Third Party & Independents Archives

Imagine -

That the Republic Sentry Party has won bigtime in a national election. And, that after heated political and court battles Corporate Personhood has been abolished. Corporations function much as before but operate as business entities exclusive of having human rights. Also, Money Is Free Speech law has been abolished and campaign finance laws reformed.

Corporations and ad hoc groups are free to congregate and form political coalitions as before. Corporations and special interest groups still lobby legislators but can no longer donate or contribute money to support political parties, candidates or political endeavors of any kind. By law, funding for Political parties and political candidates must come from the individual. Donations by the individual are forwarded to the IRS. The IRS accounts for and bulk processes the donations. These funds are passed to the FEC, where the audit trail is broken. The FEC plans for, and distributes funds to viable political parties and candidates for each upcoming election cycle. Political parties are staffed largely by volunteers with few paid employees.

That the people’s representatives are less focused on large corporations and special interest groups. As government is no longer ‘for sale’ representatives are communicating and working with their constituents in carrying out their Constitutional duties. Political parties have evolved to something akin to mini-cspans carried out over party websites whereby, there is a constant flow of video and audio communications between the membership, the public at large and the politicians of that party.

That this has led to the enactment of other government reforms favored by the people. A VAT tax for trade has been implemented. This has put the country on more of a level playing field with the 143 countries of the world that use the VAT extensively. Incorporating a trade VAT has had the effect of reducing our trade deficit significantly.

That we now have a flat income tax system whereby, individuals pay taxes based on gross income from all sources at a rate that may vary between 12-18%, revenue dependent. Some have argued that the flat tax is unfair, that the wealthy should be taxed at a higher rate. However, most agree that a flat tax prevents government manipulation of the tax code to favor one entity over another. And, the process has been greatly simplified so that the tax form is on one sheet of paper with instructions on the back. People seem to love it.

Now that reforms have been implemented the people have voted to remove the burden of taxes from corporations. The people believe that just as one person-one vote is a long standing creed, so too is the belief that individuals are responsible for paying their fair share of the tax burden.

That our year over year trade imbalance has been brought under control. The Executive Branch opted out of the WTO by not renewing an Executive Order to that effect. The US now has control of our trade relations with other countries and is no longer violating our Constitution. This has allowed a number of things to transpire: anti-trust law has been vigorously invoked to break up business entities previously deemed too big to fail or that are determined to be monopolistic, stifling competition and innovation. This has created hundreds of new businesses and employed millions of workers. Competition and innovation have allowed the US to regain a competitive edge in world commerce. Free trade policies have been forged into ‘fair trade’ policies.

In that regard our southern border has been secured preventing the free flow of illegal immigration. Immigration reforms insure that entry into this country is based those seeking political asylum. Temporary work visas are based on needed skills and on a quota system by country, giving opportunity to all. A strong monitoring and enforcement system is in place to regulate the flow of temporary workers. A strong crackdown on the importation of drugs at the border has resulted in the severe restriction of drugs entering the country. This has resulted in less violence in general, improvements in education and health of millions. Also, some $40B that would have gone to foreign drug kingpins now remains within the country.

That through fair trade policies the US is negotiating with each country or bloc of countries in a trading region. For access to resources and business agreements the US agrees to provide development assistance of the type requested. This would include turnkey systems for agri-business, mining, education, public health and similar development that would provide for the long term benefit and development of a country and its people. This provides a means for all countries to improve their development whereas, in the past trade agreements were destructive to small developing countries while plying largesse onto a few, primarily Asian rim countries. Also, through direct trade negotiations the US can ensure that environmental, health, and worker safety standards are in compliance.

That following the ‘great recession’ a federal budget policy has been adopted. The primary goal is to pay down the federal deficit while reducing the size, both monetarily and physically of the federal government by 1/3 over the next 50 years. All programs will operate on a ‘pay as you go’ policy and the priority for the expenditure of revenue reserves will be directed at lowering the deficit.

That numerous reforms have been carried out that will improve the community at large. High schools are being operated as college preparatory schools. Election Day has been declared a national holiday and felons who have served their time are eligible to vote in elections.

Imagine that, since only 17 specific powers were given to the federal government that leaves a lot of room for the people. Imagine that beyond these 17 powers the people can change government as they wish. Number of political parties, number of Supreme Court justices, size of government. If we move away from the Constitution then we really don’t know what rights we have beyond what government officials at the time say we can have. Understand our history, our Constitution, vote often and we can have the government and country that you can imagine.

Posted by Roy Ellis at April 3, 2010 3:24 PM
Comments
Comment #298448

Will be away from the Internet for a coupla days.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 3, 2010 10:04 PM
Comment #298511

Heh…

I seriously doubt the Top 10% Oligarchy we have now will approve of your silly plan.

Posted by: Henry Jones at April 6, 2010 5:58 AM
Comment #298569

The one thing I have learned about the righties Roy is that when they give something a name , such as the fair tax, the one thing it isn’t is fair.

Most of the leading countries economically tax corporations higher than we do, as they do use the services of government.

http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking.aspx

I’m sure we will hear more of this latest ranking soon from C&J as they usually do an excellent job of analysis on this issue.


