voting.
Hmm, what could have caused that?
Avoiding the subject are we?
Complain about this comment
38. LucyJ:
"Senate Republicans made a recent agreement not to vote on any bill before addressing tax cuts and government spending, so clearly Congress is at last focusing on decreasing America's debt (rather than more social issues), which is very positive..."
**********
Repubs have their "listening ears" on. ;-)
The social issues are vote-getters, though, so you can't blame democrats for trying. And there is still that issue of the promises Obama made during his campaign. Probably best to clear them up before he starts his new campaign of promises.
53. LucyJ:
"Extending the tax cuts for the richest Americans in a time of great debt isn't right- the poor and middle class are suffering, not the wealthy. Even Warren Buffett has stated that he thinks he should pay more in taxes- Warren Buffet!
If the wealthy paid normal taxes all those years before Bush, then why can't they do it now?"
**************
Warren Buffet is an unusual man. Highly successful, very generous -- except monetarily to his children. In his defense, he has chosen to not cripple them with his wealth.
I think your definition of "normal taxes" might be subject to debate. Perhaps we should define "normal spending" before we ask Americans to pay more in taxes?
Complain about this comment
Here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/three_reasons_to_relax_--_a_bi.html
If politicians really cared about the deficit, they'd let the Bush tax cuts expire.
Complain about this comment
I'm not keen on the idea of continuing tax breaks for the superlatively upper crusty...
but it's a little late to scrap the old plan and propose a new one, so I guess we should take what we can get.
*sighs heavily and shakes head*
But that whole "Do what we want or we're gonna take our ball(s) and go home" game being played on The Hill isn't playing fair. Please people. Grow up.
Meanwhile, the bi-partisan economic plan sounds interesting... if only because it's bipartisan! Wow! Is such a miraculous thing still possible?
Complain about this comment
Oh, and LucyJ honey?
Your bears just got lucky over our Eagles. We're better.
Oddly enough, because we don't do cable, we streamed the game from the BBC.
Thank you, BBC.
Complain about this comment
re. #43. At 5:10pm on 02 Dec 2010, Curt Carpenter wrote:
36. At 4:33pm on 02 Dec 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
"And today we learn that with all the bad news about America's deficit and ballooning debt the Obama administration has committed to giving the IMF another 900 billion dollars..."
Should we assume that you know better and that your use of the word "giving" was just another failed attempt to say something interesting, or should we assume that you really -don't- know better and are simply ignorant?
--------------
Perhaps we should assume you have something to say but can't figure out how to get to the point.
Complain about this comment
Bears? Eagles? Phhbbbt!
How 'bout them Donkeys? You can hear the braying echoing all through the Rockies.
Complain about this comment
Higher taxes on gasoline in order to force people to use mass transport, mass transport that does not exist (for all intents and purposes, outside of a few highly congested cities) and which would require building with money which can only be raised from additional taxes.
A brilliant scheme. Tax people into riding the bus and pay for the bus by taxing them again and then keep taxing them to keep the bus running.
EUreka!
Complain about this comment
re. #41. At 4:52pm on 02 Dec 2010, LucyJ wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/11237_luisgutirrezandcominglatinorevolt
An exerpt:
The DREAM Act, Gutiérrez says, is for now his final legislative maneuver. He’s finished waiting for the mythical 60th vote to materialize in the Senate. No, when the lame duck ends, Gutiérrez and his movement allies will ask for a divorce—from the Democratic Party, from the entire lawmaking process. To hear Gutiérrez tell it, Hispanic leaders are about to stage a full-tilt campaign of direct action, like the African-American civil-rights movement of the 1960s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
What will happen when the illegals revolt against Americans?
-----------------------------------
It won't come to that and if it did they would lose but the governments of Latin Ameircan countries would be the real losers when the border was finally sealed and they lost their safety valve of illegal emigration to El Norte. We might have to pick our own crops and clean our own houses again but those countries would have to address the economic, social and political problem that led so many of their people to go elsewhere seeking work or a chance at a better life. If those governments failed it could lead to revolutions throughout Latin America.
Mr. Gutierrez seems to have woken up to the fact that the Democrat party has a pretty lame track record of helping Hispanics and that Hispanics might be better served by supporting candidates regardless of party who support their them on the issues rather than blindly supporting Democrats on the assumption they will be rewarded afterwards for their party loyalty.
Complain about this comment
re. #62. At 8:21pm on 02 Dec 2010, vagueofgodalming wrote:
Here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/three_reasons_to_relax_--_a_bi.html
If politicians really cared about the deficit, they'd let the Bush tax cuts expire.
---------------------
So letting the tax cuts expire, in effect raising taxes, is beneficial because it puts more money into the hands of government and we shouldn't be concerned about the effect of further reducing the amount of consumers' disposable incomes on an already stressed economy heavily independent on consumer spending.
Do they put something in the water in Washington?
Complain about this comment
PhillyMom wrote: Oh, and LucyJ honey?
Your Bears just got lucky over our Eagles. We're better.
---------------------------------------------------------------
We'll see what goes down during the playoffs...
I wouldn't be surprised if they both make it, but only one team will be left standing to represent NFC in Super Bowl 2011 in that absolutely incredible awesome amazing beautiful brand new stadium with the world's largest screen in the greatest country in the world...
Go Bears!!!!!!!!!!! ;)
Complain about this comment
MagicKirin wrote: As far as the world cup who cares, futbol is as boaring as watching golf and the winner is determined by flopping ability.
---------------------------------------------------------
I will say one thing; it will be interesting to see how Qatar treats the many fans from other countries...as in, will they accept females wearing clothes like we do in America?
Will they accept female foreigners having the same rights as men while they are there?
Will they accept fans 'having a good time'?
(Cause' ya know, some fans get pretty wild during those games...)
(There might be some culture clash when East meets West in a region surrounded by instability...)
Complain about this comment
Andrea wrote: I think your definition of "normal taxes" might be subject to debate. Perhaps we should define "normal spending" before we ask Americans to pay more in taxes?
---------------------------------------------------------
I just mean, before Bush there was no tax cuts for wealthy right?
So these tax cuts have only been available during Bush years and now Obama...which means we made it okay before.
But why does our poor and middle class jobs have to rely on the rich having tax cuts?
Complain about this comment
55. At 6:49pm on 02 Dec 2010, LucyJ wrote:
If there was another Mexican-American war WITHIN America between Americans and illegals, I personally believe Americans would win...
Thanx for the vote of confidence, Curt.
--------------
You're welcome. But actually LucyJ, I was referring to the rising panic in the South over the possibility of slave revolt -- culminating in the fact of the Nat Turner rebellion in 1831. That in response to your asking "What will happen when the illegals revolt against Americans?"
A significant percentage of the illegals you worry about are shamelessly exploited by their fully citizenship-certified U.S. employers. If you want to be upset about illegal immigration, study that dimension of the problem (and cut the workers, who are only trying to give a better life to their families) some slack.
Complain about this comment
65. At 8:43pm on 02 Dec 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
re. #43. At 5:10pm on 02 Dec 2010, Curt Carpenter wrote:
36. At 4:33pm on 02 Dec 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
"And today we learn that with all the bad news about America's deficit and ballooning debt the Obama administration has committed to giving the IMF another 900 billion dollars..."
Should we assume that you know better and that your use of the word "giving" was just another failed attempt to say something interesting, or should we assume that you really -don't- know better and are simply ignorant?
--------------
Perhaps we should assume you have something to say but can't figure out how to get to the point.
==========================
O.K., we'kk have to go with ignorant.
When the U.S. extends credit and lending facilities via the IMF, it isn't "giving" anything to anybody.
Complain about this comment
69. At 9:31pm on 02 Dec 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
"So letting the tax cuts expire, in effect raising taxes, is beneficial because it puts more money into the hands of government and we shouldn't be concerned about the effect of further reducing the amount of consumers' disposable incomes on an already stressed economy heavily independent on consumer spending.
Do they put something in the water in Washington?"
=============
Ending the Bush-era tax cuts wouldn't put money in the hands of government that they haven't already spent -- on, for example, the Bush-era discretionary wars -- which were magically kept "off books" by our late, great neoconservative friends for six years.
Isn't it bizarre that America's progressives are the ones calling for an end to the tax cuts (ALL of them) while America's self-styled "conservatives" are the ones that can't quite stomach the idea?
And let's not even mention the conservative's position on expired unemployment compensation...
Might want to get the water tested where YOU live.
Complain about this comment
56. At 7:12pm on 02 Dec 2010, diverticulosis wrote:
"The gas tax will hit the poor and the poor hard. They don't live in urbanized areas (yes there is urban poor but the majority of the US poor are in rural areas), they live far away from their work and don't replace cars every 5 years. They will turn in their 1980 Reliant K for a 1995 Honda Civic when the 1980 Reliant K dies."
[[I am familiar with this. Longer comment below.]]
"The map of American poor:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/18/americas-poor-a-regional-look_n_766852.html
Notice it's not NYC, LA, Boston, or Chicago, but more like Alabama, New Mexico and Alaska----places with out public transit."
[[That is a really interesting map. I looked for a Canadian equivalent, but couldn't find it on the Statistics Canada website.]]
__________
First, the issue about the K-Cars - Yes, I know all about this one, but sometimes it isn't a K-Car or a Civic, but rather a Toyota Tercel with 480,000 km on the odometer, and sometimes you can look down through the floor and see the road.
Be that as it may, there is a fair rollover of the North American automobile population every six or seven years, so in five years more than half the automobiles on the road change.
----------
Second, I have the impression that a poverty map of Canada would look surprisingly similar to the US map. We have urban poverty in the three big cities; we have aboriginal poverty in remote and northern communities all across the country; and we have pockets of rural poverty in the Maritimes, in Gaspesie, in Abitibi; in Northern Ontario, in the northern parts of the Prairie provinces, in the interior of BC, and even in southern and central Ontario.
Consider, though, the entire populations of Alabama (4.5m), Mississippi (3.0m) and Louisianna (4.5m). In total, this is 4% of US population.
Similarly, in Canada, the total rural population, rich and poor alike, is less than 6.5m, out of an entire population of 34m. That is roughly the same as the catchment of greater Toronto. The majority of our poor (and yours) are in major urban areas.
----------
It may be true that gas tax is regressive, as you say, but that proves too much.
Can't the argument then be made that there should be no gas tax at all, because any gas tax is regressive?
Can't the same argument be made with respect to any kind of consumption (i.e., sales) tax?
----------
It cannot be right to say that gas tax (or income tax, or sales tax, or, or, or ...), for the entire nation, should be set on the basis of the needs of the rural poor, (or the urban rich, for that matter) however few in number they may be.
Gasoline tax is not the cause of rural (or urban) poverty, and absence of gasoline tax is not likely to be the cure for rural (or urban) poverty, (or for bad schools, or high crime rates, or high levels of substance abuse, or abusive families, or any other great societal ill), either.
I don't think that gas tax, or absence of gas tax, is a tool appropriately designed for addressing that much, much larger social problem, nor should larger social problems be loaded onto the back of gasoline tax.
At the end of the day, it seems to me that the point you are making is either that below a certain level of income there should be no tax, or that at a certain level there is a requirement for a guaranteed income supplement (an entitlement!), or both.
But those are much broader social policy questions than whether gasoline tax should go up or down.
---------
Gasoline tax might, though, be the cure - or part of it - for a huge gap between revenues and expenditures. It is logically related to many public expenditures - on road, bridge and tunnel infrastructure; on defense and international relations; on environment; on transport policy; on energy policy (particularly energy independence); and, for most of us, perhaps not all, it has a fairly large discretionary component. It is also user pay, which we generally regard as being fair.
At present, gasoline tax isn't even close to covering the negative externalities of the oil industry, (defense, health, environment, for starters) and, as such, is receiving huge implicit public subsidies, with some (though not all) effects similar to agricultural price supports.
That's both financially foolish, and morally indefensible.
---------
I agree with the point that gas tax needs to be raised slowly and carefully. That's why I'm suggesting 3 - 4 years at 5 cents per month, not 2 years at 10 cents per month. Ten years at 2 cents per month would have been even better, but the time to start was 20 years ago. America doesn't have that kind of time to solve its financial problems anymore.
---------
I also agree with the point about all voters using gasoline.
That's true here, too. It's why the Clark government was defeated in 1979.
Be that as it may, maybe the choice is to put the options before the American people, and have them choose. There really aren't that many viable alternatives that are mathematically plausible.
----------
America is in trouble. The house needs to be put in order. If Americans won't do it themselves, markets will do it instead, and it will be far worse.
But we still get this denial, where either people deny the magnitude of the problem, or they refuse to accept that they themselves might have to make any sacrifice to solve it. And so there is dithering. There is small-minded selfishness. There is gridlock.
The problem doesn't get solved. It just gets worse.
And each day America's strength ebbs a little further.
If terrorists attack and kill 3000 Americans, no amount of money an no amount of effort is too much to chase after them.
People don't seem to realize that the financial crisis is a much, much bigger threat to America's national security, and to America's future. So there's no sense of urgency, and no acceptance that strong medicine is required whether it tastes bad or not.
----------
What it reminds me of, in some ways, is the story of the rubber plantation owners in Malaya in 1942.
The plantation owners knew the Japanese army was coming.
They knew that the British artillery needed a clear field of fire to stop the Japanese advance.
But they couldn't bear the thought of having their rubber trees cut down, or of having their transport and heavy equipment commandeered by the army. So they prevailed upon the British high command not to let the troops cut down the trees or commandeer their trucks.
That attitude permeated the whole campaign. There was always a reason why this couldn't be done, or that couldn't be done.
Well, of course, they ended up losing everything.
Eventually, 135,000 British and Empire troops surrendered to 37,000 Japanese at Singapore.
----------
This isn't about America's budget deficit.
It is about America's place in the world.
Complain about this comment
Simmy is what's known as a "colourful character" - as was his ol' pop before him, voted against the Civil Rights act.
Hopefully for the yanks, he is just riffing here, rather than foretelling the future. Because if America has to live in a world where one can no longer rely on blather, ego and BS, then everything it stands for is finished.
Complain about this comment
G_K___, (#77. At 00:30am on 03 Dec 2010)
“... Because if America has to live in a world where one can no longer rely on blather, ego and BS, then everything it stands for is finished.”.
There are a number if such individuals here.
Complain about this comment
76 IF,
"America is in trouble. The house needs to be put in order. If Americans won't do it themselves, markets will do it instead, and it will be far worse."
I'm not so sure about that anymore. Reading about the Fed giving loans to every eligible entity and swapping currency with other central banks to the tune of 9 trillion dollars was a revelation in many ways. The Fed saved the markets and prevented a run on all the banks. What's more interesting is that they could have doled out significantly more money than they did. The Fed basically guaranteed loans by pushing a button and creating money out of thin air. Central banks in other countries could not keep up with exchanges from their currency to the dollar and were forced to swap their currency with the Fed to meet demand. This tells us that when push comes to shove it's the dollar that people want to be left holding and that the Fed has the power to underwrite vast loan amounts by simply "printing" more money. Actually, it's better than that because they don't really print anything at all. They just type in an amount and it magically appears electronically. I’m pretty much convinced that the US can just pay-off its debt at will and should. Obama, the democrats, and republicans should have a long meeting with the Fed and realize we can pay-off our debt and stimulate the economy by spending. We have no need for austerity measures and higher taxes since we have deflation, low interest, and all of our debt held in dollars. We just need to create money out of thin air and spend it, because we can.
Complain about this comment
" The problem is that the DREAM Act does not provide funding to states and counties to cover the costs it imposes. Since enrollment and funding are limited at public institutions, the act’s passage will require some combination of tuition increases, tax increases, or a reduction in spaces available for American citizens at these schools. This may have the effect of reducing the educational opportunities that would otherwise have been available to American citizens and legal immigrants.
All amnesties reward illegal immigrants — in this case, both those brought here as children and the adults who subjected them to this limbo. Any serious proposal to legalize young people brought here as infants or toddlers would need to prevent the possibility that their parents and other adults responsible for bringing them here illegally would ever receive any benefit from the amnesty, namely, future sponsorship as legal immigrants.
In its current form, the DREAM Act remains a flawed and costly amnesty."
Mark Krikorian
So there is no penalty except to those who legally immigrate here, or are US Citizens already. The War has already started here, citizens or legals don't count. Drug shootouts, gangs, third world government mentality, collapse of all financial benefits, what don't you understand about this Pipe Dream Act? Just a yearly estimate is $6.2 billion dollars based on 1 million people applying (laughable 1 million, where did that estimate come from?). Last amnesty was closer to 3 million and emboldened more to come here illegally to reap the benefits, thru fraud, false documents, and other dubious means. Time to pull in the gangplank on these stowaways. This country better wake up to whom represents whom in our government. Its not about fairness, its about solvency and survival as a nation. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$heesh!
Complain about this comment
#76
"I agree with the point that gas tax needs to be raised slowly and carefully. That's why I'm suggesting 3 - 4 years at 5 cents per month, not 2 years at 10 cents per month."
That very generous of you. But before you detail the plans of this gasoline tax hike, you may want to spend some time explaining its rationale and justification.
So far, I've seen nothing.
The gasoline tax needs to be raised because the US spends more than it takes in, tax revenue? Is that the gist of it? :D
Complain about this comment
#5. by BK.... Well spoken!!!!!!
As for Interestedforeigner, now I know that you are Canadian or French Canadian and most probably a well versed educator.
AmericanGrizzly speaks for more people in this great nation of ours than the Media has given credit for!
If I speak out in favor of Arizona's 1070 Law, I am quickly branded as a racist. This has happened, not only to myself but others.....our freedom of speech is being trampled. The rights of Americans are slowly being chipped away by the destructive concept of a one world order.
One can only compare what was allowed to occur in Bosnia over the years to those who support such things as the "DREAM Act" or an amnesty reward for "illegal" immigrants (aliens...here to reap the benefits and return home...maybe). Their children born within our boarders are guaranteed citizenship (we are the only country in the world to allow this), which allows them to voice or vote in support for these measures.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
JClarkson, (#81. At 04:33am on 03 Dec 2010)
"...The gasoline tax needs to be raised because the US spends more than it takes in, tax revenue? Is that the gist of it? :D"
While that is one way to interpret it, my reading is that it is just another iteration of "you should change to become more like me." There are many such examples in various threads of this blog.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I think that the tax collection system in the western world is past its sell by date. It needs to be efficient wiy=th small overheads and yet it is the exact opposite. Equally the role of the administrative government needs to be addressed as this has grown over the last century without any clear idea of an overall direction - some would say it is over bloated.
My knowledge of the US tax system is patchy but in the UK the working, middle and upper middle classes effectively subsidise the super rich dynasties who as a percentage of income pay a negligble amount. I seem to recall someone once saying that taxes were for the little people. In London various oil (ex Soviet bloc) oligarchs pay a derisory amount in tax despite a wealth in the multi billions band. Granted HMRC (equiv to the IRS) is totally useless but poltical will has also prevailed.
On the public spending side up to WWII working for the state was considered as a privelege to serve your country whereas in latter decades it is "fill your boots time". Centralisation of government bureaucracy simply drives up local property prices which is followed by high salaries for federal employees to live adequately. The model is patently unsustainable and the resultant asset price crash will be very painful.
Complain about this comment
82. At 05:36am on 03 Dec 2010, USSilentMajority wrote:
"If I speak out in favor of Arizona's 1070 Law, I am quickly branded as a racist. This has happened, not only to myself but others.....our freedom of speech is being trampled."
"One can only compare what was allowed to occur in Bosnia over the years to those who support such things as the "DREAM Act" or an amnesty reward for "illegal" immigrants (aliens...here to reap the benefits and return home...maybe)."
Okaaaaaay. So you are seriously comparing all the horrors of the genocide in Bosnia with all the millions dead, the mass graves, and the shattered cultures - with the US immigration policy ?
What's next ? A comparison between the Nazi holocaust and don't-ask-don't-tell ?
And you're complaining about being called a racist ?
"The rights of Americans are slowly being chipped away by the destructive concept of a one world order."
Ah. Too much Glen Beck I think.
"Their children born within our boarders are guaranteed citizenship (we are the only country in the world to allow this), which allows them to voice or vote in support for these measures."
So are you in favour of this policy, or not ?
If you have such a policy, then you are opening yourselves to day trippers keen to exploit the rules. But it's a right guaranteed in the constitution after all. Of course, the constitution was written 200+ years ago when visiting the US was a 5 week sailing voyage which you might not survive. It was hardly "popping over the border" then.
If you don't have this policy, then you'll be violating a constitutional right.
Maybe, just possibly, the constitution needs to drag itself into the 21st century and adopt a more coherent immigration policy that recognises the realities of modern life. Like cars. Or planes. Or medicine.
Complain about this comment
excellentcatblogger, (#87. At 11:33am on 03 Dec 2010)
“... My knowledge of the US tax system is patchy but in the UK the working, middle and upper middle classes effectively subsidise the super rich dynasties who as a percentage of income pay a negligble amount. I seem to recall someone once saying that taxes were for the little people. In London various oil (ex Soviet bloc) oligarchs pay a derisory amount in tax despite a wealth in the multi billions band. Granted HMRC (equiv to the IRS) is totally useless but poltical will has also prevailed ...”
If you run the numbers through a spreadsheet, the group often referred to as wealthy can not provide the revenue needed for government expenditure.
Complain about this comment
wolfvorkian wrote:
Mardell is increasingly becoming an apologist for right wing
America.
His near obsession with the Tea Party and what makes them tick begin to make me suspicious of his motivations but this piece today fawning over Alan Simpson was the clincher.
Old Alan... noted for his recent comment about people who draw Social Security....calling them "lesser people".
Mr. Mardell...,your bloodline please?"
This comment speaks for itself.
In Joe McCarthy's days it would be called by the Lefties
"a character asssassination job".
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner wrote:
6. At 00:44am on 02 Dec 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
"I take that as a hopeful sign. If they han't been howling in outrage I'd have been worried the plan wasn't tough enough to have any real effect."
__________
Agreed.
I second that.
Complain about this comment
"Well, it looks like Russia gets World Cup 2018 and Qatar gets the World Cup 2022.."
Lucy, If you read British press reports and watch a BBS special on corruption in FIFA you'll understand the process which led to both of those decisions.
[money talks, s..t walks]
Complain about this comment
# 89 Chryses wrote:
"excellentcatblogger, (#87. At 11:33am on 03 Dec 2010)
“... My knowledge of the US tax system is patchy but in the UK the working, middle and upper middle classes effectively subsidise the super rich dynasties who as a percentage of income pay a negligble amount. I seem to recall someone once saying that taxes were for the little people. In London various oil (ex Soviet bloc) oligarchs pay a derisory amount in tax despite a wealth in the multi billions band. Granted HMRC (equiv to the IRS) is totally useless but poltical will has also prevailed ...”
If you run the numbers through a spreadsheet, the group often referred to as wealthy can not provide the revenue needed for government expenditure."
I did not take ECB to be saying that the super rich should be taxed instead of the rest of us, but rather that they should be taxed as well as the rest of us.
I don’t know whether his claims about their paying derisory amounts of tax are true, but I have certainly seen stories in the media to that effect, including in the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times.
Complain about this comment
Just like how USA went out in the first round of voting for Olympics in Chicago 2016...
Lucy, the decions makers probably figured that Chicago takes a seond place to Rio re corruption, and it's nowhere near in gang violence in its suburbs to Rio favelas.
Complain about this comment
IF: At the end of 36 - 48 months the price for gas in the US would be just about equal to what the price for gas is now in Canada. It would still be hardly more than half he price of gas in the EU.
And at the end of 36-48 months US would still be hardly more than half in fiscal trouble EUSSR is today.
Complain about this comment
"It is widely believed that a huge subsidy to oil industry is mainly due to huge influence of our auto and oil industry. Now they practically force even a poor family to have at least one car."
Thta's why I think that it should be mandated by the US Administration that instead of a 2nd car each family must buy one light plane.
[which would also help unclog our roads in major metropolitan areas]
Complain about this comment
"Notice it's not NYC, LA, Boston, or Chicago, but more like Alabama, New Mexico and Alaska----places with out public transit." "
I'd like to see public transportatipn work in Alaska. :)
]
BTW. Mz. Huffington is hardly poor and can hardly relate to American poor.
Or even to Greek poor.
Complain about this comment
81. JClarkson:
"The gasoline tax needs to be raised because the US spends more than it takes in, tax revenue? Is that the gist of it? :D"
************
Not quite. Spending doesn't even factor into it, except for defense spending.
Somehow we are supposed to believe that tax cuts cause deficits instead of excessive spending. The democrats believe this so deeply that they are staging "symbolic" votes to emphasize this point. I would say they didn't get the message from the last election. I don't really think that Americans want "symbolic" acts at this point.
Old habits die hard.
Complain about this comment
76. At 00:03am on 03 Dec 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
What it reminds me of, in some ways, is the story of the rubber plantation owners in Malaya in 1942.
The plantation owners knew the Japanese army was coming.
They knew that the British artillery needed a clear field of fire to stop the Japanese advance.