How did you get to the point that a reduction of 1/3 in the size of our federal government is the appropriate size for the federal government?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 7, 2010 9:11 AM
Comment #298757

j2t2, I just imagined the size. I believe the majority of folks would prefer a smaller government whatever that might represent. It would seem the US’s number 8 ranking would fall way further when/if the survey considers that every US family is indebted by some $500k going forward (2019-20).

Henry Jones, the influence of the elites should have little to do with the peoples government. Good government can only come from an educated people making use of the ballot box. Sounds as if you believe we have too much democracy, as I do, where a vocal (rich) minority have control of the silent majority which puts us somewhere within a Socialist Democracy.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 10, 2010 4:08 PM
Comment #298784

Roy should one really imagine the government would be better at 2/3 the current size as an actual answer to any of the problems we face as a country today. Wouldn’t that mean that conservative small government nirvana was achieved during the Clinton administration when the government was 2/3 the current size? Yet the way I remember it the small government cons were not happy then and they were saying the government should have been smaller then.

To me the line “small government” says nothing unless it is backed with what programs the person saying it is wanting to get rid of. What I have found out when proposing this question to those small government conservatives I have had the discussion with is that most of them really don’t have a clue as to what should be cut or they don’t have the cajones to say whay they think should be cut. It seems to me that if one wants OASID dissolved they should say so, the same with the EPA, the Civil rights act, and Medicare yet most won’t fess up to any of these. The one thing I know is that to a person none of them wanted programs that benefited them cut whether it be agricultural subsidies, government backed mortgages, OASID, or some corporate welfare program that they benefited from.


To arbitrarily cut each and every federal program by 1/3 also doesn’t seem to make much sense to me. So please tell me how the federal government cut by 1/3 will be a better government for our country.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 11, 2010 12:01 AM
Comment #298795

j2t2, not cut arbitrarily, but just start somewhere. The Founder’s make way more sense to me than anything from hearing from any political entity. While it could take years of looking over different programs, single line items in bills etc a broad brush approach is to say ‘downsize government’. As an example, I would suggest the REA could be abolished. The TVA, started from a national defense issue, could now be privatized. Go to most countries around the world and you will find their defense forces stocked with giveaway and purchased military goods. I would suggest we don’t need any more Interstate highways eating up land. At the same time we have roadways clogged by vehicles and trucks now. Where is the technology that was supposed to save us? Tied up in monopolies that refuse to allow innovation in the market place.

Realize I’m making a pretty sad case for small government. Government should stick to policy and stay out of providing things, healthcare, power, education, etc.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 11, 2010 1:27 PM
Comment #298799

Making the government smaller without regard for what is being done away with just doesn’t make good sense to me. Perhaps the problem is due to listening to the bumper sticker message “small government” and being influenced by the message without really understanding what is wrong in the government and what needs to be done away with. I know this message has been around for a long time and was popularized by Reagan who once in office did little to actually downsize government.Maybe that should tell us something.

How does downsizing government help to promote the ideas you have asked us to imagine has happened? It seems to me that the weaker government is the more monopolistic the corporations would become and the stronger the corporate driven WTO and one world government…. wait a minute… are you sure those that keep clamoring for a smaller weaker federal government like we had in the late 1700’s are not looking towards a one world government scenario or the privatization of government and the new world order of a single North American government?

I agree the government should stay out of many areas that private business can do but are they really into healthcare or health insurance? Why kind of utilities/power is the federal government providing? Are they not just doing the job of regulating and overseeing TVA at this point? Where would we be today had the feds not actively participated in the TVA when most houses in the area did not have electric power? What do we gain by completely privatizing TVA, perhaps the time has come but how does that decrease the size of the federal government cost wise if the TVA is not taxpayer funded?

http://www.tva.com/abouttva/history.htm

Posted by: j2t2 at April 11, 2010 2:15 PM
Comment #298804

J2t2 seems the REA was abolished and/or reconfigured into the Rural Utility Service (RUS) in 1994. Didn’t know that. The Internet is wunerful if you have the time.

Rural Electrification Administration (REA), former agency of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture charged with administering loan programs for electrification and telephone service in rural areas. The REA was created (1935) by executive order as an independent federal bureau, authorized by the Congress in 1936, and later (1939) reorganized as a division of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. The REA undertook to provide farms with inexpensive electric lighting and power. To implement those goals the administration made long-term, self-liquidating loans to state and local governments, to farmers’ cooperatives, and to nonprofit organizations; no loans were made directly to consumers. In 1949 the REA was authorized to make loans for telephone improvements; in 1988, REA was permitted to give interest-free loans for job creation and rural electric systems. By the early 1970s about 98% of all farms in the United States had electric service, a demonstration of REA’s success. The administration was abolished in 1994 and its functions assumed by the Rural Utilities Service.