But they couldn't bear the thought of having their rubber trees cut down, or of having their transport and heavy equipment commandeered by the army. So they prevailed upon the British high command not to let the troops cut down the trees or commandeer their trucks.
That attitude permeated the whole campaign. There was always a reason why this couldn't be done, or that couldn't be done.
Well, of course, they ended up losing everything.
Eventually, 135,000 British and Empire troops surrendered to 37,000 Japanese at Singapore.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed,indecision & vacillation will cause disaster.
Please forgive a foot note on that last sentence,
The British/Indian/Commonwealth divisions that was defeated so decisively in 1942,later annihilated that Japanese advance..
This Japanese defeat is generally unheard of by Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kohima
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I KNOW fuel costs in Europe are very high & have been since Hector was a pup.With necessity the mother of invention you can get well built cars over here, doing 65/75 mpg & 0 to 60 in under 10 seconds.This would not
have happened with low fuel costs...
Complain about this comment
# 52 Curt Carpenter wrote:
"http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/opinion/01friedman.html?emc=eta1 "
_____________________
I thought this was a very interesting article – as were many of the comments on the NYT site.
Complain about this comment
IF: "Also, the single biggest thing the military tends to lack, and the thing it needs most in dealing with terrorist insurgencies - the most common problem of our times, it seems - is good old boots-on-the-ground. So cutting numbers is, itself, difficult"
Regular armed forces, including grund troops and tank divisions are hardly a useful anti-terrorist tool as recent history has amply demonstrated.
What's required is an actionable intel and small Spec-Op and commando units. As well as more UAVs.
Why do we still have to keep our troops in countries like Germany or Italy, which on top of that resent their presence there - is beyond me.
[it does not buy U.S. any extra security or does not facilitate our projection of power.]
As for France as a NATO member - the less is said about it the better.
Complain about this comment
# 102
A particularly interesting snippet from the article
"On the front page of The Washington Post on Monday there was an article noting that Republicans Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee are denouncing Obama for denying “American exceptionalism.” The Americans have replaced working to be exceptional with talking about how exceptional they still are. They don’t seem to understand that you can’t declare yourself “exceptional,” only others can bestow that adjective upon you."
Complain about this comment
97. At 1:17pm on 03 Dec 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"And at the end of 36-48 months US would still be hardly more than half in fiscal trouble EUSSR is today."
The US is totally in as much trouble as the EU is in today, has only 6 months to deal with it, is in partisan political paralysis, with some even refusing to admit the crisis even exists.
The reason the US can claim there is a crisis in EU is because you can identify individual EU states each needing a bailout (i.e. the ship falls apart).
But if the US goes down, it will go down as a whole (i.e. the ship will just sink in one piece. And currently even some of the passengers refuse to accept the ship is sinking at all).
Complain about this comment
# 100 AndreaNY wrote:
"Somehow we are supposed to believe that tax cuts cause deficits instead of excessive spending. The democrats believe this so deeply that they are staging "symbolic" votes to emphasize this point. I would say they didn't get the message from the last election. I don't really think that Americans want "symbolic" acts at this point."
There have been a number of proposals to improve the deficit situation. AFAIK they all accept that both tax increases and spending cuts will be needed – the differences lie in how much emphasis should be placed on each, and on which spending should be cut and taxes raised.
As a general rule, if you cut taxes you lower government receipts. (Obviously there can be exceptions to this eg if lower taxes stimulate the economy, or if high tax rates were encouraging evasion or avoidance.)
However, as you have so rightly pointed out, deficits are essentially caused by Democrats, those durn ‘tax-and-spend liberals’ , whilst Republicans care for nothing but fiscal rectitude (see Bush, GW)....
Complain about this comment
"The reason the US can claim there is a crisis in EU is because you can identify individual EU states each needing a bailout (i.e. the ship falls apart).
But if the US goes down, it will go down as a whole (i.e. the ship will just sink in one piece. And currently even some of the passengers refuse to accept the ship is sinking at all)."
If US sinks there'll be no more problems for EU.
For there won't be any such entity.
(something quite a few of EU ship passengers refuse to accept)
MANE TEKEL FARES
Complain about this comment
“necessity the mother of invention”
Including inventing the details of one’s life. This is a good argument for our disdain for any idea that resembles making the US a welfare state.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
79. At 03:29am on 03 Dec 2010, rodidog wrote:
"I'm not so sure about that anymore."
"... This tells us that when push comes to shove it's the dollar that people want to be left holding and that the Fed has the power to underwrite vast loan amounts by simply "printing" more money."
__________
Rodi, I need to think about this and perhaps reply at greater length later.
My first reaction, though, is that it is heresy.
No nation ever rose to greatness, or staved off defeat, by debasing its currency as a deliberate, long-term policy.
No nation ever rose to greatness as a debtor.
Complain about this comment
81. At 04:33am on 03 Dec 2010, JClarkson wrote:
"The gasoline tax needs to be raised because the US spends more than it takes in, tax revenue? Is that the gist of it? :D"
__________
The general topic is closing the $1.3T gap between revenues and spending.
I have suggested four measures:
(a) raising gas tax $ 1.50 - $ 2.00, over 3 - 4 years;
(b) cutting defense spending 35% over five years;
(c) raising the retirement age, as quickly as possible, to 68.
(d) cancelling the foolish Bush tax cuts.
Over time, those four measures would go most of the way toward closing the gap.
Of all the possible alternatives on the revenue side, raising gas tax seems to me to be one that will cause the least pain, and, at the same time it will yield significant benefits in other policy areas. There is the added benefit of knowing that it works fine in other countries.
The second easiest step to take on the revenue side is to end the Bush tax cuts, as originally planned. (What a concept: the American government keeping its word, and showing fiscal discipline at the same time. The markets would go through the roof.)
-------
On the other hand, if you think that America can run $ 1.3T deficits forever, you are free to say so, and the crdebility of your postings can be judged accordingly.
Alternatively, if you think that is national financial suicide, then how do you propose to close that gap?
"Cut spending" doesn't help anybody unless you can indicate what spending you propose to cut. The whole problem is coming up with financially plausible arithmetic. I don't see any in your posting.
If you have a better alternative than (a), (b), (c) and (d), why not suggest it, so that it may then be discussed?
But if you don't have a better alternative, and all you want to do is carp about the suggestions of others, without making any constructive comment, then what are you bringing to the discussion that is useful to anybody?
Complain about this comment
103. At 1:37pm on 03 Dec 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"Regular armed forces, including grund troops and tank divisions are hardly a useful anti-terrorist tool as recent history has amply demonstrated.
What's required is an actionable intel and small Spec-Op and commando units. As well as more UAVs."
_________
Well, I agree that UAV's are good for making the lives of terrorists "interesting", I disagree that they are what is likely to defeat an insurgency.
I agree that tank divisions are of limited use, too.
Two things defeat an insurgency:
(1) The big majority of people get fed up with the insurgents;
(2) The security forces make it possible for the great majority of the population to get on with their lives in peace.
Item (2) is usually the precursor to item (1), and to do it you have to be able to take and secure ground.
Raiding villages and killing insurgents doesn't do it. That merely makes the populace terrified, and leads to the abandonment of fields and farms, rural hamlets and villages, and so on. This has been true for centuries, if not millenia. Think of Germany during the 30 years war, for example.
The government has to be able to hold ground, police it, keep the insurgents out. The key indicator of success is not the body count of insurgents - in fact, the larger the body count, the more likely the government troops are failing. The more insurgents (and, inevitably, innocent civilians) you kill, the more recruits you create for the insurgency.
The key indicator is the reduction in the number of insurgent attacks per unit of time. That requires boots on the ground to hold a perimeter, and boots on the ground to police and maintain order within the perimeter. Boring, slow, painstaking work, yet a truth largely unchanged since Roman times.
(And now the wrath of the abundance of classical historians here will descend upon my head ...).
-------
"As for France as a NATO member - the less is said about it the better."
[[LOL.]]
Complain about this comment
PANIC !
Gavin Hewitt´s European blog ´The German Dilemma´
Has just been CLOSED after ONLY 24 postings. !!!!
Does anybody know why ????
Wikileaks is also under attack--Worldwide !
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/WikiLeaks-fights-to-stay-apf-798262767.html;_ylt=ApxzMLVJHTpRsJ7CQ6TvsHO7YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1NWE0NnZrBHBvcwM5BHNlYwN0b3BTdG9yaWVzBHNsawN3aWtpbGVha3NmaWc-?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=6&asset=&ccode=
Complain about this comment
re.#57. At 7:18pm on 02 Dec 2010, Jay wrote:
Now this Republican Vice president is being charged of bribery by one of the most corrupt governments in the world, Nigeria.
"Nigeria's anti-corruption agency is to charge former US Vice-President Dick Cheney over a bribery scandal that involves a former subsidiary of energy firm Halliburton.": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11902489
And Dick is a typical representative of US congressmen and senators with big industry connection. Such people can never think anything beyond their personal interest. Constitutional power is just another tool to fulfill their personal ambitions in form of more wealth and power (mainly business power that comes with constitutional authority).
-------------
Jay, even in Nigeria they have a trial first before declaring a man guilty.
Complain about this comment
101. At 1:26pm on 03 Dec 2010, ukwales wrote:
"The British/Indian/Commonwealth divisions that was defeated so decisively in 1942,later annihilated that Japanese advance.."
"This Japanese defeat is generally unheard of by Americans."
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kohima"
__________
Kohima and Imphal.
... followed by the brilliant campaign of the 14th Army to re-take Burma.
There is a reason Field Marshal Sir William Slim was subsequently CIGS, and lies buried in St. Paul's. Best British field commander of the war by far, in my view.
Complain about this comment
Am I being CENSORED, or do others also have problems with Mr Hewitts Blog ????
Complain about this comment
100. At 1:26pm on 03 Dec 2010, AndreaNY wrote:
"Somehow we are supposed to believe that tax cuts cause deficits instead of excessive spending."
Somehow we are supposed to believe that tax cuts contribute NOTHING to the deficits? That tax cuts, in particular after starting not one but TWO hobby wars "off books," were a fiscally conservative victory?
See my note at #15 on -that- bit of wisdom.
"The democrats believe this so deeply that they are staging "symbolic" votes to emphasize this point."
No, it appears to me that the Democrats are staging their symbolic votes in hope of creating some political cover for themselves, which they'll need when they finally cave on this issue.
But it's not going to work this time, IMHO. Progressives are tired of telling themselves that politics is the art of the possible, that their principles need to be sold cheap from time to time in the interest of getting something done. No more. The vote on this issue stands to cost the President whatever support he has left from the progressive left.
Too bad.
"I would say they didn't get the message from the last election."
Oh I think the message was received loud and clear. It's just that nobody -- and especially not the TEA party Republicans -- are up to delivering on their own rhetoric. Witness the "earmarks" farce.
The GOP back-peddling, even after just one short month, has been breathtaking.
"I don't really think that Americans want "symbolic" acts at this point."
What a joke. The Americans want nothing BUT symbolic acts. They certainly don't want to confront grim -reality- at this point. Try paying attention to the reaction, from right and left, to the DRC report.
"Old habits die hard."
Indeed they do.
Complain about this comment
re. #88. At 11:35am on 03 Dec 2010, The Toothbrush Man wrote:
82. At 05:36am on 03 Dec 2010, USSilentMajority wrote:
..."Their children born within our boarders are guaranteed citizenship (we are the only country in the world to allow this), which allows them to voice or vote in support for these measures."
So are you in favour of this policy, or not ?
If you have such a policy, then you are opening yourselves to day trippers keen to exploit the rules. But it's a right guaranteed in the constitution after all. Of course, the constitution was written 200+ years ago when visiting the US was a 5 week sailing voyage which you might not survive. It was hardly "popping over the border" then.
If you don't have this policy, then you'll be violating a constitutional right.
Maybe, just possibly, the constitution needs to drag itself into the 21st century and adopt a more coherent immigration policy that recognises the realities of modern life. Like cars. Or planes. Or medicine.
---------------------
Actually, the Constitution of the United States is silent on the subject of what the requirements for becoming a citizen are but Article 1, section 8, gives Congress the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".
In other words, the requirements for becoming a cittizen are set by Federal statute and can be amended anytime Congress chooses to do so.
Perhaps you should drag yourself to a bookshop and read it before you start taking pot shots at it.
You can also find a transcript online at: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
Complain about this comment
108. At 3:25pm on 03 Dec 2010, Grateful Marie wrote:
“necessity the mother of invention”
Including inventing the details of one’s life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in 1998 I with two others took a truck with supplies to Brasov Romania.Once the supplies had been delivered to an orphanage,set up by two Americans,I volunteered to help feed the street kids for about 2weeks.This experience was harrowing & actually brought on a depression.
The event with that little boy & sandwich changed my life.I could not go
back to Wales & forget.My work now in helping,is revolved around fund raising for a centre that feeds needy single parents & children in Moldova.There is no way of proving to you,any of this,but as a Christian
my view,of my self,is that if you are not honest,you are not any thing.
Complain about this comment
Now comes the news this morning that this gutsy plan to cure our economic ills failed to get the necessary 14 votes to proceed. It comes as no surprise that the unions hated this plan and will do all they can to see that it never comes to pass. Fiscal conservatives, such as Sen. Tom Coburn, don't intend to let this be the end of the story. I am with Coburn and his ilk.
Complain about this comment
116. At 4:52pm on 03 Dec 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
Am I being CENSORED, or do others also have problems with Mr Hewitts Blog ????
-----------------------
Stay with us fella,there is a better class of blogger here.
BTW,sorry if I was a little harsh on you,on the other thread...
Complain about this comment
#119 UKwales
I raise my hat to you.
Complain about this comment
re. #111. At 4:33pm on 03 Dec 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
81. At 04:33am on 03 Dec 2010, JClarkson wrote:
"The gasoline tax needs to be raised because the US spends more than it takes in, tax revenue? Is that the gist of it? :D"
__________
The general topic is closing the $1.3T gap between revenues and spending.
I have suggested four measures:
(a) raising gas tax $ 1.50 - $ 2.00, over 3 - 4 years;
(b) cutting defense spending 35% over five years;
(c) raising the retirement age, as quickly as possible, to 68.
(d) cancelling the foolish Bush tax cuts.
------------
You may be unaware that the retirement age (when a person can collect full social security bemnefits) has already been raised for most people. Mine is currently 67 1/2 and I believe for younger people it may already be 68.
I hope you're not suggesting taking it away from people already receiving it until they reach 68, the AARP (retirees' lobby) would raise such a howl that Congress would turn pale at the mere mention of such an idea.
It should also be pointed out that your ideas regarding cutting defense spending and raising taxes have a potentially fatal flaw: the historical inability of Congress to exercise fiscal restraint. Hand them more money to spend and what we're likely to get in return will be more earmarks, more pork barrel projects and more programs to create more people dependent on government spending.
Complain about this comment
#121 UKwales
Thanks.
Can you get Hewitts blog ---past no 24 ???
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Corrupt one party system run by bankers and big business. republicans only care about next election and could care less what happens to the country. Selfish political agenda funded by banking and big business to assure the taxpayer pays for the mess created by the banks and taxes remain with the people and not on business. Oh, the poor rich, with all their tax advantages, may be offended by paying some fair share and how will this impact the rewards of the banking bonuses...rewards for undermining the national economy. Jobs are created by demand, not by income of business owners. Republicans will say anything to protect the wealthy and they seem to have people who will believe what they say. As they continue to be the party of doing nothing the status of the US falls internationally, all because of the belief by the
Republicans that the President must fail....real patriots! They have no answers but to insure the wealth of the wealthy. SALT treaty, an extension of what Bush signed, does nothing but eliminate some systems systems that are outdated and expensive to maintain. Will need Russian support as Iran continues on its suicidal path..but the Republicans are too selfish to understand that. Petty politicians with a narrow self interest that care little for the US.
Complain about this comment
#111
"I have suggested four measures:"
3 of them involve the raising of taxes and one involves the cutting of the defense budget (which as of 2009 stands at 680 billion dollars) by 35%.
I suppose I read your post correctly then, you propose to address a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit with about 200 billion dollars cut from the military and another 1.1 trillion dollars in raised taxes (in various ways).
Leaving aside the philosophical issue of justifying increases in taxation over decreases in spending, from a more pragmatic perspective, how effective would you say your plan would be at bridging this gap?
"As of September 30, 2010, the "Total Public Debt Outstanding" of $13.56 trillion was approximately 94% of annual GDP of $14.4 trillion, with the constituent parts of the "Debt held by the Public" being approximately 63% of GDP ($9.0 Trillion) and "Intergovernmental Debt" standing at 31% of GDP ($4.5 Trillion)." - Wikipedia
and
"In 2008 the federal government collected $2.5 trillion, an amount equal to 17.7 percent of GDP. Federal revenue has ranged from 14.4 to 20.9 percent of GDP over the past five decades, averaging 18.2 percent." - Tax Policy Center
Complain about this comment
What is necessary is a twofold reform; Congress needs to reform its spending habits and also the tax code. Congress has made promises to the American people that it simply cannot keep. Increasingly over the past few decades, if someone can prove their victimhood status they can milk the government for all sorts of money through the various welfare programs. Congress needs to stop promising money to people that it simply does not have. What has happened is that generation X has voted itself substantial government benefits and has continually deferred the cost of paying for these benefits. They may well have these until they die but then the next generation of Americans will have to pay for this.
Also the tax code is flawed in the US. Firstly, there are 8 different tax brackets and the forms can take hours to fill out. Furthermore it is estimated according to the IRS's website that only about 50% of Americans actually pay about 95% of the taxes. This is intolerable. When half the population does not even pay to the government so much income is lost. What Congress needs to do is implement a flat tax. This would simplify the tax code greatly and increase revenues.
The problem with proposals about reducing defense spending is that defense has a legitimate existential role. If the government neglects defense it causes external threats. If the goverment reduces welfare spending the nation is not going to fall apart. The reason why America has not had a 9/11 scale attack in 9 years is not because the terrorists have been idle. Defense has a legitimate role and to simply cut the budget is very dangerous.
Everyone wants to reduce the deficit but they are unwilling to sacrifice anything-always make someone else sacrifice. This is becoming a cultural problem where people feel entitled to a lavish style of living and expect government to provide it. They do not realize that the wealth they enjoy was built upon the work of their forefathers. Americans are facing existential threats but cannot accept that they must sacrifice parts of their profligate lifestyle to preserve this wealth for their posterity.
Complain about this comment
A friend in Germany has just informed me that his T-online provider does NOT allow connection to Wikileaks !
Our computers appear to be under control of Google, Microsoft, Apple and the American government.
I protest STRONGLY !
What is the BBC doing to protect our Rights ?
This is a World problem !
Complain about this comment
110 IF,
"My first reaction, though, is that it is heresy.
No nation ever rose to greatness, or staved off defeat, by debasing its currency as a deliberate, long-term policy.
No nation ever rose to greatness as a debtor."
I agree. In normal economic cycles "printing" money would lead to inflation. However, we are currently fighting deflation where not enough money is chasing after available goods and services and interest rates are essentially zero. In effect, printing money (QE) is the same as adjusting interest rates to fight inflation. There is no debt since the money is not borrowed.
Complain about this comment
At 5:49pm on 03 Dec 2010, quietoaktree post 124..
German dilemma, no its stuck at 24.
Complain about this comment
The title of the bipartisan deficit commission's final report is "The Moment of Truth." And it's meant to set the stakes for what must be done to cope with the nation's gargantuan and growing pile of debt.
"We cannot play games or put off hard choices any longer," says the preamble. "Our challenge is clear and inescapable: America cannot be great if we go broke."
But while everyone will no doubt focus on the plan's seemingly controversial proposals, what's likely to get overlooked are several truths the report reveals about the federal government, health reform, the tax code and more.
Here are a half dozen:
1) The federal government is horribly managed. The commission report cites just a few examples, like there are 44 separate federal job-training programs across nine federal agencies? Or that there are 20 different programs all studying invasive species? And 105 programs meant to encourage participation in science, technology and math? Or that few of them can show they are achieving their goals? There are thousands of examples like this, according to the report.
2) Health reform's cost savings apparently were bogus. Remember how Democrats boasted that health reform would cut the budget deficit by $170 billion over the next decade and far more after that? The deficit commission must not have gotten that memo. It says health spending projections under the new law "count on large phantom savings" and the reform law's new long-term care program that the report "unsustainable." As a result, Congress will still need to enact "a number of other reforms to reduce federal health spending and slow the growth of health care costs more broadly."
3) Millions of workers don't pay into Social Security. One of the reform ideas is to require newly hired state and local workers to start paying into Social Security. Wait? Isn't Social Security mandatory? Turns out, almost 10 percent of workers don't pay in, since "a small share of states and localities exclude their employees from Social Security" and instead operate their own retirement systems. (Given Social Security's dire financial forecast, one wonders how those workers would feel about that reform.)
4) The tax code is a hopeless, loophole-riddled mess. How else can you explain the fact that, according to the report, you can lower the top marginal rate by 20 percent and still collect an additional $112,533 from the richest 1 percent of taxpayers, simply by closing loopholes?
5) Obama is a big spender. Although President Barack Obama has talked about fiscal discipline and set up this deficit commission his own budget plan would spend $350 billion more on so-called discretionary programs over the next decade than if the government were just left on autopilot, according to the report.
6) It's actually not that hard to cut the deficit. The report talks loudly about the "painful" choices ahead and how there's "no easy way out." But what the report really shows is that a comprehensive package of relatively modest and reasonable policy changes can bring deficits under control.
The tax reform plan, for example, is modeled on the reforms enacted under President Ronald Reagan, which also lowered and simplified income tax rates in exchange for cutting back on a thicket of tax loopholes. The Social Security reforms are all unexceptional and slowly phased in. The cuts in discretionary spending mainly just strip out the massive spending increases enacted over the past couple of years. Indeed, probably the toughest medicine in the plan is a 15 cent per gallon hike in the federal gas tax by 2015, which would cost an average driver about $100 a year.
But perhaps the most important thing this report will reveal is whether there's any political courage left in Washington. So far, two brave senators have signed on to the plan, Judd Gregg, R-NH., and Kent Conrad, D-ND. Will anyone else have the guts to join them?
That, more than anything else, will determine whether there is or isn't an "easy way out" of the nation's fiscal hole.
Complain about this comment
100. At 1:26pm on 03 Dec 2010, AndreaNY wrote
RE 81. JClarkson:
"Old habits die hard."
Yes, on both sides of the aisle. The only differences are who they want to tax and what they want to spend it on.
GOP tax everyone as little as possible, so that the rich escape paying their fair share [because of tax shelters, write offs, and other dodges].
Spend the money on welfare for the wealthy and corporations [who also don't need it}. tax and spend [or tax too little ans spend too much] Republicans give handouts to agribusiness, tax breaks to outsourcers of jobs, and overpriced military and unnecessary wars, etc.
DEMS tax everyone and want to tax the wealthy and corporations more. They want to spend it on more and bigger social programs. They favor politically correct boondoggles and losts causes [where Republicans favor boondoggles and causes like religification of the republic, that should be lost]. Like the GOP, the DEMS have their own fat cats in need of feeding [at the public trough].
What both party's representatives and senators do [generally cooperatively] is to misspend the people's money, encourage lobyists to offer what are really bribes, and generally have no problems with accepting such bribes. Both sides point the finger of blame at the other but nobody does anything about it [see recent attempt to crack down on contributions fail because of both party's addiction to corrupt money], because both parties are eating from the same trough.
What we need is a full scale attack on corruption, both seducer and seduced, both GOP and DEM. So until people like AndreaNY are prepared to throw the loyal and conservative but corrupt Republicans under the Bus, and DEMs to do the same for theirs, we have no hope, and we are running out of time.
Complain about this comment
128. At 6:27pm on 03 Dec 2010, Charles_Martel wrote:
The problem with proposals about reducing defense spending is that defense has a legitimate existential role. If the government neglects defense it causes external threats. If the goverment reduces welfare spending the nation is not going to fall apart.
----------------------------------------
Just how destitute do how many US Citizens have to become before their situation begins to cause the country significant internal instability? When successive waves of the unemployed lose their unemployment benefits, it just may cause an increase in crime and/or rioting next to which other countries' threats to the US look piddlingly small.
50% of Americans actually pay about 95% of the taxes
----------------------------------------
The rest can't afford to pay taxes. For some of us, paying taxes means one less vacation or driving an older car, and for some others it means being unable to keep a roof over our heads. The system is set up the way it is for a good reason.
Complain about this comment
#131 UK wales
Thanks again.
We appear to have an American equivalent of Yukos´s Chodorkoski taking form.
Complain about this comment
92. At 12:59pm on 03 Dec 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
This comment speaks for itself.
In Joe McCarthy's days it would be called by the Lefties
"a character asssassination job".
Since we agree on virtually nothing, I'm surprised you concur with my appraisal of Alan Simpson.
Complain about this comment
118. At 5:22pm on 03 Dec 2010, Scott0962 wrote: “Actually, the Constitution of the United States is silent on the subject of what the requirements for becoming a citizen are but Article 1, section 8, gives Congress the power ‘To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization’".
You have advised others to read before writing, please note the following quote from the US Constitution.
Constitution of the US, 14th Amendment, Section 1. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” As you know, Scott and others, congress can not pass a law that contradicts the Constitution without it being overruled by the Supreme Court. Any such law would be null and void.
This is pretty clear. It would require a constitutional amendment not an act of congress to change it.
Complain about this comment
119. At 5:24pm on 03 Dec 2010, ukwales wrote:
108. At 3:25pm on 03 Dec 2010, Grateful Marie wrote:
“necessity the mother of invention”
Including inventing the details of one’s life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in 1998 I with two others took a truck with supplies to Brasov Romania.Once the supplies had been delivered to an orphanage,set up by two Americans,I volunteered to help feed the street kids for about 2weeks.This experience was harrowing & actually brought on a depression.
The event with that little boy & sandwich changed my life.I could not go
back to Wales & forget.My work now in helping,is revolved around fund raising for a centre that feeds needy single parents & children in Moldova.
There is no way of proving to you,any of this,but as a Christian
my view,of my self,is that if you are not honest,you are not any thing.
_________________________________________________________________
Oh, I believe you. And I know people need help. There is a philosophical difference in HOW to do it, yet multiple ways of helping can happen simultaneously. Tomorrow, I get to volunteer at something that made me tear up the first 4 months I did it. But I pushed through, and whatever was causing those emotions filtered through, and now I’m able to Really help.
As for leaders great and small, the lies that abound have weighed heavily on my mind this week. So heavily, that I decided to pour myself into my work, and it has been wonderful.
To me, regardless of one’s faith or religion, if you are not honest, you are more harmful than being 'not any thing.’
Complain about this comment
Who in the World can reach the Wikileaks website ????
Complain about this comment
But not all volunteering starts out sad. Feeding the poor in my city is FUN! The people are so LOVEly and fun to talk to. Dignity is key.
Mobile Loaves & Fishes is opening up an RV park for the homeless. It’s exciting!
Complain about this comment
#140 grateful Marie
---I suppose it´s better than bread crumbs and fish bones.
Complain about this comment
Now we have true globalization--
An American-Chinese- European FIREWALL against wikileaks !!!
Complain about this comment
loud uprooted tumbleweed,
Not all of us here will be welcoming to trolls.
Complain about this comment
ref #111
, Interestedforeigner wrote:
81. At 04:33am on 03 Dec 2010, JClarkson wrote:
"The gasoline tax needs to be raised because the US spends more than it takes in, tax revenue? Is that the gist of it? :D"
__________
The general topic is closing the $1.3T gap between revenues and spending.
I have suggested four measures:
(a) raising gas tax $ 1.50 - $ 2.00, over 3 - 4 years;
(b) cutting defense spending 35% over five years;
(c) raising the retirement age, as quickly as possible, to 68.
(d) cancelling the foolish Bush tax cuts.
Over time, those four measures would go most of the way toward closing the gap.
__________________
I could say a $1.00 tax on gas if the moratorium on drilling in the gulf and Cal coast was lifted
Defense spending if it is to be made cost effect controll and getting rid of wateful pork programs
The Bush tax custs are reasonable and stimulate the economy
_____________
How about cutting other federal program?
Cust goverment salieries to max of $50,000 of legislator, President and cabient member to 50K. Most of them could not make it in the private sector
Retroactivly cutting all pension other than life important (military and healthcare etc) to $20K a year. Startiung now!
Privatise all pratical goverment functions and make them non union to save the tax payer money
Complain about this comment
At 9:52pm on 03 Dec 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
Now we have true globalization--
An American-Chinese- European FIREWALL against wikileaks !!!
Unbelievable, now the truth is forbidden by the various incompetents running the country. Try the url below, it works. We live in damn police state, apparently.
http://wikileaks.ch/
Complain about this comment
#143 Grateful Marie
Which remark do you not like ?
I thought I was supporting your views on poverty ?
Complain about this comment
#143 Grateful Marie
--Or did you mean this ?
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/how_lieberman_got_amazon_to_drop_wikileaks.php
Complain about this comment
Curt wrote: A significant percentage of the illegals you worry about are shamelessly exploited by their fully citizenship-certified U.S. employers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. It is pretty sad really...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Curt wrote: If you want to be upset about illegal immigration, study that dimension of the problem (and cut the workers, who are only trying to give a better life to their families) some slack.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Curt, I have to look at all dimensions. Looking at only one dimension is one-sided, which means you will never get the full picture.
Just because someone wants a better life does not give them the right to illegally trespass across another country's border.
Both the illegal employer and the illegal are equally wrong...the illegal employer is exploiting the illegal and the illegal is exploiting our country, including Americans like myself, by breaking our laws...both are exploiting people...so neither is right...
------------------------------------------------------------------
Curt wrote: But actually LucyJ, I was referring to the rising panic in the South over the possibility of slave revolt -- culminating in the fact of the Nat Turner rebellion in 1831. That in response to your asking "What will happen when the illegals revolt against Americans?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but its different.
The slaves were brought here as slaves or slaves having slaves, which means it was not their choice and likely against their will. I can understand why they would want to revolt, cause' people can only take so much.
The illegals have come here themselves, which means they came here on their own, of free will, and knew that crossing the border of USA illegally is breaking the law. I understand that they might want to revolt against illegal slave owners, but they have no right to revolt against our country itself, cause' they're not even supposed to be allowed in our country- they themself broke our country's laws, which means ALL illegals that are not children and ALL illegals who don't turn themself into police are criminals.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
133. JMM:
I'll let the republicans slide on their pledge not to raise taxes -- for now -- because I think the dems have created too much uncertainty in the last year. Imagine a business not even knowing what its health care costs will be in 60 days? Or whether new regulations will change its processes dramatically? As if our economy isn't unstable enough. Some predictability would be a good thing.
I am, however, looking forward to supporting a proposal such as the one that came from Bowles and Simpson. I'd like to hear a lot more about it, minus the spin.
We have some very stuck politicians that will have to adapt first. I wonder how NY Senator Chuck Schumer could possibly think a meaningless vote would be productive. He actually said the vote was necessary to "clarify democrats' position". From the president on down, democrats have been talking about the rich for months now. Heaven help us.
Complain about this comment
127. At 6:25pm on 03 Dec 2010, JClarkson wrote:
"3 of them involve the raising of taxes and one involves the cutting of the defense budget..."
[[And so where is your better suggestion?]]
----------
[[Let's see. Raising gas tax counts as raising taxes.
Refusing to cut taxes is apparently being equated to raising taxes. Wow.
Ending the Bush tax cuts you apparently count as "raising taxes". It isn't. It is merely doing what Congress long ago agreed to do as part of making these (rather foolish) tax cuts in the first place. I.e., it is existing law. That isn't a tax increase to anybody except those who are determined they should get a tax cut even when the country is in financial trouble: "Let the country be damned so long as I have more money." The morality of that speaks for itself.
You got a tax holiday. It's over. Live with it.
Cutting defense spending clearly counts as cutting spending.
Assuming a current mean life expectancy of 80 years, raising the retirement age to 68 will cut spending on Social Security by something of the order of 3/15, i.e., 20%. That is a huge cut in spending. So now you're counting a 20% cut in Social Security spending as a tax increase?]]
------------
"I suppose I read your post correctly then, you propose to address a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit with about 200 billion dollars cut from the military and another 1.1 trillion dollars in raised taxes (in various ways)."
[[No, not correctly.
A $ 1.50 - $ 2.00 increase in gas tax will, eventually, raise about $ 225B/yr.
Cutting defense 35 % will cut spending another $ 275B/yr. (Based on 2009 = $782B)
Raising the retirement age will cut spending another $ 150B/yr.
I understand that letting the Bush tax cuts expire is worth another $ 300B/yr.
All told, about $ 950B.
Those, it seems to me, are the relatively easy steps. From there it gets harder.
People assume that the cost of Medicare and Medicaid can be reduced by 10%, which, in total would be about $70B. That seems really unlikely to me given that the baby boomers are about to retire.
I have suggested (above) a net increase in sales tax of 2%, that would amount to roughly $250B/yr.
(I don't know how much the gradual reduction, and eventual elimination, of mortgage interest tax deduction would raise, but that is a step that needs to be taken even if it raises no revenues at all. That foolish measure has done more than enough harm to America.)
Add it up, and it is in the right ballpark to stop the bleeding.]]
----------
It will not, however, pay down the debt. For that, income taxes need to go up. How much they need to go up depends on how fast the debt is to be paid down.
Rodidog says to pay off the debt with inflation.
That's tempting, of course.
But what that amounts to is a tax on savings, and an outright tax on wealth. Of course, those who have relatively inflation-proof assets might not be hurt that much. But to those who hold dollar denominated debt obligations, e.g., bond holders, it is uncomfortably close to confiscation.
An attractive aspect of it is that a good portion of the sovereign debt is held by foreigners, so they would, in effect, be forced to pay part of the cost. I think Rodidog likes that idea.
Nonetheless, I suspect that the long term cost would eventually come home to America with a vengeance. Britain had currency crisis after currency crisis as the world abandoned the pound as the preeminent reserve currency. Not sure you want to go there.
In any case, the other choice is to raise taxes. Ultimately, the need to raise taxes above the level they were at in the Clinton years is merely paying the deferred cost of the Bush II presidency. Those chickens were going to come home to roost eventually.
If there were any fairness or justice, the cost of that 8 year calamity would be assessed only to people who voted Republican. But, as with so much else in America, people who live in the "Blue" states are going to end up, again, subsidizing the foolishness of voters who live in the "Red" states.]]
------------
"As of September 30, 2010, the "Total Public Debt Outstanding" of $13.56 trillion was approximately 94% of annual GDP of $14.4 trillion, with the constituent parts of the "Debt held by the Public" being approximately 63% of GDP ($9.0 Trillion) and "Intergovernmental Debt" standing at 31% of GDP ($4.5 Trillion)." - Wikipedia
and
"In 2008 the federal government collected $2.5 trillion, an amount equal to 17.7 percent of GDP. Federal revenue has ranged from 14.4 to 20.9 percent of GDP over the past five decades, averaging 18.2 percent." - Tax Policy Center
[[Extremely low taxes for a western democracy. Unrealistically low for the level of spending expected by voters.]]
[[Ok. so what's your point?]]
[[You seem to want to make fun of the measures I have proposed, but you haven't said what you would do instead. Nor, I notice, has Andrea.]]
----------
I take the view that balancing the budget, over the long term, is the meat-and-potatoes duty of government. Tax cuts come for dessert, for those who have eaten their vegetables, and cleaned their plates.
Over the long term, (e.g., ten year intervals) it doesn't really matter whether the budget is balanced by doubling taxes, or by cutting expenditures in half, or by some combination of raising taxes and cutting expenses, as seems more likely.
But whatever happens, there should be no talk whatsoever of tax cuts until after the budget has been balanced, and until after a good portion (i.e., half) of the debt has been paid down, at least as a portion of GDP.
If you don't like these suggestions, then what would you do instead? Keep spending money you don't have?
What do you propose instead?
Complain about this comment
144. At 10:19pm on 03 Dec 2010, MagicKirin wrote:
"How about cutting other federal program?"
"Cust goverment salieries to max of $50,000 of legislator, President and cabient member to 50K. Most of them could not make it in the private sector"
"Retroactivly cutting all pension other than life important (military and healthcare etc) to $20K a year. Startiung now!"
____________
Do you really want a legislature in which the only people running for election are those whose abilities would merit $50k or less in the private sector?
Heres a better idea:
Raise the salaries of members of the House to be roughly equivalent to what a mid-level partner earns at a major law firm.
Raise the salaries of members of the Senate to to roughly equivalent to what a senior partner earns at a major law firm.
Try setting the level of pay where it will be attractive to people of character, intelligence, experience, ability, and judgment.
Complain about this comment
AmericanGrizzly wrote:
The War has already started here, citizens or legals don't count. Drug shootouts, gangs, third world government mentality, collapse of all financial benefits, what don't you understand about this Pipe Dream Act?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Well-put, Grizzly.
And yes, it does feel like a war within our country has been started...
Between legal Americans defending our homeland and illegals and their family/friends trying to take it over...just look at Arizona. Its definitely a sign of things to come.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Grizzly wrote: Just a yearly estimate is $6.2 billion dollars based on 1 million people applying (laughable 1 million, where did that estimate come from?). Last amnesty was closer to 3 million and emboldened more to come here illegally to reap the benefits, thru fraud, false documents, and other dubious means. Time to pull in the gangplank on these stowaways. This country better wake up to whom represents whom in our government. Its not about fairness, its about solvency and survival as a nation. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$heesh!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, and if our country is telling us now they can't pay for us Americans, then why would they say they can pay for soc. sec., ect. for illegal foreigners in our homeland trying to take us over?
This is about survival of our nation.
Do we want to be USA, first world and speak English or do we want to be Mexico, third world and speak Spanish?
That is why the only solution to the illegal dilemma is deportation...there is no other solution...
Complain about this comment
Re: quietoaktree:
You can still access Wikileaks by typing the following IP address into your search box:
213.251.145.96
There are also several http addresses, but they seem subject to change by the hour.
Complain about this comment
ref #152
Do you really want a legislature in which the only people running for election are those whose abilities would merit $50k or less in the private sector?
Heres a better idea:
Raise the salaries of members of the House to be roughly equivalent to what a mid-level partner earns at a major law firm.
Raise the salaries of members of the Senate to to roughly equivalent to what a senior partner earns at a major law firm.
Try setting the level of pay where it will be attractive to people of character, intelligence, experience, ability, and judgment.
_____________-
What makes you think the people there currently merit more than 50K based on their ability
Barney Frank responsible for the Fannie Mae crisis
Charlie Rangel just censored by the house
More senior partners at law firm earned some of their oney
What has Charlie Rangel done since honarably serving in the military done to deserve more than minimum wage?
Many unempoyed could do a better job than most of the current legislators in congress and they would take a 50K job in a second
Complain about this comment
Toothbrush man wrote:
Maybe, just possibly, the constitution needs to drag itself into the 21st century and adopt a more coherent immigration policy that recognises the realities of modern life.
--------------------------------------------------------
Or maybe the govt. needs to do its job for once and enforce the laws we have and people could stop crying about racism...
If our laws were enforced, illegals would all be deported, and if our border was secured, they could not sneak across the border.
(or under it- I hear that most come through underground tunnels nowadays.)
------------------------------------------------------------
pmk wrote:
Lucy, If you read British press reports and watch a BBS special on corruption in FIFA you'll understand the process which led to both of those decisions.
------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I heard they couldn't name one wrong thing about England or America's bids, except that they were too good of bids, so I guess we're just too good...
-----------------------------------------------------------
pmk wrote: Lucy, the decions makers probably figured that Chicago takes a seond place to Rio re corruption, and it's nowhere near in gang violence in its suburbs to Rio favelas.
------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, yeah...
I'de rather have Blago than ruthless gangs that take out Brazil's helicopters!
Can't believe Blago's on that pistachio commerical...I can't help but laugh when I see it. I don't think they are playing "Blago Superstar" anymore...or maybe they still are...Blago's like the energizer bunny, he keeps going...but he can never be our Gov. again...:)
---------------------------------------------------------------
JMM wrote:
Constitution of the US, 14th Amendment, Section 1. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Naturalized does not mean crossing the border illegally.
Naturalized means coming over to USA legally.
Why won't USA govt. enforce immigration laws we already have?
Complain about this comment
#151
No comment on the statistics I so painfully searched for and quoted? There is a subtle point to why I asked you if your proposed tax increases would make any difference.
"Refusing to cut taxes is apparently being equated to raising taxes. Wow."
The taxes are already cut. The bill making it's way through Congress now, and in the news lately, would allow the tax cuts to EXPIRE. At which point guess what happens? The taxes:
a) go up from the current level
b) remain the same as the current level
c) go down from the current level
or
d) I don't care as long as the gas tax goes up, in which case everyone gets taxed.
* You may choose more than one answer :)
Complain about this comment
The Bowles-Simpson Commission report on deficit reduction failed to achieve the support of fourteen of its eighteen members for formal adoption, and will not be sent to congress.
From most of the articles I've read on the report, I have the impression it would have contributed even further to our ongoing concentration of wealth, and, further, would have been administered by a Washington establishment seemingly unwilling to even allow the Bush tax cuts on those with incomes in excess of $250,000 to sunset.
I'm glad the report has failed, even though I agree we need, ultimately, to address our debt. We might be better off taking smaller steps which can be more fully documented, and a right/left coupling of sacrifice more fully demonstrated as we proceed.
Complain about this comment
Magic Kirin wrote: The Bush tax custs are reasonable and stimulate the economy.
------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but wouldn't decreasing our deficit also stimuluate the economy?
If President Obama and Congress lets Bush tax cuts expire, all that money will go to our deficit. Think about how much that would help America. The only time these tax cuts have existed is under Bush and Obama- if the rich were fine before Bush tax cuts, they'll be fine now.
And in all honesty, the most important part of the Bush tax cuts is not just rich people, but corporations. Corporations are not paying their fair share under Bush tax cuts. I'm not asking them to increase taxes on corporations- I am asking them to let Bush tax cuts expire and lets corporations help pay for America's debt fairly and squarly like we pay our fair share of taxes, myself included, just as they did before Bush became President and mucked up our economy.
I think we need to reverse whatever Bush has done and go back as much as possible to how Clinton managed our economy...
Complain about this comment
Magic Kirin wrote: What makes you think the people there currently merit more than 50K based on their ability
Barney Frank responsible for the Fannie Mae crisis
Charlie Rangel just censored by the house
Many unempoyed could do a better job than most of the current legislators in congress and they would take a 50K job in a second
-------------------------------------------------------
This is one of Magic Kirin's best ideas yet.
And it would likely bring out much better politicans- people who are truly for and represent the people they are supposed to...
Why are so much of Congress millionaires, while so many Americans are lucky if they reach $50,000?
Complain about this comment
http//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101203/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_bake_sales
An exerpt:
Don't touch my brownies! A child nutrition bill on its way to President Barack Obama — and championed by the first lady — gives the government power to limit school bake sales and other fundraisers that health advocates say sometimes replace wholesome meals in the lunchroom.
Republicans, notably Sarah Palin, and public school organizations decry the bill as an unnecessary intrusion on a common practice often used to raise money.
--------------------------------------------------------------
What's wrong with the Democrats?
I'm all for healthier lunches, but not taking away bake sales!
Now, if this isn't the strangest thing I've ever heard, I don't know what is! Bake sales are not just brownies- its pork burgers, chili, cheeseburgers, everything- the bake sales I have done helped me go to Florida Disney land for band trip, even! I've been going to bake sales and baking for bake sales since before I was born!
America loves bake sales!!!
Just because there are some that can't eat in moderation or have unhealthy genetics doesn't mean we all have to be punished for it...
Complain about this comment
#15
"If you don't like these suggestions, then what would you do instead? Keep spending money you don't have?
What do you propose instead?"
I don't presume to know. Nobel laureates in economics don't presume to know either. Which is why I didn't even venture a guess.
But instinctively, I would favor cuts rather than tax hikes. It's that stupid thing about living within one's means that is keeping me from seeing the wisdom of your proposal. I know it's a delusion but it's too deeply ingrained into my psyche. "Spend only what you got" is one of those romantic illusions I will take to my grave.
"[[Extremely low taxes for a western democracy. Unrealistically low for the level of spending expected by voters.]]"
Well, that doesn't mean much. The US is not too concerned with what other "western democracies" are doing or what the voters of those "western democracies" expect. The US government is concerned with the expectations of the US voter. The latest elections, is ample proof that the US voter's opinion matters the most, to the US government...:)
Complain about this comment
#154 Tinkersdamn
Thanks-
Keep posting changes --if you can !
--IOU
Complain about this comment
Washington's being 'slapped' with something else, too...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gays_in_military
An exerpt:
Bucking the Pentagon's top leaders, the chiefs of the Army and Marines urged Congress on Friday not to allow openly gay people to serve in the military, at least not while troops are at war in Afghanistan.
The top Air Force officer also opposed repeal now, recommending delay at least until 2012. Only the Navy's top officer signed up to Gates' assessment that the ban can be lifted without undue risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I stand united with the chiefs of the Army and Marines and Air Force...
Complain about this comment
quietoaktree,
Okay, then I think I misunderstood you in #141.
As for the Wikileaks being blocked, that’s exactly what we don’t want. Besides the whole free speech thing…the answer isn’t to block, and therefore continue to enable future leaks…which next time may contain something more damaging. The answer is to create better diplomatic communications and cyber curtains.
I haven’t had time to read posts about the gas prices. I can go with an increase. But my commute is super short. And it won’t raise commodity prices; they’ll just make smaller and smaller boxes. Maybe the cereal box will get so small, I can carry it in my bag to work, lay it on its side, cut an H in the back, and pour the milk in – eat it right out of the box. I can pretend I’m camping with my family in the ‘70s again. Of course, $3+ a morning for my cereal…I might have to cinch my belt a little more to keep up my savings/retirement, since I never counted on social security in the first place. As for government pension, I thought that stopped being a jackpot in the 1980s. I have a retired friend whose pension isn’t doing it. She’s looking for a job. She’s no one’s definition of rich.
I gotta run. Have a nice evening, everyone!
Complain about this comment
LJ wrote: I stand united with the chiefs of the Army and Marines and Air Force...
I also love the Navy just as much, I just mean I stand united with ARmy, Marines and Air Force on this particular issue...
Complain about this comment
#167 Grateful Marie
---an interesting ´give and take´ reply .
Complain about this comment
Grateful Marie wrote: As for the Wikileaks being blocked, that’s exactly what we don’t want. Besides the whole free speech thing…the answer isn’t to block, and therefore continue to enable future leaks…which next time may contain something more damaging. The answer is to create better diplomatic communications and cyber curtain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I think wikileaks should be absolutely blocked because it is posting USA's top secret govt. info. I also believe in freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean freedom to give confidential national security or govt. info to enemies- which is a breach of law and treason. Any websites that post USA secret govt. or national security info to our enemies should be blocked.
I think our diplomats have the right and freedom of speech to say whatever they want in private- cause' that's honesty and honesty is the best policy. I agree that we need better cyber curtain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Grateful Marie wrote: I haven’t had time to read posts about the gas prices. I can go with an increase. But my commute is super short.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
That's lucky. My job depends on gas prices. (Just like the old-school Drs. used to make house visits, certain professions do still make house visits if people are unable to get out.) I drive anywhere from 20 to 200 miles a day, get .42 per mile, but of course I am part time so it goes up and down. One week super busy, next week nothing. No health insurance, that's for sure. There aren't many full time jobs, so I am looking for another part-time job and if get that, am lucky. I guess if the gas prices skyrocketed I would just have to find another job... (even though its tough to find another now)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Complain about this comment
141. At 9:22pm on 03 Dec 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
“#140 grateful Marie
---I suppose it´s better than bread crumbs and fish bones.”
Oh, it Is better. “bread crumbs and fish bones” has a government ring to it. Whereas Mobile Loaves and Fishes is a true charity, privately-funded, by Catholics, Protestants, Jews, non-religious-affiliated, etc. (I.e., by individuals and groups in the community who care and who can.)
Complain about this comment
157. At 11:33pm on 03 Dec 2010, JClarkson wrote:
"No comment on the statistics I so painfully searched for and quoted? There is a subtle point to why I asked you if your proposed tax increases would make any difference."
__________
So, while you are willing to criticize, you aren't willing to say what you might actually support.
If you don't like what I am suggesting, what do you suggest instead?
Complain about this comment
164. At 11:56pm on 03 Dec 2010, JClarkson wrote:
"I don't presume to know. Nobel laureates in economics don't presume to know either. Which is why I didn't even venture a guess."
[[You "don't presume to know", but nonetheless feel free to criticize?
[["Nobel laureates in economics don't presume to know either."
I'm not sure that's true, but even if it were, what of it? 435 Representatives, no Nobel laureates among them, yet they're going to decide. I quite certain that a number of people who post here have a far better grasp of economics than most of those elected representatives, yet that isn't going to stop those elected representatives from voting. Same thing in the Senate.]]
"But instinctively, I would favor cuts rather than tax hikes. It's that stupid thing about living within one's means that is keeping me from seeing the wisdom of your proposal. I know it's a delusion but it's too deeply ingrained into my psyche. "Spend only what you got" is one of those romantic illusions I will take to my grave."
[[Well, my books have been balanced or in surplus since I was 4 years old, I have never run a deficit, I don't carry debt, and largely don't use credit. But my own personal financial habits are irrelevant to the current problem. Regrettably governments run by Republicans, that spend money like water and rely on borrowing from their children and grandchildren, don't seem to understand that, either. At least Democrats raise taxes on the same generation that is doing the spending.
We are where we are.
Nobody favours tax hikes, so your comment isn't much help. What do you propose to cut to come up with $ 1.3T of savings per year? Still no answer.
"[[Extremely low taxes for a western democracy. Unrealistically low for the level of spending expected by voters.]]"