The RUS is one of three agencies (the other two are Rural Business-Cooperative Service and the Rural Housing Service) that are part of the USDA’s Rural Development Bureau. The three agencies are headed by administrators, who each report to the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development. (The RUS administrator is the only one of the three who is Senate-confirmed).
The RUS administrator makes the primary policy and program decisions for the agency and is assisted by a borrower and program support staff that includes a financial services staff, an administrative liaison staff, and a program accounting services division. Because of the financial nature of the agency’s work, the administrator and associated staff work closely with two other agencies that are not part of the USDA, the Federal Financing Bank (FFB) and the Rural Telephone Bank (RTB). These banks provide the funds for many of the loan programs administered by the RUS.
The program functions of the RUS are divided among three operating units: water and waste, electric, and telecommunications, each led by an assistant administrator. The administrator and staff concentrate on the financial details of individual RUS projects, and these three operating units provide the engineering and technical personnel to plan and execute projects.
Seems things got to hot so the government does what the government does best, reorganize, change the titles and keep on truckin. Excerpt from 1993:
“This is not just effective lobbying; it’s wholesome lobbying ” said Rep. John Spratt, a South Carolina Democrat, after beneficiaries of federally subsidized power descended on Capitol Hill to try to protect the Rural Electrification Administration from President Clinton’s proposed cutbacks.
Past presidents, too, have suggested closing the REA spigot, but legislators, fearful of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association — with its more than 1,000 member cooperatives and political action committee contributions of $1.17 million during the most recent election — have always run in the opposite direction, genuflecting before the NRECA’s members as they flooded the capital like locusts in Egypt.
WASHINGTON - Today, Congressman Mike McIntyre, Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee’s Subcommittee on Rural Development, Biotechnology, Specialty Crops, and Foreign Agriculture, held a hearing to review efforts to improve rural water infrastructure.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utility Service (RUS) administers programs that provide loans, grants, loan guarantees and technical assistance for drinking water, sanitary sewer, solid waste and storm drainage facilities in rural communities with populations under 10,000 people.
“The majority of community water systems in America serve small populations, which makes their long-term health vital to those of us who represent rural constituencies,” said Subcommittee Chairman McIntyre. “They must meet the same water treatment requirements as larger systems, yet some lack the resources to finance such improvements. USDA’s Rural Utilities Service and other agencies help fill that void. At today’s hearing we heard how RUS is meeting the demands for clean water and how they are assisting communities like those on our second panel, who know the importance of clean water systems to the growth of their communities.”
“With 16 federal agencies involved in administering more than 88 programs that target rural development, it is important to maintain a close watch on how the Administration implements these programs and safeguards taxpayer dollars. It is important we remember above all, that these programs are not social programs or welfare programs, but a tool to enable small communities to comply with costly federal mandates,” said Subcommittee Ranking Member K. Michael Conaway.

The FED is into running many programs that should be run by State govt’s. As it is taxpayers in Maine are getting stuck for RUS projects in Calif, etc. Also, the above para noting that the RUS is necessary to support federal mandates on ‘small communities’, etc. Do we really need 16 federal agencies working on ‘rural’ development?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 11, 2010 6:01 PM
Comment #298816

Well Roy that is a good question. 16 agencies seem like a lot but there are many rural counties sifting through the various federal programs for rural communities in their area hunting for dollars to improve the telephone system, the water quality etc. I travel through several small towns in Northeast Colorado and western Nebraska and have seen the local phone companies you mentioned and realize that without them many would not have had a phone the past several decades as the larger phone companies wouldn’t run land lines to the farms and ranches in these areas. I also realize that with cell phone technology the need for these programs has diminished over the past decade.

The small town I currently live in has updates in the local paper weekly on USDA programs. Many here rely upon these programs for income and jobs. How ironic the majority of people, by far, in the county I live in are very conservative and would not want these programs cut yet demand “small government” and less taxes. They do manage to find time to criticize those to lazy to work city types that get welfare however.

But to answer your question it does seem to me that 16 different federal agencies is a bit much and perhaps some could be consolidated and/or done away with. Yet it is we the people that continue to lobby to keep these programs and agencies yet complain that government is to big. As far as whether this is state or federal work I would offer that the state of Colorado could not afford to do the job the feds do IMHO so by lowering federal taxes we would only be raising state taxes or we could all be living in Mississippi like conditions.

To those in Maine that feel their money is going to help rural California and think that is an issue I would ask them if they feel the same when many good Californians are helping to protect our nation, (which is what we are,not just a bunch of states) do they have the same problem. Has our generation become so selfish,greedy and envious of others that we would think the tax we pay to the federal government may be spent to help better a different part of the country we live in and therefore is unAmerican?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 11, 2010 9:23 PM
Comment #298874

j2t2, it’s gotten to big, outta control, too much corruption involved. 40% of the federal budget is entitlements which are set to double or triple over the next few. I, as a citizen of Va. don’t want my taxes going to hold up, say, California. I don’t agree with a lot of what they have done and are doing. Those things in my State I sometimes get a chance to vote on. The Founder’s set it up that way, and planned for a small federal government. Now, things are upside down. Who has growing government helped? The stock market is booming and big biz has been bailed out. Leaves the States and the people pretty much busted. We won’t get the bill for another couple years but it’s coming.

As in most things it’s better to do it the right way even though it may be easier to do it the wrong way initially. Adding wrongs to wrongs doesn’t lead you to a right, just compounds the problem.

Glen Beck is going to take on the Federal budget tomorrow evening, starting with the entitlement programs. Should be interesting.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 12, 2010 7:15 PM
Comment #298883

Roy why is it always the entitlement programs? Why not the Military budget. It is roughly half of the federal budget and is rife with corruption, has grown to the point it is global and is out of control, judging by the amount of time it took to stabilize Iraq and the number of civilian causalities. Not to mention the fact that it was us that invaded them not the Iraqi’s invading us. Did the founding fathers mention anything but a navy in the Constitution? Why doesn’t the 18th century answer for the military work today? If we expect all of 18th century answers to be valid today why not the military answer of the founding fathers?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 12, 2010 8:40 PM
Comment #298886

Agree j2t2, the defense budget way out of control. We’ve got weapon systems we can’t afford to use, etc. Troops, bases strung out around the world. Still in Korea, etc. Congress mandating systems like the Osprey which is dangerous to all who come near it.

Shouldn’t have been an afghan or Iraq war IMO. You’ve heard my rants I guess. The reason the Iraq war lasted longer than WWII was to give the oil patch gang time to go in an survey the oil fields, get contracts started, etc. and China ends up with a big contract as part of that deal.

As for the Afghan thing all we needed to do was tighten up security after 9-11, close the border, stop states from issuing drivers license to warm bodies, etc. No reason for a contracted war at all. No reason for the number of intel agencies that followed and now the plan is to put them all under a new cabinet level department. No end to it. Unsustainable, based on the fact that we are competing with the worlds cheapest labor re the job market. Tax revenues are going down and you can’t expect the upper 50% to pull the wagon for out debt. Keep doling freebies out to the 50% paying no tax and they will continue to vote themselves a raise. Unsustainable at every level.

IMO we need a VAT tax for foreign trade and a flat tax for income. That would help to balance our trade deficit and ensure everyone above the poverty level paid some income tax.

It all needs to be on the table and that’s what Beck is doing this week.

Just heard O’Rilley interview Mitt Romney who bround Mass. a HC program they can’t pay for. So, the Fed is kicking in 50%. I don’t want to pay for Mitt’s HC package in Mass through my federal taxes.

Not trying to go back to the 1800’s. Some things the Fed shud take on. This electrical grid thing might be a good project for the fed if it can’t be done by the individual states for some reason.

All the super serious problems we have as a nation and you have the dialogue going on in the upper thread. GAO Walker and others say we have 2-4 years to get things right or we are done.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 12, 2010 9:47 PM
Comment #298887

j2t2, our military should be sufficiently strong to repel any potential enemy. That’s what most folks would be willing to pay for. But, the system has run amuk. Gov’t will pay seemingly any price for defense materials. They closed some national defense labs and narrowed the field to three major players, Lockheed, Boeing and Northrup/Grumman I do believe. Cutting out a lot of competition in the process. Also, this so called free trade thing, contracting our major projects to foreign entites when we’ve lost 3M high end jobs to China. Highly stupid IMO.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 12, 2010 10:00 PM
Comment #298915

“Not trying to go back to the 1800’s. Some things the Fed shud take on. This electrical grid thing might be a good project for the fed if it can’t be done by the individual states for some reason.”

Why not health care? The health care and insurance system is as corrupted as anything we have seen in government. The Pharmaceuticals, Insurance Companies and Hospitals have not been able to contain costs in decades, profits are soaring for them yet many cannot afford health care. The smart power grid and alternative energy should be for the 2010’s and beyond what putting a man into space was for the 60’s and 70’s.

“All the super serious problems we have as a nation and you have the dialogue going on in the upper thread. GAO Walker and others say we have 2-4 years to get things right or we are done.”

Walker is one of a few that seems to have been consistent in predicting the ‘08 crash. However how long has he been predicting this “we are done in 2to 4 years” scenario?

Roy you do realize Glenn Beck and his ilk is why we see comments like we do on WB and other blogs. When you demonize the other side to the extent Limbaugh and the Faux “news” guys have done for the past 30 years why would you expect civility elsewhere.

BTW Roy Since I got home early from work today I will watch Glenn Beck and see what he has to say on the federal budget. I will watch the entire hour no matter how much it hurts and will keep an open mind whilst doing so. Perhaps one day soon you can watch Dylan Rattigan on CNBC.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 13, 2010 4:47 PM
Comment #298967

j2t2, you are right that HC is out of control. Worst out of control is the education system. But, if we look at why it comes right back to big government, or government failing to do it’s job of regulating all these things.

Let’s get Beck out of the way first. Last two nights he offered some solutions. Says’s HC should be anti=trusted, tort reform I believe, and nationwide competition in those fields. Nothing new there and I am for all that. Tonight he went over wages and insurance coverage for federal/congressional workers. Fed workers make twice the private sector and their insurance package is worth 4 times that of private sector. I agree their insurance plan should be a private plan so there is no suggestion of discrimlination. On salaries/wages I don’t care if Intel makes $12B profit in 12 weeks but, there comes a time when things become unbalanced. For Intel to make those profits while hiring foreign cheap labor is just wrong. There has to be balance in the economy. The Intel’s can’t continue to make those profits while the middle class continues to lose ground. Used to be that when consumers couldn’t afford to consume any more prices would come down. Now that we have this global economy Intel has less interest in controlling their prices. The only way to keep the balance between the consumer and the producer, IMO, is to bring back anti=trust. Bust them up into small ones, creating competition and more jobs, like it used to be.