Well, that doesn't mean much. The US is not too concerned with what other "western democracies" are doing or what the voters of those "western democracies" expect. The US government is concerned with the expectations of the US voter. The latest elections, is ample proof that the US voter's opinion matters the most, to the US government...:)
[[I wasn't talking about the expectations of voters other than American voters. There is a huge disconnect between Americans' expectations of public spending, and what American voters think they should pay in taxes. This shell game has been going on for a long time, and it is fueled by denial.]]
Complain about this comment
#173
"You "don't presume to know", but nonetheless feel free to criticize?"
Yep.I don't know what could make pigs fly, but I feel free to criticize theories suggesting that simply grafting wings onto pigs would accomplish that feat. :)
"At least Democrats raise taxes on the same generation that is doing the spending."
Every generation requires spending. It's hard to raise taxes on previous generations but it is entirely possible to raise taxes on future generations. Once a tax is raised, it seldom goes away. The taxes raised by either party are taxes on the current generation AND on future generations, unless repealed. Which seldom happens. I do admire your consistency though, pro taxes and pro-Democrat. The terms are traditionally interchangeable...:)
"There is a huge disconnect between Americans' expectations of public spending, and what American voters think they should pay in taxes."
Let me slightly rephrase your statement.
- There is a huge disconnect between SOME Americans' expectations of public spending (Democrats), and what SOME American voters (Republicans and/or Tea Partiers) think that they should pay in taxes -
Couldn't have said it better myself ...:)
Complain about this comment
Re #121
IF: I think we agree at some points re anti-terrorism campaign.
Couple of points, though, if I may.
1.Terrorists just like any guerillas cannot ever be completely defeated.
[cf. Basques,for example, Or some factions of IRA]. However
2. Their effectiveness can be greatly limited by cutting off their arms/ explosives' supplies ( from Iran e.g., in case of Taliban and al-Qaida), and decapitating their leadership. For which
3. An actionable intel is essential. In addition to SpecOps. To boot:
4. Commandos and UAVs (Predators, etc.) are only as useful as actionable intelligence their operations are based upon.
5. If such an intelligence is corrent and specific assets are precisely hit by small commandos - so called "collateral damage", i.e. losses among civilian population would greatly diminish.
Which in turn would increase such a populus' support for terrorists' opponents.
BTW. I think that reports about a growing number of village chiefs and Afghan tribal chieftains organizing outfits to fight Taliban directly in their local areas are encouraging.
P.S. NORAD should remain (unlike NATO). US and Canada have a common air space and America can hardly protect its airspace without protecting that of Canada's as well.
[Somebody would have to draw me a map of air&space over N. America showing that we can effectively protect our AMD assets in Alaska and our ICBM fields in Montana and Wyoming withouth protecting Yukon and other Canadian Northern Territories too.]
Complain about this comment
quietoaktree wrote:
PANIC !
Wikileaks is also under attack--Worldwide !
Do not panic!
Scotland Yard still "cannot find" Mr. Assange in UK, thus being unable to hand him an Interpol's International Warrant. Let alone arrest him.
So not all is lost. :-)
Complain about this comment
quietoaktree: "A friend in Germany has just informed me that his T-online provider does NOT allow connection to Wikileaks !
Our computers appear to be under control of Google, Microsoft, Apple and the American government.
I protest STRONGLY !"
Relax. It's much more likely that your computers are controlled by Oleg Nikolayenko and have become a part of his 500,000 PC strong botnet. :-)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11917471
Complain about this comment
Re #118 "Actually, the Constitution of the United States is silent on the subject of what the requirements for becoming a citizen are but Article 1, section 8, gives Congress the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".
In other words, the requirements for becoming a cittizen are set by Federal statute and can be amended anytime Congress chooses to do so.
Perhaps you should drag yourself to a bookshop and read it before you start taking pot shots at it."
Scott, you're correct.
Let me point out that there are numerous corroborated reports of US Border Patrol officers about 'wetbacks' (i.e. those who sneak into US by wading across Rio Grande) pushing their wives, already in labor, on an American shore, so that their children would be born in America thus automatically becoming US citizens.
Their assumption (reinforced be relevant antecedents) being that for purely humanitarian reasons those infants' mothers would not be send by US authorities back to Mexico, and that with time their wives could make a succesful effort to bring their husbands (and later brothers, sisters and in-laws) to USA as well.
And it's absolutely true, that U.S. Congress could change the current Rule of Naturalisation, if under sufficient pressure of facts on the ground.
Just as it can change visa and Green Card requirements anytime it wants.
Complain about this comment
ukwales,
I am truly glad you're still among us; I was really worried after hearing and watching reports about a terrible havock that this awfull man-made global warming has been causing in your parts.
As a matter of fact I am so pleased that I am not even going raise an issue of RR jet engines' failures and limit myself to expressing an admiration for Australian Qantas pilots of badly affected A-380s. :)
Complain about this comment
quietoaktree wrote:
Now we have true globalization--
An American-Chinese- European FIREWALL against wikileaks !!!
In my book if you have severe leaks you call plumbers to stop them.
Can't say much about the Chinese, but I know that the Russian government is "not amused" by those "revelations".
[Even the Swiss aren't]
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re #155 MK What makes you think the people there currently merit more than 50K based on their ability
Barney Frank responsible for the Fannie Mae crisis
Charlie Rangel just censored by the house
More senior partners at law firm earned some of their money.
Antecedents show that people of real means very rarely (if ever) embezzle/steal people's money after joining U.S. government.
[most of them take a significant pay cut when they decide to serve rather than continue in a private sector]
It's mostly those for whom positions in U.S. Congress mean social nobilitation and a financial status' improvement who embezzle, avoid taxes and hide their ill-gotten money in their fridges.
Complain about this comment
GratefulMarie :“bread crumbs and fish bones” has a government ring to it."
Once, when it Wiltshire I asked in a local inn for fish&chips but was warned by an English friend that in UK fish&chips doesn't mean exactly the same as in America.
I then opted for Spotted Dick. Despite a ring of it :)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Something funny for a change:
On its site Wikileaks claims:
"We provide an innovative secure and anonymous way to leak information.."
Here's wondering what Private Bradley Manning thinks now about that assurance.
Complain about this comment
JClarkson, (#157. At 11:33pm on 03 Dec 2010)
“#151
No comment on the statistics I so painfully searched for and quoted? There is a subtle point to why I asked you if your proposed tax increases would make any difference ...”
I think you will find that certain posters refuse to respond to posts that show their positions to be untenable. That does, alas, not prevent them from repeating their opinions that they are correct.
Complain about this comment
fernando sancho, (#91. At 12:48pm on 03 Dec 2010)
“... Chryses if you got full disclosure of the wealthy (often called rich basta'ds 's) off shore Accounts and identified all Assets and Monies in and out of US Jurisdiction (i.e. in tax avoidance schemes) and run those numbers through some glorified Tax Reporting System with all Client, Address details and Country of Residency accurately identified you would have enough*.
(*) Provided you change the list of eligible countries for US tax laws”
So, as best as I can tell from the above, if one changed the numbers, one would get different results. A bit of a tautology, but one to which you are entitled.
Can you provide any substantiation for your claim, or will it join all the other unsubstantiated claims that are made by some to these threads?
Complain about this comment
re 181. At 08:47am on 04 Dec 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
re 118. At 5:22pm on 03 Dec 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
re. #88. At 11:35am on 03 Dec 2010, The Toothbrush Man wrote:
re 82. At 05:36am on 03 Dec 2010, USSilentMajority wrote:
Just to be clear, section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution states that anyone born in the United States is a citizen of the United States. Changing that would require a constitutional amendnent. Laws governing immigration and naturalization, on the other hand, are written by congress and can be changed by congress.
Complain about this comment
John_From_Dublin, (#95. At 1:04pm on 03 Dec 2010)
“... I did not take ECB to be saying that the super rich should be taxed instead of the rest of us, but rather that they should be taxed as well as the rest of us ...”
If your interpretation is true, I’m sure you would hold the legislature responsible for passing the legislation “the super rich” are using to avoid taxes, not “the super rich” for wishing to retain as much of their wealth as possible, for that is true for all of us. If all people did not wish to retain as much of their wealth as possible, there would be no need of sanctions for failing to pay taxes, would there?
“... I don’t know whether his claims about their paying derisory amounts of tax are true, but I have certainly seen stories in the media to that effect, including in the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times.”
Such stories are not uncommon. I suspect that by documenting that there are those who exploit the tax system, they are popular. Whether they illuminate a general condition, as excellentcatblogger believes, is a different matter. The plural of anecdote is not data.
Complain about this comment
182. At 09:00am on 04 Dec 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
ukwales,
I am truly glad you're still among us; I was really worried after hearing and watching reports about a terrible havock that this awfull man-made global warming has been causing in your parts.
---
Thanks for your concern,I can categorically reassure every one that
my parts are well insulated & there is no need to worry :)..
----------------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of fact I am so pleased that I am not even going raise an issue of RR jet engines' failures and limit myself to expressing an admiration for Australian Qantas pilots of badly affected A-380s. :)
----
This alas is a cause for concern,I do not know if they know the reason,
why that engine let go.No doubt their people are working on it as we speak :( ..
Complain about this comment
BK wrote: "If the U.S. government just did it's Constitutional job and nothing more, there would be a much deeper cut than a 10 percent pay freeze over 2 years, or 200,000 positions."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly true. Violations of the Constitution at the Fed level are at the heart of the econ mess. Unless those are reversed, there is ZERO chance of fixing the econ, long term.
Complain about this comment
JMM wrote:Constitution of the US, 14th Amendment, Section 1. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."
This is pretty clear. It would require a constitutional amendment not an act of congress to change it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, I can see that you never studied constitutional law.
ACTUALLY, it doesn't state that all born here are automatically citizens. Otherwise, an ambassador of a foreign country who's child was born in the U.S. would be a U.S. citizen. And, they aren't. There is a reason for that as listed in the 14th. THAT is the legal point on which this argument hinges. Congress could write a law within this and have it pass muster. Study before you make sweeping pronouncements that are in fact, quite incorrect.
Complain about this comment
fernando sancho, (#194. At 12:41pm on 04 Dec 2010)
"... I designed and built the tax reporting system for the Biggest Asset Transfer Agency in the world to produce the Investment Banks Statutory Tax Reporting and performed their Clients Tax Returns ..."
Good for you.
"... As the subject matter expert representing the bank in the banking industry working practice group I was involved in implementing all the necessary market changes while the rules were still being decided and announced ..."
I'm sure that is true.
"... I obviously had access to all the sensitive Client Data, Transactional data as well as Market Information and was intimate with the tax regulations in order to design and build the system ..."
I'm sure you did.
"... The investment bank and the bank's clients (who were other big investment banks, hedge funds, pension funds, fund managers etc) had the richest clients you could imagine ..."
I'm sure they are.
"... Funnily most of the world's money is kept in offshore deposits out of jurisdiction, I could tell you names and clients addresses and all eligible transactions if it was required by law."
I'm sure it is, and I'm sure you could.
... and?
Complain about this comment
re 196 Illogicbuster:
But that is what it says. All persons born or naturalized in the United States .... Jmm quoted it correctly.
So, what is the subtle constitutional point you are making? Section 5? Not clear how that would allow congress to rewrite the amendment to say something different than it says, only to enforce its provisions.
Can you identify the reason you refer to in the fourteenth amemdment? Or make you point clearer?
Complain about this comment
d_m wrote: "But that is what it says."
-----------------------------------------
That is only PART of what it says. Question (that was already pointed out but for some reason you didn't read) why is someone who is born in the US NOT an automatic citizen under current Fed law? You DID you know that not all born in the US are given citizenship, didn't you?
Complain about this comment
fernando sancho, (#200. At 1:38pm on 04 Dec 2010),
“Chryses, ‘..and’
The point is you were talking out of your backside and need to re-read your claims stated (as they were were incorrect) and revert, you act like you know when you really don't know.”
Ah, yet another non-responsive post. I have already learned to not expect too much. Still, it would have been nice. Perhaps next time.
Complain about this comment
re 201 Illogicbuster:
How obtuse do you intend to be? I asked for an explanation. I don't claim to be a constitutional expert. I don't see where the amendment as written supports your comment. That's why I asked if you could clarify what you said. I assume you can explain your comment, unless, of course, you are just being coy.
Complain about this comment
fernando sancho, (#200. At 1:38pm on 04 Dec 2010)
"... The point is you were talking out of your backside ..."
I trust you can provide some evidence to substantiate this claim?
"... and need to re-read your claims stated ..."
And those claims would be?
"... (as they were were incorrect) ... "
I trust you can provide some evidence to substantiate this claim?
"...and revert ..."
To what?
"... , you act like you know when you really don't know."
I trust you can provide some evidence to substantiate this claim?
Complain about this comment
176. At 04:54am on 04 Dec 2010, JClarkson wrote:
There is a huge disconnect between SOME Americans' expectations of public spending (Democrats), and what SOME American voters (Republicans and/or Tea Partiers) think that they should pay in taxes -
===
If you'll look at the actual record, I think you'll find that Republicans are every bit as enthusiastic about spending public money as Democrats. True, the Republicans favor a different set of programs (wars over public health, for example), but they are no less happy to spend.
Thus the ideological difference comes down to this: Democrats are tax-and-spend where Republicans are borrow-and-spend.
Hence, rhetoric aside, the real difference between Democrats and Republicans is simply that Democrats will raise taxes to pay for their spending, and Republicans won't.
And the economic result is simple: The people -don't- pay interest on the Democrat's approach. They -do- end up paying interest on the Republican approach.
Read My Lips: the Republicans that struggled to keep TWO unnecessary wars "off books" for six long years are in no position to preach fiscal responsibility to anybody.
Complain about this comment
"Just to be clear, section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution states that anyone born in the United States is a citizen of the United States."
Correct and incorrect: children of US citizens born ABROAD - regardless whether their parents have been serving in the military, State Department posts or what have you - are also American citizens.
Complain about this comment
ukwales: "This alas is a cause for concern,I do not know if they know the reason,why that engine let go"
Rolls Royce claims - without reveling any specifics - that a faulty part/maunfacturing process has resulted in Trent 900 turbines not being sufficiantly lubricated resulting in seizing/fires/fans 'desintegration.
If anybody's concerned - all major airlines reveal whether their A-380s are powered by RR Trent 900s or by Engine Alliance [(50-50 GE-Pratt&Whitney American partnership] GP 7000s.
[I think Lufthansa has the latter ones]
Complain about this comment
fernando sancho, (#197. At 1:07pm on 04 Dec 2010)
"@ Chryses
I tend not to engage with you because I think you are a bit of a jerk ..."
I'm sure you do. You are entitled to your opinion.
"... could you clarify your position about running numbers through a spreadsheet for the rich and it not making a significant difference to the budget deficit ..."
Certainly. I did not make such a claim. If you take the time to read my post #89, you'll read that I wrote "If you run the numbers through a spreadsheet, the group often referred to as wealthy can not provide the revenue needed for government expenditure."
What was it in that sentence which you feel should be read as "it not making a significant difference to the budget deficit"?
"... [ You also contradicted you own wisdom by saying running different numbers will get different results and it doesn't prove anything and used a very big impressive word ]..."
I believe that you are mistaken. With the spreadsheets I work with, if one changes the numbers, the results of the equations in the spreadsheet change. Isn't that what happens in the spreadsheets you work with?
"... Anyway in order to prove you are no hypocrite can you substantiate your claim with the appropriate Client Lists, Cash Holdings, Asset Holdings, Asset Types and list of rules you used to identify the applicable clients, transactions and assets eligible for Tax, in relation to existing Income Tax Laws."
Certainly. Now, the request for personally identifying information is a Red Herring (shame, shame), as it is not legally available. Prof, Saez uses statistics from the U.S. SSA, which are a satisfactory proxy. Still, one might respond to your question by showing what proportion of income is earned by the rich (broadly defined) if this wealth might reasonably be used as an alternative to the current primary source of income tax. Finally, we might reflect upon that in relation to those unfortunate souls who enjoy complaining about those who have more than they.
Permit me to refer to Emmanuel Saez's (http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/econ/faculty/saez_e.shtml) compilation of income tax statistics. (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/TabFig2007.xls) His data are for 2007. I shall extrapolate them to 2009. The richest 0.5 percent of families all earned more than $632,000, and received 19.3 percent of all income. Alternatively, we can focus on the richest 0.1 percent of families-who all earned more than $2 million, and collectively earned an average income of $7.1 million. This tiny portion of the community-the people who, simply by being rich, upset some people-received 12.3 percent of all income.
I think it reasonable to add the "super rich" into the group of "regular old rich" and examine this larger group. Even Republicans would (most Republicans anyway) agree that an income in excess of $600,000 p.a. qualifies the individual as rich, or wealthy if you prefer.
Let us assume, for the sake of brevity, that a tax of 100% is levied on members of this group. Therefore, in an instant, 20% of the GDP is transferred to the State. I'll use 20% to ensure that we catch all the rich, and perhaps income inequities have broadened over the last few years.
So, the 2009 U.S. GDP was 14,119,050,000,000. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal))
20% of that is 2,823,810,000,000. That's a lot of money.
In 2008 the Federal debt was $9,986,000,000,000. In 2009 the Federal debt was $11,876,000,000,000. (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/#usgs302a [select the "Federal" tab]) So loosely, the 2009 deficit was the difference, $1,890,000,000,000
So, if all of the wealth of the "rich" were confiscated, it would fail to pay for two years of the U.S. Federal deficit. It follows then that "taxing the rich" - even to the point of expropriation - is insufficient to finance the U.S. Federal expenditures.
I trust this satisfies your request, and why I am not mistaken, and why I need not 'revert'.
Complain about this comment
d_m wrote: "How obtuse do you intend to be? I asked for an explanation. I don't claim to be a constitutional expert. I don't see where the amendment as written supports your comment. "
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since you haven't read AND understood the ENTIRE sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ..."
THAT is how congress has been able to constitutionally EXCLUDE people from citizenship who are born on U.S. soil... I could tell when you posted an incomplete quote from the amendment that you didn't actually understand what the meaning was.
Complain about this comment
Chryses wrote: "And the economic result is simple: The people -don't- pay interest on the Democrat's approach. They -do- end up paying interest on the Republican approach."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PATENTLY false. Dems passed law in '68 allowing them to suck the SS fund dry. Those TRILLIONS (off the books) have to be paid back with HUGE interest. Also, the US Gov debt (interest NOT included) was trillions when Bush was elected. Any other delusions you'd like to share?
Complain about this comment
206. At 3:07pm on 04 Dec 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"Just to be clear, section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution states that anyone born in the United States is a citizen of the United States."
"Correct and incorrect: children of US citizens born ABROAD - regardless whether their parents have been serving in the military, State Department posts or what have you - are also American citizens."
Just to throw another "wrench in the works", Section 1 states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." And there is a legal argument as to the meaning of "Jurisdiction" in that the US does not have full legal jurisdiction over foreign nationals.
Section 5 of the Amendment states that "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Which does seem to me that Congress does have the power to change the rules on birth right citizenship without a Constitution Amendment, it just doesn't have the testicular fortitude to do it.
Complain about this comment
Illogicbuster, (#210. At 3:32pm on 04 Dec 2010)
"Chryses wrote: "And the economic result is simple: The people -don't- pay interest on the Democrat's approach. They -do- end up paying interest on the Republican approach."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PATENTLY false. Dems passed law in '68 allowing them to suck the SS fund dry. Those TRILLIONS (off the books) have to be paid back with HUGE interest. Also, the US Gov debt (interest NOT included) was trillions when Bush was elected. Any other delusions you'd like to share?"
No, I did not. To what post are you referring?
Complain about this comment
Re #209
If memory serves, when being naturalized you pledge allegiance to the United States.
People who have a problem with that can remain legal residents, having all the same rights (including right to seek and obtain a gainful employment) as U.S. citizens with an exception of being able to vote or to run for an office.
[pledging "to protect and defend against all enemies, foreign AND domestic" is required in different circumstances. :-)]
Complain about this comment
andyparsonsga wrote: "Section 5 of the Amendment states that "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Which does seem to me that Congress does have the power to change the rules on birth right citizenship without a Constitution Amendment,"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congress HAS and can do for illegals born here:
http://www.uscis.gov
"Green Card for a Person Born in the United States to a Foreign Diplomat
A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of United States law. Therefore, that person cannot be considered a U.S. citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution."
Sorry to break it those who are arguing something that has already been decided. YES, congress, UNDOUBTEDLY, can determine who is NOT subject to jurisdiction, by statute.
Complain about this comment
Re #210
"PATENTLY false. Dems passed law in '68 allowing them to suck the SS fund dry. Those TRILLIONS (off the books) have to be paid back with HUGE interest."
When G.W. Bush tried to to prevent SS insolvency by privitizing it -Dems vehemently objected.
When he then proposed to PARTIALLY privitize it on a VOLUNTARY basis - Democrats in Congress have refused to debate it, let alone vote on it.
[No the problem has not gone away under Obama Administration: it just got worse]
Complain about this comment
Re #211 anyparsonga:
Section 5 of the Amendment states that "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Which does seem to me that Congress does have the power to change the rules on birth right citizenship without a Constitution Amendment, it just doesn't have the testicular fortitude to do it.
Compare it to a situation in Germany where children of Turkish Gastarbeiters are not entitled to German citizenship despite being born in its territory and never knowing another country.
But where native Poles can be granted German citizenship ASAP as long as they can significantly improve a performance of German NATIONAL Fussball team [cf. Lukasz Podolski, Miroslav Klose, etc.. :-)))]
Complain about this comment
209. At 3:28pm on 04 Dec 2010, Illogicbuster wrote:
Gee, aren't you wonderful. You may be right, I don't know. You may be smart, but I don't really know that either. But, I sure as hell know you're arrogant.
Complain about this comment
To those who inquired earlier why Gavin Hewitt's "German Dilemma" thread has been closed after merely 24 posts...
I don't think German dilemma ((bailing out practically most of other eurozone members or getting out to avoid bankruptcy) could be solved even by a thousand posts.
Complain about this comment
"Announcing the first state of alert since the end of military rule in 1975 [in SPAIN], Deputy Prime Minister Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba said the air traffic controllers were trying to protect "unacceptable privileges".
The army was called in to take charge of the country's airspace on Friday, but they do not have the training to direct air traffic."
Compare it with a similar situation in the United States, when after a similar strike by PATCO members, Ronald Reagan summarily fired all of them and brought in military air traffic controllers.
There was not even a single similar paralysis in the U.S. since.
[They don't make U.S. presidents how they used to. :(]
Complain about this comment
d_m wrote: "You may be right, I don't know."
----------------------------------------------
Then, you obviously didn't read the gov regulations I posted or, you wouldn't still be questioning whether or not the US can limit citizenship to those who are born here... It is both de facto & de jure
Complain about this comment
211: "Section 5 of the Amendment states that "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Which does seem to me that Congress does have the power to change the rules on birth right citizenship without a Constitution Amendment, it just doesn't have the testicular fortitude to do it."
You are also correct but not correct. The congress CAN fiddle with the definition of persons not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." But how can you get around the clear statement "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" without an amendment, and do so definitively and without fear of being overruled, overturned or overheated?
For people who are challenged as to grammar:
I saw Bill in the corridor yesterday.
and
Yesterday, I saw Bill in the corridor.
Both do have the same information but are not semantically equivalent. Moving the time clause [or any other clause such as "It being necessary..."] to first position in a sentence implies emphasis. In this case Yesterday is emphasized to preclude other days.
In the Oval Office, Bill was alone with Monica [means NOT in the Lincoln bedroom or elsewhere] thus is not the same as Bill was alone with Monica in all places. I understand that the reason is not always linguistic misunderstanding. It is deliberately ignoring the facts that one does not wish to exist and forcing reality to fit one's talking points which are often presented by ignorant or perverse persons on FOX.
Such for example, as people thinking they can overrule the Constitution by fiat [because the change is what THEY want] who insist that others are wrongfully trying to do the same. Some think that certain rulings by the supreme court [such as the 2nd Amendment decision] are just and can never be revisited [because THEY like them]. They should look up the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, and Plessy v. Ferguson [1896], overruled by Brown vs. the Board of Education [1954].
Mistakes can be rectified either by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or by the people. However, the Constitution is what is written unless a subsequent amendment changes it. To be perfectly honest, however, the 2nd Amendment redefinition by [conservative] judicial activists is an example of what has happened from time to time. and will probably continue to happen. As long as the words remain, there is hope that misconstruction can eventually be rectified.
Complain about this comment
JMM wrote: "But how can you get around the clear statement "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" without an amendment, and do so definitively and without fear of being overruled, overturned or overheated?"
The way it has been done since the 14th passed and has NEVER been successfully challenged.
Complain about this comment
215. At 3:53pm on 04 Dec 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
Re #210
"PATENTLY false. Dems passed law in '68 allowing them to suck the SS fund dry. Those TRILLIONS (off the books) have to be paid back with HUGE interest."
This is true and a disgrace that the GOP has been happy to keep and expand upon.
"When G.W. Bush tried to to prevent SS insolvency by privitizing it -Dems vehemently objected."
So did I, and I have NEVER been a Democrat Party member or unconditional supporter. Who do you thing the Bush administration would have entrusted the funds to: their friends at Enron, their friends at Haliburton, their friends at the Federal Reserve? Perhaps the stock market and/or the banks that did such a great job with the economy recently? You might have been happy with that in theory and at the time, but I doubt you would be happy about it now.
If President Obama suggested privatizing it now and giving it to the Fed or the banks your screams of outrage would be heard from New Jersey to New Mexico [as would mine, in fact].
I think the social program funds should be set up in a lock box, behind a firewall, under non-political protection from the thieves in D.C. Had this been the case we would have a much smaller problem now. There are some non-thieving, non-lying, non-pusilanimous people in the capitol building [GOP and DEM], but they are a small minority in both parties. The others should be tarred, feathered and ridden out of town on a rail, ASAP.
I would be happy for the TEA Party, if I didn't have strong and well grounded suspicions that many of them are too close to those I would like to see riding the rails out of town.
Complain about this comment
"And the economic result is simple: The people -don't- pay interest on the Democrat's approach. They -do- end up paying interest on the Republican approach."
True. However, loans must be paid back (with interest) and then they are over. Taxes linger on for eternity because subsequent Congresses and administrations find other uses for the money the taxes raise, once and if the original justification for the the tax increase becomes superfluous. I believe I mentioned that.
Taxes are for life, not just the life of the generation that puts them into place but also for the life of future generations. Loans have set "pay by...." due dates.
Complain about this comment
Forgive me if I feel distinctly challenged trusting in the sincerity of the men who caused the problem in the first place as they claim for themselves the mantle of most-qualified to lead in its repair.
Another example of Mr Obama's appointments eliciting wonderment rather than praise.
Charming though Senator Simpson might be, the highlights cited by the Miami-Herald reflect more of the same... "tax reform" geared to protect & shelter the affluent & super-affluent at the expense of the "middle" class (rapidly sliding into the abyss of insurmountable debt)...
There are ways to reduce the US deficit, and one of them has to be reducing payments to the people whose poor judgement drove the economy off the cliff. If the US adopted a policy of paying its legislators and executive branch the median salary of an American wage-earner, I suspect that income would rise sharply, because they would feel motivated to make it happen.
As it is, they are no more motivated to help those living less lavish lives than were the great aristocratic families of the past in France or Russia before their ill-tended public gardens finally got torched by the neglected multitudes. Sounds unpleasant? Of course, and I would much rather it had not happened elsewhere, and never were to happen anywhere else ever again, but the fact is that being asleep on the job when one actually has the power to influence what happens in one's own economic system does tend rather to end up hurting.
Really, I promise you: the people presiding over the repairs should come from an altogether different milieu, and ought to have credentials managing shoestring budgets efficiently, rather than sloppily. None of the actually competent experts has yet been summoned to do the job.
Complain about this comment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
An exerpt:
according to the Census Bureau's estimation for 2005, 45% of American children under the age of 5 belonged to minority groups.
Almost 97% of residents of the 10 largest American cities in 1900 were non-Hispanic whites. In 2006, non-Hispanic whites were the minority in thirty-five of the fifty largest cities.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The more illegals who come to America, the more it feels like our country is dying on the inside...
Complain about this comment
Just look at California- a future sign of things to come.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California
An exerpt:
California lacks a majority ethnic group and is considered a minority-majority state, with non-Hispanic whites making up 42.3% of the population. Spanish is the state's second most spoken language, especially in the Los Angeles metropolitan area and the US-Mexico border counties of San Diego and Imperial. Nearly 43% of California residents speak a language other than English at home, a proportion far higher than any other state, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Demographers have speculated that California will have a Hispanic majority by the year 2020, due to large-scale immigration and the fact that birth rates of Hispanic immigrants are higher than non-Hispanic groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The only solace I can find in such is Jim Morrison and the Doors line...
"This is the end...my one and only friend, the end."
And it is. The rise of illegal immigration will bring about the end of America.
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_American
An exerpt:
In the United States, in states where Mexican Americans make up a large percentage of the population, such as California and Texas, illegal as well as legal immigrants from Mexico and Central America in addition to Mexican Americans combined often make up a large majority of workers in many blue-collar occupations: the majority of the employed men are restaurant workers, janitors, truck drivers, gardeners, construction laborers, material moving workers, or perform other types of manual or other blue collar labor (Source, U.S. Census Bureau, American community survey data).
------------------------------------------------------------
Some say the illegals are only doing jobs that Americans don't want- but this is clearly not true if they are taking away blue-collar jobs, which are America's middle class bread and butter...
Complain about this comment
http://www.calnews.com/archives/contreras164.htm
An exerpt:
"Gochez: We are the nation of Aztlan.
O'Reilly: All right, that's good, you are the nation of Aztlan. That's great. Do you want your own territory? Do you want them to give you some land?
Gochez: We understand that we are sitting on stolen land. This is indigenous land. This is native land, you know, Mexicano land.
O'Reilly: So if I gave you Arizona would you be happy with that?
Gochez: They took a lot more than Arizona.
O'Reilly: So you want more than that."
Complain about this comment
re 220. At 4:27pm on 04 Dec 2010, Illogicbuster wrote:
d_m wrote: "You may be right, I don't know."
----------------------------------------------
Then, you obviously didn't read the gov regulations I posted or, you wouldn't still be questioning whether or not the US can limit citizenship to those who are born here... It is both de facto & de jure
--------
What government regulations did you post, and where? So far, I've only found a link to the homepage of the Customs and Immigrations Service website. So, I'll concede the website exists. But that doesn't constitute proof of your assertion.
Fact is, I'm not saying you are not correct, or arguing that I am. As I said, I don't know. But I'm also not prepared to believe you just because you say it's true. And certainly not based on the "proof' I've seen so far. Perhaps I missed the post you are alluding to, in which case maybe you would tell me where you posted it.
Complain about this comment
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20101202/pl_ac/7326044_financial_implications_of_the_dream_act_and_undocumented_workers_1
An exerpt:
Adding insult to injury, just like less-educated American workers are crowded out due to immigration, so-so students may be crowded out by foreign-born students with a higher GPA. Even good American-born students may have to go to school out-of-state -- and pay the higher tuition fee -- simply because there is insufficient room in the in-state classroom.
----------------------------------------------------------------
So obviously the DREAM act would negatively affect Americans...and in this instance, it should not be called DREAM act, but it should be called the DREAM-DESTROYER act...
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101118/us_yblog_thelookout/california-decision-on-illegal-immigrants-may-influence-other-states
An exerpt:
The California Supreme Court this week unanimously upheld a state law that grants in-state tuition regardless of immigration status. Could their decision send a message to anti-illegal-immigration groups who have brought challenges to similar state laws around the country?
Ten states — California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Washington — passed laws allowing illegal immigrants to qualify for in-state tuition if they've attended high school in state for at least three years. In two of those states, illegal immigrants are also eligible for state financial aid.
-------------------------------------------------
So let me get this right: if a person is an illegal immigrant, they can qualify for in-state tuition, but if a person is a legal citizen from another state, they cannot qualify for in-state tuition?
And not only that, illegals can legally take away financial aid from legal Americans who are suffering from hardships?
And now Obama Admin. and Dems want to give citizenship to illegals who attended our colleges, including some who get in-state tuition and financial aid from American taxpayers?
(So Americans are basically paying for illegals to get citizenship?)
My personal belief is that illegal immigration is the greatest threat to America's future...
Complain about this comment
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101118/us_yblog_thelookout/california-decision-on-illegal-immigrants-may-influence-other-states
An exerpt:
A federal law passed in 1996 said states could not provide "a postsecondary education benefit to an alien not lawfully present unless any citizen or national is eligible for such benefit.
The DREAM Act, which Sen. Harry Reid says he will bring to a vote after Thanksgiving, would repeal the language from the 1996 federal law altogether, letting states disregard immigration status in higher-ed decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------
But wait! There is hope that we can save America from the illegal foreign invasion and that America can come out tougher, stronger, better!!!!!!!!!!!!
The hope is Steve King!!!!!!!!!:)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20101129/ts_dailybeast/11160_stevekingtherepublicanpartysimmigrationwarrior_1
An exerpt:
If the GOP votes as expected this month, Steve King will be in charge of immigration legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. For proof that a meteor hit D.C. on November 2, listen to the ideas running through the head of the likely next chair of the immigration subcommittee. King has called for an electrified fence along the border. He wants to interpret the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to deny birthright citizenship for immigrants who have children here. He has dubbed illegal immigration not just a “slow-motion terrorist attack” but a “slow-motion holocaust.” “The line of scrimmage has moved closer to our goal line,” King tells me, “and you’ve got a different team calling the plays.” What gives liberals tremors is not just that Barack Obama’s immigration agenda is dead. It’s that King’s swaggering personality will dominate the debate for years.
Complain about this comment
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20101123/pl_usnw/DC06530_1
An exerpt:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 23, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- New Census Bureau data collected in March of this year show that 13.1 million immigrants (legal and illegal) arrived in the previous 10 years, even though there was a net decline of 1 million jobs during the decade. In contrast, during the 1990s job growth was 21 million, and 12.1 million new immigrants arrived. Despite fundamentally different economic conditions, the level of immigration was similar for both ten-year periods.
In 2008 and 2009, 2.4 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) settled in the United States, even though 8.2 million jobs were lost over the same period.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly they keep coming, regardless of economy...so why are they coming if its not for jobs?
Another exerpt from web article listed above has answer:
Such factors as the desire to be with relatives, political freedom, lower levels of official corruption, and the generosity of American taxpayer-funded public services are all among the reasons people come to the United States. These things do not change during a recession or even during a prolonged period of relatively weak economic growth, like the decade just completed.
Unlike in past decennial censuses, the 2010 census, which will be released shortly, has no immigration questions. Thus it will provide no information about the nation's immigrant population.
Complain about this comment
JMM, (#221. At 4:34pm on 04 Dec 2010)
”... Mistakes can be rectified either by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or by the people. However, the Constitution is what is written unless a subsequent amendment changes it. To be perfectly honest, however, the 2nd Amendment redefinition by [conservative] judicial activists is an example of what has happened from time to time. and will probably continue to happen. As long as the words remain, there is hope that misconstruction can eventually be rectified.”
A Supreme Court ruling is, pending a constitutional amendment, a definitive legal interpretation of legislation within the context of the U.S. Constitution. As an alternative to defining rulings one dislikes as a mistake, one might refer to different courts (the same court, but composed of differing justices) offering different interpretations of the same document. This approach has the benefits of avoiding the normative opinion of the commentator.
Complain about this comment
205. At 2:56pm on 04 Dec 2010, Curt Carpenter wrote:
"If you'll look at the actual record, I think you'll find that Republicans are every bit as enthusiastic about spending public money as Democrats. True, the Republicans favor a different set of programs (wars over public health, for example), but they are no less happy to spend."
[[Couldn't agree more.
The most profligate administrations in US history were (drum roll):
Ronald Reagan; George Bush Jr.]]
----------
"Thus the ideological difference comes down to this: Democrats are tax-and-spend where Republicans are borrow-and-spend."
"Hence, rhetoric aside, the real difference between Democrats and Republicans is simply that Democrats will raise taxes to pay for their spending, and Republicans won't."
"And the economic result is simple: The people -don't- pay interest on the Democrat's approach. They -do- end up paying interest on the Republican approach."
"Read My Lips: the Republicans that struggled to keep TWO unnecessary wars "off books" for six long years are in no position to preach fiscal responsibility to anybody."
[[Republicans used to be financially responsible in the time of Eisenhower. But financial responsibility largely disappeared from the Republican Party when the center of gravity of the party shifted from those who played golf on Sunday morning to those who go to church instead.
The country club guys (including George Bush Sr., and John McCain, the last Republican President and the last Republican Presidential candidate with a fiscal conscience, both of them fighting against the stream in their own party) seem to have been a lot better at recognizing and fending off charlatans and populist clap-trap.
The current style of Republican leadership wants to destroy social programs by putting the country so far in debt that any subsequent government has no policy latitude to fund social programs.
It's attractive to them because, in the short term, you can appear to give voters what they want: lots of public spending, with low taxes. It's great if you're in the financial industry, or in the defense procurement business.
But, of course, the reason taxes were (and are) artificially low is because people aren't paying for that great whack of public spending they are enjoying. No, they are dumping it onto our children and grandchildren, instead.
That's the modern Republican Party - Like sailors on a spree ...
... with someone else's credit card.
The Swiss have a lot better approach: when a new law is enacted, the means for paying for the effects of the law are enacted at the same time. You get to see what taxes are going to be raised, and who is going to pay how much, and for how long, up front. Much better system.
Let's get rid of the hypocritical, morally bankrupt "moral majority" Republicans; and, instead, let's bring back the supposedly God-less, drinking, womanizing, golf-playing, country club Republicans. They weren't social policy hypocrites, and they knew how to balance the books.]]
Complain about this comment
Illogicbuster, (#210. At 3:32pm on 04 Dec 2010)
"Chryses wrote: "And the economic result is simple: The people -don't- pay interest on the Democrat's approach. They -do- end up paying interest on the Republican approach.' ..."
No. I didn't. That claim was made by Curt Carpenter in his post #205. I attempt to avoid making claims I cannot substantiate.
For example, fernando sancho, in his post #91, suggested that if one were to get "full disclosure" of the possessions of the wealthy, "you would have enough" revenue for government expenditure. Notice that this claim cannot be falsified. If at any point the monies raised from the wealthy were insufficient to fund the government, all fernando sancho will say is that the reason is due to insufficient disclosure. This removes any basis for discussing the merits of the claim.
In contrast to empty claims, I suggested that if one were to run the numbers through a spreadsheet, the group often referred to as wealthy would be unable to provide the revenue needed for government expenditure. fernando sancho, in his post #197, challenged me (somewhat emphatically) to substantiate my claim, and in my post #208, I did, providing data from what many people would consider reasonable sources, to corroborate my theory.
As I commented to JClarkson in my post #189, I think you will find that certain posters refuse to respond to posts that show their positions to be untenable. I try to avoid being a member of that group.
Complain about this comment
234. At 9:34pm on 04 Dec 2010, Chryses wrote
JMM, RE #221
My dear Chryses, on occasion you make very good points, on ocasion I can not fathom what you are going on about [or why]. In this case, as previously, you have attempted to misinterpret my words and ensnare me in a pointless defense.
If I venture an educated opinion on my Constitution [which I have sworn a solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend], you may use your freedom of speech [and the pen] to disagree with it, and I may use mine to disagree with you [or not if I so choose].
My being one of "We the people" I may also use my freedom of speech to disagree with the the idiots on Capitol Hill, the President, the honorable justices of the SCOTUS, the Pope, Buddha, Jesus Christ, and even you, my dear Chryses.
I also have a right not to be persuaded by you, or be forced to defend or attack straw men set up by you. At first I was puzzled by your tactics because I had never seen them used in writing before, just in an auditorium-type setting. I do now recognize your modus operandi, and while I reserve the right to occasionally address points you might also be commenting on, I will not play your game, by your rules or for your purpose(s).
Complain about this comment
JMM, (#237. At 10:12pm on 04 Dec 2010)
"My dear Chryses, on occasion you make very good points, on ocasion I can not fathom what you are going on about [or why] ..."
Thank you, and I shall attempt to express myself more clearly.
"... In this case, as previously, you have attempted to misinterpret my words and ensnare me in a pointless defense ..."
You are mistaken. I have given your post a straight reading. You need not have attempted any defense at all had you felt that none was needed.
"... If I venture an educated opinion on my Constitution [which I have sworn a solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend], you may use your freedom of speech [and the pen] to disagree with it, and I may use mine to disagree with you [or not if I so choose] ..."
True.
"... My being one of "We the people" I may also use my freedom of speech to disagree with the the idiots on Capitol Hill, the President, the honorable justices of the SCOTUS, the Pope, Buddha, Jesus Christ, and even you, my dear Chryses ..."
You have convinced me of that. Yes.
"... I also have a right not to be persuaded by you, or be forced to defend or attack straw men set up by you. At first I was puzzled by your tactics because I had never seen them used in writing before, just in an auditorium-type setting. I do now recognize your modus operandi, and while I reserve the right to occasionally address points you might also be commenting on, I will not play your game, by your rules or for your purpose(s)."
Nice. I like your approach. Building from a basis of unassailable rights (free speech, 1st Amendment) you assemble the structure that those in opposition are challenging them. Earnestly seeking to understand why another would disagree with you on points you hold to be sacred/self evident/etc. you have an epiphany that as you are correct, those who hold opinions in opposition may well be employing some rhetorical trick. Even if the only suggestion being advanced is that there are alternative ways of interpreting reasonable disagreements, you have your rights, and you'll not compromise them. But of course, who could disagree with that?
As that principle has been established or restated satisfactorily, it follows quite logically that while you "reserve the right to occasionally address points you might also be commenting on", there is no reason to expect you to be held to the same standards as those to whom you will "occasionally address points."
Masterful! Protagoras could not have done better.
Complain about this comment
ref #230
I am still waiting for the criminal Nikkie Diaz and Aunt Zetuni to be deported.
Complain about this comment
#227 Lucyj
´Some say the illegals are only doing jobs that Americans don't want- but this is clearly not true if they are taking away blue-collar jobs, which are America's middle class bread and butter...´?
I am rather confused with your ´class´definition.
Who constitutes the ´working class´in your eyes ?
Complain about this comment
#171 Grateful Marie
I can only admire charitable organizations and workers ( and volunteers) ---but do you really believe that with so many millions in poverty, other countries may not have a more humane approach ?
ie. --the government steps in ?
Complain about this comment
Oh, ok. For a moment I thought you were talking about euthanasia.
Complain about this comment
#219
"Compare it with a similar situation in the United States, when after a similar strike by PATCO members, Ronald Reagan summarily fired all of them and brought in military air traffic controllers."
I was struck by a different thing in this comparison. The Spanish traffic controller who went on strike are making between $425,000 and $250,000 per annum, on the average with overtime included. US traffic controllers make around $150,000, on the average, per annum.
That can only lead me to conclude that Spanish traffic controllers work 2 to 3 times longer and harder than the US traffic controllers? Right...
Complain about this comment
#238
"...offshore accounts hold the bulk of the worlds funds..."
Really?
Option A: Provide some link to a reasonably reputable source for this assertion.
or
Option B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8cNHCP3juQ
:)
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner, (#235. At 10:06pm on 04 Dec 2010)
“... That's the modern Republican Party - Like sailors on a spree ...
... with someone else's credit card ...“
You may have not noticed, but the Democrats have been in control of the House, Senate and White House. And you blame the party that is not in control. Not, of course, that I expect you even to try, but would you please explain why anyone should give credence to this claim of yours?
Complain about this comment
#243 JClarkson
Please refer to the comment you respond to if it has no obvious relationship with what has been posted.
It makes life easier !
Complain about this comment
JClarkson, (#245. At 00:25am on 05 Dec 2010)
“#238
‘...offshore accounts hold the bulk of the worlds funds...’
Really?
Option A: Provide some link to a reasonably reputable source for this assertion.
or
Option B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8cNHCP3juQ
:)”
LOL! Good one! But you don’t think for a moment that an absence of evidence will change his opinion, do you?
Complain about this comment
I'm pleased to see that the old chestnuts favoring "lock box" handling of social security receipts and privitization of social security are still with us.
Instead of keeping social security receipts in a "lock box," I'm surprised that our friends on the right haven't proposed keeping them under the Secretary of the Treasury's mattress. It would make just as much sense -- and it would save the cost of the lock box (surely an important consideration among the supposedly rabid "cut spending" crowd).
It's endlessly astonishing to me that so -many- self-styled "conservatives" have no concept whatsoever of investing -- much less the ability to differentiate between investing and spending.
As for privatizing social security, anybody that hasn't been in a coma for the last decade or suffering from end-stage dementia surely needs to recognize the stupidity of THAT idea.
But NO!!! Our "conservative" friends are STILL upset that Grandma didn't get the go-ahead to put her old age money in General Motors, Enron, RBS and Irish Housing Bonds back when George Bush championed the idea!
Which demonstrates that, along with their inability to grasp investment, the right is unable to grasp "risk" as well.
All of which explains why the Taxed Enough Already Republicans are such a bright and shining hope for America, and especially for the present and future Grandma's of our great country.
Complain about this comment
239. At 10:54pm on 04 Dec 2010, Chryses wrote: "Masterful! Protagoras could not have done better."
Thank you, it is, after all, your own modus operandi. Unlike yourself, however, I am uninterested in counting coup, or one-upmanship.
You seem to favor policy mode, or possibly a form of LD modified for internet usage. Don't forget that in the absence of a single agreed upon format, it is generally considered necessary to agree on the rules before engaging. Not to do so is, I believe, still considered bad form, or even dishonest.
Complain about this comment
#250 Curt Carpenter
#247 also applies to you !
´old chestnut´????
---were you referring to me ?
Complain about this comment
JMM, (#251. At 00:55am on 05 Dec 2010)
"...'Masterful! Protagoras could not have done better.'
Thank you, it is, after all, your own modus operandi ..."
OK. You got me on that one. I really did not think you would admit it.
"... Unlike yourself, however, I am uninterested in counting coup, or one-upmanship ..."
Yes, yes. Of course. Everyone knows that even though you thank those who applaud your rhetoric, you only use your superior powers for the good of humanity. A Socratic humility. Good.
"...You seem to favor policy mode, or possibly a form of LD modified for internet usage ..."
Now it is time for me to thank you on debating style.
"... Don't forget that in the absence of a single agreed upon format, it is generally considered necessary to agree on the rules before engaging. Not to do so is, I believe, still considered bad form, or even dishonest."
True, but I won't hold that against you.
Complain about this comment
#247
"Please refer to the comment you respond to..."
OK. My post #243 was made in reply to your post #242. As I'm reading it, I see you praising volunteers and charities and then you get to the part where there are millions of poor and you suggest that a "more humane" (than charity) method may exist to alleviate the misery of the poor. Implying that charity is less "humane". So, I thought, what's more humane than suffering in misery, than euthanasia? :)
Then I read your clarification whereby you suggest that instead of the poor relying of the voluntary charity of donors and volunteers, a more "humane" solution is for the poor to rely on the state's charity. That's the part that was not clear to me.
Why rely on the voluntary charity of a few strangers, when the more "humane" option is to rely on the state mandated charity of ALL strangers. I get it now. You weren't talking about euthanasia.
Complain about this comment
#253
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/01/delaware-leading-tax-haven
Complain about this comment
#253
So you have no source for your claim "...offshore accounts hold the bulk of the worlds funds..."?
That's understandable. After all, if that was true and verifiable then there would be no point in hiding money in offshore accounts. On the other hand there is no way for you to ascertain how much money is in those accounts precisely because of the secrecy of these accounts and you are therefore IMAGINING how much money there could be in those accounts.
Complain about this comment
#256 JCkarkson
My #242 was directed at Grateful Marie.
I am new to this blog --and feeling the water before jumping in.
Please be patient-- you will get your money´s worth .
Complain about this comment
235. Interestedforeigner:
"Let's get rid of the hypocritical, morally bankrupt "moral majority" Republicans; and, instead, let's bring back the supposedly God-less, drinking, womanizing, golf-playing, country club Republicans. They weren't social policy hypocrites, and they knew how to balance the books.]]"
************
First, they'd have to cut the democrats off. The dems' idea of spending less is raising taxes or, in their parlance, eliminating tax cuts for the rich.
Complain about this comment
fernando sancho, (#260. At 02:17am on 05 Dec 2010)
"... I did have access to all the banks data (clients holdings and transactions) which were withheld from HM Government and could see all the monies for all these clients "
Suuuuuuuure you did. It must be true, because fernando sancho said so!
Nope, won't work. If you make a claim that you expect others to believe is true, then you must provide something called evidence to corroborate or substantiate it. Real journalists do it all the time.
Although there are a few posters here who are quite comfortable making some perfectly amazing claims that they don't back up with data, or even try to back up with data.
Better luck next time.
Complain about this comment
242. At 11:49pm on 04 Dec 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
#171 Grateful Marie
I can only admire charitable organizations and workers ( and volunteers) ---but do you really believe that with so many millions in poverty, other countries may not have a more humane approach ?
ie. --the government steps in ?
_________________________________________________
Um, because for the countries with millions in poverty, their governments have done such a bang-up job of taking care of their people? Humane-?
And, No Way here in the US. Private charities do a much better job of giving a lift up rather than giving a hand out. The people that donate the most do a much better job of handling THEIR OWN money. And donors get to research and decide which causes they want their money to go to. They aren’t forced to give THEIR money to a cause that they don’t believe in, or a cause that they don't believe is succeeding.
Also, with true, privately-run charities, people volunteer their manpower, without pay. Quite humane. We’re not all paying for their goodwill. The first, second, third, fourth steps belong at home, in your own community.