Tonight Beck suggested that the Dept. of Education be abolished. Canada has not such government entity and they get better numbers on education than we. Would save us about 100B a year I believe. Where there are strong unions like NY state education does poorly. NY has what are called ‘rubber rooms’ where miscreant teachers go every day, draw their salary and do exactly nothing. One guy draws a 100K salary while sitting in the rubber room managing his $7M dollar realestate business and some other stuff. According to Beck college tenure is a detriment to education. I agree. There are millions of little actions we could take to improvee things on all fronts.

All the problemss we have with companies, institutions, etc goes directly to a government having failed in their regulatory responsibilities. If the government is determined to keep min wage at $7/hr while facilitating monopoly buildup we will continue our demise as a nation. What’s wrong with establishg a living wage rather than a min wage?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 14, 2010 6:38 PM
Comment #298974

“Let’s get Beck out of the way first. Last two nights he offered some solutions. Says’s HC should be anti=trusted, tort reform I believe, and nationwide competition in those fields. Nothing new there and I am for all that.”

I also watched Beck but the show was about SSI and Medicare. As far as his health insurance ideas you asre right, nothing new. Anti trust exemption removed? I agree. Nationwide competition and tort reform? Why would we want the few insurance companies growing bigger and less responsive? What about the rights of states to regulate insurance in their state? Tort reform only when doctors regulate doctors. The ability to sue someone that wronged you or yours is a right that many Americans don’t want to give up for such a small financial gain that would come with tort reform.

“Tonight he went over wages and insurance coverage for federal/congressional workers. Fed workers make twice the private sector and their insurance package is worth 4 times that of private sector. I agree their insurance plan should be a private plan so there is no suggestion of discrimlination.”

Are you telling me Beck has said all federal employees in all positions make double the wages of an equivalent private company position and the feds pay 4 times that of a private sector company for insurance from a private carrier? Who does their negotiating for these plans? Roy you must realize that Beck does not know what fact check is by now. These figures are arrive at by comparing apples and oranges. Here is some info for you that will help to dispel some of the conservative myths that are spread regarding government.


http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_much_should_a_government_employee_make

“Tonight Beck suggested that the Dept. of Education be abolished. Canada has not such government entity and they get better numbers on education than we. Would save us about 100B a year I believe.”

Is Beck suggesting that the reason Canadian kids get “better numbers” is solely because Canada has no national dept. of education but instead has the equivelent at the provincial level with national oversight ? Do you really believe the answer is that simply? Roy you have to take what Beck says and fact check it, remember half truths misinformation and outright lies are his stock in trade.

I find it a little disturbing that the same people who justify exorbitant salaries for CEO’s have no problem with screwing teachers and other government employees out of a decent living wage and benefit plan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Canada

Posted by: j2t2 at April 14, 2010 8:55 PM
Comment #298975

Beck said that the FED emp on average makes twice the private sector income. Said their ins package was ‘worth’ 4x the private sector package. Nothing said about the cost of the package. I’m not advocating for Beck. He is on target in most of what he says. Also, my brief gist of what he related doesn’t do him justice.

Doesn’t much matter, j2t2, what is debated, said, or done. None of our major problems can be solved, IMO, unless we get behind a 3rd party designed for the 21st century. The TEA Party cud come to power tomorrow and nothing would change beyond fringe stuff. We’ve got to start with abolishing CP and MIFS and put campaign finance reform into place. Until that happens nothing changes, IMO. Government and Corporations have had a coupla hunert years to get their act together. They don’t intend to change one iota. WE are right where they wants us. Until we come to ‘really’ believe in one person, one vote, until campaign donations can only be given by single individuals donating into an election fund that will be disbursed to all parties/candidates then nothing can be accomplished toward reform efforts. I think I should take all the mission issues out of Republic Sentry except those three; abolish CP, abolish MIFS, and campaign finance reform. That’s the answer, IMO.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 14, 2010 9:17 PM
Comment #298979

“Beck said that the FED emp on average makes twice the private sector income.”

Roy go to the link I provided and see why this is an exaggerated apples and oranges comparison. The real issue for those that are interested in solving problems based on facts is how does the federal wages for similar positions stack up.

“I’m not advocating for Beck. He is on target in most of what he says. Also, my brief gist of what he related doesn’t do him justice.”

Roy, Beck is using misleading information. So it seems to me you are advocating for him, and he is not on target unless you consider the target to be spreading misinformation, half truths and outright lies. I mean how can you just dismiss the link I provided that spells out the facts that make Beck’s statement false. from the link-

“The Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers put average federal wages at $68,740, while private-sector wages averaged out at $42,270. The disparity is still there, in part because the nation’s overall work force skews more toward blue-collar jobs than does the federal government. But $68,000 sounds less “lavish” than “respectable.” Whether a worker makes more or less in the public sphere depends a lot on what job he or she is doing: Nurses make more, and petroleum engineers make less. Cashiers in government jobs make a lot more, $34,000, than the $18,000 of their private-sector counterparts.”