I regret to repeat anything I previously posted. But here it is anyway. See what you think. George Romney, Mitt's father who rose out of poverty, said: “Americans have four basic ways of solving problems that are too big for individuals to handle by themselves. One is through the federal government. A second is through state governments and the local governments that the states create. The third is through the private sector – the economic sector that includes business, agriculture, and labor. The fourth method is the independent sector – the voluntary, cooperative action of free individuals and independent association. Voluntary action is the most powerful of these, because it is uniquely capable of stirring the people themselves and involving their enthusiastic energies, because it is their own – voluntary action is the people's action. [Dignity respected, and quite humane.] As Woodrow Wilson said, ‘The most powerful force on earth is the spontaneous cooperation of a free people.’ Individualism makes cooperation worthwhile – but cooperation makes freedom possible.”
[Btw, Mitt Romney, sorry, you’re out. I’m going for Mike Pence. But if people are still Obamafried, then Tim Pawlenty might stand a better chance at winning. P.S. – I might be the leader of the No Palin on the GOP ticket brigade – especially at the top of the ticket.]
Something in the posts caught my eye and I’m very confused by the claim that conservatives don’t know how to invest. That hasn’t been my own experience, or the experience of conservative friends and acquaintances.
Complain about this comment
#260
Please concentrate on the assertion you made and which I quoted for your reference. See post #245 and your post #238.
Scotland is not the world. I know some Scots would dispute this but then they dispute the value of wearing pants too...
Complain about this comment
254. At 01:14am on 05 Dec 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
#247 also applies to you !
´old chestnut´????
---were you referring to me ?
============
My mission is to poke America's self-styled "conservatives" with a pointy stick and prod them into doing one of their ritual and highly entertaining Anger Dances. Whether that makes your life easier or not is (apologies in advance) of little interest to me.
Perhaps, should I grow more familiar with your ideological portfolio and life's work, I will deem you pointy-stick worthy too?
One ought to try to be helpful in any event though, so my suggestion would be: read through the 260-odd pearls here cast before swine, thereby discovering (for yourself!) the references to lock boxes, privatization and Grandma's social security.
And anyway: if I was referring to YOU, wouldn't I have had to make an -acorn- the pivot of my metaphorical system?
Complain about this comment
224. At 5:22pm on 04 Dec 2010, JClarkson wrote:
"And the economic result is simple: The people -don't- pay interest on the Democrat's approach. They -do- end up paying interest on the Republican approach."
True. However, loans must be paid back (with interest) and then they are over. Taxes linger on for eternity because subsequent Congresses and administrations find other uses for the money the taxes raise, once and if the original justification for the the tax increase becomes superfluous. I believe I mentioned that.
Taxes are for life, not just the life of the generation that puts them into place but also for the life of future generations. Loans have set "pay by...." due dates.
==========
Forgive me, but what I read here is: Taxing is bad because taxes have to be paid by US (and maybe future generations), while BORROWING is GOOD because IT only has to be repaid by future generation, -NOT US-!
Even better, the INTEREST on our borrowing gets fobbed off on future generations too!
WE make out like bandits! "I've Got Mine, Jack!!!"
This is TEA party -- and Republican in general -- economic philosophy in a nutshell.
(By the way, not to be argumentative but the notion that a tax is some punishment-in-perpetuity was disproved most recently by our very own George W. Bush. True to Republican economic philosophy as outlined above, George and his pals CUT taxes and BOOSTED borrowing to a stunning degree! As our President, he truly did "Walk the walk" -- much to the delight of rich Americans everywhere.)
Complain about this comment
quietoaktree,
Congratulations! You have been graced in post #265 with the sneer. You are recipient 2,873 (I think it is 2,873. It is devilishly difficult to keep the count current). I was privileged just recently. LOL!
Complain about this comment
More about charities:
My Christian parents, who are in no way rich (but Especially Were Not when they were raising us kids), did their research of programs and supported a boy in India from age 3 to 18. It was their choice. Talk about those horrible, greedy, selfish, “so-called” Christian, social- and stingy-fiscal conservatives, who don’t know how to manage their money.
One of my brothers and I donated funds for children on the other side of this country, for YEARS, until a few years ago when the CEO announced she was for socialized medicine. My brother could stand it. I couldn’t, and I decided to pull my money and spend it closer to my home, perhaps where I could watch it more closely.
Don’t you think it’s better to owe taxes each year than to get a refund each year? Why?
Btw, I am no money whiz. I've listened to lots of advice, and I’ve been blessed with sweet friends and acquaintances who’ve explained financial theories to me more than once, until I get it. :-) The only thing that was inherent in me (and/or inherited as well) is saving (aka not spending). A penny saved really is a penny earned – and it’s MINE to use as I please! And teach a person – an adult – to fish (or read) and all that…you’ll be amazed. With what’s going on now, I don’t understand how people want to give more to the government. THIS government. They don’t. They want OTHER people to. Tsk tsk. (Please stop confusing US with other countries.)
Complain about this comment
fernando sancho, (#269. At 03:33am on 05 Dec 2010)
"... the Royal Bank of Scotland International is a global bank ... trillion in assets under custody and administration. "
While interesting, and possibly even accurate, that information is irrelevant to your claim in post #238, when you posted, "... offshore accounts hold the bulk of the worlds funds ...".
Any data to back up your claims would go a long way towards getting other people to believe that your claims are true.
Of course, if you have no evidence ...
Complain about this comment
#268
Apparently you don't fully grasp the import of your assertion. By claiming that "...offshore accounts hold the bulk of the worlds funds .."
you are saying the offshore accounts hold the majority of the WORLD's money.
Then, you provide some anecdotal first hand account about the assets of some financial institutions which cumulatively could, at most, account for 21 trillion dollars. Are you aware of how much money there is in the world and consequently what figure would constitute "the bulk" of that amount?
Assets values are not equivalent to cash values that you can deposit in offshore accounts.
You really should have considered Option B :)
Complain about this comment
267. At 03:26am on 05 Dec 2010, Chryses wrote:
quietoaktree,
Congratulations! You have been graced in post #265 with the sneer. You are recipient 2,873 (I think it is 2,873. It is devilishly difficult to keep the count current). I was privileged just recently. LOL!
===========
Ah yes: one of our less-skilled ritual dancers leaps into the Voodoo circle, loin cloth flapping, prancing and bobbing to the throb of the Republican drums! Howling his tribal chant against Cosmic Evil ("No New Taxes! Taxed Enough Already! No New Taxes...") while thrusting his prayer stick toward the fire and spitting the juice from his nubb-nubb root chew.
No pictures please! The tribe is easily enraged, and will strike us with a link to Wikipedia if they turn on us!
Thank you, Chrybaby, for providing an example of my many successes.
(483,264, by the way, and self-styled "conservatives" all.)
Complain about this comment
Thank you for your gracious concession. There is nothing particularly odious about parroting things one poorly understands, as long as you remain aware of it.
:)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
My dear Chryses,
I do believe I recognize your style. I am not entirely sure, since it has been quite a while, but let me ask in a way that will not bring about the ire of the moderators.
Are you still in Urinara, and do you recall having a very interesting discussion about the theory and practice of Ajumonics? Have you continued doing the research and writing up what we discussed about Ajumonics and the necessary metrics? Do you sometimes use the alias Paoja Paksa?
If you are who I think you are, we last met when you were on your way from NYC to Trinity [or vice versa], and that was well over a decade ago. I must say, if you are indeed who I think you are, your style has not changed much [and if not you are quite a match]. You always were very intelligent, an intellectual with a hint of slipperiness, and a definite Machiavellian streak. So then, are you Paoja Paksa from Urinara?
And will your answer be convincing? Will I be more inclined to believe it if it is not than if it is? We used to play these games for hours, but I am not sure I still have enough interest to keep the volley going.
And if you are Paoja Paksa, and if you are still in touch, do give my regards to Herr Doktor Professor.
Complain about this comment
261. At 02:31am on 05 Dec 2010, AndreaNY wrote:
235. Interestedforeigner:
"Let's get rid of the hypocritical, morally bankrupt "moral majority" Republicans; and, instead, let's bring back the supposedly God-less, drinking, womanizing, golf-playing, country club Republicans. They weren't social policy hypocrites, and they knew how to balance the books.]]"
************
First, they'd have to cut the democrats off. The dems' idea of spending less is raising taxes or, in their parlance, eliminating tax cuts for the rich.
==============
Dear AndreaNY:
How your comment relates to Interestedforeigner's delightful (but perhaps too nostalgic?) idea of a return to his "Country club Republicans" escapes me. Could you perhaps flesh out your thought, at least to the point where it makes sense? In context, I mean.
Thank you.
As to InterestedForeigner's keen insight into the vanished Country Club Republican class, I'm thinking that the last of them was shot, stuffed and mounted for museum display by Dick Nixon. He started the long down-hill slide of his party when he abandoned the GOP's traditional pursuits (golf, womanizing and drinking, as IF notes) in favor of bombing various countries at will (never mind friend or foe) and keeping elaborate lists of his enemies. When Gerald Ford came along and tried to resurrect the tradition, it was too late.
Complain about this comment
I find it very strange that BBC has closed the European blog without a word of explanation.
Complain about this comment
#280
Are you talking about this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/
Complain about this comment
ref #266
Forgive me, but what I read here is: Taxing is bad because taxes have to be paid by US (and maybe future generations), while BORROWING is GOOD because IT only has to be repaid by future generation, -NOT US-!
Even better, the INTEREST on our borrowing gets fobbed off on future generations too!
WE make out like bandits! "I've Got Mine, Jack!!!"
This is TEA party -- and Republican in general -- economic philosophy in a nutshell.
____________
No that is Nancy Pelosi's interpetation of the Tea Party
The Tea Party beieves the goverment should be spending less and would like at the suceesful austerity measures in Europe.
Its the Dems who want to spend and makes sure they and special interests groups like unions and govt workers get theirs.
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner:
"Let's get rid of the hypocritical, morally bankrupt 'moral majority' Republicans; and, instead, let's bring back the supposedly God-less, drinking, womanizing, golf-playing, country club Republicans. They weren't social policy hypocrites, and they knew how to balance the books"
No; let's vote into office competent, moral, and trustworthy politicians.
If they're competent they'll know how to govern the country and balance the books. If they're truly moral they will not womanize in public or in private. If they're trustworthy they will not be hypocrites or crooks.
I could careless if they drink or not, play golf or basketball, are God-fearing or God-less, but they better be competent, moral, and trustworthy enough to have my vote. As it happens I also have a preferred party, but most of us do.
Curt Carpenter:
"Ah yes: one of our less-skilled ritual dancers leaps into the Voodoo circle, loin cloth flapping, prancing and bobbing to the throb of the Republican drums! Howling his tribal chant against Cosmic Evil ("No New Taxes! Taxed Enough Already! No New Taxes...") while thrusting his prayer stick toward the fire and spitting the juice from his nubb-nubb root chew."
The imagery here is positively overwhelming, well done; but American Voodoo is generally a South Louisiana thing and New Orleans is very Blue.
Complain about this comment
Curt Carpenter, (#272. At 04:23am on 05 Dec 2010)
"... Howling his tribal chant against Cosmic Evil ("No New Taxes! Taxed Enough Already! No New Taxes...") while ..."
You have no evidence to support this claim either. But then again, you are only one of the posters to these threads who doesn't care enough about others to use evidence to persuade.
"... (483,264, by the way, and self-styled "conservatives" all.)
I am impressed that you could be discourteous to that many people.
Complain about this comment
fernando sancho, (#273. At 04:35am on 05 Dec 2010)
"J.Clarkson ad Chryses ... (RBSI)* and Coutts are offshore banks and you must be the most tedious mindless drones in the blogosphere ..."
I didn't think you would offer evidence to support your claim. You can now be grouped with the others who, like you, fail to face up to the challenge of substantiating or corroborating your theories with evidence.
That's OK. It just changes how people think about what you post.
Complain about this comment
JMM, (#276. At 04:52am on 05 Dec 2010)
"... I do believe I recognize your style. I am not entirely sure, since it has been quite a while, but let me ask in a way that will not bring about the ire of the moderators ..."
Yes, there are times one must tread carefully.
"... Are you still in Urinara, and do you recall having a very interesting discussion about the theory and practice of Ajumonics? Have you continued doing the research and writing up what we discussed about Ajumonics and the necessary metrics? Do you sometimes use the alias Paoja Paksa? ..."
I am unsure if I have stopped beating my wife ... or not.
"... If you are who I think you are, we last met when you were on your way from NYC to Trinity [or vice versa], and that was well over a decade ago. I must say, if you are indeed who I think you are, your style has not changed much [and if not you are quite a match]. You always were very intelligent, an intellectual with a hint of slipperiness, and a definite Machiavellian streak. So then, are you Paoja Paksa from Urinara? ..."
While I enjoy your flattery, I am unable to honestly don the set of clothes you provide.
"... And will your answer be convincing? Will I be more inclined to believe it if it is not than if it is? We used to play these games for hours, but I am not sure I still have enough interest to keep the volley going ..."
Only you know the answers to those questions.
"... And if you are Paoja Paksa, and if you are still in touch, do give my regards to Herr Doktor Professor. "
I would if I could.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen wrote:
I find it very strange that BBC has closed the European blog without a word of explanation.
Perhaps in an anticipation of EU collapse?
Or merely its servers being hijacked by Oleg Nikolayenko's vast botnet? :-)
Complain about this comment
Lucy quotes:
"O'Reilly: So if I gave you [Mexico] Arizona would you be happy with that?
Gochez: They took a lot more than Arizona.
O'Reilly: So you want more than that."
If Mississippi gave Missouri New Jersey, what would Delawere?
Idaho, Alaska.
Complain about this comment
fernando sancho, (#279. At 06:24am on 05 Dec 2010)
"... I don't need to prove anything or have any involvement with jerks who don't pay me to answer their dumb questions ..."
That's OK. You don't have to offer evidence to support your claim. There are others who, like you, fail to face up to the challenge of backing up your theories with evidence. Don't worry about it. People just won't take your claims seriously, just as they don't take the claims of the others seriously. Some of them post to be discourteous.
"... Banking, Investments, Asset Management, Income and Tax is boring but it pays my bills."
I'm sure it is, and I'm sure it does, but you still failed to support your claim "... offshore accounts hold the bulk of the worlds funds ..." with evidence, so I'll treat it accordingly.
Complain about this comment
BienvenueEnLouisiana, (#284. At 09:46am on 05 Dec 2010)
“... I could careless if they drink or not, play golf or basketball, are God-fearing or God-less, but they better be competent, moral, and trustworthy enough to have my vote ...”
A very sensible approach.
Complain about this comment
fernando sancho, (#282. At 09:35am on 05 Dec 2010)
"... down with bankers banking poo capitalist pigs ..."
An insightful, penetrating, and trenchant comment on a group of people. Congratulations!
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen
I myself would be happier if someone else did Hewitt´s blog --he only encouraged the worse in Brit nationalism.
Blog, after blog, after blog.
Complain about this comment
fernando sancho, (#293. At 12:57pm on 05 Dec 2010)
"Chryses.
Guess you didn't read this ..."
Actually, yes, I did. Read my post #292.
"... 1. 1st thing shut up being smart arsed saying "Im sure it is" "I'm sure it is" repeatedly... "
I am a bit surprised at you. Why would you want someone to not agree with you?
"... 2. Governments, tax agencies and financial regulators place a high priority on the prevention of tax avoidance schemes and loopholes, and continually update legislation for compliance, (money laundering and proceeds of crime are other areas targeted).
3. When new laws are introduced banks restructure or set up new schemes in order to remain out of radar and not get caught having to report clients assets and cash holdings or clients close their accounts and migrate their cash holdings ..."
I’m sure you’re right.
"... If you are saying I exaggerated my claim that vast significant amounts of money are undisclosed then you are disputing a petty point."
You misunderstand. I am not saying that you exaggerated anything at all. What I have pointed out several times is that you have provided nothing to back up your claim "... offshore accounts hold the bulk of the worlds funds ...," so I treat your claim the same way as I treat the unsubstantiated claims that others make here and elsewhere - unpersuasive and not credible.
Complain about this comment
#272 Curt Carpenter
Sorry, you´r barking up the wrong tree.
---As I said --I´m taking my bearings.
---on who can think and those who think they can !
Complain about this comment
Contact RT and al-Jazeera:
they'll tell ya what to think.
Complain about this comment
#268 Grateful Marie
Thank you for your response.
Have you lived in any non-American societies or traveled to see them ?
I wholly agree with your attitude towards saving ---if one can !
With no insult intended-- are you saying America cannot learn from any other country on its responsibility to its underprivileged citizens ?
Complain about this comment
#297 Powermeerkat
You appear to have skipped Thinking 101.
---But that is typical ( superfluous ) --for your contributions.
---what soother do you now use ?
Complain about this comment
#272 Curt Carpenter
How many other societies (countries) have you lived in (or traveled to) ?
--I attempt to respond at the appropriate level.
--- Just putting in my big toe to test the water .
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately the European blog has been shut down, but then Americans have often entertained us with American matters on that blog, and the topic here will in any case have consequences in North America.
Two significant signals have been given in European politics this weekend. The second puts the first in perspective: Bild Zeitung has written an editorial with the headline: Save the Euro.
After having entertained its readers with articles, which pointed in the direct opposite direction, Bild Zeitung has now realised that this populist game is over. We need more union, Bild now realises, and a coordination of the finance and economic policies. This is what more serious newspapers have been writing for a long time, and it is the likely outcome of the December summit in the EU.
That Bild Zeitung now has been forced to come into the open is at the same time a significant support of chancellor Merkel and all those, who make a supreme effort within the Euro zone to save the Euro. And Germany will have to have a major role in this.
The announcement of ECB president Jean-Claude Trichet as the receiver of the Karlspreis of Aachen 2011 should be seen in this perspective. More than anything else this prize is connected to the reconciliation and integration in Europe. The announcement signals that the leading forces of the union are preparing the use of strong means to keep the currency stable.
Complain about this comment
#301
--Now Europe only has to worry about the $
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen, (#301. At 3:29pm on 05 Dec 2010)
”Unfortunately the European blog has been shut down, but then Americans have often entertained us with American matters on that blog, and the topic here will in any case have consequences in North America ...”
Yes indeed! I was wondering when someone would make the connection between these topics.
Complain about this comment
quietoaktree wrote: Who constitutes the ´working class´in your eyes?
----------------------------------------------------------------
My point was that illegals are a direct threat to America for multiple, multiple, multiple reasons, including taking middle class jobs away from Americans who need these jobs to survive. (At this point, I consider any minimum wage job middle class, cause' at least that's a job.) They are also taking financial aid from hardworking American native born and legal immigrants...which means there's less room for Americans in our own colleges on our own soil and there's less financial aid for Americans...in the Southwest, when the water runs dry cause' the Colorado River can't provide for everyone, then there won't be enough water, either...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_American
An exerpt:
In the United States, in states where Mexican Americans make up a large percentage of the population, such as California and Texas, illegal as well as legal immigrants from Mexico and Central America in addition to Mexican Americans combined often make up a large majority of workers in many blue-collar occupations: the majority of the employed men are restaurant workers, janitors, truck drivers, gardeners, construction laborers, material moving workers, or perform other types of manual or other blue collar labor (Source, U.S. Census Bureau, American community survey data).
------------------------------------------------------------
Americans who need jobs would gladly do restaurant work, janitor, truck driver, gardener, construction, ect...so their families have something to eat. I know at least ten jobless people who would do these jobs. Instead, these jobs are going to illegals and as America continues to lose jobs, more illegals keep coming in or are not moving back to their homelands, where they belong...
For the illegals doing farm work and slave labor for less than min. wage, ect. , no taxes, ect., I highly dislike this and know the obvious truth that its just plain flat out wrong.
In my mind, its pretty obvious if a farm company is hiring mass amounts of illegal immigrants because not only are they not paying taxes, but also they are likely not getting minimum wage. This tells you that the govt. could stop it if they wanted to, but the govt. has no desire to, or else they would have already done it.
Basically, the only reason we have illegal immigrants is because big govt. is not interested in shutting it down- America can do pretty much almost ANYTHING- its just that our govt. chooses the illegals over Americans...why?
Because many Americans like myself have white European skin.
Obama's got issues from the past.
Complain about this comment
294. At 1:44pm on 05 Dec 2010, quietoaktree
I do not want to engage my self further in an evaluation of BBC and its journalism.
The United Kingdom has chosen a position in the periphery of the EU, and as a citizen in the centre I have taken note of that. We do not expect UK to contribute a lot in the defence of our currency. On the contrary, we might expect the UK to firmly confirm its position on the coming summit. If BBC supports this, it would not be the first time that tax funded public service media plays a role of that kind, I can say from my experience from various countries.
Complain about this comment
Obama's got issues from the past.
-------------------------------------------
Even though slavery ended around 100 yrs ago, there is still bitter feelings and both racism and reverse racism.
This is why I feel more comfortable with Republicans or Tea Partyers, because they hold no past bitterness or reverse racism.
Complain about this comment
#305 Mathiasen
Many Americans don´t even know where Europe is -- far less the different countries and the politics.
The risk of bringing European matters on the blog would be another repetition of WWll and the British Empire -which does nobody any good.
America has enough problems on its plate.
-- Let sleeping dogs lie ! (at least on this blog)
Complain about this comment
298. At 2:25pm on 05 Dec 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
“#268 Grateful Marie
Thank you for your response.
Have you lived in any non-American societies or traveled to see them ?
I wholly agree with your attitude towards saving ---if one can !
With no insult intended-- are you saying America cannot learn from any other country on its responsibility to its underprivileged citizens ?”
_____________________
I have traveled, non-extensively, and it’s been quite a while. I have not yet had the opportunity to plant stakes long enough in another country to call it even a temporary home.
I hope the US is learning, observing both good and bad, from other countries.
Can you give me an example of a country that you think the US should model itself after concerning treatment of its underprivileged? I’d appreciate it if you talk about money, too.
It sounds like you think there is a country or two or three you believe the US should imitate. Details, please.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen wrote: Save the Euro.
---------------------------------------------------
I'm sure the Euro is going to be fine. Maybe a brief period of instability, but Europe, altogether, is pretty strong.
Europe's been through the Middle Ages- they can deal with just about everything, including plagues.
I'de be more worried about the snow and ice storms...
Complain about this comment
quietoaktree wrote: Many Americans don´t even know where Europe is -- far less the different countries and the politics.
---------------------------------------------------------
Of course we know where Europe is!
That's where many of our ancestors came from...and we also know you are our good allies.
The politics, no, not so much, for me, but some other American bloggers are pretty good at that stuff...
---------------------------------------------------------
oak wrote: The risk of bringing European matters on the blog would be another repetition of WWll and the British Empire -which does nobody any good.
---------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes people respond and sometimes they don't. Regardless, all the British and other bloggers should feel free and welcome to talk about what they want. I know I do.
Complain about this comment
307. At 4:24pm on 05 Dec 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
“#305 Mathiasen
Many Americans don´t even know where Europe is....”
_____________________
quietoak,
That’s one of the things that I was wondering about you. You needn’t reply to my previous post. I won’t go back and forth with you, who also wrote:
“I´m taking my bearings--who can think and those who think they can !”
“--I attempt to respond at the appropriate level.”
Your 307 was the topper.
Complain about this comment
#307. At 4:24pm on 05 Dec 2010, quietoaktree
I am a short time guest here. I regret that the Euro blog has been shut down. I would like it to reopen and with the broad spectrum of issues that characterised it, when Mark Mardell was its editor.
Complain about this comment
#312 Mathiasen
If an American (or other nationality) took over from Hewitt I think the blog could be managed better.
From my viewpoint, any European BBC blog risks the same fate if the editor is not neutral and has a touch of commonsense. It was clear the self-destruction had to stop ---especially with what the last two topics were building up to.
My specific problem with the blog was that I had lived in Britain and Germany --and could compare both societies --Mr.Hewitt appeared to ignore such a possibility.
Complain about this comment
#310 Lucyj and #311 Grateful Marie
I have already been attacked 3 times on this blog and my answers have mainly been in response.
Yes, if I am not attacked --I will also not !
--and yes, ´I attempt to respond at the appropriate level´ ---with that in mind.
--As to the ignorance of `many Americans´ where Europe is -- a recent Pew poll discovered that 53% (?) of Americans do not know what the DOW is.
I said neither ALL or MOST -- so what is the problem ?
Please do not read into my postings references to yourselves when I respond to others.
Complain about this comment
Now it has come to my attention that there are quite a few who have drifted
over from Hewitts.So whilst you are here you will behave.No disrespect to
our Royal family,you will be kind to animals & not insult us in any way shape or form.The special relationship is not to be undermined.As British
we know that when ever there is Injustice Tyranny & Oppression,America will
turn up six months late & bomb the country next to were the trouble is.But hell no one is perfect.
This will be all,for now...
Complain about this comment
314. At 5:52pm on 05 Dec 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
“I have already been attacked 3 times on this blog”
_______________________
And I believe you were ‘attacked’ over at Hewitt’s, too. Bless your heart.
Complain about this comment
300. At 2:53pm on 05 Dec 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
#272 Curt Carpenter
How many other societies (countries) have you lived in (or traveled to) ?
===============
I've lived (using the term in the strictest temporal/biological sense) in four different countries in my lifetime. My longest tenure on a foreign shore was seven years. I did not go native.
We would have to agree on terms to count the number of "societies." I'd go with "quite a few" pending clarification.
My travels have taken me to many interesting places. I've been horseback riding in Hungary, ridden the bullet train in Japan and picknicked with a German motorcyclist on the King's stairway at Persepolis. I've seen the Acropolis by moonlight, enjoyed the beach at Vung Tau and bought the obligatory hand-tailored-in-24-hours suit in Hong Kong.
As far as I know, I've left no child behind and there are no outstanding warrants for my arrest anywhere on this planet.
How about you?
Complain about this comment
quietoaktree, I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the Pew research poll you cited; what the Pew research poll from 2008 actually said was.."fewer than half were generally aware of where the Dow Jones Industrial Average is trading these days." In other words, many people do not know if the DOW is trading at 8,000 or 12,000.
It also said that..."Republicans are more likely than Democrats and independents to know that Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of the House, and more Republicans and independents than Democrats are aware of the current level of the Dow." Let's leave this tit-for-tat alone, shall we?
Mathiasen, I'm confident that the EU will survive this tumultuous period. We all romanticize the independence of our states, but in the end we also know we're better off in the Union. "E Pluribus Unum".
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#315 UKwales
--- I am against asylum for the Brits on this Blog !
( you excluded )
Complain about this comment
# 304 LucyJ wrote:
“For the illegals doing farm work and slave labor for less than min. wage, ect. (sic) , no taxes, ect (sic)., I highly dislike this and know the obvious truth that its just plain flat out wrong.
In my mind, its (sic) pretty obvious if a farm company is hiring mass amounts of illegal immigrants because not only are they not paying taxes, but also they are likely not getting minimum wage. This tells you that the govt. could stop it if they wanted to, but the govt. has no desire to, or else they would have already done it./Basically, the only reason we have illegal immigrants is because big govt. is not interested in shutting it down- America can do pretty much almost ANYTHING- its (sic) just that our govt. chooses the illegals over Americans...why?/Because many Americans like myself have white European skin./Obama's got issues from the past.”
She added at # 306, “Even though slavery ended around 100 yrs ago, there is still bitter feelings and both racism and reverse racism./This is why I feel more comfortable with Republicans or Tea Partyers, because they hold no past bitterness or reverse racism.”
So, let me try to make some sense of this – always problematic where LJ is concerned.
If I understand what you are attempting to say, and have pretty much said before, you are claiming that
1. The US government in general, and President Obama in particular, could easily solve the problem of illegal immigrants? Presumably, by immediately stopping all illegal immigration? And by immediately deporting all illegal immigrants?
2. Obama personally chooses not to do so? Instead, he ‘chooses the illegals over Americans’ – whatever that is supposed to mean.
3. (Perhaps you think the Republicans installed a shiny red button in the Oval Office for this very purpose, but Obama wilfully refuses to press it?)
4. Obama refuses to deal with this issue because he has ‘issues’ with people like you, (and his late mother) who have white skin?
5. He is therefore a racist?
If I have missed anything, please do tell me.
Now, perhaps you would be so good as to enlighten us as to what evidence you have for this farrago of simplistic prejudice? For example, if the problem of illegal immigration is so easy to solve, why did the Reps not easily solve it from 2001-8, when there was a Republican President?
And exactly what evidence do you have for your (frankly fairly vile) smear, that Obama is racially biased against Whites. (Apart from ‘well, El Rushbo and Glen Beck and Fox said it, so it must be true’.)
I do of course bear in mind your other interesting theories, eg that “ultraliberals” (ie most Americans) want to scrap DADT to weaken the military and make way for a foreign invasion. So your latest outpourings are pretty much par for the course.
(For the record, the words you were looking for are ‘it’s’ and ‘etc.’. One of the very many things the US clearly cannot do is educate Americans.)
Complain about this comment
284. At 09:46am on 05 Dec 2010, BienvenueEnLouisiana wrote:
"No; let's vote into office competent, moral, and trustworthy politicians. If they're competent they'll know how to govern the country and balance the books. If they're truly moral they will not womanize in public or in private. If they're trustworthy they will not be hypocrites or crooks."
[[All good points, but, regrettably, easier said than done.]]
[[As for the womanizers, I merely point out that Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Clinton, who were all pretty good Presidents, also each had extra-curricular interests. Truman, another pretty good President, might have been a lot happier man, and had a better presidency, if he had. His wife (and her insufferable mother) would have tried the patience of a saint.]]
"I could careless if they drink or not, play golf or basketball, are God-fearing or God-less, but they better be competent, moral, and trustworthy enough to have my vote."
[[Exactly so.]]
[[More comments to follow]].
Complain about this comment
284. At 09:46am on 05 Dec 2010, BienvenueEnLouisiana:
When I was younger I knew a fair number of elected politicians. Almost without exception they were really high quality guys. Honest, decent, hardworking. For most of them, the longer they served in public office the less partisan they were. Oh, they didn't shift from their basic philosophical principles, but they seemed to put greater emphasis on trying to be constructive and co-operative with each other in the service of their country.
---------
There were, broadly, two kinds of guys I came to admire.
The first group were Christians - Methodists, Baptists, United Church goers, Presbyterians. They never, ever, spoke of their religion in running for office. They never, ever, used an electoral campaign as a pulpit for spreading religion, whether explicitly or in code. They merely practiced their beliefs in the way they lived their lives and interacted with others.
Those guys were squeaky clean in office, and were as frugal as if public funds came out of their own pockets. There were a fair number of CCF folks in this group, and a fair number of genuine Socialists. They tended to live relatively frugal, abstemious lives. They viewed banks with distrust, and considered unfunded public debt to be among the greatest sins a government could commit. They dedicated their lives to the service of this country, and to their fellow man. Among them are men having significant responsibility for the introduction of public health care and public pensions in this country.
There isn't one of them who I wouldn't gladly campaign with, or have as a friend and neighbour. Many of them are dead now, and I miss them. They were great men who served this country long and well.
----------
The second group were at the other end of the political spectrum in terms of economic philosophy but largely in the center of the spectrum in terms of social policy. They were, and are, in my mind classical Liberals. In politics, some were Progressive-Conservatives, some were Liberals.
Because of my upbringing, when I first had dealings with these guys it was with a certain distaste. That they drank liquor, at all, marked them as unworthy of trust. These guys drank hard liquor, and a lot of it. They smoked. They gambled. On the horses. At cards. In Las Vegas. They spent money in a way I had never seen. (They also earned money in a way I had never seen, either.) They lived hard, and they played hard. They did not go to church. I am certain that more of them than I knew had more than one woman on the side, quite aside from their wives. When they were inclined, they could be blunt, and earthy, and very, very funny.
Except.
Over time, I began to realize that they weren't God-less at all. Far from it. For the most part, they were among the most moral men I had ever met. But it wasn't shallow, false, populist morality. It was profound morality, the kind of stuff you find in Conrad, but almost never see in election campaigns. They certainly didn't wear it on their sleeves.
To a man, they had excellent judgment, and outstanding abilities. They had the killer instinct, the ability to cut to the truth sharp and fast in one short sentence, and then, at the same time, had the tact to know when to keep it to themselves and spare needless injury to those caught, defenseless, in the glare. Like Ali not throwing that last punch.
These were guys who ran, or had run, significant enterprises. Most of them had grown up in the Depression, and served in the War. They were exceptionally smart, and had done well in school. Their qualifications were outstanding. They ran law firms, insurance companies, manufacturing plants. They held high positions in government. A lot of them were professionals who stood at or near the top of their professions - Law, Accounting, Architecture. Really, really capable guys. Guys who knew how to run things. Guys who knew how to get things done. Guys who provided employment for a lot of other people. Guys of honesty, character, integrity, ability.
Very different from the first group, and yet, equally so, there isn't one of them with whom I wouldn't go out campaigning door-to-door tomorrow, and who I wouldn't gladly have as a friend or neighbour. They also served their country with great distinction. Almost all of them are dead now. I would give a fair bit to have so much as five minutes to speak again with some of them again; to thank them for their friendship and their kindness; to tell them how much I thought of them, and still do.
----------
The thing common to both groups was that they were able to see things on a higher plane. They could see, and weigh, and balance, many competing viewpoints. They did not disdain their opponents - indeed, they tended to be life-long friends on the basis of shared experience. They were not strident. They were not doctrinaire. They tended to practice what I would call "principled pragmatism".
When they spoke on issues, their views had breadth and depth. Understanding. Clarity. Some of them had been involved in the major political questions of our times, and they spoke with great knowledge.
Once, in the corner of the room at a very small, private, social gathering, in response to a chance remark, one of the Social Democrats give a brilliant 90 minute, off-the-cuff exposition on the views of his Liberal, P-C, and separatist colleagues, explaining, in turn and in detail, thoughtfully and dispassionately, each of their positions with a depth of understanding that was breath-taking. The knowledge of the underlying history was encyclopaedic. It was as if all the intricacies of public policy were laid bare on the clearest road map. He saw things clearly, and with honesty, on a plane that was unimaginably far out of our league. We sat in awe. For 90 minutes. It was spell-binding.
Unforgetable.
And then you see these buffoons and charlatans on TV.
What a bunch of Lilliputians.
Complain about this comment
284. At 09:46am on 05 Dec 2010, BienvenueEnLouisiana:
I was turned off politics over time. Three incidents stand out:
The first one was when a staff member of a cabinet minister called to offer me a patronage position for which I had not applied, and for which I was not then qualified.
Clearly, they had made assumptions about character that were very much less than flattering. The cabinet minister was a man I had not cared for, and who I did not respect - indeed, largely because I suspected he was that kind of guy. I never campaigned for them again.
I met the fellow once after that. He had no idea.
I cannot abide political patronage.
It is a betrayal of one's duty to the public.
It is a sin for which the "Terrible Swift Sword" of a wrathful Old Testament God is the only suitable remedy.
The second incident involved our local candidate who packed the nomination meeting with members of his church. His candidacy was one dimensional: opposition to abortion.
If you run for public office you owe your constituents the benefit of your intelligence and judgment on all issues of public policy. A one-dimensional, single-issue candidacy is a betrayal of that obligation from the get-go. It is also a betrayal of that duty deliberately to hi-jack a nomination for public office for the purpose of pushing religious views.
I have no patience for that.
He was a good man in many ways, and a tireless campaigner, but, fundamentally, when push came to shove, he didn't believe in democracy.
The nomination meeting was a farce. The newly minted party members voted according to the position of their church, and that was that.
The party at the larger level could have done something about it, but institutionally avoided making democratic reforms.
The third incident had to do with the NDP.
I have a great fondness for the Prairie-based CCF, and its ever-so-frugal version of Socialism. I.e., Socialism, but only so long as it doesn't require borrowing from the banks, and can be delivered with a balanced budget. There is something quintessentially Canadian about this seemingly contradictory approach to public policy: financially conservative principled pragmatism.
The problem is that outside the Prairies, the public sector unions are the driving force behind the NDP. The public sector unions are there to get as much as they can for their members, and don't share that financial pragmatism. They don't care whether public finances are balanced. Whatever they want, they can force the public to pay for. They don't see their elected representatives as having a higher duty to the public generally. I refer to them as the "make the rich pay" brigade, because, in essence, that is their solution to every public policy problem, even when that solution has, as in the case of public education, manifestly failed to improve results.
These groups are just as offensive as the "God Guns and Guts", and "No New Taxes" nutcases.
Groups like these are frustrating because they are so single-mindedly selfish. The oppose sensible compromises. They often propose solutions that are simplistic, shallow, and often economic nonsense. They offer nothing constructive. You can see lots of their postings in this string.
----------
Maybe it is excessively nostalgic, but when Ike Eisenhower and Louis St.Laurent were in office things ran well. C.D. Howe was a brilliant man. We could do with more like him.
Complain about this comment
314. At 5:52pm on 05 Dec 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
321. At 7:24pm on 05 Dec 2010, John_From_Dublin wrote:
Before you express surprise at American befuddlement, I'd ask you to remember just one name: George W. Bush. Unificator, "Bring it On" Man of Action -- a down-home kind of guy that you could happily share a Lone Star long-neck and you sister with.
Duly elected (more or less) by the the people. Democracy at work!
Let this touchstone moderate your astonishment at all things American.
(Noting, of course, that we've -somehow- managed to muddle through.)
(So far.)
Complain about this comment
#318 BEL
--Only heard it on the radio (i think)
--but stand corrected- Thanks.
Complain about this comment
ref #304
I want both the illegals working in resturants deported (after someone get off their butt to kick Nikkie Diaz and Aunt Zetuni) out of the country and I want those knowingly employing them to be prosecuted.
Go to www.bostonglobe.com today and read the story on Upper Crust Pizza which I will never use again.
I'd go frozen first.
Complain about this comment
315. At 6:00pm on 05 Dec 2010, ukwales wrote:
“Now it has come to my attention that there are quite a few who have drifted over from Hewitts.So whilst you are here you will behave.No disrespect to our Royal family,you will be kind to animals & not insult us in any way shape or form.The special relationship is not to be undermined.As British we know that when ever there is Injustice Tyranny & Oppression,America will turn up six months late & bomb the country next to were the trouble is.But hell no one is perfect. This will be all,for now...”
___________________________
Ukwales, et al.
The worm is quickly entrenched.
Ukwales, I like reading your posts and you posted a much appreciated response last weekend. I wanted to tell you that if this blog was called UKWales, your newfound friend would be all over you.
He hasn’t insulted, because he doesn’t believe what he wrote: “Many Americans don´t even know where Europe is....” He is just an irritant and a bully. He’ll end up with no friends. Not IF, not Curt. And if it takes months, he’ll prove himself to be as I said in #143. But you can look up and look back a couple of threads and see. See what a coward he was on this very thread.
Since I’ve been on this blog (August), we haven’t had one of these. He’s not like MarcusAureliusII, and not even like colonelartist.
Well, Good Luck!
Complain about this comment
#317 Curt Carpenter.
Three societies (minimum 12 years), North America, Britain, Germany. Hopped from those to other destinations in SouthAm, WI, Europe, Med, NAfrica, India, and couple of Asians. Many were ages ago --so not up to date. However mentalities of some remain unchanged for the better.
--tried to reach Machu Pichu- but ran out of money in Lima, saw Haiti under Papa Doc, seen the akropolis and pyramids, Roman and Greek towns in Turkey also Christian underground towns etc.
-- Mould ate my backpack and some other essentials
Complain about this comment
#328 Grateful Mare
--would you please stop flirting with Romeo UKWales !
---He´s broken many a heart on other blogs and we contiually pick up the pieces.
Complain about this comment
#325 Curt Carpenter
One good thing I viciously protect about Bush -- is that he broke the color barrier for the White House.
I have found it practical not to divulge my nationality -- don´t want to be put in little coffins that suffocate arguments. Anyway, traveling has left me with rather anti- nationalistic views.
Complain about this comment
For me the main reason for this forum is an exchange of thinking with other folk,some overseas & some close to home.With my value system the only way to become friends is face to face & over time.What I do take from this forum is respect for other views,some times even if I do not agree,but if outrageous I will take a pop.By being honest I hope others can under stand me,but mores the lightly,they would not know if I was animal, vegetable or mineral,so its Ideas,view points not friends, but very often lots of respect..
BTW,talking of respect,what you said of keeping going, when faced with
your position in giving help to others,was helpful..
PS, post 315 was posted by some one who needs medication..
Complain about this comment
Your welcome quietoaktree. Interestedforiegner, I can tell you poured your heart out onto this page; it does a man good to do so every once in a while. We always remember those who inspire us whether their dead or alive, and it's a shame that there aren't many decent examples of statesmen today.
Complain about this comment
20. At 6:58pm on 05 Dec 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
#315 UKwales
--- I am against asylum for the Brits on this Blog !
( you excluded )
-----------------------------
I have been to the US about 7 times all under my own steam,car rent & internal flights.Have seen the Grand canyon to the fall in New England
loved every mile,people are so much more polite,we are a million miles
behind in serving others.But as Neil Diamond said, L A`s is fine but its not home...
Its Wales for me,no place has that feeling of belonging & acceptance that's best decried in the Welsh word "Herith" it also means a sense of longing..
Complain about this comment
330. At 9:50pm on 05 Dec 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
#328 Grateful Mare
--would you please stop flirting with Romeo UKWales !
---He´s broken many a heart on other blogs and we contiually pick up the pieces.
----------------------------
Ho that's just dandy,my wife some times reads this blogg,how am I going to explain that one?..
Complain about this comment
#334 UKWales
--- probably I´m a bit jealous at having lost my innocence -- Both Americans and the Irish are known to be charitable. I was in Ireland before the ´Tiger in your tank´ days. Friday and Saturday were the booze days and it appeared that if any money was leftover- the Church got it on Sunday.
I have never been to Wales - but I can imagine there was some of that mentality --especially with the decline of the coal mines ?
Do you have the ´gift of the gab´or can you sing ?
(or complaining about the English holiday-homers ?)
Complain about this comment
#335 UKWales
-- Your usual tactic
---With kisses !
Complain about this comment
▢ Penetrate The Works Of Jah
▢ MJ World Tour ▢ No More Shall I Roam ▢
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSW947Q8oYc
Complain about this comment
329, 331 quietoaktree:
You give Bush far more credit than I ever will.
I find your desire to be secretive about your nationality to be a mild form of cowardice. People who would reject your thoughts on that basis aren't worth the effort anyway. I think my American nationality licenses my harshest criticisms of it. It also puts my critique of others in a correct and appropriate context. When ukwales points out that we arrive six months late and bomb the wrong country with embarrassing frequency, I can only laugh, agree, and hope we will do better next time.
I see a blanket rejection of nationalism as an error. Why deny yourself access to thoughtful nationalists like Ghandi, Ho Chi Minh, Vaclav Havel -- and so on and on? Nationalism is not irrevocably married to jingoism, pointless flag waving, extremism and fanaticism. It can be modest and meaningful (although I'll grant you that certainly isn't the typical case). A lot depends on the class of people you hang out with on your travels.
As to seeing Machu Pichu: the -vital- question is:
Have You Seen Stella by Starlight?
The song a robin sings,
Through years of endless springs,
The murmur of a brook at evening tides.
That ripples through a nook where two lovers hide...
Complain about this comment
We Americans are many things, including this -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp_RHnQ-jgU
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
Wikileaks may have turned a corner in its latest release, listing, even if vaguely, international locations of underground cables, energy pipelines, and pharmaceutical facilities that the US has identified as vital for national security. Unlike the organization's earlier releases, I can't perceive any good intended to come from this latest release.
I understand Wikileaks may feel it's in a battle for survival against elements of the US government, but leaks of this nature destroy its credibility to a degree that its survival may be moot. This is no path forward on openness or holding authority to account.
Complain about this comment
#341
"Unlike the organization's earlier releases, I can't perceive any good intended to come from this latest release. "
There is no good intended to come from any of the releases.
Complain about this comment
#321
"(For the record, the words you were looking for are ‘it’s’ and ‘etc.’. One of the very many things the US clearly cannot do is educate Americans.)"
Were you spared the misfortune of an American education then?
"I do of course bear in mind your other interesting theories, eg that “ultraliberals” (ie most Americans) want to scrap DADT to weaken the military and make way for a foreign invasion."
"eg" and "ie" are actually abbreviations for the Latin words exempli gratia and id est, respectively. They should be abbreviated as "e.g." and "i.e."
Well, maybe you weren't spared after all. Glass houses and all of that.
Complain about this comment
343. At 08:03am on 06 Dec 2010, JClarkson wrote:
#321
"(For the record, the words you were looking for are ‘it’s’ and ‘etc.’. One of the very many things the US clearly cannot do is educate Americans.)"
_____________________________________________
Absolutely! The only thing the US gov't seems capable of doing in the education arena is throwing money it really doesn't have at a problem that requires a lot more to fix than simply dollars.
Any American that sends his/her kids to a parochial school gets a great return on about 1/4 of the investment. Something to think about... Unfortunately, the teachers unions have worked very hard to keep lower middle/working class folks from being able to avail themselves of quality education for their kids by screaming bloody murder every time a jurisdiction even mentions the word "vouchers." However, many Churches that support parochial schools have means tested scholarship programs paid for by the congregation for such children. Therefore, there are millions of well educated Americans, unfortunately there are tens of millions that aren’t (public school products).
Complain about this comment
340. At 05:18am on 06 Dec 2010, KScurmudgeon wrote:
We Americans are many things, including this -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp_RHnQ-jgU
KScurmudgeon
----------------------------------------
Thank you so much,that was sublime such a random thing to be done so well.
You can safely say with pride,with this, Only In America !!..
Complain about this comment
I wonder how much time will pass before Mr. Simpson’s warning speech about U.S. Federal deficit spending will be restated by the Money Market in the form recently spoken of Greece and Ireland.
Complain about this comment
312. At 4:42pm on 05 Dec 2010, Mathiasen wrote:
#307. At 4:24pm on 05 Dec 2010, quietoaktree
I am a short time guest here. I regret that the Euro blog has been shut down. I would like it to reopen and with the broad spectrum of issues that characterised it, when Mark Mardell was its editor.
-----------
You can post to earlier reports on Gavin Hewitt's blog. I just posted to his December 2 report, Playing the long game. So, his blog is still working, just the one report, The german dilema, is closed. Or so it seems...
Complain about this comment
343 JClarkson wrote:
“Were you spared the misfortune of an American education then?”
Yes. Well spotted.
(For the avoidance of doubt, I am not of course saying that no American is properly educated – just that at least some, on the basis of this blog, are apparently able to receive a third level education without achieving minimal standards of literacy, let alone logic. The same may of course be true for, say, the Irish or UK education systems.)
“"eg" and "ie" are actually abbreviations for the Latin words exempli gratia and id est, respectively. They should be abbreviated as "e.g." and "i.e."/Well, maybe you weren't spared after all. Glass houses and all of that.”
I know what these abbreviations stand for and what they mean.
AFAIK, the use of the full stop (or ‘period’ in the US) in abbreviations is not set in stone. I tend to avoid it unless there is any possibility of misinterpretation, because (a) it’s easier and (b) its use tends to confuse the spell checker – it thinks it signifies the end of a sentence, and wants to consequently leave 2 spaces and start the next sentence with a capital letter. So, for example, I never bother writing ‘U.S.A.’, ‘U.K.’ or ‘U.N.’, though they are all abbreviations.
From Wikipedia, here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbreviations#Periods_.28full_stops.29_and_spaces
“After World War II, the British greatly reduced their use of the full stop and other punctuation points after abbreviations in at least semi-formal writing, while the Americans more readily kept such use until more recently, and still maintain it more than Britons.”
“For the sake of convenience, many British publications, including the BBC and The Guardian, have completely done away with the use of full stops or periods in all abbreviations.”
“In modern English there are several conventions for abbreviations and the choice may be confusing. The only rule universally accepted is that one should be consistent…”
“A third standard removes the full stops from all abbreviations (both "Saint" and "Street" become "St").”
I would suggest that there is a significant qualitative difference between choosing not to use full stops in these abbreviations and getting the abbreviation wrong and writing “ect.”. (For the record, this was not a mere typo or slip of the keyboard – this is what LucyJ always writes.) Similarly, there would be a significant difference between choosing to write USA, and writing U.A.S.
On the occasions when I have bothered responding to LucyJ’s outpourings, I have tended not to correct her spelling or grammar – just her facts and logic. I did so on this occasion mostly in response to the following nonsensical claim – “Basically, the only reason we have illegal immigrants is because big govt. is not interested in shutting it down- America can do pretty much almost ANYTHING- its just that our govt. chooses the illegals over Americans...why?”. I could have provided a long list of things that the US cannot do – this is just the one that sprang to mind.
(I am often amused by the irony that many Americans like to contrast the religious and God-fearing US with heathen, secular, Godless Europe, yet simultaneously seem particularly prone to the great sin of Pride. For example, while I think most Britons take a certain quiet pride in their country and its history and achievements, I think most would be bemused and appalled at the idea of chanting ‘UK! UK! We’re Number One!’)
Anyway, I am glad you picked up on the use of abbreviations, which was of course the most important part of my posting, far more so than the minor details of whether Obama hates white people....
Complain about this comment
"As British we know that when ever there is Injustice Tyranny & Oppression, America will turn up six months late & bomb the country next to were the trouble is"
ukwales, are you suggesting that we are going to bomb nuclear facilities of Islamist Republic of Iran, just because it's next door to Iraq? :-)))
["bom,bomb bomb
bomb bomb Iran"
(an old hit)]
Complain about this comment
Tinkersdamn wrote:
Wikileaks may have turned a corner in its latest release, listing, even if vaguely, international locations of underground cables, energy pipelines, and pharmaceutical facilities that the US has identified as vital for national security. Unlike the organization's earlier releases, I can't perceive any good intended to come from this latest release.