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_much_should_a_government_employee_make

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/03/scott-brown/politifact-debut-brown-says-federal-jobs-pay-twice/

Roy, IMHO you are letting your hatred for government interfere with your good judgment when it comes to allowing Beck and others to base their “Plan” on misinformation, It does no one any good. Lets deal with facts to solve our budget problems.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 14, 2010 9:51 PM
Comment #299007

j2t2, Beck’s stating that fed emps make more than private emps doesn’t get on my radar screen. I retired civil service abter 34 years. Was always some contention as to who made more. In the overall scheme of things not a big deal to me. Size of the fed is a big deal.

I’m more concerned with the fact that companies are back to making huge profits while many middle class are still going down, as planned and supported by every admin from Reagan forward. Remember when technology was suposed to save our asses. Today companies have been buying, and are buying technology that will increase their production with fewer human people involved. The income disparity between the have and nots is reaching third world proportions. Before NAFTA/WTO if the U.S. consumer base couldn’t buy prices would come down. With NAFTA/WTO companies have increased their consumer base by thousands of percent limiting the effect of the U.S. consumer on the market.

A hypothetical. Suppose Microsoft makes enough discrectionary to buy up every tv/radio ad slot in U.S. media. Do you think that would be a fair election scenario? If we didn’t have CP and MIFS law I would be less concerned about how much companies make. But, as it is the people are in direct competition with business in trying to get the ear of government. People 0, Companies 10,000. By their actions companies have made themselves the enemy IMO. What happened to the long tenured idea that competition and innovation could be retained in the market place through anti=trust law? Seems all we are doing is building up more too big to fail’s.

Easy to understand why. Companies have paid the govt for a hands off approach so they can go global and ensure U.S. companies get their fair share of the resources, conglomerates, monopolies, etc. Not hard to understand that. Doesn’t do much for the people on the street.

Today, the TEA baggers are supposed to make know who they will and won’t support for the upcoming election. That should be interesting.

Not hatred for anyone or any entity j2t2. I am advocating to correct some wrongs made over the last 200 years or so.
Also advocating for a VAT to help balance foreign trade as 143 other countries are doing. We need a flat tax to get the government out of making winners and loosers. Some talking head said recently that their are half dozen tax deals a week for corporations being worked through congress. Let’s stop the winner/looser thing, abolish cp and mifs, inact cfr, invoke a vat and flat tax and live happily ever after.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 15, 2010 12:45 PM
Comment #299073

Roy you are the one that brings Beck up as someone with answers not me. I know better.

I agree with you on CP and MIFS. I don’t agree with you on a flat tax however. The question I have is does the tea party agree with you on these issues?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 16, 2010 4:39 PM
Comment #299168

j2t2, for the life of me I don’t understand why anyone would harbor bad feelings re Beck. As I can tell he is mostly about trying to educate the masses on our political history. As far as political action goes he hasn’t influenced me that I am aware. I started watching Dobbs as he began saying some of the same stuff I had been saying. Dobbs went away and Beck shows up at 5pm saying some of the same stuff I’ve been saying. In that sense, he stole my show. No idea where he stands on CP. MIFS and CFR.

He certainly was able to point out that the Executive is ‘harboring’ a good number of ‘radicals’. I find it amazing that we never got that from the media all throughout the campaign. I do care that people from the Wx-Underground, declared socialist and communist, etc are sitting in high office making decisions that will effect me. I voted for Nader as he is the only candidate who was running on the abolishment of CP but I would have blogged incessentaly about radicals in the campaign had I known. I’ll be there come 2012.

One of Beck’s pet peeves is the ‘progressive’ movement. Says you can identify a progressive by watching for those who vote for big government programs, HC, Cap and Trade, etc. He calls out the Progressives in both parties and rails against them.

Now, that clearly tells me that he ain’t running for any office any time soon by alienating such a big chunk of the electorate. Does show me he is determined to educate the masses on good government, the Constitution, etc.

I did a DC TEA Party last year. Carried my little sign for Republic Sentry Party all day long. One comment - one comment. But, I liked the crowd and they were all saying things I’ve been saying all along.

As I posted in the above thread, the establishment seems to be running scared re this upcoming election. The TEA Party and similar organizations will take out some incumbents come November. But, who are they going to vote for? No choice but more Dems and Reps. That’s the fallacy of the whole effort. No real change or hope for reform, just adding to the confusion for a while until the Corpocracy gets things straight again.

Otherwise, wish I had Beck’s position to get up there and educate the population on our history, ferret out the radicals, rant on the evils of big government, make tapes of the S.E.I.U misdeeds, etc. I think Beck and O’riley compliment each other and is a good thing for the country at this time. There is talk Dobbs will run for something. I’d much rather see him try to get a movement going. He could try to get David Walker elected President thru write in votes or something like that.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 18, 2010 10:20 AM
Comment #299179

“j2t2, for the life of me I don’t understand why anyone would harbor bad feelings re Beck.”

In a nutshell Roy, I don’t like Beck because I lump him in with Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage etc. as mouthpieces for the conservative movement leaders that use misinformation half truths and outright lies to fool many good people into voting for what I consider to be fascist. I find it hard to understand why one would defend Beck as he spouts his misinformation. I pointed out one or two earlier in this thread yet they become “no big deal”. Show me where Thom Hartmann spouts such misinformation as he informs his listeners.

“One of Beck’s pet peeves is the ‘progressive’ movement. Says you can identify a progressive by watching for those who vote for big government programs, HC, Cap and Trade, etc. He calls out the Progressives in both parties and rails against them.”

Just like Limbaugh did to Liberal in the 80’s Beck is doing to Progressive today. He is telling us we must be conservative or the Country will fail despite the failure of conservatism the past 30 years.

“Now, that clearly tells me that he ain’t running for any office any time soon by alienating such a big chunk of the electorate.”

Roy progressives don’t really make up that much of the voting public. Beck preaches to the majority in this Country, which are the conservatives, for ratings not the responsibility of a public office.

Roy I realize that L have not responded to other issues you raised but it is time to go to the grand daughters birthday party so I will continue later.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 18, 2010 1:27 PM
Comment #299182

rog j2t2, you got yer priorities right. I ain’t floggin the keyboard during my ‘golden’ years for no other reason except for my grandkids. Gonna leave them 10 acres, a mule, and $500k of debt.

You are right on Hannity and Limbaugh. Bottom of the barrell those two. Don’t know Savage. I’m interested in issues and solutions and education as opposed to partisan chit chat entertainment.

Not just Beck suggesting the Dem’s policies are wrong. November ain’t that far away. Once again, as planned, people will be forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. They can’t see the value in a 3rd party movement. Neither can I, and I hope the TEA Party doesn’t make it to a Political Party. But, there is bigtime value in a 3rd party with a different political attitude. Who would not want Article V Convention rights, CP and MIFS abolished and CFR implemented, the right way?

Hartmann, whatever his politics is a hero to me. And, Al Gore has stood against CP. Now, if they would just support Republic Sentry!!

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 18, 2010 2:04 PM
Comment #299192

“That’s the fallacy of the whole effort. No real change or hope for reform, just adding to the confusion for a while until the Corpocracy gets things straight again.”

That is my point Roy, when it comes to Beck, I don’t see him as someone who will actually support the primary issues you speak of (CP and MIFS). Beck is just another Faux mouthpiece not the real deal. Certainly he is no Lou Dobbs.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 18, 2010 8:33 PM
Comment #299195

j2t2, don’t know how Beck feels on CP and MIFS. Wonder if he is cognizant of Article V Convention? Would be nice to get his ear on that one and get the word out to the masses, etc. I was just over to FOAVC things are really cooking. I’m quite optimistic that we will get some action on AVC within a couple of years.

Also, caught some cspan this evening re the British debates. Seems the major parties there have strung the voters along on immigration as they have here. The Labor Party is offering to put more border patrol around the island beef up commo between the various agencies. Same ole BS we hear all the time.

If AVC were legal, nevermind that it is a Constitutional right, we could petition for a law to close the border to drugs. Would cut down on violence, put $45B against the deficit yearly and save the future of a lot of young people. Would the Corpocracy ever fight that one!

Better close, I’m starting to have violent thoughts - imagine, if we had AVC we could enact a law to remove all the comodes in the Capitol building.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 18, 2010 10:10 PM
Comment #299196

The sad fact about immigration Roy is that after the baby boom generation decided that population growth was a real problem and started having less children it put our economic growth in jeopardy. We need to continue to grow our population to continue our economic growth at any cost or as we know capitalism as practiced in our country will fail. Hence the blind eye towards illegal immigration. Lots of hoopla, little to solve the problem on both sides of the aisle.

“If AVC were legal, nevermind that it is a Constitutional right, we could petition for a law to close the border to drugs. Would cut down on violence, put $45B against the deficit yearly and save the future of a lot of young people. Would the Corpocracy ever fight that one!”

Paying off the deficit at the expense of jobs in our ailing economy would not be a wise move at this time, IMHO Roy. We screwed the pooch when we thought it was a good idea to get a tax cut while engaging in 2 unfunded wars and doubling the deficit while the economy was flying along. We fell for it and now must spend thrice as much to get out of the hole.But it should be on the backs of those who prospered at the time not those who didn’t.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 18, 2010 11:08 PM
Comment #299205

Try it my way j2t2. We currently have 10% or so of Mexico’s population living here illegally. Just looking the other way? What are laws worth if they can be ignored at will? Do we need more people? The ‘jobless recovery’ doesn’t seem to think so. I’m hearing jobs won’t be coming back for some number of years. IMO, jobs wwon’t be coming back, ever, thanks to globalization. Jobs that go overseas don’t come back. Outsourcing also takes a toll. Technology development has quitely pink slipped millions of workers with more to follow.

Business gains a cheap labor worker. We loose a worker supporting a family. The taxpayer gets to subsidize his families education and healthcare.

I can’t see a winning situation anywhere in there j2t2.

Regarding my comment on AVC, which you seem to have skirted - my response is - there are no jobs j2t2. You, the Pres, or somebody must tell me how you can create jobs, or why you would want to try, when all the goods and materials needed by this nation are being provided through foreign sources, far cheaper, $30 on a sheet of plywood, than we could provide them ourselves.

Granted, the U.S. has some high tech businesses that haven’t transferred overseas. But, all that will slowly shift overseas as they will be driven by the bottom line. For the tech industry to survive and thrive they must be co-ocated. Not all, but most.

IMO, Obama’s $34B in education funds will be used to educate our young folks so they can find a job in Asia. In other words the immigrants will have become your kids.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 19, 2010 9:30 AM
Comment #299221

“Try it my way j2t2. We currently have 10% or so of Mexico’s population living here illegally. Just looking the other way? What are laws worth if they can be ignored at will? Do we need more people?”

Roy I don’t disagree with you at all on illegal immigration. What I stated in the last comment was more of my belief as to why our elected officials have done nothing about the illegal immigration problem in the past 10 years despite the outcry by many Americans.

As far as the article V convention I am not sure I trust the current crop of politicians and the moneyed folk that run them at either the state or federal level to conduct themselves in a manner that would benefit the American people. I think this convention would open the doors to a complete corporate takeover of our country. As it is the repubs side with the corporacy on most if not all issues and the dems are only slightly less favorable to their corporate sponsors when it comes to passing laws than benefit big business at the expense of small business. The current wall street reform bill is an example of this.

As far as job creation, that is done best by the private sector is the old saying. Unfortunately the private sector hasn’t been able to do their duty in the past 2 recessions so I would like to see much more innovation when it comes to job creation. The feds should create massive programs for energy conservation, including manufacturing and installation of small scale wind generators and solar panels for most housing and commercial buildings in the country by small business. Manufacture and installation of insulation and thermal windows would be another field that could use fed dollars to create small business and jobs. Hire older Americans to inspect and verify the installation etc. as well as to consult with the small business owners that are getting their start under the program.

I would also like to see those that offshore jobs and bring in people from other countries to work be made to offset the cost to our country via higher taxes and penalties. Trade agreements that don’t include some form of COLA and environmental allowance should be rethought.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 19, 2010 10:11 PM
Comment #299267

Agree, agree, agree, j2t2. I’ve been hot and cold on AVC for that very reason. But, if you review what’s been said about the chance that amendments thru AVC would be passed that are detrimental to the country is seems highly unlikely. BUt, big money can do some pretty amazing things. However, I see it more likely that big money would be used to defeat legislative action on AVC petitions.

On jobs creation I fully agree. Republic Sentry has a number of such efforts in the agenda. Renewable energy, electric grid, one in there on building a high tech merchant fleet including training for all the skills involved. Includes national semi-skilled and non skilled training programs with job placement across the country.

On trade I believe we should scratch globalization and work on country to country or regional trade agreements that are mutual and fair. We in turn should work with each country on helping to develop their country as ‘they’ suggest. Turn key food processing facilities, etc with training and operational support to get it going.

Otherwise, as long as we are competing against the cheapest labor sources in the world, we lose, Amplified by the an invasion of illegal immigrants, we lose twice.

On immigration, the REAL reason nothing has been done, remember Regan’s amnesty and false promises, is that under globalization/NAFTA for the US to compete our wages would have to fall to around $4/5 hr IMO. Wages have been stagnant and falling some but it hasn’t happened to the extent planned for. So, now we are in a jobless recovery and the Corpocracy ain’t sure what to do. All they can do is run up the debt, which is helpful in lowering wages further, and sustain unemployment benefits.

The Corpocracy absolutely doesn’t know what to do at this point, which is kinda dangerous, 2nd dip and all that. Perhaps they can use the impending high inflation to lower wages further but it seems a long, drawn out process. They need some way to drop wages quick while maintaing an economy for the ‘haves’. Stock market is at 11k and corporate profits thru the roof so they have proved you don’t need too much of a middle class to ‘turn a profit’. Their customer base is now worldwide, albeit weaker consumers all around. IMO.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 21, 2010 11:21 AM
Comment #299303

j2t2, from a broader perspective, we seem to be swirling in this so-called mutually assured economic destruction thing, or globalized economy. World economies are tied together and too weak, by themselves, to influence a recovery. It’s like the chickens have come home to roost from the ‘greed is good’ Regan era. In our case, corporates weren’t satisfied with borrowing from the FED at 1% and buying treasuries paying 3%. They wanted the highend market as well. Leveraging at 30-1 and much higher in some cases. They wanted to push high risk paper assets on one side of the house while betting against those same assets on the other side of the house. Out and out fraud.

Yet, when fraudlent actions reached its final conclusion the government bailed them out with your tax dollars. Now, the government wants to set up a ‘bankruptcy’ fund for certain large corporations assuring they can continue with their high risk fradulent investing. It’s like anti-trust has been removed from the dictionary. Understandable, creating a fund for a soft landing is way easier than carrying out anti-trust for govies who have taken millions in donations from the corporations. Hard to take a few million dollars from a bank and then turn around and bust them up with anti-trust.

Well, back to the Constitution. Congress has no authority to create a private bank for the purpose of marketing the publics money. Republic Sentry calls for the FED Reserve to be put under the Treasury Dept, physically and organizationally. Andrew Jackson addressed the crux of the problem and it worked for a while. This incremental chipping away at the Constitution has rendered us as near slaves to the Corpocracy, IMO.

Now, I hear the IMF is looking for tax revenue. You and I won’t have a say in it but, the tax will be on governments and payable to the IMF. I’ve no doubt the sovereign couch potatoes in this country will go along to get along.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 21, 2010 9:11 PM
Post a comment