Now, can you see what is it really all about? :-(((
Complain about this comment
India has 22 nuclear reactors and is seeking to expand its energy sector, opening up a market estimated at £90bn over 15 years.
France, the world's second largest producer of nuclear energy after the US, hopes to lead an international revival of the industry, which is expected to benefit from worries about global warming and soaring energy prices.
Hungry for energy to fuel its booming economy, India has a population of 1.2 billion, but gets only a tiny fraction of its electricity from nuclear power.
Supporters of the deal say that having more nuclear plants in India could help reduce global demand for oil and gas while at the same time significantly reducing the country's pollution levels. (BBC News)
Here's hoping Obama Administration is going to promote GE/Westinghouse 3 Gen. nuclear power plants rather than windmills and solar panels.
Even if it's not PC.
Complain about this comment
349. At 11:53am on 06 Dec 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"As British we know that when ever there is Injustice Tyranny & Oppression, America will turn up six months late & bomb the country next to were the trouble is"
ukwales, are you suggesting that we are going to bomb nuclear facilities of Islamist Republic of Iran, just because it's next door to Iraq? :-)))
["bom,bomb bomb
bomb bomb Iran"
(an old hit)]
----------------------------
No I was totally joshing,but every one will have to decide,dealing with
Idiots with out WMD is a lot more preferable than Idiots with...
Complain about this comment
#339 Curt Carpenter
Being a Baby Boomer fast approaching my Big Bang and/or the Happy Hunting Grounds I see no reason to mince words.
Of course I also make a difference between those who are fighting for independence and their oppressors, but there comes a point when I say `your nationalist card has been played out´, an example is Eritrea, who cried for the World to help them -- but didn´t stop there. There are other examples -- but my moral support has limits and that is usually when nationalism (in any form) becomes the oppressor -- also within societies. The latter unfortunately has become the rule rather than the exception.
As for not divulging my nationality it has a good reason. If I said I was British, I would be expected to defend Royalty and the Empire. If I said I was German, I would be expected not to criticize anything but Germany. If I said I was Pakistani, I would be expected to defend Islam. If I said I was an American Bible Belt Christian, I would be expected to defend 2 million losing unemployment benefit extension and Ayn Rand (among other things)
If I didn´t conform to what some bloggers believe I ought to think and say --- then I would be accused of treason on top of cowardice--- All those hassles to detract from my arguments ? --No thanks !
Stella I´ve only seen in a beer glass -- and the Northern lights once.
--- unfortunately separately.
Complain about this comment
" All those hassles to detract from my arguments ?"
What arguments?
Complain about this comment
The UN Security Council has said that until Iran's peaceful intentions can be fully established, it should stop enrichment and other nuclear activities.
Recent Wikileaks releases of secret US diplomatic cables also revealed some Arab states calling for military action against Iran's nuclear facilities.
And not the other way round? SHOCK! SHOCK!
Complain about this comment
#351 Powermeerkat
´Here's hoping Obama Administration is going to promote GE/Westinghouse 3 Gen. nuclear power plants rather than windmills and solar panels.´
Why -- so you can play with your nuclear bombs and your shares will rise ?
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat
Did you get my compliment to you #299 removed ?
--if you give, please also accept !
Complain about this comment
OK -NO Name
-- I suspected reading and understanding difficulties in Kindergarten and beyond !
--back to the pacifier !
Complain about this comment
About the IMF question, Obama keeps contributing to the IMF because the US Government wants to maintain US policy on the Fund.
Same thing for the UN.
Besides, otherwise the IMF would be relocated to Berlin or Beijing, since due to IMF rules, the IMF Headquarters must be located on the largest donor.
That's the problem with the last US governments, they keep maintaining an Cold War infrastructure that is no longer in connection with the Americans best interest and the multi-polar global order.
That's really insane, emitting debt to keep an over-expensive structure no longer needed.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Hewitt´s European blog has reopened--Wikileak disclosures.
---Britain is missing from his discussion --the rest are in !
Complain about this comment
353 quietoaktree:
"Big Bang" is definitely the way to do it. Slow rot is more the norm though. Not much hope of a "happy hunting ground" either -- unless we end up as something's prey species (my personal expectation).
I hope for The Void, but am not optimistic.
Are you saying you HAD a reason to mince words as a youth? Why? (See end note here though -- might explain everything.)
Do you think there's ever been an idea (like nationalism) that -hasn't- been abused? Of course not. Even God Almighty (of whatever flavor) has been used frequently enough to beat one group or another over the head until they bleed. It seems to be in the nature of "ideas" and the entities that have them.
All things in moderation, quietoaktree. Extremism, even in the defense of "liberty" -IS- a vice, Barry Goldwater to the contrary.
But I'm sure you know that.
If you assume that my knowing your nationality would somehow diminish you, I'd say you have a stunted knowledge of me (understandable) and yourself (not understandable at your age). Every group (nationality, tribe...) that is honest with itself, IMHO, has some cause for collective pride and (probably a lot more) cause for collective shame and guilt. This is certainly true for my own nationality. But I embrace it anyway, since it's undeniably a part of my history and "me."
The thing I watch for are people -- individually and in groups -- that can't laugh at themselves from time to time.
Meanwhile, my sage advice would be -- screw "conformity." Up the struggle for honesty and an occasional laugh.
If you've -not- seen your Stella by starlight, it would explain much.
A good beer will only take you so far...
Complain about this comment
336. At 00:18am on 06 Dec 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
#334 UKWales
--- probably I´m a bit jealous at having lost my innocence -- Both Americans and the Irish are known to be charitable. I was in Ireland before the ´Tiger in your tank´ days. Friday and Saturday were the booze days and it appeared that if any money was leftover- the Church got it on Sunday.
---------------------------------------
That is one up on us drinking & rowdy behaviour means the church gets
nothing even on Sunday in Wales.We have terrible problems with young folk getting totally plastered on week ends.I know for a fact most Americans would be shocked at this behaviour.I belong to an organisation called street pastors,One week in five its 8pm till 3am on a sat/sun,just helping in a non judgemental way.Giving flip flops to girls unsteady on their feet & getting taxis for them as they are so vulnerably out of it.Water to lads who are dehydrated after all that booze.First aid to them after fights.
But the more traditional Churches say,"because are not giving a full on
Gospel message we are wasting our time..
http://www.streetpastors.co.uk/Home/tabid/255/Default.aspx
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have never been to Wales - but I can imagine there was some of that mentality --especially with the decline of the coal mines ?
------------------------
For give the cheesy music.Places to stay are soso.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpkkpqqW76s&feature=related
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have the ´gift of the gab´or can you sing ?
(or complaining about the English holiday-homers ?)
-----------------------
Being from the land of Tom Jones "its not unusual" every one can sing but
not all sound the same.There is nothing quite like a Welsh Lament sung atop of the Battlements of a lonely castle with the sun setting behind the ancient western hills, preferable up wind & just out of ear shot!.
I have kissed the Blarney Stone..
Being Welsh through & through funny as it may be,with the English buying
up some of the remote cottages & refurbishing them,with out that for site
they would have fallen into ruin.So its a good thing.I have never sided with the Welsh Nationalist narrow view,many of them have not come to terms with the Romans.But it was good black humour, when they hi jacked the old coal board ad,Why not come home to a real fire!!.
Complain about this comment
307. quietoaktree:
Many Americans don´t even know where Europe is -- far less the different countries and the politics.
*************
Americans come from so many different countries, it's hard to imagine their not knowing. My grandparents were from 3 different European countries. I have relatives in 6 countries outside the US (that I know of). My father speaks 7 languages, which he taught himself by reading newspapers and watching TV. His second wife is Mexican. I'm not that unusual, at least in NY.
I have found that many non-Americans have little detailed knowledge of the US. They are familiar with its politics and its military exploits but don't realize its vast geographic size, the independent nature of its states, or the cultural differences that exist in its different regions. They mistakenly assume a solution that works for one, smaller and more homogeneous European country will translate well to our much larger, diverse nation. And never mind the American independent streak!
Americans have travelled distances far greater than many Europeans, I would guess, and they haven't even left the country.
Complain about this comment
Tinkerdam wrote: Wikileaks may have turned a corner in its latest release, listing, even if vaguely, international locations of underground cables, energy pipelines, and pharmaceutical facilities that the US has identified as vital for national security. Unlike the organization's earlier releases, I can't perceive any good intended to come from this latest release.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I think IF or someone said wikileaks caused no harm and I disagreed- maybe you can see why now, IF!
In my personal opinion, Assange and wikileaks are the equivilent of terrorist organization, just like Sen. McConnell says, cause' they are releasing top secret USA info that terrorists want!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101206/ts_alt_afp/usdiplomacywikileaks_20101206102522
An exerpt:
WikiLeaks has divulged a secret list compiled by Washington of key infrastructure sites around the world that could pose a critical danger to US security if they come under terrorist attack.
It details undersea cables, key communications, ports, mineral resources and firms of strategic importance in countries ranging from Britain to New Zealand, via Africa, the Middle East and China.
--------------------------------------------
So now wikileaks has revealed to the terrorists just where everything vital is located, so they know what to go after to harm us and allies as much as possible...this shows that wikileaks is clearly aiding, abetting and giving comfort to the enemy...
In this day and age of Internet, apprently nothing is sacred anymore.
USA, we have not done everything we can to stop wikileaks attack on America, secret info is still coming out, now its even worse than before-its time to take action!
As the Middle Easterners' old hypothetical saying goes,
"Cut the head off of the snake"!!!
Complain about this comment
#363 UKWales
-- It is evident you have little left over for Welsh Nationalism -- name choice was clear.
Complain about this comment
quietoaktree wrote:
As for not divulging my nationality it has a good reason. If I said I was British, I would be expected to defend Royalty and the Empire. If I said I was German, I would be expected not to criticize anything but Germany. If I said I was Pakistani, I would be expected to defend Islam. If I said I was an American Bible Belt Christian, I would be expected to defend 2 million losing unemployment benefit extension and Ayn Rand (among other things)
----------------------------------------------------------
Well, if you are not up to defending your nationality, that's your choice.
As for me, I am 100% proud to be native born and raised American!!! :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
plainoaktree wrote: Stella I´ve only seen in a beer glas
------------------------------------------------------------
That Belgium beer? Its pretty good. Amazingly, it is sold at our local superrural grocery store...lol.
Complain about this comment
#367 LucyJ
´As for me, I am 100% proud to be native born and raised American!!! :)´
-- Everybody has their burden to bear.
I prefer German Pils beer.
Complain about this comment
John wrote: 1. The US government in general, and President Obama in particular, could easily solve the problem of illegal immigrants? Presumably, by immediately stopping all illegal immigration? And by immediately deporting all illegal immigrants?
--------------------------------------------------------
Yes, President Obama could EASILY shut down illegal slave labor right now and deport all illegals if he wanted (similar to Mexican Repatriation Act of past, except this would only be for illegals), but he wants to make them citizens, as shown by the DREAM act by Dems, or what I call the 'American Dream Destroyer' Act...
---------------------------------------------------------------
John wrote: 2. Obama personally chooses not to do so? Instead, he ‘chooses the illegals over Americans’ – whatever that is supposed to mean.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, sadly, his loyalty lays in criss-cross directions. I wish President Obama felt as loyal/sympathy toward Americans as he does toward illegals...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3. John: (Perhaps you think the Republicans installed a shiny red button in the Oval Office for this very purpose, but Obama wilfully refuses to press it?)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Very, very willfully, indeed.
------------------------------------------------------------------
John: 4. Obama refuses to deal with this issue because he has ‘issues’ with people like you, (and his late mother) who have white skin?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alas, some want to 'get back at us' for past actions and want to see us suffer/also, be above us/tell us what to do. Role reversal of slave and owner. Thats some peoples' (not all peoples') goal.
My dad told me when he was in military in 70's he had a black friend who used to pick up white girls by telling them if they didn't date him, they were racist- and it often worked!
The girls did not want to be called racist, so they dated him.
----------------------------------------------------------------
John wrote: 5. He is therefore a racist?
In my personal opinion, he is half racist- some of the time hes not and some of the time he is...he varies from issue to issue and changes on and off, but deep down issues lie and when they come out, you can sure tell...I always hope to see the good side...
--------------------------------------------------
John wrote: I do of course bear in mind your other interesting theories, eg that “ultraliberals” (ie most Americans) want to scrap DADT to weaken the military and make way for a foreign invasion.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. Its not just me, John. Just recently, the heads of the Army, Marines and Air Force have said that they do not feel it is a good idea to repeal DADT at this particular point of time...for various reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------
John wrote: (For the record, the words you were looking for are ‘it’s’ and ‘etc.’. One of the very many things the US clearly cannot do is educate Americans)
---------------------------------------------------------------
I can tell you are an English teacher, John, otherwise why would you be so in love with grammar?
I was actually one of the best students in my English classes, although my creativity outweighs my grammar, ect...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#362 Curt Carpenter
I would say that for many the ´Family´was the beginnings of their problems --never mind the larger social groupings --and for them ( family) I take no responsibility. To scale up the problems to ´country´ and accept responsibility for what others do on a national (or international) level, is asking a bit much from me -- especially when they bang into my head all this´ freedom´rot.
I am only free when I do what I´m told --otherwise I am a traitor ?
Like you, this rebirth kick is the worst of all my possible future worlds. Everything was more or less fine until I visited Haiti (Papa Doc). All they seemed to have was Barboncourt rum and a factory making baseballs for America. America had blockaded Cuba --and poor elderly Haitians were left to die under palm trees ( among other things). The difference from what I was told to think and what I saw was more than apparent.
As WC Fields said --`never give a sucker an even break´ --reality really hit home and between the eyes at that.
I never had the luck with a Stella and starlight -- But with a Marie in Haiti (another story) and we were both grateful.
Complain about this comment
John wrote: Now, perhaps you would be so good as to enlighten us as to what evidence you have for this farrago of simplistic prejudice? For example, if the problem of illegal immigration is so easy to solve, why did the Reps not easily solve it from 2001-8, when there was a Republican President?
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Repubs did not solve this problem, due to greediness by Bush Admin. and cohorts...
Basically, they kept illegal slave labor, because they are reaping the benefits- the owners make too much and the workers make too little...
So it was not solved during Bush era due to profit...
In fact, Bush wanted to give them citizenship also, which the rest of Repubs shut down due to unpopularity- I believe Bush wanted to do this because then the corps would have umlimited workers and we would all be competing for the lowest paying jobs as the high paying jobs dissapeared, thus creating a virtual slave state...my personal opinion is that Bush cared about his rich friends the most and everyone else, including poor/middle class Americans, white or otherwise, were 'beneath' him...
Now its today not being solved due to racism...
--------------------------------------------------------------
John wrote: And exactly what evidence do you have for your (frankly fairly vile) smear, that Obama is racially biased against Whites. (Apart from ‘well, El Rushbo and Glen Beck and Fox said it, so it must be true’.
---------------------------------------------------------------
What about the Black Panthers case, John?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101206/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_investigation_black_panthers
An exerpt:
The report has been published on the commission's website. It says the department has failed to cooperate with the investigation and left open the question of whether political interference played a role in limiting action against the New Black Panther Party.
Two lawyers who formerly worked in the department's Voting Rights section have described hostility from senior officials and career attorneys to pursuing Voting Rights Act accusations against minorities who harass white voters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
So apparently we can't harass them, but they can harass us, what is that John, if not racism?
Also, I would like to add Obama's comment against rural folk in America clinging to guns and religion, Holder's comment on race in America just after Obama was elected, Obama's stance on the professor who broke into his house and someone called the cops on him- then police asked him for id to prove who he was and the professor cried race, then the fact that Obama picked Sotomayor and that other lady for Supreme Court- both from Harvard- despite the fact that most everyone on Supreme Court is from Cali or NYork- why not pick someone from a different state?
Supreme Court wise, the Midwest is not being represented, as they are most all from Cali or NYork- doesn't this mean the two often liberal Coast states are setting the standards for all of us, including Midwest, even though we don't have representation?
Does the Midwest not count on the Supreme Court because we are rural and 'cling to guns and religion'?
Complain about this comment
quietoaktree wrote: I prefer German Pils beer.
-------------------------------------------------------------
My favorite foreign beer is Blonde Grolsch.
My favorite domestic beer is Wild Blue.
Both are truly awesome!!! :)
See, we Americans enjoy European items, as well...
Complain about this comment
#348
"AFAIK, the use of the full stop (or ‘period’ in the US) in abbreviations is not set in stone. I tend to avoid it unless there is any possibility of misinterpretation, because (a) it’s easier and (b) its use tends to confuse the spell checker..."
That's odd. My spell checker flags down words that don't exist in the English language, such as eg and ie. And it has no issues with USA or UK since those are indeed commonly used without the periods indicating an abbreviation.
"Anyway, I am glad you picked up on the use of abbreviations, which was of course the most important part of my posting, far more so than the minor details of whether Obama hates white people...."
To me, they are about equal in significance. Since you brought up LucyJ's spelling mistakes in your post about Obama, I assumed that you too deemed equivalent in importance and significance. Or at least significant enough to base a generalization on them.
Spelling mistakes = deficient educational system = Obama is important to me and my life.
Complain about this comment
359. At 1:52pm on 06 Dec 2010, Wallonia wrote:
This was a very interesting post.
As a cheeky aside. I hope your divorce from Flanderland goes smoothly and that custody of little Brussels can be handled amicably and, of course, in the best interests of Brussels [as always].
Complain about this comment
337. At 00:37am on 06 Dec 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
“#335 UKWales
-- Your usual tactic
---With kisses !”
_________________________
Well, it was getting rather obvious, you two! In case uk wants to test the other waters, looks like you’ve found your mate.
___________________________________________________________________
And, Re: Yesterday: I had a premonition of IF comparing quietoak to Huck Finn’s Doctor.
LOL.
Rolling.
And, yikes.
I was only trying to avoid watching okay people turn into henchmen.
Complain about this comment
363. At 2:30pm on 06 Dec 2010, ukwales wrote: "because are not giving a full on Gospel message we are wasting our time."
I am quite sure Jesus would agree with you. In one of his lesser known homilies [almost always plagiarized and assigned to another] He said something like. "Take what you have and give it to those in need, each according to his ability and to each according to his needs." Jesus was SUCH a radical; he can't be too happy about what some people say and do in his name these days.
Complain about this comment
#373 LucyJ
How do you know I am not American ?
Blonde Groisch ???
--Where does that come from ?
Did you know that pils is fermented at a far lower temperature than the Ale (sometimes called export). Fermentation at lower temperatures inhibits the production of the ´undesirable alcohols´-- and is easier on the headache ?
-- Are you choices pils or export ?
Complain about this comment
# 369 LucyJ wrote:
“Yes, President Obama could EASILY shut down illegal slave labor right now and deport all illegals if he wanted (similar to Mexican Repatriation Act of past, except this would only be for illegals), but he wants to make them citizens, as shown by the DREAM act by Dems, or what I call the 'American Dream Destroyer' Act...”
Rehashed and repeated piffle is still piffle. So Obama knows the exact whereabouts of each of the millions of illegals, but refuses to deport them. And why didn’t Clinton deport them? Bush I? Reagan? Really, do you read what you write? What planet are you on?
“Yes, sadly, his loyalty lays (sic) in criss-cross directions. I wish President Obama felt as loyal/sympathy (sic) toward Americans as he does toward illegals...”
You don't know what he ‘feels’. You just whip up a farrago of fantasy, bigotry and paranoia.
“Alas, some want to 'get back at us' for past actions and want to see us suffer/also, be above us/tell us what to do. Role reversal of slave and owner. Thats (sic) some peoples' (not all peoples') goal.”
‘Some’ being Obama presumably? He wants revenge on white people for slavery – so he favours Latino immigrants – even though he has no slave ancestors? Even though most people in his party are white? And his mother and her family were white? What KKK handbook did you get that one from? Even Limbaugh would blush at this stuff.
“My dad told me when he was in military in 70's he had a black friend who used to pick up white girls by telling them if they didn't date him, they were racist- and it often worked!/The girls did not want to be called racist, so they dated him.”
If true, this merely proves that some young women are gullible, naive and stupid. Hardly news...”Plus ca change....”
“In my personal opinion, he (Obama) is half racist- some of the time he's (sic) not and some of the time he is...he varies from issue to issue and changes on and off, but deep down issues lie and when they come out, you can sure tell...I always hope to see the good side...”
So he’s only half-racist? That’s alright then. Rather like being slightly pregnant. Basically, he's racist when he does what you dislike. It is a vile accusation, and you make it without evidence. And you claim to be a Christian.
“Absolutely. Its (sic) not just me, John. Just recently, the heads of the Army, Marines and Air Force have said that they do not feel it is a good idea to repeal DADT at this particular point of time...for various reasons.”
Indeed. Regardless, most Senators, Members of Congress, military leaders and Americans support repeal. And none of the persons you mention have ever supported your ludicrous and paranoid claim that those who oppose DADT – ie most people – are ‘ultraliberals’ trying to overthrow the USA. That’s firmly in tinfoil hat territory.
“I can tell you are an English teacher, John, otherwise why would you be so in love with grammar?”
No, you can’t. I am not. Logic clearly isn’t your strong point. You assumed I was gay because I opposed DADT. I'm not. By your logic, most Americans must be gay. If I admire Dr King, does that make me African American? I am fond of English, and correct grammar, spelling and punctuation. It’s a nice language. I don't like to see it spat on.
“I was actually one of the best students in my English classes”
Sadly, I can believe that. Rather proves my point about US education.
“although my creativity outweighs my grammar, ect (sic)”...
By creativity, you mean of course being creative with the truth, facts, logic, and accusations of racism. Well, that’s one word...
Etc. Short for et cetera. Means ‘and other things’. Congratulations on your continuing imperviousness to facts...
Complain about this comment
# 372 LucyJ wrote:
(of the issue of illegal immigrants)
“Now its (sic) today not being solved due to racism...”
Racism is a vile thing. Therefore, it is important to point it out when we see it. Therefore, it is also important not to hurl accusations of racism around when we cannot support them, as people such as Limbaugh, Beck and LucyJ do. In fact, it’s pretty much as vile as being a racist.
And the allegation that the current administration is REFUSING to solve a problem no previous administration could solve, because of anti-White racism, is as ludicrous as it is reprehensible and low.
It’s amusing how certain conservatives whine that any disagreement with Obama leads to them being called racist – untrue – but are happy to hurl the epithet around themselves.
I wrote: “And exactly what evidence do you have for your (frankly fairly vile) smear, that Obama is racially biased against Whites. (Apart from ‘well, El Rushbo and Glen Beck and Fox said it, so it must be true’.)”
Lucy’s riposte – “What about the Black Panthers case, John? / http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101206/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_investigation_black_panthers
She then quotes selectively from this piece, and concludes ‘So apparently we can't harass them, but they can harass us, what is that John, if not racism?’
Among the bits she missed – that
• the report she refers to was by the “conservative-dominated U.S. Commission on Civil Rights...”
• “The department has repeatedly denied that race played any role in its handling of the 2008 incident in Philadelphia.”
• “A criminal investigation into the episode was dropped by the Bush administration”
• “Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee who has been critical of the commission's inquiry, was absent./Thernstrom has said accusations against the department are overblown, especially considering that there is no evidence that the presence of the New Black Panther leaders scared anyone away from voting.”
She provides no proof that the decision was motivated by race, or that the decision was made by Obama.
And that proves Obama is a racist – how?
“Also, I would like to add Obama's comment against rural folk in America clinging to guns and religion”
And that proves Obama is a racist – how?
“Holder's comment on race in America just after Obama was elected”
And that proves Obama is a racist – how?
Obama's stance on the professor who broke into his house and someone called the cops on him- then police asked him for id to prove who he was and the professor cried race”
You didn’t approve of his attitude. And that is it. And that proves Obama is a racist – how?
“then the fact that Obama picked Sotomayor and that other lady for Supreme Court- both from Harvard- despite the fact that most everyone on Supreme Court is from Cali or NYork- why not pick someone from a different state?”
Obama picked a Latina and a (white) Jewess – and that proves he’s racist against white people. Honestly, you could not make this stuff up.
Lucy – as someone said to Joseph McCarthy - have you no shame? Have you no decency?
Complain about this comment
# 373LucyJ wrote:
“My favorite foreign beer is Blonde Grolsch.
My favorite domestic beer is Wild Blue.
Both are truly awesome!!! :)”
Yeah!
Beer is cool!
Sport and music are great!!!
Puppy dogs and rainbows are groovy!!!!
The president is a racist who hates white people, and gay ultraliberals are trying to bring down the USA!!!
Fox Rules!! Spelling, punctuation, logic and evidence suck!!!
We’re Number One!! We’re Number One!!!
“Ect”
Complain about this comment
UKWales
Thanks for the link.
It appears the days of ´Dixon of Dock Green´are really gone--even in Wales.
I suppose every society has its own causes for breakdown ---have you any ideas for your area in Wales why it happens ?
One thing is clear --it does´nt usually happen on a large scale in dictatorial or strict societies.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS