Third Party & Independents Archives

I’m sure Senator Cornyn is real concerned about the loss of your support.

Posted by: Beretta9 at June 1, 2010 04:11 PM

B9, If he isn’t, its proof he is a Republican.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 1, 2010 04:22 PM

David R. Remer, Democratics also aren’t concerned about voter’s support. It’s not just a Republican trait.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 1, 2010 04:36 PM

At this time in history, the only thing Republicans should be concerned about is the support or rather the lack of support of the Tea Party Conservatives. Especially Republicans from Texas, and I don’t think you qualify as a TP supporter.

Dems are real worried, that’s why they are running on an anti-Obama ticket. Against obamacare, cap and trade, amnesty, etc. At least until they get elected, then they support Obama.

Posted by: Beretta9 at June 1, 2010 04:46 PM

WW, I agree. But, my Senator is John Cornyn. He is the one I have to apply my vote to. You may have a Democratic Senator. If you do, and they support the Citizen’s United v FEC ruling, then you too should join the anti-incumbent voter movement, for the reasons I specified to Sen. Cornyn. Party is irrelevant when it comes to issues like this. Cornyn supports abridging the citizen’s 1st Amendment rights, to support his own incumbency. He is supposed to be working for the people, not himself, first and foremost.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 1, 2010 05:43 PM

B9, what an entirely ignorant comment. Ignorant of the fact that only 20% of the voters, maximum, are represented by the Tea Party positions. When you say TP’er’s are the only ones Republicans should worry about, your comment is ignorant, and illogical based on the data facts.

Thank you though, for the opportunity to respond to your signature comments, again!

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 1, 2010 05:46 PM

WW, one caveat to my agreement. Most Democrats are working to mitigate the Supreme Court’s ruling on this issue. That said, Democrats have ignored a number of majority public favored issues in the last 16 months, so they don’t have any better track record, overall.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 1, 2010 06:27 PM

Mr. Remer’s comments would leave one to believe that he is a one-issue voter. If elections centered on just one issue it would certainly be easier to make a decision in casting my ballot.

Fortunately, I and many others look at the entire spectrum of issues and how the candidate views each. It would be interesting to know how Mr. Remer views the senator on his total candidacy rather than just this one issue.

I find it rather odd that since Mr. Remer has advocated voting incumbants out in many previous posts why he would bother with a querry of the senator as he had convinced me that he would be anti-incombant in any instance. Had the senator agreed with Mr. Remer’s position on this issue would he then have received Mr. Remer’s declared vote?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 1, 2010 06:38 PM

The problem I have with this is that there is no Constitutional ban on groups of like interested individuals banding together and promoting an agenda of their own.

A coporation is no different than such a group when it comes to free speech.

Oddly enough I was thinking about this issue and why there are polemicists in abundance. There is a false assumption we make. It is that we have an educated electorate. It isn’t so much that corporations can fund TV campaigns to drown out others, but that we have an electorate stupid enough to fall for it. This is a crisis for democracy far worse than deficits, drugs, oil, or terrorism.

Demographically, the more educated you are, the less likely you are to subscribe to the nonsense that Rush and Beck put out.

While I think that corporations should not be able to hide their backing of campaigns, anonymous arguments were at the very foundation of this nation, and it is unlikely that it would be Constitutional to expose those who fund what ideas. Funding a person for office is another matter. I think disclosure laws are needed.

It is supposed to be a free market place of ideas. Sadly, there are an abundance of fools who’ll fall for any hustle.
Madison Avenue long ago discovered PT Barnum’s adage that there is a sucker born every minute and have honed using them into a fine art.

We need to start a massive education campaign. This is what the home schooling, private education, and attempts to destroy the public school system campaigns are about. They are about NOT educating, but indoctrinating children to become loyal drones to the huckster’s scams. This is a serious threat to democracy. If your favorite politician endorses these ideas, throw him out.

In the interim, we need to address the differences between corporations and persons. That line has, as David points out, become far too blurry.

Posted by: gergle at June 1, 2010 06:49 PM

Royal Flush, my impression of Cornyn overall, is that he is a selfish greedy pig looking out for himself and those who support him. I thought I was very honest and forthright with Sen. Cornyn on that issue, while maintaining a civil tone of respect for the office.

My view on ALL incumbents is that they are either: ineffective, incompetent, or corrupt. Ineffective in bringing about the changes the public expect, which is obvious. Incompetent in representing the needs and interests of the American nation’s people, deferring endlessly to a small percentage of constituents back in their district. Or corrupting of the role of their office, their Constitutional and legal obligations, or, corrupting of their own campaign rhetoric which continues to disaffect the majority of the American public. Hence, a percentage of roughly 20% approve of Congress and their actions, overall.

And all those incumbents which 80% of the public disapprove of, continue to remain in office because of incumbent Party supporters like yourself. You represent what is wrong with this country and continue to contribute to keeping it wrong. But, your kind are en route to becoming a minority without the power to keep them in office. And that is a very, very positive sign for our children’s future in this country.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 1, 2010 06:51 PM

gergle said: “The problem I have with this is that there is no Constitutional ban on groups of like interested individuals banding together and promoting an agenda of their own.”

That is not a problem. That is called lobbying. And lobbying by citizens of THEIR representatives is a cornerstone strength of our Constitution. But, the issue of Citizens United is not about lobbying. It is about controlling the electioneering message in the media by corporations, for-profit or non-profit deep pockets, with lies, misinformation, and the biases of a very small group of individuals in control of the corporation, and not representative of the people’s voice, one person, one vote, one lobbying communication with THEIR representative.

To control the election period media content is to control elections in one’s favor regardless of the will of the people. Consider this fact. Obama was elected with a total of 1 billion dollars on elections in 2008. British Petroleum has 14 billion dollars in profits last year to draw upon to control the elections of 2010, if their executive management chooses to do so.

For-profit corporations are not people. They are entities with only one overarching objective and concern, profit at the expense of whomever that profit can be earned. Not-for-profit corporations are not citizens, but, organizations of people formed to support a charitable cause. They have no business controlling electioneering media content while receiving tax exempt status from other other voters and tax payers. And then you have the intermediate organizations like labor unions, who like their for profit corporate cousins, are organized primarily around the objective and concern of profit at anyone else’s expense (General Motor’s union was a classic example of the consequence of a union’s objective, threatening millions of jobs of fellow Americans not working for GM, bringing GM to bankruptcy for their own profitable benefit.)

There was a principle established and lauded in the debates and discussions surrounding democracy when our nation was formed, and that principle was one person, one vote. It was incorporated into the creation of the U.S. House of Representatives, though not extended to all people, then. Nonetheless, the principle of one eligible voter having one vote, was the foundation of the founder’s concept of suffrage.

We have abandoned that principle by granting personhood and citizenship protections to corporations. And today, we are a nation governed and controlled by the corporate elite interests at enormous cost to the American people and the future of their children in this country.

Let’s move back to the principle of one person, one voice, and one vote with the liberty to express those without intimidation by the vastly more powerful corporations competing for control of our democratic institutions.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 1, 2010 07:11 PM

gergle, btw, you hit the nail on the head regarding education, and voters duped by the lies, misinformation, and deceptions. It is bad enough the S.C. ruled that politicians cannot be held responsible for lying to the people. But, to extend that protection to corporations is suicidal for this nation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 1, 2010 07:21 PM

Mr. Remer writes; “Royal Flush, my impression of Cornyn overall, is that he is a selfish greedy pig looking out for himself and those who support him.”

I wonder why Mr. Remer bothered to write to the senator asking about his 1st amendment views when it is obvious by the quote above he had no intention of actually voting for him.

Actually I find it amusing to read Mr. Remer’s inquiry suggesting that he might support the senator when in fact, he apparently despises the man. What is that called in polite language…?

Mr. Remer further writes; “And all those incumbents which 80% of the public disapprove of, continue to remain in office because of incumbent Party supporters like yourself. You represent what is wrong with this country and continue to contribute to keeping it wrong. But, your kind are en route to becoming a minority without the power to keep them in office. And that is a very, very positive sign for our children’s future in this country.”

Hmmm…my “kind” (and me personally) represent what is wrong with this country…” I resent this personal attack which I believe is a violation of the rules. In addition, Mr. Remer has no way of knowing that I am an “incumbent Party” supporter. Since he reads what I write he must certainly understand that I am a conservative…not an R or D.

Last week I attended a meeting with our guest of honor being the democrat candidate for governor of Texas. I don’t care for Mr. Perry and am looking for reasons to vote for the dem. I am not a one issue voter and while I would prefer another choice for governor, reality dictates that I must choose between these two.

May I suggest that Mr. Remer be more cautious in labeling me or attempting to read my mind.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 1, 2010 08:18 PM

Corporate personhood is nothing more than a prudent measure to help insure that political power resides with those who are truly deserving of having it. It pays to be cautious in a country that espouses democratic principles.

Posted by: jlw at June 1, 2010 11:32 PM

DRR:

“B9, what an entirely ignorant comment. Ignorant of the fact that only 20% of the voters, maximum, are represented by the Tea Party positions. When you say TP’er’s are the only ones Republicans should worry about, your comment is ignorant, and illogical based on the data facts.”

Well, there you go with those words again: ignorant and illogical.

If 20% of voters means nothing, then tell me why the democrats cater so strongly and court the 12.4% blacks and 15.4% Hispanic? These are 2008 percentages and are based on the percentage of population and not on voter base.

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

In truth, 20% of the voting block, especially in an off year, means a lot. Democrats are worried and republicans seek the TP endorsement.

RF, don’t hold your breath for an apology…

Posted by: Beretta9 at June 1, 2010 11:50 PM

Beretta9, quite a number of primaries have already been held. How many of the tea party endorced candidates have won compared to the Republican Party endorced candidates?

Do you have a list?

I agree with your opinion that a 20% block of voters in the Republican primaries should give the tea party endorced candidates a better than average chance at winning, I’m just wondering if that is actually the case. Are they winning a larger portion of the primaries?

Posted by: jlw at June 2, 2010 12:14 AM

Endorsed is a problem word for me.

Posted by: jlw at June 2, 2010 12:19 AM

Royal Flush demonstrates an inability to apply logic. I petitioned Cornyn on the issue. HIS REPLY dictated my opinion about him. I even made that explicit in my reply to HIS reply. Get it? Doubt it!

What part of logical chronology of events are you unable to follow without projection your own fantasies into the article, Royal Flush? Perhaps I can give you some 101 logic lessons, like taking sentences of events in order to determine sequence and cause and effect.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 2, 2010 01:27 AM

B9, asked: “If 20% of voters means nothing, then tell me why the democrats cater so strongly and court the 12.4% blacks and 15.4% Hispanic?”

Well, the answer to that may be way over your head B9. It has to do with primaries pitting small percentages of GOP voters against more mainstream GOP voter’s candidates, whereas, Blacks and Hispanics constitute not factions, but, voting blocks for mainstream candidates.

Political statistics and data interpretation don’t appear to be in your ‘two degree’ background.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 2, 2010 01:33 AM

jlw said: “…to help insure that political power resides with those who are truly deserving of having it.”

Quite right. The elites. The enemies of democracy and government of, by, and for the people en masse. ‘Deserving’ is a word defined by the elites for the elites in huddled places like discount Christian boarding houses in D.C. designed to violate and circumvent the laws of this land as privileged activity.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 2, 2010 01:37 AM

so david
did you vote for senator cornyn in the last election, or his democratic opponent? that latter would make this thread, and your whole premise pointless. but don’t let that stop you. please carry on.

Posted by: dbs at June 2, 2010 05:28 AM

Maybe it is just me, but I would think that the people who support Sen. Cornyn are the people who support privilege and anti democracy.

Posted by: jlw at June 2, 2010 08:10 AM

Mr. Remer wrote; “What part of logical chronology of events are you unable to follow without projection your own fantasies into the article, Royal Flush.”

I must admit that I used to visit this blog for information and intelligent sparring of political and social issues. Now I come for the humor. Mr. Remer speaks of the “elites” in this country ruling over the masses. Hmmm…kind of reminds me of a blog site and its elite.

RF, don’t hold your breath for an apology…Posted by: Beretta9 at June 1, 2010 11:50

Thanks for the advise B9. Never expected one anyway.

Does anyone know if Watchblog is still for sale? I had a little unexpected windfall and might be interested in buying it. Perhaps a new owner could attract some fresh contributors and bring back a few who have been banned.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 2, 2010 01:03 PM

Cornyn understanding of the constitution and the scotus’s understanding of the constitution differ from David’s understanding of the constitution so everyone who disagrees with David is ignorant and stupid. IMO if congress makes it a Law that corporations cannot contribute to elections then all contributions from anywhere other than a contribution from a living breathing person and drawn on their own personell accounts should be banned. But we know that ain’t going to happen because congress isn’t going to give up their sugardaddys so David keep dreaming.

Posted by: MAG at June 2, 2010 01:52 PM

MAG, of course you are correct. Labor unions, PAC’s and such are just fine as they have people comprising their membership. Corporations have stockholders and liberals know for sure that they are not people.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 2, 2010 02:29 PM

One person, one vote. I don’t see PAC’s, unions, or Corporations walking into the voting booth with proxies from their employees, shareholders, or activists. This cannot be done.

That said, my opinion is the same for a campaign contribution. One person, one dollar (give or take a thousand or so) directly to the candidate. A corporation or any non-human entity should not be able to contribute to a campaign of any candidate because only the citizen is allowed to vote. If the ceo of a corporation wants to contribute to candidate A because candidate A supports the position of his corporation, so be it. This levels the playing field and makes equal the ceo and the employee.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 2, 2010 03:22 PM

Royal what nonsense. Many liberals are also stockholders, but just like conservative stockholders they don’t have a say in who the corporate money goes to support at election time.

Before the conservatives stamp out the words of Thomas Jefferson in America here is a quote that tells us what this founding father thought of corporations.

“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” Thomas Jefferson, 1812 Source:Liberty Quotes

Posted by: j2t2 at June 2, 2010 03:24 PM

WW, absolutely right. Individual contributions only. Absolutely right. Pleasure being on the same side on that issue.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 2, 2010 03:49 PM

j2t2, Jefferson was not the only one either.

James Madison: “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform them.”

The people, not corporations, for Madison. Education of the people, not employment and dependence upon the corporations by the people, as the GOP supports. This is enormously astute of James Madison, as I just this year witnessed a major Insurance company send to every one of its employees a communication directing them to respond to regulatory banking reform in a manner favorable to their employer and according to the will of that company’s CEO and board of directors.

And take special not of the most famous Republican of all:

“The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.

Abraham Lincoln

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 2, 2010 04:10 PM

“It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes.”

funny, this is how many now view the current administration, and party in power. some just choose to ignore it. thus the relentless attacks on glenn beck, the tea party movement, just to name a couple, or for that matter anyone or group who has the nerve to oppose, or speak out against them, and thier agenda.

“and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.”

gov’t controlled redistribution of wealth, whether from many to a few, or from a few to many are equally dangerous to our nation, and the rights of individuals to determine thier own destiny through the fruits of thier own labor. either is an unacceptable infringement on the individual liberties our founders held so dear.

Posted by: dbs at June 2, 2010 04:43 PM

David, a pleasure, for sure. Let’s create a PAC and not pay anyone to write a simple, one-page law that reflects our position on campaign finance reform and present it to our elected officials.

Since this is the only law that we have not paid anyone to write, it will be the only plank in our party platform that were not paying anyone to create.

Or.. We could let Roy Ellis and his party know of it!

Whereas: I’m a citizen. Whereas: I can vote. Whereas: I live in Block 1009, Block Group 1, Census Tract XXXX… Whereas: Positions x y z that represent me are open in xxxx election cycle Whereas: 1000 dollars is adequate amount of money needed to run an individual election at a local level

Therefore: I can contribute 1000 dollars for each open seat that represents me in the xxxx election cycle.

We’ll probably need a newsman to make heads or tails of this, but were not going to pay him.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 2, 2010 05:08 PM

WW, thanks, but, the PAC I sit on the board of, already has dibs on all my available time and energies. There are several PACs already involved in the campaign finance reform with some major clout and financing. The names of some of these are:

Public Campaign

Common Cause

Public Citizen

Campaign Finance Amendment - proposed constitutional amendment

Moneyed Politicians

Center for Competitive Politics

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 2, 2010 06:19 PM

dbs, true enough. But, there is a difference between a ‘view’ and a defensible position. Partisans of the Republocrats view the opposition as criminal and corrupt.

That is a very different thing from laying a legal case for criminal conduct based in law, not that there is any deficit in organizations pursuing such cases and on solid ground. The former GOP head of Fla. indicted this week for embezzlement for example. Or Jefferson’s Cold Cash case a couple years ago. Or Blogojevich facing trial in coming weeks.

Partisans make crap up just to be partisan, like laying claim to the Stimulus and TARP spending as unconstitutional. No legal basis at all. I applaud the Tea Party for at least being consistent in holding Republicans and Democrats responsible for TARP. But, TARP authority was legally provided for by the U.S. Congress and there are no case precedents out of the Supreme Court to establish TARP authorization as unconstitutional. That is just partisan ‘view’ without substance in law.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 2, 2010 06:28 PM

Our Founding Fathers didn’t just overthrow the King, they overthrew the British corporations as well.

From seminal.firedoglake.com—-Original limitations of corporations set by our Founding Fathers.

1) Corporate charters were granted for fixed periods of time, usually between 10 and 40 years.

2) Corporation charters could be promptly revoked for violations of law or for causing public harm.

3) Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their charter purpose.

4) Corporations could not own property that was non essential to the fulfilling of their charter purpose.

5) Corporations could not own stock in other corporations.

6) The personal assets of corporate shareholders were not protected from the consequences of corporate behavior.

Citicorp and BP, did you read number 2?

Shareholders, did you read number 6? Guess who would have been responsible for bailing out the banks and GM?

This from reclaimingdemocracy.org

Our Founding Fathers said, “Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.”

Compared to our Founding Citizens, we are unworthy of being called citizens.

Posted by: jlw at June 2, 2010 06:47 PM

Like a good hound dog, I do believe the middle column is on the track of the oorpocracy. IMO, when you peruse history in the light of our failed government the one marker you can’t miss is Corporate Personhood law. From that point forward the balance of powers were skewed by the money influence in political matters. From that point in time a major, systemic effort to buy government influence has been legally carried out, delivering us to this state of government we have today.

IMO, nothing can be done, not even innocuous legislative events like nameing a court house, by this government in a free and clean manner intended by the Founder’s. I am in complete agreement with jlw that compared to our Founder’s we are woefully lacking as citizens.

I am hopeful that the political awakening brings people to realize that most of our major problems are directly related to Corporate Personhood law as the malevolent factor.

And, while it will be an intractable problem, abolishment of Corporate Personhood law can be accomplished. Our Founding Father’s did not expect us to throw up our hands with an ‘oh well, we can’t do anything about that’. The will of the people, as intended by the Founder’s, can overcome the Corpocracy, just as our Founder’s did. We just need to rally round the flag and git er dun!

Otherwise, we have the Socialistic-Corporcratic government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 2, 2010 08:08 PM

Royal Flush,

Does anyone know if Watchblog is still for sale? I had a little unexpected windfall and might be interested in buying it. Perhaps a new owner could attract some fresh contributors and bring back a few who have been banned.

The link in the top right corner of the home page is still there.

I don’t know whether or not Cameroon Barrett is still interested in selling WatchBlog (or even if it has already been sold with the new owner not taking down the 2 year old for sale sign). All I know is that WatchBlog’s founder/original owner Cameroon Barrett (A former worker for Wesley Clark’s 2004 Presidential Campaign) has taken an increasingly diminished role here, delegating many of the day-to-day duties to the volunteer editors such as David R. Remer.

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 2, 2010 09:58 PM

Some of us want to free the government from the control of the corpocracy and make it more responsive to the will of the people.

Some of us want to free the people from the clutches of the socialist/corpocracy government by reducing it’s size to that of Rhode Island’s government, but with a massive military.

“We just need to rally around the flag and git er dun.”

Posted by: jlw at June 2, 2010 11:23 PM

Roy Ellis, you are correct. If we look at our hisory we would see we have made a complete circle from subjects, to citizens, to subjects, again.

Our country was born because we did not need a corporation. Our country was born because we fought against the king’s corporation. We cast off the corporation by ratifying our constitution. We believed our constitution was stronger than a corporate charter.

Now, everyone and everything is a corporation.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 3, 2010 12:32 AM

All this speculation about WB, and no balls to contact the owner and get the facts. Not unlike many of the comments that often appear here.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 3, 2010 12:36 AM

I’m happy to comment here.
I don’t get paid. I’m fine with that.

Posted by: w at June 3, 2010 01:04 AM

We as meaning the Founding Fathers had a totally different concept of what the First Amendment, free speech, and freedom of the press means compared to what some of us have today, especially the corporations and their supporters.

We as in us today, are owned by the corporations. We are the epitome of the corporate ideal citizen, hedonistic, materialistic consumers. This just didn’t happen, it was planned for. The specific goal of a world of hedonistic, materialistic consumers has been in operation since shortly after WWII. Their best tool, television. Gods gift to consumer capitalism.

“The entire world economy rests on the consumer, if he ever stops spending money that he doesn’t have on things he doesn’t need-were done for.” Bill Bonner.

“While boasting about our noble deeds we’re careful to conceal the ugly fact that by iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery.” Horace Greeley.

“The trade of the petty usurer is hated with most reason: it makes a profit from currency itself, instead of making it from the process which currency was meant to serve. Their common characteristic is obviously their sordid avarice.” Aristotle.

The easy credit plan, brought to you by your friendly corporate banker. Just so you can buy things you don’t need with money you don’t have. There is no doubt that it has helped us get a lot, but it keeps us busy, keeps us occupied, keeps us in debt, and it has gotten our government bought out from under us.

If there is no better way of life than our American Way of Life, then why should we care who runs the show. No show goes on forever.

Posted by: jlw at June 3, 2010 02:04 AM

jlw, isn’t it amazing that Aristotle thousands of years ago understood money so vastly much more than most Americans do today. One would think modern people would know what the ancients know, and then a lot more to boot. But, the simple truth is, each generation must learn the past all over again, and with each generation there is one more generation of past added to be learned, BEFORE the present will make any sense to them. This is why education is the great undermining of America’s future. It doesn’t matter if 25% of the population is college educated and historically aware, the other 75% also vote and can bring it all down.

Aristotle understood that the true sound foundation of commerce was a fair exchange of goods and services for other goods and services, i.e. the barter system. And that money was an IOU for real goods and services rendered, owed, and collectible. The usurer makes no shoes to barter with, nor cleans another’s house in exchange for medical services, or any other equitable exchange of goods and services requiring time and effort, the ultimate base of trade.

Unfortunately, there is no going back to the barter system with or without money, as Ron Paul suggests with a return to the Gold Standard, without collapsing the entire world’s and people’s everywhere, financial status and capacity.

What can be done, however, is: 1) constrain over-leveraging at the personal, corporate, national, and international levels through education and other limiting mechanisms, 2) morph too big to fail, to not too big to fail at the corporate and international levels, 3) constrain usury to a balance point of minimal profitability and measured sustainable flow of capital for innovation and employment (NOT maximum innovation and employment which leads to debt and too big to fail, ultimately), and 4) maximize education quality and capacity toward vocations other than usury as more noble and desired professions.

Eventually, we must arrive at the point where we are all a bit less dependent upon each other and more independent regarding tasks and needs requiring only nominal specialization of information. Teach every school child first aid, for example, and how to grow food or conserve resources, change and inflate their own tires, replace a faucet washer, balance their checkbook, read and understand a well written set of assembly and usage instructions, and to shop for and cook their own meals.

Though they not be required to undertake these small tasks for themselves, they should be capable, nonetheless, universally. A great majority will exercise these minor vocations for themselves, conserving their resources, and improving the quality and independence of their daily lifestyles. And that would go a very long way to sustaining middle classes and even broadening them over time, without over-leveraging and defaulting on one’s most basic obligations. These are the kinds of self-reliance that permitted this nation to grow the largest middle class on Earth in the 20th century. And the loss of these kinds of self-reliance are now bringing this nation to the brink of self-destruction.

Folks who are self-reliant, tend to hold others to a higher standard, and we all know that Americans are in dire need of holding their leadership, managers, and fellow Americans in our nation to considerably higher standards than they are now allowed to perform at and rewarded for.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 3, 2010 03:11 AM

Agree David, but carrying out such things are made extremely hard, if not impossible by the Corpocracy. Of what you speak goes directly back to the passing of Corporate Personhood into law. Correct that mistake and corrective actions can flow smoothly, unimpeded by the influence of money on our political system.

Watched some cspan this morning and heard one person who had worked for 21 years in law trying to get a decent settlement for those peoples whose livelihood was changed by the ExXon Valdez oil spill. Started out in lower courts but the Supreme Court wisked the case away and ruled that compensation requested was to large and was set at a ratio of 1:1, reversing 850 years of anglo-saxon laws. Thus ExXon paid a paultry $2B and cleaned up 10% of the oil spill.

Fast forward to 2010 and watch how BP evades the cost of the cleanup and manages to put all the risk on the taxpayer. Word is the military could blow the pipe, shutting the spill down but BP wants to save the drilling site for future profits. Obama will need BP support come 2012.

Abolish Corporate Personhood law and save the Republic.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 3, 2010 10:12 AM

David thanks for bringing up the usury of the TBTF banks. It seems, among other things, they are forcing many small business owners into using high interest credit cards by not issuing lower interest loans to these business owners. Some free market system we have isn’t it. This type of criminal activity needs to be stopped and should be an election theme IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 3, 2010 11:44 AM

j2t2 wrote; “Royal what nonsense. Many liberals are also stockholders, but just like conservative stockholders they don’t have a say in who the corporate money goes to support at election time.”

I am not a union member so someone correct me if I am wrong. Do union members have a say in who the union money goes to support at election time? I suspect that is not the case. Union members elect their leaders who make those decisions much the same as stockholders electing their board of directors.

Mr. Remer wrote; “These are the kinds of self-reliance that permitted this nation to grow the largest middle class on Earth in the 20th century. And the loss of these kinds of self-reliance are now bringing this nation to the brink of self-destruction.”

Amen to that brother. I never thought I would read these words written by you. Now, all we need is for more to practice what they preach.

What Mr. Remer advocates above is in direct opposition to the agenda and goals of our modern liberal/socialist. And, it is consistent with the agenda and goals of our modern conservative.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 3, 2010 11:49 AM

“David thanks for bringing up the usury of the TBTF banks. It seems, among other things, they are forcing many small business owners into using high interest credit cards by not issuing lower interest loans to these business owners. Some free market system we have isn’t it. This type of criminal activity needs to be stopped and should be an election theme IMHO.” Posted by: j2t2 at June 3, 2010 11:44

Oh yes…something like Freddie and Fanny for small business. Force the banks to lend depositor money to every and any business at low rates regardless of creditworthiness. Sure did work well in the housing industry. Let me know when this is about to pass so I can withdraw my bank deposits.

j2t2, I have numerous credit cards and none of them are high interest. Apparantely I am favored simply because I pay my bills on time…every time. Horror of horrors j2t2, some folks pay more than I do for their home and car insurance. Those unfortunates who pay more than I do are singled out because they have more accidents and driving violations. Where’s the fairness….where’s the justice?

Of course, the liberal/socialist doesn’t recognize or consider that bad life choices lead to consequences. For them, we must have equality of outcome regardless of the bad choices some folks make. There should be no consequences and those who exercise prudence in life’s affairs should receive no reward.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 3, 2010 12:03 PM

“I am not a union member so someone correct me if I am wrong. Do union members have a say in who the union money goes to support at election time?”

Royal do union members elect their officials or are they hired by a board of directors who themselves are appointed by a CEO, like a corporation?

“Of course, the liberal/socialist doesn’t recognize or consider that bad life choices lead to consequences. For them, we must have equality of outcome regardless of the bad choices some folks make. There should be no consequences and those who exercise prudence in life’s affairs should receive no reward.”

Royal does the fascist/authoritarian conservative not stoop to any level to justify the practice of usury by banks? The problem is many small business people are unable to get loans to stay afloat and/or grow and are forced to use credit cards which have a higher interest rate than does a small business loan. The nonsense you spout Royal assumes these small business’s decided to have a financial meltdown, that these same business’s decided to change the rules banks use to loan money to business during the financial meltdown. Spew your nonsense as you will Royal but many of these business people did nothing wrong nor did they make bad decisions.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 3, 2010 02:18 PM

Royal Flush, I have and will continue to disagree with some of your comments which view self-reliance and dependence in stark black and white terms. In any society, these polar opposites exist in degrees along a continuum and are not black and white. What I seek and call for is a balance between these polar opposites.

Example 1: When a dangerous contagion begins to spread, it is important to stop the contagion above all other concerns, because all are threatened by its spread. Hence, providing government supported medical care to the uninsured who are, or may become, infected and carriers, has a national imperative attached to its importance, overriding any ideological concerns regarding self-reliance and dependence.

Example 2: Children of poor families are not capable of providing themselves the savings to buy health care. If we as a people, are compassionate toward children, and we are, then government sponsored health care for children is warranted.

Example 3: An uninsured driver is injured from an accident and being thrown from their vehicle and lying on the side of the road out of the way of traffic. Society has an obligation to cover the cost of an ambulance to pick up that injured person and take them to a hospital for treatment. Leaving dying bodies on the side of the road for lack of insurance carries all kinds of other risks to society and its sense of humanity.

I therefore, seek balance at the non-ideological level that promotes the greater good for all which has to include fostering of education of self-reliance and independence as a counter-balance to dependence upon the State for both wants and needs. Pragmatism and balance constantly weighed and adjusted is where I stand on this polar ideological debate. Self-reliance should be the rule, except where failures to be self-reliant threaten the good of all, and then, a social imperative to provide assistance is warranted and justified.

Of course, this debate will always be politically contentious since one person’s need can be another person’s luxury, and prudence of judgment is required. This is why I fault Democrats, for example, on the health care reform. The social imperative WAS NOT to provide universal insurance. The Social imperative was to seriously drive down the costs of health care in America, and Democrats in power lost there way on this issue. The public option single payer system was the plan that would have driven down this nation’s health care costs for both the private and public sector, and despite a majority of Americans favoring such a plan, Democrats refused and denied the public the effective and prudent solution called for by our unfunded entitlement mandates and spiraling health care cost inflation. Of course, I have to quickly add, that Republicans opposed this same effective solution as well.

The corpocracy won this issue and the American majority and nation’s future lost. Which mandates the separation of corporate profits from government and politics, so that serious national challenges can be met with effective national solutions.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 3, 2010 02:22 PM

Roy, Imagine if the tea party people had come out into the streets chanting end corporate personhood, end corporate personhood instead of cut spending, cut my taxes.

Royal Flush said:

“Do union members have a say in who the union money goes to support at election time.”

From a democracy view, they do. From a I am an island view point they don’t. Perhaps they should. Everyone has a right to be stupid. Some union members already exert their right to stupidity by voting for the anti-union party.

While it is certainly true that unions haven’t gotten much support from Democrats since Reagan and the DNC, even the ones that voted for Reagan should be smart enough to realize what Reagan and his policy philosophy has done to them.

Let me ask you:
Can you think of any reason a conservative would want to be in a union?
Can you think of any reasons why union members should vote for Republicans other than possibly guns, gays and brown people?
When is the last time the Republicans did anything great for the union man?

Posted by: jlw at June 3, 2010 02:36 PM

jlw, I imagine such a scenario every day. I am hopeful a Glenn Beck or some such will jump on the abolish personhood train at some point. It took a great recession to get folks to come around on immigration and, I suppose, it will take a heap more pain and misery for sufficient numbers to come out in favor of abolishing corporate personhood.

I’ll be waiting, if still around.

Otherwise, we have the socialistic-corporatic government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 3, 2010 02:59 PM

jlw, unions offer the potential of prudent counter-balance to corporate mandates of profit at any cost to others. The problem with unions is the absence of checks and balances to prevent them from becoming corporations themselves with the same objective as the employers they seek to counter-balance.

Most Democrats have never understood this need for checks and balances upon unions, in balance with checks and balances upon corporate boards and management. Clinton finally got it, but, failed to persuade his Democratic colleagues in Congress to see his point of view on checks against union overreach. In fact, I can make a sound argument that Democrats failures to impose checks and balances upon union overreach are as responsible for the decline in unions in this country as any efforts by Republicans.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 3, 2010 03:06 PM

Royal Flush, As you can tell, I am pro union, but I have no problem at all in eliminating the unions ability to use members money to contribute to political campaigns. That goes as well, for corporations, pro life, pro choice, etc.

The purpose that serves is to allow the power brokers to use the political system to issue orient us and divide us. They allow it and encourage it because it helps them immensely.

With the corporate personhood issue, conservatives are doing exactly what they accuse liberals of doing, using activist judges to distort the Constitution, especially the First Amendment, and the intent of our Founders on behalf of large corporations.

Our Founders weren’t anti-corporation but they certainly were anti large corporations especially multinational corporations such as the British East India Corporation. And, they were certainly anti any corporation of any size being allowed to participate in and influence elections.

Posted by: jlw at June 3, 2010 03:12 PM

David R., I acknowledge what your saying. Not so much on the union demands for an equitable disbursement of productivity, nor in workplace rules that have a true bearing on safety. But, I have seen instances where products or tools that can make the job easier or faster are banned just because, IMO, they speed the job up.

Some argue that the benefits, pay, retirement,etc., that GM workers had was extravagant. They weren’t extravagant for the times that they negotiated them. Then, GM was king of the hill with a huge market share and lots of profits.

It was management, not union workers that put GM in the position it was in. But, unions did respond to the necessity of cuts in benefits.

During the Reagan Administration, the union that I was a member of, as well as the contractors that we negotiated working agreements with, were primarily dependent of large government or corporate jobs, bridges, power plants, manufacturing plants. After the Air traffic controllers episode, the big corporate jobs began to dry up. Corporations were forgoing maintenance, breaking big jobs into smaller jobs and releasing them slower.

IMO, this was a deliberate attempt to break the trade unions. Each year of the Reagan Administration, we got less work than the year before and it made it much harder for union members to support their families.

I don’t know the situation in other states, but the Republicans have basically turned Ohio into a right to work state and non union contractors with illegal immigrant workers have, for the last decade or so, been doing a number on the union contractors and union workers.

Posted by: jlw at June 3, 2010 03:50 PM

Anyone who compares the political/dollar power of unions with the political/dollar power of corporations is an idiot. The SCOTUS ruling on corporate citizenship was judicial/political activism at its most rancid.

Posted by: Marysdude at June 3, 2010 03:51 PM

Mr. Remer wrote; “The public option single payer system was the plan that would have driven down this nation’s health care costs for both the private and public sector…”

Not long ago I posted an article from the London Times which disputes your contention as it revealed the dramatic rise in cost of their NHS and impending cuts in services. The same is happening in other European countries and before long, I expect all will suffer with dramatic increases in the cost, and reduction of benefits in their health care. This is not what I want for us.

When governments attempt to bestow benefits upon its citizens claiming it will be less costly than what one can do for themselves one should be very wary indeed.

For a time, Europe was possessed and obsessed with socialism as the money flowed freely and the chickens hadn’t come home to roost yet. Well, guess what, the Ponzi scheme has been revealed and now they are suffering. Is this what you envision for your children?

There are many ways we could have reduced the cost of health care in the US. What has been done by the liberal congress and Barry is about the worst solution of all.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 3, 2010 04:16 PM

jlw, automation has been the bane of trade unions. That however, is not the necessarily the fault of corporations, but, globalization.

My brother in law at Ford made over $17 and hour changing light bulbs and sweeping floors. Sorry, but, that kind of skill labor rate extraction from Ford by the union was an incredible overreach, bearing no resemblance to comparable skill rates in Michigan in any other industry. That is one kind of overreach. Another was the lavish compensation and lifestyle packages of union executive management at the expense of BOTH employers and union membership dues. It was unforgivable and union membership was duped into shooting themselves in the foot in this regard.

I believe in the necessity of unions when negotiating with corporate management. But, unions, as corporations can and have been just as greedy and out of balance in their overreach as their for-profit corporate partners. So much so, that the public has, as a majority, been turned against unions as a liability to this country’s economic stability. You can lay some blame at Republican’s feet, but, the Unions themselves have are just as much to blame for this public support shift by giving the GOP the ammunition to sway public opinion.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 3, 2010 04:23 PM

j2t2 asked; “Royal do union members elect their officials or are they hired by a board of directors who themselves are appointed by a CEO, like a corporation.”

Obviously j2t2 has never attented a stockholders meeting or voted for the BOD by proxy.

jlw asks; “Let me ask you:
Can you think of any reason a conservative would want to be in a union.”

Absoutely…if I worked in an industry as labor I would want a union to protect my interests in that company. My labor would be as necessary for their survival as their investment in money. For me…labor is my working capital.

Now, please answer me as directly as I have answered you. What the hell has political party or philosophy got to do with unions? Isn’t collective bargining all about the union negotiating with management for the mutual benefit of both? If the union doesn’t get all it wants is it desirable to go whining to Washington? Do companies go crying to Washington when they don’t like union demands?

Get Washington involved in union affairs and you have lost some of your freedom. Take a look at France, Spain and other countries where the unions and politicians have been in bed together for decades. Do you find a healthy situation…I think not.

And, corporations should not be in bed with politicians either. I recommend a divorce for both unions and corporations with government.

Much of the bailout of GE and Chrysler centered around union pension benefits. Had government not stuck their noses into the business of unions in the first place, much of the problems of our car industry could have been avoided.

I suggest you read some of the articles daily in the NY Times to discover just how the untenable union and government arrangements there are causing a complete collapse of their financial integrity. Union members will suffer greatly because of the greed of a few and the complicity of government.

The national government should also get out of the education business. The past 50 years have proven that politics and education doesn’t work.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 3, 2010 04:44 PM

jlw also asked me; “Can you think of any reasons why union members should vote for Republicans other than possibly guns, gays and brown people.”

Despite your comment about guns, gays and brown people I will answer your question. jlw…is your vote for sale to the highest bidder? If one party promises you higher wages does that promise earn your vote? Are there no other issues important to you than just what it means to you as a union worker. Will you sell your soul for a $5 per hour raise or a better retirement package?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 3, 2010 05:04 PM

Royal Flush, some things have to be socialized. Bush outsourced military functions to the private sector at twice to five times the cost the military (government) could have provided the same services for.

Health care is no different. Universal health care is an objective the majority of Americans choose to support. The cheapest way to provide it is through non-profit administration. End of story. Bush W proved the point with the military contracts with Haliburton, KBR, and Blackwater, and others.

Now, if you want to argue that universal health care coverage SHOULD NOT be a reality, and run against the majority of Americans as a political position, that is a whole other argument. If universal health coverage is not the goal, then the private sector can be very efficient at refusing coverage to those most in need of it, and keep both cost and access to it lower. But, that is not what the majority of Americans seek for their children and nation’s future.

Single Payer Public Option is the cheapest way to provide universal coverage. Universal coverage is not cheap in any scenario, but, far cheaper when provided through non-profit administration than through for profit administration. It is illogical to argue otherwise.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 3, 2010 08:09 PM

Mr. Remer wrote; “Universal coverage is not cheap in any scenario, but, far cheaper when provided through non-profit administration than through for profit administration. It is illogical to argue otherwise.”

Using your argument, it would also be cheaper to provide all necessities of life…food, clothing and shelter thru non-profit admimistration as well. What is that system of government called that removes the profit incentive from the people? Hmmm…starts with a C or S I believe.

I noticed the absence of any remarks concerning the fast rising costs and lowering of benefits occuring now in England with their NHS.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 3, 2010 08:29 PM

Support a 3rd party with a different political attitude.

Abolish Corporate Personhood and Money Is Free Speech law.

Implement Campaign Finance Reform.

Do away with Corporate Welfare.

Anti-trust any Corp/Industry with $50B or greater assets.

Exclude corporations/businesses from taxation.

Implement a flat income tax.

Implement a VAT for trade.

Problems solved, go home and have a beer. (Except for that nasty debt)

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 3, 2010 09:59 PM

Royal Flush said: “Using your argument, it would also be cheaper to provide all necessities of life…food, clothing and shelter thru non-profit admimistration as well.”

No! Not true at all. That would constitute the Communist form of economics practiced in the USSR, which as we all know, collapsed in on itself, for lack of competitiveness, choice and selection, and the efficiencies that private competitive enterprise create as a foundation for a nation’s economy. The Russian economy today is vastly improved over the Soviet Unions, yet, they maintain a government supported military, which does not undermine their new free enterprise model for the rest of their economy.

If every person was responsible for paving and maintaining their own path of road in front of their home or business, commerce would quickly grind to a halt for the inability to transfer goods, services, and labor to and from their production centers. Some things are best left to the government and non-profit sector and other things to the private sector. The private sector could have provided affordable universal health care but, chose not to. Since, the majority of Americans want it, it is up to the government to provide it. That is how democratically elected societies work.

I know conservatives don’t like democracy much, but, America is a democratically elected society, and a horrendously incompetent and inefficient universal health care reform is all that Republicans and Democrats beholding to the corporations could muster for the American people. Which begs a sweeping anti-incumbent movement in this country against both parties.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 3, 2010 10:48 PM

Royal Flush, as regards other nation’s implementation of health care, I can only point out that Venezuela is a democratically elected society which leaves it looking NOTHING like that of the U.S. Other nation’s implementation of universal health care has little bearing on how ours has to be implemented nor its success here. Our Congress bears little resemblance to their Parliament, despite our both having democratically elected people’s houses of government.

Just one strand of DNA difference can result in two strands of virii being deadly contagious and entirely innocuous. We are not the UK, and our implementation of National Health Care could not become like theirs even if we tried to achieve that outcome. But, its moot. We neither have a privatized system nor a nationalized system, but, an incredibly unaffordable, inefficient, and bankrupting hybrid. All in all, the UK has the better deal all around compared to ours, as they at least know how their other priorities must be adjusted in order to fulfill their health care obligations. We are not yet committed to any kind of comprehensive universal health care system, and therefore have no plan to deal with rising costs nor means of prioritizing our other budgetary items to meet future obligations. In other words, we are shagged by our own bullox, to use UK slang.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 3, 2010 11:00 PM

Roy, I wouldn’t want to do away with money as speech. I would want to revise it so that the maximum individual contribution could not be greater than that of the average contribution of the Middle Class in the last election cycle. Easily computable, fully compliant with public disclosure laws already on the books, and gives 90% of the American people an opportunity to have an equal sized megaphone where money is concerned regarding political electioneering free speech.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 3, 2010 11:03 PM

John Cornyn position is no mystery.

But the majority of voters continue to re-elect John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison.

So, the majority of voters must be happy, eh?

If not, the majority of voters only have themselves to thank for it.

What do the voters expect?
Why shouldn’t politicians be corrupt, when they are repeatedly rewarded for being corrupt with 90% re-election rates?
Heck, almost anyone who is rewarded for failure and corruption is likely to become more corrupt, incompetent, and unaccountable. Duh!

But the partisan loyalists will argue against such logic. Of course, those arguments will most certainly resort to creative circular obfuscation and gobbledygook to distract from the total absurdity and lack of logic in their arguments.

So be it.
Please keep repeatedly rewarding failure and corruption, and see where it gets you.

At any rate, the voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, … , until repeatedly rewarding failure and repeatedly rewarding politicians with 90% re-election rates possibly, finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 3, 2010 11:26 PM

“What the hell does political party or philosophy got to do with unions?”

RF, the question seems to suggest that you know very little history, especially as it relates to unions.

Political party has less to do with union than political philosophy.

You mentioned collective bargaining, unions were supported in their attempts to secure a Collective Bargaining Agreement Law (1935) by progressive liberals and opposed by conservatives. Throughout most of it’s history, the labor movement has been opposed by conservatives. I couldn’t begin to count the number of times that conservatives have labeled unions socialist or associated them with socialism. I think we all know what conservatives think of socialism and how many things they brand as socialist.

“If one party promises you higher wages, does that promise earn your vote?”

I don’t know, no party has ever promised me higher wages, just the right to bargain or strike for them.

“Are there no other issues important to you than just what it means to you as a union worker.”

Why, certainly there are, but there are many issues that are important to me as both a union worker and as a blue collar worker in general. Some examples are: workers compensation laws, unemployment laws, worker safety laws, environmental laws, the minimum wage law,etc. How many of those laws have been opposed by conservatives?

The economy and jobs are very important to all workers, by and large, the economy has done better when Democrats are in control of the government. Conservative economic policies have hurt workers very much.

“Will you sell your soul for a $5 per hour raise or a better retirement package?”…No.

Will you sell your soul for a better return on your investments or a Bush tax cut?

All three of the big Bush tax cuts had the word jobs in their titles, but none of them produced jobs except jobs in China, many of which used to be union jobs in America.

By the way, I have belonged to a couple of unions, and I have worked many non union jobs. I worked in at least a dozen different professions.

Posted by: jlw at June 4, 2010 12:01 AM

If we had single payer health care that the people were satisfied with and it started to deteriorate under Democrats and the people were dissatisfied with their efforts to improve it, the Republicans would be running with a improve the single payer health care plan plank.

Posted by: jlw at June 4, 2010 12:47 AM

Why does the left always talk about “Tax Cuts” like it is a dirty word? Why does the left say “Tax Cuts” have to be justified? Why does the left include “Tax Cuts” in deficit spending? Isn’t taxes part of “OUR” earnings? I don’t want a handout from the government; I want my own earnings, and I want government to “Cut” the spending. Humans, by nature, are as evil as they can be; and humans by nature are as sorry as they can be. If government gives away free money or goods in exchange for doing nothing; then humans by nature will take the freebees. If the goal of liberalism is to take from the rich and give to the poor (redistribution of wealth), then they are accomplishing it through the multitude of government handouts. The left gets so upset when conservatives call this socialism, but wasn’t this the foundation doctrine of Karl Marx who said to take from the haves and give to the have-nots.

The hatred of the left for Capitalism is nothing new, wasn’t this the same way Carl Marx thought and weren’t his goals the same as the goals of the left today?

“Marxist and non-Marxist social theorists agree that socialism developed in reaction to modern industrial capitalism, but disagree on the nature of their relationship. In this context, socialism has been used to refer to a political movement, a political philosophy and a hypothetical form of society these movements aim to achieve. As a result, in a political context socialism has come to refer to the strategy (for achieving a socialist society) or policies promoted by socialist organizations and socialist political parties. Some socialist movements are defined by the class struggle or revolutionary activity; others by trade-union oganization”.

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

This is scary stuff, but read this and all related articles. Just as the Bible declares that Satan can “Transform” himself into an angel of light; we are witnessing a leftist move in America to transform us into a utopian society, but in reality is nothing more than the same old lie of socialism/communism.

The very goal of the left is to divide America into classes and then pit those classes against each other. When Obama, his administration leaders, or the Democratic leaders open their mouths, they are creating division between Americans. Once created and the chaos begins, then it is Obama and the socialists who will make all things right again. I have to say, socialists who call themselves democrats or independents dominate this WB site. As I see it, the goal of WB is to convert Americans to socialism.

There is a world debt crisis. Now Hungary’s economy is about to collapse and the left continues to tax, spend, and attack capitalism. The left hates it when they are called anti-military, anti-American, or anti-patriotic and yet, when spending is discussed, the first cuts the left wants to do is to the military. Canada and the European countries “DO Not” have a military. We are protecting them. They spend all their money on socialist programs. And they are going broke. We need a military to protect ourselves. Our enemies are not cutting their military spending.

But I guess looking at things logically is not popular…

Posted by: Beretta9 at June 4, 2010 09:23 AM

Disagree David. The idea is to make government as simple as possible so’s not to give the gov’t a chance to manipulate an issue for their political greed. Like the income tax code. Govt’t is continuously making winners and looser’s. Approx half a dozen ‘tax breaks’ going to corporations each week. Keep Money Is Free Speech on the books and the gov’t will find a way to use it against you. I do believe that after corporate personhood is abolished there will be less tendency for gov’t manipulation in all things but it seems wise to take away the temptation where possible. Put in a flat tax and that stymies gov’t manipulation of a tax code. Remove taxes for business and that gets us out of this depreciation, advertising and the numerous things that allow a corporation to hide income. We all know taxes get passed on the consumer anyway. What we don’t know, and need to know, is how much things cost to produce. A corporation can hide the price of production behind things like tax codes and can reap some number of billions by lobbying for a penny drop in some tax law. Already, you donation calculator is discriminating against one sector or the other.
Here is a more better way, IMO. After abolishing CP (sorry Gergle) then implement campaign finance reform. Whereby, ALL donations must be from an individual to the IRS. As much as you want anytime you want. The IRS accounts for, and bundles donations in bulk amounts. On some schedule the IRS disburses bulk funds to the CEC. (Audit trail is now broken). The CEC is organized into two groups. One group receives and accounts for, and disburses bulk funds to the second group on request. The second group receives the funds, plans for funding requirements and for disbursement according to election activity and carries out disbursement to viable parties to meet campaign electioneering requirements.
Recognizing that Mr. Big may have given $10M and word ‘leaks out’ – not a big problem as his $10M gets spread around to all viable parties/candidates so all enjoy his generosity, etc.
On other issues – I like David’s analogy to the transporation highway. Some things are better done through collectivism. In that sense some socialism and some conservatism is required to make the gov’t engine hummmm. However, IMO, both needs to be minimized rather than be pulled back and forth by this crazy ideology of left and right. Please realize that so many things are done to try and circumvent the Corpocracy. IMO, many are seeking a gov’t run or gov’t sponsored healthcare program BECAUSE the corpocracy has a stranglehold on the delivery of healthcare as we now know it. Where is anti-trust to bust up the big un’s and make lots of lil’un’s creating all kinds of jobs and way more COMPETITION. Good healthcare will come from competing HC (sorry Gergle) services and not from some bloated, ineffective gov’t service. Therefore, abolish CP, carry out anti-trust on the HC industry and you will create the competition that will bring good service at a good cost, keeping the gov’t out of the picture. Less socialism is good in this case. But, look what the gov’t has done. They have facilitated mergers into monopolies, trashed anti=trust law, sought to socialize HC, etc.
El Primo – abolish corporate personhood and so many of our problems immediately disappear, IMO

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 4, 2010 10:29 AM

Beretta9,

Humans, by nature, are as evil as they can be; and humans by nature are as sorry as they can be. If government gives away free money or goods in exchange for doing nothing; then humans by nature will take the freebees.

Before that you say:

I don’t want a handout from the government

Of course, the logical conclusion of these two statements is that you aren’t human, which is absurd.

Is everyone else evil, but you?

Or is it you want handouts, but want to deny others? Do you own a home? Then you are receiving government subsidies in the form of tax cuts.

Why does the left always talk about “Tax Cuts” like it is a dirty word?

Well, they don’t, but the problem with the tax cuts of recent history is that they were focused on the wealthiest Americans.

Why does the left say “Tax Cuts” have to be justified?

Do you want unjustified things to occur in Congress? What are you arguing for here? Justification of one’s actions means one is acting responsibly.

Why does the left include “Tax Cuts” in deficit spending?

Because if you don’t cut spending or raise revenues to pay for that spending, the result is deficit spending. Something Bush did in gazillions. While deficit spending is a must during periods of contraction, it is very bad during an expanding economy, which is what Bush and Reagan did.

Isn’t taxes part of “OUR” earnings?

Yes, taxes are a part of your and my earnings. It is also a part of government revenue which pays for the services and benefits we receive, such as military protection, roads, water and sewer, police, fire services, medicare, and Social Security.

If the goal of liberalism is to take from the rich and give to the poor (redistribution of wealth), then they are accomplishing it through the multitude of government handouts. The left gets so upset when conservatives call this socialism, but wasn’t this the foundation doctrine of Karl Marx who said to take from the haves and give to the have-nots.

The goal of liberalism, in a classic sense is a political ideology that developed in the 19th century in England, Western Europe, and the Americas. It is committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets. The definition has been perverted by scurrilous blaggards to mean something opposed to their point of view.

In 1929 Capitalism failed. The Wealth distribution of America was much as it is today. The problem seems to be that banksters and others seem to figure a way to game the system that brings about financial collapse, because they hold all the money and do not trust any of their fellow banksters. No money flows, the middle class becomes poorer and poorer and the economy stops. This is the same situation we are finding ourselves in, today. Roosevelt adopted socialistic princples to attempt to restart the economy. It worked to some degree, but was not enough, until the government began spending our taxes on the war build up. This required hiring millions to build ships, planes and weapons. This was a socialistic plan, a redistribution of wealth, to arm for war.

Socialism is a failed political idea. However, socialistic ideas have worked quite well in our open, liberal democracy.
Understanding the difference, is important to understanding why people who get rich off stirring up ignorant followers, are not politically sound. They will not run for office, because they won’t put their money where their mouths are. They simply want to get rich off the morons they stir up. They have and continue to do so.

You are asking the right questions, but need to look into longer historical issues to understand the differences. keeping asking questions.

Posted by: gergle at June 4, 2010 10:53 AM

Beretta,

“Canada and the European countries “DO Not” have a military. We are protecting them. They spend all their money on socialist programs. And they are going broke. We need a military to protect ourselves. “

Yeah they do. Even Luxembourg has a military.

“Our enemies are not cutting their military spending.”

Please supply us with the names of the countries we could consider our “enemies”.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 4, 2010 11:35 AM

B9 I have to disagree with you about the Canadian and European Military. Each country on this Globe has a military, not as large or well equiped as ours but they do have a military. When I was in the USN we had joint exercises with forces from other countries. So I have to agree with Rocky.

Posted by: MAG at June 4, 2010 01:09 PM

Beretta9:

You are right about their military spending. NATO is an organization in which the U.S. taxpayers supply all the planes, tanks, bombs, guns, and troops while the Europeans claim those things are theirs.

Those socialist Western Europeans have more people than we do and they should have a European military that is larger and more powerful than ours.

The Chinese should get their act together as well. They have four times as many people as us and they should be spending four times as much on their military.

It isn’t even necessary for them to build their own military equipment. They can get everything they need from our MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. All they have to do is get their priorities straight and come up with the cash, no, the gold.

Posted by: jlw at June 4, 2010 01:12 PM

jlw,

You really want China and Germany with large militaries?

I’ve seen a lot of UN Mirage’s.

Germany just had a politician who had to apologize for saying that Germany needs to deploy it’s military to protect it’s economic interests. Even the Germans understand the problem with this.

BTW, US dollars would be fine, just not Yuans. They have a false value on their currency. Gold is too volatile.

Posted by: gergle at June 4, 2010 01:56 PM

gergle,
Gold is not volatile, our dollar is.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 4, 2010 02:03 PM

Beretta9 is correct in one respect. Keeping the militaries of foreign countrys small is a requirement for maintaining an empire. It would not be an empire if other countries were responsible for their own security. He would be correct to say we should not be maintaining a world empire. If the U.N. was worth a tenth of it’s cost independent armies would be small and rarely used and our empire would not be needed.

I cannot see the need for a large army other than for occupation and we aren’t suppose to be doing that, are we? Our blind obedience in the security needs behavour of our government since the second world war and an ever present state of emergency has led us to believe a large standing army is necessary and justified.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/national-defense/

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 4, 2010 02:34 PM

As for gold and the dollar…

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/fiat-money-inflation-federal-reserve/

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 4, 2010 02:36 PM

WW, gold is volatile. Like any commodity, its value rests on the supply/demand curve. Global prices swing with the actions of Central Banks, mining activity and accessibility, as well as the health of transportation systems for its physical distribution. Gold prices depend heavily on our global transportation systems, and ease of secure distribution, as well as its inaccessibility due to incorporation into utility items which people hold onto, like computers, and the costs associated with gold refuse recovery.

It is just a metal. Its demand, utility, and availability make its price volatile. It has many uses, and backing currencies is but one, and a diminishing one at that.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 4, 2010 03:19 PM

Roy said: “Disagree David. The idea is to make government as simple as possible so’s not to give the gov’t a chance to manipulate an issue for their political greed.”

That is ideologically false and destructive as a belief, Roy.

Would you use a spoon to try to move 5 ton boulder? That is simplicity leveraged against weight, and it won’t work. The simplest government is a dictatorship. Absolutely, guaranteed to be the worst form of government and most inefficient for the people. Kim Jung Il’s N. Korea is a classic example.

Complex societies with complex economies require a significantly more complex and flexible government, to adapt and change with the needs of the society’s growth and justified demands of the people.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 4, 2010 03:25 PM

Our currency is based on oil, yet oil is being demonized and it’s use is being abandoned. What are we going to use to back up our currency after that, salt? Or, do you think it might be gold?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 4, 2010 03:27 PM

Roy said: “Govt’t is continuously making winners and looser’s.”

And free enterprise competition doesn’t? 89,402 companies filed bankruptcy in 2009, a 38 percent increase over the previous year. And many times that number of bankruptcies were filed by individuals and families. Talk about making winners and losers; the private sector takes the cake on that score.

Yet you hail the private sector and demean government for picking winners and losers. I fail to see the appropriate use of logic in such a position. May I remind you that the government prevented millions of Americans from filing bankruptcy in the last 2 years with the unemployment extensions, cobra extensions, and assistance for mortgage holders in trouble, while lowering taxes on the middle class and poor.

What has the private sector done to aid those facing bankruptcy? Not much compared to the government, but, it sure did make financial losers of 100’s of millions of Americans, and many more around the globe.

Is there a price for all this on the private and government side? Of course. But, the price of saving and keeping a functional economy intact was far lower than allowing that economy to fail.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 4, 2010 03:40 PM

Weary Willie,

You might say our currency is being debased by oil….

We are a net importer of oil.

Posted by: gergle at June 4, 2010 03:47 PM

WW, eventually it will be potable water. Mark my words.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 4, 2010 04:43 PM

“You really want China and Germany with large militaries?”

Gergle,

What, are you afraid they might start preemptive wars?

Empires have large militaries to gain and protect foreign assets, to repel the hordes that might try to invade the empire, and on occasion, to put down slave rebellions.

As an empire, we are doing fairly well on the acquisition and protection of foreign assets. Not so good on repelling the invading hordes. And, we may find out soon, how well the Empire can handle a slave revolt.

Vote for true change in government, vote progressive.

Posted by: jlw at June 4, 2010 04:48 PM

David R. Remer, it is unfair to cite 2009 examples and then blame only the private sector. Government is not an end all, cure all for our nation’s woes.

What has the private sector done to aid those facing bankruptcy? Not much compared to the government, but, it sure did make financial losers of 100’s of millions of Americans, and many more around the globe.

I think the 100’s of millions value is correct if you think all of us are worse off. I hardly think that quantity of individual people were hurt considering the number of government employees hired, or the new government programs created, or the stimilus money metted out slowly but surely nearer to the election. 2/3rds of the stimulus bill remains to be spent. It was passed over a year ago. Why can’t anyone see the purchase of an election in them ditties?

I’ve heard of people caught in a trap and doing heroic things to save themselves.
Sadly, I think our government would rather eat it’s arm, before severing the leg caught in the trap.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 4, 2010 04:50 PM

Comment #301671
http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/007085.html#301671

WW, eventually it will be potable water. Mark my words.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 4, 2010 04:43 PM

How’s that for marking your words?

Do you have a natural spring on your property, David? My property has a remainent well but it is illegal to use it. Water would indeed be valuable in a situation much more desparate than both of ours is.

Are your posts designed to make potable water valuable? Many people believe in bottled water. It has a market, but we would change the subject by discussing it now.

If someone were to own a natural spring, and someone came up to buy water with gold, would the guy with water turn him away or would he take the gold?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 4, 2010 05:40 PM

MAG:

“B9 I have to disagree with you about the Canadian and European Military. Each country on this Globe has a military, not as large or well equiped as ours but they do have a military. When I was in the USN we had joint exercises with forces from other countries. So I have to agree with Rocky.”

I know that Canada and European countries have militaries, but they are token militaries. Could Canada, France, England, Germany, or any other European country withstand (on their own) an invasion from Russia, China, or even Iran?

I too was part of joint exercises with other nations, when in the USN. But, the point I make is, they are not safe unless we are there to protect them. It’s easy for these nations to spend all their money on social programs, government jobs, and early retirements when they don’t have to pay for security. Ronald Reagan said (paraphrasing), we (America) are the last bastions of freedom, when we are gone, there will be no freedom.

The left loves to TALK about waving the flag, but they are the first to condemn the military, declare no use for the military, and cut spending to the military. In their eyes, we are an evil empire-building nation and deserve to be brought down. This is what Obama believes and in his own eyes, he believes it is his job to make us a 3rd world nation. Several liberals on this site continually accuse the Republicans of being the “party of no”, or of blocking everything Obama wants to do. Well, I say, God bless them, and continue to block this socialist, bent on the downfall of America.

Posted by: Beretta9 at June 4, 2010 08:02 PM

England, Canada and Isreal could possibly stand up to an invasion. But the rest no. B9 You said “Canada and European countries have NO military.” That is where I disagreed with you.

Posted by: MAG at June 4, 2010 08:36 PM

I think my problem is that I am a centrist, a populist centrist driven by a principle that moderation in all things is good, positive, necessary, prudent, etc.
Populism seems to be seen as a derogatory term in this country.

Gov’t funding is being used to put people on the river basins in Wa. state to kill sea lions that ‘eat too many salmon’. Oil is flooding the Gulf Coast because the Mineral and Mining Safety has this Corpocracy cozy relationship with the oil patch. BP and Obama wants to ‘save their pipe’ for future pumping and doesn’t want the military to blow the thing up to shut off the oil. People, especially young people, are consuming toxic chemicals put in food as additives, life extenders and the like. This is being done without proper testing of the chemicals up front. If a certain percent don’t die then all is well. Also, we are eating imported foods that haven’t been tested by a competent source such as eating tilapia from unregulated ponds in China. Yet, we can’t buy drugs from Britain, France and the like for fear of contamination.

The solution by the left and right is to regulate, increase or decrease taxes, levy fines, etc. Whereas, the real solution lies in the abolishment of Corporate Personhood law. Every problem we have that is, in any way, related to money, profit, business, etc is directly tied to Corporate Personhood law.

That so few support a populist, centrists effort to abolish Corporate Personhood law is a good indicator of where we stand in solving the many real problems facing this country, IMO.

Otherwise, we have the Socialistic-Corporcratic gov’t we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 4, 2010 08:40 PM

David Remer,

One word: Urine.

(said in best Mr. Robinson voice ala The Graduate)

:)

I’m reading about Bechtel and Bolivia and the privatization of water down there. It’s a big part of why Evo Morales is now president.

Posted by: gergle at June 4, 2010 09:51 PM

Beretta,

“Could Canada, France, England, Germany, or any other European country withstand (on their own) an invasion from Russia, China, or even Iran?”

Do you have any idea just how silly this statement sounds?

In fiscal year 2010 (all figures are from wilipedia);
The US military budget is $692 billion (obviously this is #1 in the world)
China’s military budget is $80.64 billion (this is #2 in the world)
Russia’s military budget is $33 billion
Iran’s military budget is $18 billion
Britain’s military budget is over $60 billion (just over 40 billion British pounds this is #3 in the world)
France likewise will spend over $60 billion this year.

It is true that Russia has proximity on their side if they truly wanted to invade Eastern Europe, but they wouldn’t get very far without using a nuclear threat.
Personally I don’t think they are that stupid.

China and Iran don’t have the logistical power to invade Europe.

Sorry that statement is just ….

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 4, 2010 10:28 PM

WW, the 100 million may be somewhat large, but, you have to consider all the pension plans, 401K’s, all other equity investment instruments private and corporate and union investors have lost money in. I think 100 million is probably very close to the ballpark.

Beside the point however. Government saved 10’s of millions of Americans from being wiped out by this Great Recession, and we only have to look to 1930 when the Banking sector was allowed to fail to see the result. And it would be vastly greater today given the economic interdependence we all share today, as opposed to the 1930’s when many self-sustaining families were relatively untouched by the banking sector failure.

I for one, am glad we have a big enough government to take on BP and force their compensation for the 10’s of billions of dollars of direct losses that will accrue, and there will be many more beyond the direct losses and for many years to come. Imagine what BP’s position would be if we had a very small government without the teeth and personnel to take on BP.

The Constitution created a strong centralized federal government with teeth for just such occasions, as opposed to the Articles of Confederation which called for a miniscule and decentralized federal government with no enforcement teeth. Thankfully the wisdom of Jefferson, Adams and Franklin prevailed and the A of C were thrown out for a federal government far more centralized, bigger, and far more lasting and with the strength to prevail through the ages and crises this new nation was to sure to face going forward.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 5, 2010 02:57 AM

Roy, you make so much good sense, and then spoil it with comments like: “BP and Obama wants to ‘save their pipe’ for future pumping and doesn’t want the military to blow the thing up to shut off the oil.”

You aren’t seriously harboring the notion that the Russian’s idea of using a nuke to close the well, wouldn’t potentially do far more harm than the well itself is now doing, are you? Appears so. There is no sound engineering basis to estimate that a blast at the well head wouldn’t rupture the pipe in a number of other places along the casing well, resulting in even greater amounts of oil rushing out per day than is the case today. Sub-sea floor ruptures could end up creating a vast bubble exploding out of the sea floor from pipe ruptures, making the entire situation substantially worse.

It’s not about saving the pipe. It’s about shutting it down without making the entire situation worse. I assume you are getting this bogus hype from Beck again. Seriously, you have to be very much more critical about what Beck has to say, and more researched than Beck which is not difficult at all.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 5, 2010 03:03 AM

David, it’s been something like 44 days. IMO, a relatively small explosion, or series of explosions at different depths in the pipe, destroying a good length of the pipe and significantly disburbing the material around it would stop the flow of oil. No need to nuke it. However, were it determined that a small, underground nuculear exposion would more likely be successful I wouldn’t object. But, so many would that it is improbable or perhaps a last resort.

Very hopeful this top hat thing will work. But, should it not there will be a heap of wrath directed at BP and the administration.

I see BP being as beligerent as ExXon during the Valdez spill. ExXon fought reparations in court for years and basically won, paying a 1:1 for damages, and only 10% of the oil spill was cleaned up. Well, the Gulf is not Alaska and this spill is on TV 24/7 so people are not going to stand down on this one. But, the administration sure has, IMO.

I would agree with your comments on a strong central government but the Corpocracy comes into play bigtime in this situation. Recall that BP was Obama’s biggest donor and he will need help in 2012.

Otherwise, we have the socialistic-corporcratic gov’t we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 5, 2010 09:22 AM

RM:

Do those figures for military spending take into account the cost of living and wages in relation to each nation? For example the cost of living and wages in Russia and China are not near as high as in European nations or Canada. Therefore Russia and China could spend less dollars and buy much more military might. Add to that the fact that Russia and China are capable of producing their own weapons, ships, tanks, aircraft, etc. For example, if $1 billion was spent in these 2 countries, it would buy much more than if spent in England, Germany, France, Canada, or the US.

Posted by: Beretta9 at June 5, 2010 09:22 AM

MAG:

I admit I was wrong, when I said they had no military. I didn’t get my point across correctly. They do have, but IMO it is no more than a token military. As I explained to RM: you can’t compare dollar for dollar spent by each nation. In fact recent reports are that Euro nations are cutting spending to military budgets because of financial problems. These nations could not stop the enemy in WWI or WWII, and they were more prepared then, than they are now, in relation to other nations.

We must add to that the fact that the Europeans have no stomach for war. If we in the US, have faced the rash of anti-war protests ever since Vietnam, how much more ant-war protests would a European nation face? In fact, the mood of Europe is against both Iraq and Iran. We, in America, have a percentage of people willing to submit to any enemy, but we also still have many patriotic Americans who support the military. I would say, IMO, that we have a larger percentage of citizens who support the military than in any Euro nation.

The point of the whole post, which seems to always get lost through useless debate, is that America gets saddled with the bulk of military spending, because we supply troops and bases in many nations; for the purpose of protecting them. What would our military budget be if we closed our bases in every other nation? You were in the Navy and you know we represent a presence in every ocean with many types of squadrons. How much could we save if we only protected our borders, and how loud would these other nations holler when we left them unprotected? If we closed our bases in Europe, how threatened would the Europeans feel by Russia then? And the big question is, would it cause European nations to re-evaluate their military budgets? The Canadians are simple next door to us and basically trust we will protect them. I have talked to Canadian friends who have told me, many of their military personnel are those who enlist at a later age, simply to supplement their income.

Posted by: Beretta9 at June 5, 2010 09:52 AM

B9, I agree that most countries today only have a small military and do need our help.

Posted by: MAG at June 5, 2010 10:01 AM

Berretta9, I feel your pain. If you make a comment that you feel is moderate in context you will immediately get back responses relegating your comments to some left/right extremism. I understood what you meant by saying much of he world has no military.

The rest of the world is where our older military equipment goes for redeployment. Nearly every military barn around the world is stocked with U.S. military hand-me-downs. U.S. economic policy has always been driven by U.S. foreign policy. Explains our ever negative trade imbalance. In other words, we want to scare them to death with our military might and buy world peace through foreign policy. We don’t want any wars except the one’s we choose to start, most often with an economic (oil) objective. In all things the U.S. ponies up the hard cash. UN - 26%, IMF - 18% and so on. IMO, the mil budget could be easily reduced 50% with no reduction in our security posture. But, the corpocracy/mil industrial complex looms large on the scene and no doubt will remain so until we can abolish corporate personhood law. Really sends me over the edge that in kick starting the New World Economy (new term for globalization), breaking the back of the middle class, etc, the corpocracy is working to contract the development/production of mil equip to foreign entities so’s they can get a toe hold on utopia. And, it bodes well for world peace!!?? Put a price tag on all the above as it relates to yore paycheck.

Otherwise, - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 5, 2010 10:30 AM

“We, in America, have a percentage of people willing to submit to any enemy, but we also still have many patriotic Americans who support the military.”

“B9, I agree that most countries today only have a small military and do need our help.”

“…This is what Obama believes and in his own eyes, he believes it is his job to make us a 3rd world nation”

What drivel. You can only be Patriotic if you support a military budget that is 8 times the budget of the second largest military budget in the world. Seems more idiotic than patriotic to me.
We have more guns in the hands of our citizens than other countries and yet we think we need to spend this much on a military and then wonder why some of us “willing to submit” types are questioning the soundness of this wasteful spending. It seems that judging by the spending of our “enemies” the only country wanting to pick a fight is us.
How foolish is it to borrow money from China to spend on our military to protect us from ….China? If we reduced our military budget to say 2 times the amount China spends would China attack us? Or Russia, Or god forbid Iran. Get a grip guys we owe China to much money to think they would be foolish enough to attack us.

The conservatives have for years been using policy to turn the US into a 3rd world country, guys, that’s what supply side economics is. So to rant the nonsensical name calling drivel that is typical talk radio conservative talking points only shows how much the movement leadership has been able to fool 35% of the people most of the time, IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 5, 2010 11:15 AM

j2t2, seems you are taking talking points to the extreme. Industry began a major effort for cheaper labor when northern mills began moving south in the 50’s and 60’s. Then they chased labor to Mexico and then to Asia and beyond. We all understand that. We also understand that this didn’t happen in a vaccum. Beginning with the Regan era the gov’t created the WTO as a world gov’t just for the corpocracy. Subverting our Constitution, but not a problem with the corpocracy. Same with the NAU (sorry Gergle) but again, not a problem with the Corpocracy. Since globalization has gotten some bad vibes the new term is ‘new world order’. Agree, the point is not to turn us into a 3rd world country, just put us on hold or knock us down to $5-6/hr wages until the developing world catches up. Intertwine world economies so one country can’t attack another just as you stated in your last post.

And so here we are. Greatest xfer of wealth, great recession, debt that is impossible to pay off, bailing out socialist Greece with more to come, some 25% unemployed or underemployed. borders still open to cheap labor, ad infinitum. If that’s what you want stick with it but, as for me I want the Corpocracy gone. I want government reform, beginning with the abolishment of corporate personhood, anti-trust, campaign finance reform and so on.

Otherwise, we have the socialistic=corporcratic gov’t we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 5, 2010 11:42 AM

The Corpocracy is on FOX TV at the moment proposing that we lower the minimum wage so more people can find work. What I refer to as breaking the back of the middle class worker. Also, note that lots of families are foreclosing on their homes and taking expensive vacations, new cars, etc. Not 3rd world j2t2, but headed in that direction.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 5, 2010 11:49 AM

j2t2:

I did not equate spending on the military with support of the military. Support is a totally separate point. There are those who disdain the military, both here and in Europe. This is not something new. No matter how you feel about it, a well-equipped and trained military is a necessity.

I don’t have a problem with shutting down ALL American military bases in all other countries and bringing our troops home. It would save us billions. I don’t care what American corporations do in foreign countries. Let them pay for their own security, if they want to be there. Again I say, how long would it take for these countries to start crying, if we pulled out? It would also cause them to increase their own military spending. If European economies are failing now, what would happen if they had to pay for their own protection?

I am a firm believer in a strong military and right now I believe our military should be locked and loaded on the borders of the US. Concerning our presence in Iraq or Iran; I have said from the very beginning, we should have turned the sand into a sea of glass. To attempt nation building or establishing democracies in these countries is futile. IMO, the basis of our Republic is the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech and religion. If you don’t have these, you can never have a republic. These Muslim nations will never allow freedom of religion or freedom of speech. The Muslim religion is one of control and domination. Hence, women have no rights to speech or to clothing, slavery and servitude is still practiced, and any religion other than Islam is considered a threat and not tolerated.

“How foolish is it to borrow money from China to spend on our military to protect us from ….”

I say, how foolish for us to borrow money from China or any other country, for any reason. There are none of us, who if in debt and not able to make our payments, would go borrow more money. But that is exactly what our leaders do.

On another subject: the problem with a blog site such as WB; we have no idea who the people are that are posting. Sometimes we think we are talking to loyal Americans and we may be reading the ranting of America’s enemies. “Thou dost protest too much”, seems to be the slogan of the day on WB. If we reported the sky to be blue, there would be some who would argue it is purple and accuse Bush of the color change

Posted by: Beretta9 at June 5, 2010 11:57 AM

Mr. Remer wrote; “I for one, am glad we have a big enough government to take on BP and force their compensation for the 10’s of billions of dollars of direct losses that will accrue, and there will be many more beyond the direct losses and for many years to come.”

Kinda makes one all warm and fuzzy knowing that all those obscene profits will be coming back to us. Gosh…just imagine who would be paying the bills if the liberal/socialists had their way and nationalized them all.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 5, 2010 12:46 PM

Weary Willie,

I’m curious. How is it illegal to use water on your own property, assuming you don’t live in a metropolitan area? I live in the City of Houston and obviously cannot drill a well.
There have been some stories I’ve seen of cities going after people catching rainwater and using it, claiming this is within their well charging areas.

Posted by: gergle at June 5, 2010 02:04 PM

“I did not equate spending on the military with support of the military. Support is a totally separate point. There are those who disdain the military, both here and in Europe.”

I agree Beretta, but how many of us Americans do you think are “willing to submit to any enemy”. I would venture a guess that percentage is very very small. The percentage of people who disdain the military for whatever reason is probably larger.

“I don’t have a problem with shutting down ALL American military bases in all other countries and bringing our troops home.”

Well Beretta I also agree with this. Although I don’t want any other countries economy to fail, European or otherwise. I am sure that given notice and time these countries could solve this problem without irreparable harm to us or them. As far as European countries failing now are they any worse off than most of the rest of the world generally speaking?

“I am a firm believer in a strong military and right now I believe our military should be locked and loaded on the borders of the US.”

As our forefathers envisioned. Harder to start wars that way.

“Concerning our presence in Iraq or Iran; I have said from the very beginning, we should have turned the sand into a sea of glass.”

For what reason? Iraq had no WMD’s, We are still fighting them here, and Bin Laden wasn’t there and had no ties with Iraq. Using Nuke’s to solve our differences will only cause more problems,IMHO.

“To attempt nation building or establishing democracies in these countries is futile. IMO, the basis of our Republic is the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech and religion….”

I agree nation building is futile. As far as Muslim’s and their religion I agree there are extreme interpretations of their Koran just as we have extremist in the Christian faith. But by and large most are just like most Christians we met, just trying to practice their beliefs. Were we to bring our military home and let the Arab nations and Israel sort out their issues it wouldn’t surprise me that a lot of this extremism would go away. At any rate it is a problem they need to sort out amongst themselves as any interference by those of other religions would only serve to exacerbate the problems they have. Militarily I agree we must defend ourselves in this country from the militant extremist of any religion.

“I say, how foolish for us to borrow money from China or any other country, for any reason. There are none of us, who if in debt and not able to make our payments, would go borrow more money. But that is exactly what our leaders do.”

Although it is not a valid comparison I understand your point. There are time a country needs to borrow and a time when borrowing makes no economic sense. I prefer these times to be few but yes we have been on a borrow and spend spree for some time and haven’t used the borrowed money for good reason.

“the problem with a blog site such as WB; we have no idea who the people are that are posting. Sometimes we think we are talking to loyal Americans and we may be reading the ranting of America’s enemies.”

Yes j2t2 could be an enemy as could anyone but fortunately we have the ability to think for ourselves and are free to turn on the BS meter as we wish. For the most part I think the regulars here are loyal Americans with viewpoints that differ but who have the best intentions in mind for this country.

“If we reported the sky to be blue, there would be some who would argue it is purple and accuse Bush of the color change”

And some who would blame Obama. But that is what I like about WB the different viewpoints and the clash of ideas and opinions mixed with some facts. So protest away Beretta, who is to say what is to much? :)

Posted by: j2t2 at June 5, 2010 02:59 PM

Roy, Roy, They are drilling two, count them two additional well heads into this same reserve. They DON’T and WON’T need the pipe in the well head that is currently spilling. Your comment was illogical and wrong. Obama has no interest in saving or preserving the pipe. Neither, for that matter, does BP. That pipe has been twisted and torqued and therefore, is potentitally weakened in a number of places and joints. Simply capping this well head, causing back pressure to build, may create other ruptures, the engineers have already said.

I.E., there are no guarantees here. Drilling additional pressure relieving well heads into the same reserve is the only assured method at this point of being able to cap off the current ruptured well pipe.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 5, 2010 02:59 PM

If BP were a nationalized company, it could do what the Mexican nationalized oil company did. Pay $100 million for stopping the leak and claim sovereign immunity on the damages.

Privatized or nationalized has very little bearing on who will ultimately be paying the costs.

Contrary to our Founding Fathers intent, the personal assets of the BP investors are not in jeopardy.

Beretta9, massive job producing tax cuts for the wealthy, no jobs produced, two unfunded wars, massive increase in national debt, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, is proof that no one needs to blame Bush, his record speaks for itself.

Posted by: jlw at June 5, 2010 03:33 PM

jlw, and Carter for listening to a commie and giving away the P. Canal, Regan for the era of ‘greed is good’, ending anti-trust and starting up the WTO. Bush 1, for signing WTO and NAFTA, Clinton signing on to the WTO and NAFTA and pushing the NAU, Bush II for pushing NAFTA, WTO, and the NAU and Obama for the same. Did I miss anybody?

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 5, 2010 05:17 PM

David, I might share you views if I had ANY trust in government to do the right thing. I keep hearing the Coast Guard Chief talk about ‘production’. IMO, their plan is to cap the spill sufficiently to get folks off their back while they drill another ‘production’ well which should come online in August I believe. Closing the pipe with explosives would most likely hamper any drilling in that area for a new well. And, the little people might like some part time work picking up tar balls off the beaches, what with the economy and all.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 5, 2010 05:26 PM

Roy, the simple fact is, the reserve they tapped into contains very high pressures. The only way to relieve that pressure is to tap it in another place, or in this case, 2 places, to insure a dropping of the pressure, so as to be able to shut down the spilling well head pipe.

Yes, that will mean they will be tapping the oil from these two new wells, but, collecting for use is far better than allowing it to spill into the environment. Sometimes, things are just as they appear to be. We have seen the videos of thousands of gallons spilling into the gulf. That reality demands an answer and solution, and tapping the reserve to reduce the spill pressure to permit capping it, is the solution, all else failing.

There is nothing here based on the facts to work one’s paranoia up about. The facts are what they are, the video is what it is, and the environmental impact is what it is, and BP’s and agents incompetence and failures are what they are, and the President, whomever that might be, has very limited options as president to deal with this situation, save for pulling together what environmental damage minimization resources are available.

One must be careful not to allow one’s mistrust to override one’s reason and critical analysis. I share your mistrust. But, it is important to not allow my mistrust to alter the evidence and facts available. That path leads neurotic behavior or worse. Just because our world is out of balance does not mean you or I have to allow ourselves to be shoved out of balance, by it.

We need to remain critical and rational based on the empirically observable facts and data available, and ensure our reason governs our passions, not the other way around. That is how we can retain our balance even as the world about us loses its own.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 5, 2010 06:35 PM

David,

That’s not my understanding of relief wells:

Despite the name, relief wells are not meant to relieve pressure. They simply provide a path to insert heavy mud and cement in the leaking well about 18,000 feet deep under the seafloor, stopping the flow of oil………When they get deep enough, drillers will make a gradual bend in the relief wells’ paths, plunging at a 35-degree angle to get within 50 feet of their target. Once in range, they will use magnetic instruments to more precisely home in on the original well casing — or pipe — and fill it with heavy synthetic drilling mud to push oil down.

After that, cement is pumped in to shut off the flow for good.

From this article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-relief-wells-20100606,0,6040854.story

Posted by: gergle at June 5, 2010 07:12 PM

Yeah, it is what it is. The damage is already done.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 5, 2010 07:52 PM

Gergle, thank you. I stand corrected and more knowledgeable thanks to your link. Appreciate it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 5, 2010 08:13 PM

Roy, if the relief wells don’t work, then all the damage that could result, has not yet occurred. It can get a whole lot worse. Let’s hope that is not the case, or my Trillion dollar cost estimate becomes a reality.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 5, 2010 08:14 PM

We have the oil spill facilitated by MMS and the cozy relationship with oil, PVC mfctr’s in La. killing people who live nearby with polyvinylchloride, McDonald’s recalling 12M drinking cups because they contain cadmium (why not test first and drink later), etc.

Common link in all this. The influence of money in politics brought about by Corporate Personhood law.

A Republican congressperson from Calif is on cspan holding a town hall in Kern’s (?) Calif. He delivered a good presentation on the state of the union and pointed to a website Americasomething set up for people who want dialogue with their representatives. Also, note that Cantor is pushing some kind of poll where you vote on the ten top problems we need to solve or something like that. Interesting how the left and right finds their way to the middle when election time is close. After his very good presentation he asked for questions. A few good questions but most of the time was taken up profering verbage that he fire or demote SS workers as they have fancy cars parked outside, etc.

Abolish Corporate Personhood law. Abolish Corporate Personhood law. Abolish Corporate Personhood law.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 5, 2010 09:46 PM

Roy, it won’t be a panacea, but, one helluva great start at creating a better future for America and Americans. We need corporations, but, like children, they require discipline and guidance, and an enormous amount of oversight and babysitting, to insure they act in their own, and our best interests.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 6, 2010 02:26 AM

Agree David. Currently, about half the voting public participating as many feel its a useless exercise. Campaign finance reform would for sure bring more folks to the polls. I would be in favor of making election day a national holiday and mandating that people participate. And, we need anti-trust law to break up monopolies and create competition and jobs. I suggest the oil spill would not have happened had BP not had the cozy relationship with MMS, the govies regulator for minerals and mining. I suggest that drilling relief wells would not be the accepted procedure of shutting down a runaway well were it not for the cozy relationship.

Such major reform cannot be achieved through the two major political parties. We elect new folks and the money influence sucks them in pdq. It will take a new party with a different political attitude, IMO. A party with one mission: abolish corporate personhood law.

Agree, no panacea, but far better off by having restored the checks and balance of power with gov’t focused on the people rather than the corpocracy.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 6, 2010 10:46 AM

ROy said: “I would be in favor of making election day a national holiday and mandating that people participate.”

Yes, on the national holiday, or simply a weekend day (enormously cheaper).

I can’t agree with mandating election participation. There is no freedom and liberty in that. I empathize with voters whose only choice is Tweedle Deel and Tweedle Dum, and choose to vote for none of the above. That said: I think there is enormous value in offering incentive to vote and contribute to a political campaign, perhaps in the form of a flat fee tax rebate on your next year’s taxes.

Roy said: “And, we need anti-trust law to break up monopolies and create competition and jobs.”

We have anti-trust laws. We need to enforce their spirit and long-term intent. Further, we need new anti-oligopoly laws, which outlaw silent consent between industry rivals to control prices and avoid competition. Anti-trust laws are toothless precisely because of the absence of anti-oligoply laws.

Roy said: “I suggest the oil spill would not have happened had BP not had the cozy relationship with MMS, the govies regulator for minerals and mining.”

I believe the “accident” might not have happened, as well, had the inspection process and oversight and licensing requirements been what they should have. But, that is prejudging the situation without all the facts, at this point, as the investigations as to the cause are not yet complete. Still, accidents have to be anticipated and allowed for. NASA does it, and defensive driving courses do it. Our enormously profitable oil corporations can afford these prophylactic procedures. I would go further and require that ONLY wholly owned American corporations be permitted to extract American natural resources.

Critics would argue that other nations might follow suit, depriving American resource extraction corporations from doing business on foreign soil. But, to them, I would reply, America’s natural resources should be accessed by America’s lowest bidders, not foreign and foreign corporations would do well for their economies to adopt the same. This doesn’t prevent extractors from selling domestic resources on the open market. It does however, insure that the extraction process is domestic and subject to domestic oversight and regulation with the benefit of operations funding remaining in the U.S. economy.

I have to admit, I have not researched the consequences of following such a policy through to its logical global consequences, but, it has appeal and merit on its face, as far as I can see at the moment.

As you know, I fail to see how a new party can compete with existing parties without becoming like the existing parties. Not, at least, until a majority of voters have adopted anti-incumbent voting strategy as their means to rejecting failure in government and American politics.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 6, 2010 11:58 AM

the comprehensive immigration thing and closing the border first.
Couple of articles in the Wash Post today re the oil spill. Over 50M barrels spill thus far and 48 days in. A senior scientist with the Natl Wildlife Fed. says damage will last years if not decades. The ExXon Valdez spill of 11M gallons killed 700k birds and 5k otters, otter population not recovered 21 yrs later. Pacific herring population collapsed. Killer whales suffered hvy loses, of two pods monitored, one pod is going extinct as no reproducing females left in pod. 10% of oil cleaned up with rest still there 3-6” below the soil surface.
The IXTOC occurred at depth of 150’ and spill lasted 193 days being shut down by drilling a relief well. That spill killed 100’s of millions of crabs. In 1969 a 189k gal spill occurred off Cape Cod and crabs are still acting crazed after 40 years. Repubs and some dems are deeming this latest spill and ‘act of God’.
One article alludes the spill was a preventable accident. Noting that BP documents reveal concerns about the integrity of the well metal casing a year ago. BP told officials in Marching they were having well control problems. BP adminst a fundamental mistake by replacing drilling mud to counter pressure from most likely gas leaking into the well. The blowout, with a dead battery and leaking hydraulic fluid, failed allowing sewater, drilling mud and volatile gas to shoot up the well.
Meanwhile, each day 1M lbs of nitrogen flows into the Chesapeake Bay from a 64K sq mile watershed. Runoff from factory farms and animal manure the culprit. Each summer there are large fish kills in the upper Shenandoah rivers.
Can technology save us are do we need some serious thought about population reduction, etc?
In any case we need to restore the checks and balances of power between Congress, Executive and the Courts. We need to put big business on the back seat and ‘we the people’ on the front seat, as the Founder’s intended. That can only be done thru a 3rd party with a different political attitude with a singular mission to abolish corporate personhood law.

Good suggestions David. Going forward I believe that a strong anti-incumbent sentiment is growing fast and will take a toll on the Corpocracy over the next two election cycles. This will greatly facilitate and expedite the starup of a new 3rd party with a different political attitude. Also, I am confident that just the anti-incumbency awarness coupled with the efforts on Article V Convention will have a profound effect on some politicos.

Granted, a new party will have to be unlike the major parties of the Corpocracy. There needs to be rules in place to prevent the party from being co-opted by special interest or the money influence. We can all sit by an watch the TEA Party become fractionalized and ‘wrapped up’ over time by the special interest. The one major rule needed to circumvent co-option is that each member must agree to support the Party’s agenda (abolish corporate personhood law). As enforcement, Members would serve an oversight function for their members who achieve elected/appointed status. If a sufficient number of complaints are registered about an elected/appointed official then a mandatory up/down vote must be held by the membership. If the perceived culprit receives less than 66% favorable vote he/she will be rejected from the Party. Through these few rules the party can filter out those who would seek to co-opt the party for some other agenda than that intended.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 6, 2010 01:25 PM

Most accidents are preventable, but they still occur. In the case of the Mexican well, it took two relief wells to reduce the pressure enough to cap the damaged well head.

What this accident points to is that no improvements in the ability to deal with the accidents has occurred in the 30+years since the Mexican accident.

Posted by: jlw at June 6, 2010 02:17 PM

http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/what-caused-bp-oil-spill-2010-halliburton-cementing-issue-2612965.html
Apparently there are problems related to the cementing involved in various stages of securing the pipe casing. This url relates that well blowouts are not a rare occurrence. Also, there were problems with the blowout preventer in the Ixtoc spill.
Ixtoc accident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I_oil_spill
Questions remain re BP’s blowout preventer (BOP): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowout_preventer
jlw, if there has been improvements it is not evident in this latest disaster.

Following is the missing para to my above post.
Word is that when Social Security began the ratio of payers to recipients was 40:1. Now the ratio is 3:1. Also, Regan’s son is on the lobby circuit pushing a ‘fair tax’. We don’t want a tax system that allows the gov’t to make winners and losers through manipulation of tax code. We do want a ‘flat tax’ where each individual pays tax at the same rate, around 17%. Instructions on the front and form on the back, period. No room for manipulation there. After corporate personhood law is abolished we could talk about a fair tax and numerous other issues. Kind of like the comprehensive immigration thing and closing the border first.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 6, 2010 05:16 PM

Roy, that 40:1 ratio is a very misleading statistic. Think about it, “When Social Security began”

What part do you suppose the illegal immigrants and their children will be playing to an ever changing ratio, 20-30 years from now. If we do what we have to do to keep SS solvent, like pay it back the government IOUs, for the next twenty years, the ratio begins to change for the positive.

The baby boomers didn’t just pay for their parents and grandparents. They built up a surplus which the government spent. Perhaps the surplus wasn’t enough, but it sure wouldn’t hurt to get it back. It is unfortunate that we let the government spend it.

The real problem, as I see it, is not having the workers to pay for the retirees, it is have the jobs for the workers. If SS is broken that is how they will do it, no jobs.

It is like the illegals used to say to me, you Americans are so stupid, you let us take your jobs. Well, that is exactly what the corporations are doing, they are taking our jobs away and we are to stupid to do anything about it.

At TPM, they have a chart of the job data for all the recessions since the Great Depression. This recession doesn’t compare favorably to any of them on the loss of jobs and the recovery of jobs. I can be compared much closer to the Great Depression. Even when the unemployment numbers come down, there is going to be another few million workers that are no longer needed in the job market. Many of them are going to put more pressure on the social programs. This will lead to greater demands to eliminate them.

David R.,If the Iraqis passed a law saying that only fully owned Iraqi corporations can extract Iraqi natural resources, what do you suppose we would do about that?

I guess it would be ok for us to do that because there is no one to preempt.

Posted by: jlw at June 6, 2010 07:45 PM

Corporate personhood can be changed in one way only. By those who granted it in the first place.

At the California Constitutional Convention of 1878-79, the state legislature drew up a new constitution that denied railroads “the right to deduct the amount of their debts [i.e., mortgages] from the taxable value of their property, a right which was given to individuals.” [2] Southern Pacific Railroad Company refused to pay taxes under these new changes. The taxpaying railroads challenged this law, based on a conflicting federal statute of 1866 which gave them privileges inconsistent with state taxation (14 Stat. 292, §§ 1, 2, 3, 11, 18).

San Mateo County, along with neighboring counties, filed suit against the railroads to recoup the massive losses in tax revenue stemming from Southern Pacific’s refusal to pay. After hearing arguments in San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the California Supreme Court sided with the county. Using the Jurisdiction and Removal Act of 1875, a law created so black litigants could bypass hostile southern state courts if they were denied justice, Southern Pacific was able to appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

http://motherjones.com/politics/2006/10/when-corporation-freed-slave

Linzey has his revolution all mapped out. First, local governments will keep passing anti-personhood measures until one of them triggers a lawsuit in the federal courts. This, in turn, will force the judiciary to reconsider the constitutional principles involved. Linzey doesn’t expect to win such a case: “People are colonized to think we can turn to the courts for remedy,” he says, “and that the judge will hit himself on the forehead and say, ‘Oh my God, 200 years of corporate rights are wrong.’” Rather, Linzey expects a ruling in favor of corporations to “rip away the veil of disbelief,” prompting even more grassroots organizing and local lawmaking. “You treat the courts as a means to building an army,” he says—one that will eventually lead to overhauls of state constitutions, and finally the federal one. The U.S. Constitution, he says, simply focuses too much on “property and commerce,” and eventually pressure will build on Congress to call a convention and start from scratch.

Lawrence Mitchell, a law professor at George Washington University and author of Corporate Irresponsibility, warns that Linzey’s strategy is draining energy from more important battles. “I work with a lot of activist groups, and I sit at meetings banging my head on the table,” he says. “This is deeply embedded constitutional law that no one’s going to reverse.” Mitchell believes activists’ energy would be better spent on reforming state laws to make corporations more accountable.

And yet, Linzey, Grossman, and company keep drawing converts. The Democratic parties of Maine, New Hampshire, and Washington state have passed resolutions opposing corporate personhood and the constitutional rights it confers. Last March, the 4,600 residents of Barnstead, New Hampshire, approved an ordinance—designed to shield the town’s water supply from commercial bottlers—that voids corporate personhood. And in California’s Humboldt County, where the timber giant Maxxam and its contractors spent more than $350,000 to recall a crusading district attorney, voters this year approved a ballot measure banning campaign spending by nonlocal businesses, and specifying that “No corporation shall be entitled to claim corporate constitutional rights or protections in an effort to overturn this law.”

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 6, 2010 08:34 PM

jlw, I don’t know what we do about Iraqis saying their own corporations would extract their own oil. I know what we SHOULD say to them. “It’s about time you all started taking care of your own”.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 6, 2010 08:37 PM

Since this post is about communicating with a elected official, I thought this would would be very interesting:

“To Avoid Voter Rage, Democrats Skip Town Halls”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/us/politics/07townhall.html?hp

It appears to be a concerted effort by democrats to completely shut down town hall meetings with constituents.

If the democrats are the right party, and Obama is good for America, and everything they have done is for the good of the American people, then why won’t they meet with their constituents? Is it possible that Americans really don’t like the agenda?

Posted by: Beretta9 at June 6, 2010 10:03 PM

Thanks for that post Weary Willie. I’m working on an article on Corporate Personhood and couldn’t locate the info on the Jurisdiction and Removal Act. Achieving corporate personhood law is a good exemplar of using the courts to one’s advantage. Often what is not said in a court room is the real agenda. The courts are where the battle to abolish CP will be fought. There is a growing public awareness that CP has led to our broken/failed government. Naturally, corporate greed will continue to exacerbate public opinion. It will take a 3rd party to carry the fight to congress which will take some time. IMO, if the SC doesn’t roll over on CP then congress/public will tighten the screws on corporates until they beg for abolishment of CP.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 7, 2010 09:23 AM

Roy, I think the shortest route to removing Corporate Personhood is through an Article V convention, as implausible as that may seem. It becomes less implausible as the numbers of anti-incumbent voters grow, however.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 7, 2010 12:52 PM

WW, see my previous comment to Roy. The Courts are NOT the only way. And, I would add, as long as the S.C. remains conservative, it will never happen. An Article V convention is more likely than a conservative S.C. reversing its own decision.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 7, 2010 12:54 PM

Agreed, David. If the general public was made aware of the parallel between our current situation ie. corporate control of our government and the corporate control of the colonies when this country was founded, perhaps the public will help to avoid the war that is inevitably going to happen as well by abolishing CP via Article V.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 7, 2010 01:37 PM

WW, it always comes back to the education of the voters, doesn’t it? And the fact that politicians are scared as hell of an educated electorate, which explains our educational system’s failures over the decades.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 7, 2010 03:40 PM

WW, it always comes back to the education of the voters, doesn’t it? And the fact that politicians are scared as hell of an educated electorate, which explains our educational system’s failures over the decades.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 7, 2010 03:43 PM

Yes it does, David! That is why I stand behind focusing on local issues such as school boards and city/county governments. It may take a few generations for local control to be fruitful. We can look our school board in the eye. We can look our local elected officials in the eye.

Then our local elected officials can look our state officials in the eye and our state officials can look the federal officials in the eye if a repeal of the 17th amendment is accomplished.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 7, 2010 06:41 PM

DR

The politicians are scared of an educated electorate and dependent on a partisan electorate. It will take all of the above, court cases, pressure for a Constitutional convention, voting out incumbents to rescind corporate citizenship or personhood.

Saddam knew the value of social pacification. He had a socialist government and he used a significant amount of the oil revenue to provide education, medical and other social services. This allowed him to keep a iron fist on political freedom and be ruthless with perceived enemies. Many of his victims were from his own ruling party.

The oil embargo put a real crimp in his social programs and and in the ability of Iraq to feed it’s people. IMO, the embargo would have eventually given his own party a reason to oust him. But, that would probably not led to more political freedom and it wouldn’t have privatized their oil industry.

The new Iraqi government produced a new constitution calling for a Scandinavian type socialist economy. Vetoed by the Bush Administration. Sign this 25/75 split oil agreement.

Posted by: jlw at June 7, 2010 06:46 PM

Roy, can I assume that you consider the U.S. owning the Panama Canal an example of good socialism rather than bad socialism?

Posted by: jlw at June 7, 2010 07:34 PM

Jlw, if another similar canal was proposed for some country I would probably object. The P. canal served us wwell for commerce and moving military goods. But, I don’t think we should have took the advise of the commie ‘founder of the NAU’ to give the canal away. Especially, don’t like the Chiense in control. Seems a lot of room for contraband operations, arms and the like.
According to Beck, Bill Clinton and the Bilderbergers are holding their 2010 meeting. No info on this crowd.
Beck sez 2000 census cost $4.5B and the 2010 cost $14.5B with about 500k on the payroll.
This Friday Beck will hold court on the 17th amendment which he sez the Progressive, Woodrow Wilson set up to destroy states rights. I’d say Woodie gets an ‘A’. Should be an interesting hour.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 7, 2010 09:03 PM

jlw - further to my other -

Beck sez Europe tossed another $1T in the cookie jar to keep the EU solvent. Sez Hungary is next up for bailout.

And, giving away the P. canal was the beginning of the greatest xfer of wealth in human history.

IMO, the $4.5B is just more pissing taxpayer money away in the continuation of breaking down the middle class so we can compete in the globalized ‘new world order’ economy.

And, that the Corpocracy is gleeful and partying away with the occurrence of the BP oil spill. Puts a lot of people out of work, helps get rid of more US wealth, etc in getting us ready to compete - - -

And, do you think the illegal population would take on the jobs Americans won’t do an glean the oil from the beaches?
That should crank up the borders again and keep the illegals in this country. Life is just too, too good for the Corpocracy these days.

Otherwise, we have the socialistic-corpocratic gov’t we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 7, 2010 09:21 PM

Sounds hopeless.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 7, 2010 09:44 PM

WW, so did the prospect of putting a man on the moon in less than a decade. So did true and real civil rights at the close of the Civil War. So did India’s independence before Gandhi returned to India and many years thereafter. Sounds can be deceptive. It really boils down to leadership and will of the people, to make the improbable become reality.

The corpocracy is being rallied against on many, many fronts, and some of those are getting mainstream media attention. An entire one hour program is being aired on one of the major cable news network stations this week on the corpocracy and how it is destroying the idea of America. (Check CNN, MSNBC, or Bloomberg Financial, as these are the 3 I watch and will be scheduled on one of them.) Sorry, forgot which one it was. Just heard about it this morning.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 7, 2010 10:36 PM

Roy Ellis, we could work on your punch-line.

Otherwise,…

How about:

Otherwise, we’ll have to try something different!

Make it more positive. Make it something to look toward.
How about this?

Otherwise, we’ll quit paying taxes!

A local community could relate to that if they had confidence in themselves!

What condition would exist if an entire community is confiscated because it didn’t pay taxes?
How would this confiscation of property be conducted?
Assuming the IRS is responsible for enforcing the tax laws, could the IRS confiscate the property of an entire community that refuses to pay taxes?

Add 165,000 people to the IRS workforce and reconsider the last question.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 7, 2010 11:02 PM

David, Let us know where it is by providing a link so we can watch it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 7, 2010 11:53 PM

Roy, I think we got rid of the Canal at about the right time. It basically needed to be rebuilt at great expense. The Chinese have been doing much of that. Of course, they have the interest on our debt to help with the cost, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the Canal.

I don’t think we were into much searching for contraband or weapons when we ran the Canal.

Beck is wrong, Electing Ronald Reagan was the beginning of the greatest transfer of wealth in human history.

Hungry is in better shape than we are. They need a $2 billion loan and they have better credit than we do.

Our debt/GDP is 88%, Hungry 80%, Greece 101%, Italy 119%, and Japan 190%.

Speaking of the census, I got my second half of the census in the mail a couple of weeks ago, I have to give them my life story and send it in before they come to take me away.

The state of Ohio is after me to, They don’t ask for proof of auto insurance when renewing a registration, which I could have easily provided in March. Now they have given me 21 days to prove, at my own time and expense, that I had insurance when I did my registration. Bureaucracy sucks.

Posted by: jlw at June 8, 2010 02:43 AM

WW, the object is to reform our government. Not TOPPLE it. Civil War: Been there, done that. Consensus was: Let’s never do that again. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 8, 2010 03:18 AM

jlw, bureaucracy is the efficiency of repetitive tasks. When those tasks are necessary, and routine, bureaucracy is the most efficient way to accomplish them within an organization.

Bureaucracy is not what sucks. Leadership over that bureaucracy in our government, is what sucks. And this has been predictable since the founding of our country. Until Bush Jr. came along, America had the most efficient tax collection system in the modern world. Then Bush outsourced it, and that kind of leadership made it inefficient, and more costly. We are moving it back to the previous successful model, from what I have been reading.

Personally, I have never resented paying my federal taxes. As a citizen who loves my country and has served it as it has served me, it is my duty and obligation to pay my taxes and support its operations and protections which I enjoy. What I DO resent is the enormous waste of my tax dollars by political thieves. That I am working to change.

I still can’t think of another country in the world I would prefer to live in, all in all. That may change, and if it does, I will learn the Canadian national anthem, or the Brazilian, and feel it my duty to pay that country’s taxes as well. In my world, I am free, and choose to do what others feel compelled to, until I don’t choose to, anymore. Freeloading off of society by dodging my taxes has never been one of my fantasies, let alone plans.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 8, 2010 03:30 AM

jlw, not Beck, but my sentiment that the greatest xfer of wealth started with the giveaway of the Panama Canal. I would agree with you that it began with Regan BUT, Carter listened to this commie dude in giving up the canal. Same dude that is now known as the father of NAU. So, I make that stretch back to the Carter era for that reason.

Weary Willie, I used to use ‘we have the corpocracy we deserve’ but well into the O’ administration it seems more correct to say ‘we have the socialistic-corporcratic gov’t’. Expressing my feelings on the state of government at this time. Otherwise - - - appreciate the help.

Agree David, things aren’t hopeless. If people felt so, they would be in the street. Yes, change will come when millions of folks decide they want REAL reform. Until then, we will continue playing in the tightly dimensioned sandbox of the corpocracy.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 8, 2010 09:46 AM

Roy, those terms have really lost their meaning and relevance, and are archaic. Let me give you two excellent examples.

Greece. Greece for decades has been a democracy whose people subscribed intensely to the founding tenet of conservative economic policy; namely, that self-interest is the cornerstone of the best economic policy. And in addition, they subscribed to the concept of low or no taxes, to the point that 40% of them, give or take, have not paid taxes on their income in decades. Good conservative subscriptions and their country is bankrupt, and their self-interest will squander whatever money is loaned to them, and they are rioting at the thought of taxes actually being collected, or raised.

France, on the other hand, a bastion of socialist idealism and hang-out, live-in culture which makes it one of the great tourist countries in Europe, with its doubling of workers for 70 hour per week businesses and employees working 35 hours per week at full middle class range incomes, was on solid economic ground prior to the Great Recession in 2008. Though their debt load in 2008 and 09 well exceeded the 60% of GDP soundness rule, and their deficits ran well over the healthy 3% rate, due to President Nicolas Sarkozy’s economic stimulus program, their Stimulus program worked. France pulled out of their recession in the second quarter of 2009 and is sustaining growth in 2010. And they enjoy universal quality health care through a government program, very good education and schools, (too good some French cry), and many other socialized benefits which maintain the French philosophy that one should work in order to enjoy life during off work hours, not live, in order to work.

The point is well made between these two countries. Not all socialist systems are failures and not all Friedman based economies are successful. Hell, we are witnessing a most successful implementation of communist socialism mixed with capitalism in China, which Americans said could never succeed. Their economy is growing larger and faster than nearly any other on Earth for its size, despite the social trauma of moving from an agrarian economy to a manufacturing and industrial/technical economy in the span of just a few decades.

So, folks who bandy about words like capitalism, socialism, and communism as derogatory terms, only prove they are ideologues out of touch with the real world, in which all these economic and political philosophies have demonstrated successes in one or more nations today, disproving their prejudices toward and against one or the other of those philosophies.

India is about put 100 million new people on their welfare rolls. Knee-jerk Americans will find this unbelievably stupid. Yet, the potential exists, if managed right, for India to come out the other side of this massive socialized endeavor as the major technological innovator in the world by 2030. Then, again, they could really blow it, and undermine their economic growth in the longer term before the shorter term benefits of upward economic mobilization are realized and can head off those longer term deficit consequences. We shall have to wait and see. Again, the point is, ideological paradigms for economic policy don’t relate well or accurately to real world nations with infinite real world variables at play.

To gratuitously paraphrase Nikita Kruschev in the 1960’s, Communism (in China) may very well bury America, economically, yet. They have already blown the communism hater’s ideology out of the water. Theirs is working, so far, though it has blended into a mix of socialism and capitalism, democracy, and communism, and abandoned the purity ideology of Mao.

All growing nations today, employ a mix of political and economic ideologies, rendering the purist terms of socialism, capitalism, communism and democracy, irrelevant, since there are no nations employing singular philosophical ideologies along those lines, anymore.

The greeks, however, have proved that capitalist self-interest as motive for ever greater socialist policy demands, combined with Friedman notions of small, non-intrusive, and low-tax federal government revenues, is a guaranteed nation killer. There are many lessons in the contemporary Greek economic tale, for America and Americans, liberal and conservative. Not that they believe they have anything to learn from a failed State, which may contribute to American failure in bigger ways than most would contemplate today.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 8, 2010 01:43 PM

David, Beck’s hour was on a book, ‘The Road To Serfdom’ wrote by Hayek, I believe, back in the 1940’s, after the war ended. People and government’s weren’t sure which way to head out after the war and this book sold lotsa copies in europe and NA. Hayek wrote against central planning and stressed individual achievement.

You say we might learn something from Greece and other countries practicing a hybrid economy. Have we learned nothing. Capitalism is now antiquated? I would caution that history not learned is history that will be repeated.

Also, doesn’t it seem reasonable if the world major monopolies land on your doorstep since you can provide the world’s cheapest labor? That might give you some advantage apart from your stye of economy.

China’s venture into a hybrid economy is what, 30 years old? Lemme ask, what has China done for the world? They never make a move unless it benefits the State. 70M commies being very quiet and watching metrics. Article in yesterday’s Wash. Post that China is having serious problems with their cheap labor force. Titled ‘China’s case of Nerves, some gists: Success breed confidence, “people I used to see routinely now refuse to give me an appointment”. Stable banks, high savings, and $2.5T reserves. Dramatic labor protests last few weeks. End of world cheap labor market as workers won’t tolerate low wages anymore. New leadership coming in two years. If wages rise corporations will move to Vietname. New workers asserting rights in the form of work stoppages, slowdowns, and demand for higher wages, less hours. In Poshan 100’s walked off job shutting down 4 Japanese carmakers. Bus and taxi drivers striking. From a Hong Kong based exporter of garments: major probs with labor now, some factories running 30-40 percent empty at times. Number of 15 to 24 yr olds set to fall by 1/3 by 2022. And get this - - a top official from labor federation says unrest is due to disparity in income. Said the GDP going to wages has declined by almost 20% in the past two decades.

I don’t think we need a hybrid David. Just need to clean up capitalism; abolish CP, invoke strong anti-trust to reduce monopolization which will create competition and jobs, exempt corporations from income taxation, implement a VAT for foreign trade to help with our balance of payments re the trade deficit, abolish corporate welfare, etc.

Like cleaning/sharpening your sword once in a while. And, throw in some Tommie Jefferson stuff, ‘every 20 yrs’ etc.

On the domestic side, get on with camp finance reform, invoke a 17% flat tax and abolish most of the IRS, reduce the size of gov’t/mil etc.

Way better than a socialist corpocracy IMO.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 8, 2010 06:57 PM

Roy asked: “China’s venture into a hybrid economy is what, 30 years old? Lemme ask, what has China done for the world?”

You mean aside from lifting more than 600 million people out of poverty in China? You mean what has China done besides provide Americans with falling real wages, vastly lower consumer product prices, allowing Americans to stretch their earnings that much further for the last 25 years? You mean besides acting as a check and balance upon N. Korea and preventing another Korean War? Some other things, but, not many.

Cleaning up capitalism is like cleaning up oil spills. It is an inherently dirty business on both ends of the arrangement. Capitalism will not go where it cannot profit the most. That is its nature. And that leaves enormous numbers of people without, unless you believe in crowding the world’s population in ever higher and tighter urban centers to serve the corporations, with all the inherent inhumanity that results from such conditions whether it be Los Angeles or Singapore, NYC or Hong Kong.

Your comments suffer Beck myopia, it appears to me. Capitalism good, all else BAD! White men good, Indians BAD! Heard it before, and it doesn’t wash. Socialized education, highways, military, government, unemployment benefits, food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid, were all part of America’s becoming the wealthiest and broadest middle class in the modern world, in conjunction with capitalism which innovated, exported, and employed. One cannot separate them and say we would be same nation post WWII. Attempts to do so engage in hypothetical history to preserve ideology despite real world evidence and history to the contrary. It is intellectually dishonest to suppose anything but a mix would have been, or would be, better. Reality is what it is. Ideology is simply fantasy about what could be if the ideologue were dictator and king of the world.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 9, 2010 12:40 AM

Roy, what you are seeing in China is the beginning of a progressive movement by workers. It happens and will continue to happen wherever capitalism goes to escape it. Cheap labor is getting more expensive everyday.

A One World Order means that there will also be a One World Progressive movement unless Glen Beck can convince American workers to go against what is in their best interests.

Posted by: jlw at June 13, 2010 07:05 PM

WW, the object is to reform our government. Not TOPPLE it. Civil War: Been there, done that. Consensus was: Let’s never do that again. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 8, 2010 03:18 AM

It’s already been toppled, David. Thank you very much.

When was the last time you asked your neighbor to solve a problem? Didn’t you ask your neighbor to see it your way? Didn’t you ask your neighbor to vote for someone else’s position?

Why didn’t you try to convince your neighbor to use the abandoned storefront property to school your children? Is it because your philosophy says a bigger school is better?

My property is surrounded by at least 20 children who age between 1 and 15 years old. Mothers are scrambling their work and their children to fit into the structure provided them by their local government and their local school board.

Twenty years ago a union put a very productive business out-of-business, and this huge building sits empty. These 20 children in my neighborhood can see this building from their window! Yet they rise early, cold and dark, and enter into the night to stand on the corner, waiting for a bus to pick them up and take them to another building.

What the Frak is up with this mentality, David?

Why do we abandon what our government considers unusable, but then send our children off to a more dangerous situation?

Maybe it is true! Maybe progressivism is a mental disorder!

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 19, 2010 02:47 AM

About three weeks ago I wrote an excellent reply to David’s post but lost it with a keystroke and I’m loath to write a ‘quickie’ but seems Indian Summer has set in on the middle column, so why not?
Certainly China has improved their lot, especially in the mfctring sector over the last 30 years. Agree that China has facilitated our falling wages relative to the effort to break the back of the US middle class, getting us ready to compete in the global economy and all that. We could argue that we benefit from ‘vastly’ lower consumer product prices. For instance, I noticed this week that Walgreen’s sells several edibles at a lower cost than WalMart. , WalMart/China noticeably prices their goods at a few cents beneath most competitors because they can. But, you can bet the top level of WalMart stores are not pinching pennies yet they set their worker’s wages closer to the minimum wage than most. Indeed, WallyWorld is doing their part to break the back of the US middle class worker. And David, stating that China provides check and balance on N.Kor. is far fetched, IMO. They didn’t check on N. Kor. developing nukes or blowing the S. Kor. ship up. Unless the check and balance is designed to put a thorn in the US side. Preventing another Kor. war? Like our civil war, how could poor N. Kor. ever hope to win a war over well to do S. Kor?
Re capitalism. Works better than any other economic system. However, capitalism, left to itself, will run amuk and cause bigtime problems. We are all witness to what capitalism run amuk can do; BP oil spill, some Midwest company marketing numerous brands of cat/dog food spewing from the same cooker, corporations chasing the cheap labor market, corporations forming their own government, WTO, to protect their interests, mega-mergers to monopolize and control the production/marketing of products, and so on.
Corporations, the driver of capitalism, will, when given the opportunity, buy legislature/laws that are beneficial such as, Corporate Personhood and Money is Free Speech law. They will buy politicians such Phil Gramm to stack the deck against the tax paying citizenry. It’s clear that capitalism is a good thing so long as it comes with a little regulation. You say capitalism will no go where it cannot profit the most. Agree, and if you want capitalism to stick around your country you will need some regulation and some trade laws that ensures the corporation will stick around and meet the needs of the citizenry. Crowding, overpopulated centers? Most likely reason is that the government is not paying much attention to population control, bringing in millions of workers while facilitating relocation of industry to China and ignoring the resultant job losses. Could not a little regulation spread industry around a little rather than facilitating their bottom line by crowding them up in the major cities? Should gov’t be paying attention to the balance of population and the balance of capitalistic resources to support that population? Have we thought about less growth and less population? Now we reach the essence of our immediate problem.

The job of governing has been removed from our government by the special interest or money influence in politics. Elected officials are not free to govern as they would like but must carry water for the ‘Corpocracy’.

You seem to place capitalism on some fixed course that must be endured above all else. When it’s quite clear that a few well thought out regulations would put capitalism to the plow. Taking control of gov’t from the corpocracy will require that voters take out their frustrations on long tenured elected officials, voting incumbents from office in large numbers. Voters should support the effort to implement Article V Convention as a means, a Constitutional right for the peoples voice to be heard. But, the most effective and efficient course the voters should follow is to support a 3rd party with a different political attitude, a party that puts gov’t reform ahead of social issues and a party established in rules to prevent the special interest from co-opting the party as is being done with the TEA Party movement.
Few are averse to assisting the developing world. But, at what price, and why, when it’s so unnecessary to turn the US into the world’s largest debtor nation?
Corporations didn’t decide to all bail for China in a vacuum. They had the best gov’t (WTO/Congress) money could buy supporting them, facilitating them, paying for their relocation, etc. A ‘free’ government might just redirect some capitalism to Africa, South America, Middle East, etc.

jlw, I can’t buy into a world progressive movement. Seems hard enough to keep things on track in each country. Look at the EU, damn close to reverting to individual country economies, which I would like to see as that brings more competition to bear. We will all be better able to survive on this planet if we bust up monopolies and increase competition wherever possible. The WTO/world gov’ts have taken the approach that monopolies and less competition wins. I don’t believe it for a minit.

WearyWillie, agree in large part with your post. Moderation in usually the best principle, IMO. We are all so well aware that the gov’t will rent/build a new facility and on a whim trash it and start with a new program. For example, look at the cost of reorganizing the intelligence agencies and ask yourself how much we gained in security/intelligence by doing so. Could the same not be accomplished by redirecting the heads of a few agencies towards cooperation? After all the costs and micromanaging the education system are we doing any better than the 50-60’s? Would we be better off with a privately operated school system? We really can’t have reform in education or any other sector until the Corpocracy, or the money influence has been removed from politics, IMO.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 20, 2010 03:31 PM

WW said: “It’s already been toppled, David. Thank you very much.”

What an idiotic statement demonstrably UNTRUE. I remain a citizen of this nation, paying my taxes willingly, and deriving enormous benefits from the government I participate in through the election process, as compromised as that process is. Our government is demonstrably still intact and functioning.

I will let you know when it ceases. As bad a state as the Republicans left this nation in, Obama and the Congress were able to rescue it from immediate and enduring economic collapse. Between 85 and 90% of American workers are still employed, and taking care of their families. By any measure, that is still a viable economy. We are still a democratically elected republic, as flawed as that process is, but, toppled we are not.

I truly have to wonder where such nonsensical and demonstrably fallacious comments come from. I can buy the argument that we are on a road to ruin, but, there is no evidence that a state of ruin is yet upon us.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 22, 2010 01:21 PM

I believe WW is closer to right. Our imagination has run away with us when viewing government. We are delusional in that sense. Every issue that involves money that comes before Congress has the mark of the Corpocracy stamped on it from the gitgo. I was watching cspan this AM and a fellow, Ed Merck or similar, a MSNBC regular perhaps, was asked what the first law he would change to correct our government. He responded that he would pass the healthcare bill. I guess he was referring to the original bill.

How unenlightening. He is saying he wants to continue to play in the sandbox built of the Corpocracy, by the Corpocracy and for the Corpocracy. It’s like stuffing meat into a sausage grinder but unbeknownst to you (delusional) a big turd is hung in the grinder. You get my drift, you think you’re making sausage but its really something else.

Otherwise - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 23, 2010 10:46 AM

Roy, if breaking up the E.U. is good for competition, imagine how much more competition there would be if we broke the U.S. in to fifty states. I would think that the Russians would benefit more from a breakup of the E.U. than we would.

Posted by: jlw at June 23, 2010 01:28 PM

The goal of competition is to eradicate as many competitors as possible, creating dominant market share. The goal of competition in the market place is monopoly, or at least, oligopoly. The shortest route to oligopoly or monopoly is through the government and having an operative ownership of that government.

Competition in the marketplace is not all that it is cracked up to be. It is the primary corrupter of all forms of government in the world today. Democratic forms of government should, if they are to exist by their founding principles of government, of, by, and for the people, have to create themselves as the adversary of competitors in the marketplace, and design enforcement procedures which prevent those in government from succumbing to the wiles and wealth of marketplace competitors seeking ownership in that government for the purpose of having their unbridled way with the people (consumers) without consequence.

This is the main reason I lean a bit toward the liberals on some issues because they DO view, at least in principle, their role in government as adversarial toward the will of corporations, if not in practice. The GOP hides nothing in presenting themselves as the champions of those marketplace competitors as well as their step’n’fetchits. Barton’s remarks about BP and the many Republicans defending his remarks are testament to this fact.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2010 08:51 AM

jlw, your response is akin to utopiaism. I suspect, now that we have the WTO, most business is conducted in the English language. Folks around the world buying their salt shakers and shoes from China, etc. And, administrative and trade laws ‘harmonized’ around the world.

A Globalzied World

If you take ‘globalization’ to its logical conclusion somewhere down stream, what might our world be like? Let’s take a well needed vacation to, say, Kenya in 2050. You get in your car and head for the airport. Except for the color, your car looks like all the other cars on the road because it has been determined that one model of car can be manufactured for less. You get on your plane and you know exactly where you want to sit, as you know the layout well. That’s because all the planes are the same, except the color. The wings are made in Europe, the engines in Asia, and the rest in America. You know, the northsouthmiddleamerica. It was determined that it’s more efficient to manage aviation if all the planes operate the same. Cuts down on training for all involved. When you get up in the air you fly at the same speed as all the other planes. See, a computer in Tibet, the only remaining cheap labor market in 2050, controls the speed and route for all the flights that are in the air at any one time. On arriving in Nairobi you head for the Stanley Long Bar for a cool one, only to find that it’s been replaced by a 43 story hotel. So, you try the Lemon Tree restaurant and can’t believe what you find. A McDonald’s has replaced the restaurant and a tall statue of Ronald McDonald stands where the lemon tree once grew. So, you have a #6 chicken and retire for the evening. Next day you rent a car and head for the bush. It’s comfortable to drive as it’s just like the one you have at home, except for the color. Wonder of wonders, the roads to the bush are not dusty or muddy. They are just like your roads back home. Fifty foot, well groomed right-of-ways, with concrete drainage infrastructure. Even the signage is the same, except for the color. Makes it easy to drive and it’s cheaper to manufacture that way. You head for the Rift Valley and your mind wanders to a thatched roof motel alongside a river or lake. You arrive, with big expectations and find your hotel is 43 stories of steel and glass. Looks like the hotel back in your hometown and the one in Nairobi, except for the color. Puzzled by this you check in and try to find someone who speaks English. Well, its not called English anymore. It’s called ‘one world’. So you ask the attendant if he speaks ‘one world’ and, wonder of wonders, everyone there speaks the same language. In fact, you notice they have your mannerisms, even seem to have the same knowledge level as you. That’s because education, culture, etc. is taught from the same textbooks. Also, it’s way cheaper to manufacture them in one language. First question you ask is, what happened to the thatched roof venue and why does a hotel in the bush need to be 43 stories tall. They remind you that some years ago it was determined that some countries had to many people and some to few. So people were spread out across the world to balance things out. It was determined that for a balanced population a 43-story hotel building was needed for each locality. And, they are cheaper to build that way. After dinner you watch CNN WorldWide for a couple of hours and hit the sack. Next day you find a guide and head for the bush. On the way you try to find some commonality with your guide and start a discussion in ‘one world’. You find he makes $4.73 an hour as a guide, which is the same as a fishing guide charges on Lake Anna back in Virginia. He tells you his brother is a welder and makes $5.10 and hour, same as your welder neighbor back in Virginia. You tell him you work as an engineer and make $8.23 an hour. He relates that his neighbor is an engineer working for Microsoft and he makes $8.23 too. Seems to be pretty well accepted around the world that wages are fixed for each skill or trade, except in Tibet. You ask him what an executive or CEO makes. He doesn’t know and you don’t either so you just go quite for a few miles. As you enter the valley you expect to see native hut villages but all you’ve seen is small Jim Walters style homes, all different colors, along the highway. People seem to be wearing Nike tennis shoes and those slinky nylon sports shirts and shorts with the holes punched in them for airflow. All different colors. You see nobody standing around on one foot much less drinking cows blood through a straw. With some chagrin you ask, where are the lakes with the pink flamingos? Dried up he says, because of over population. He related that the balanced population delivered to his area was just too much for the natural environment to handle. As you turn to head back to the hotel you note that you’ve seen no wild life. No, he said, our balanced population included a lot of Asians and before their culture could be changed they ate all the wild life. Disgusted with your vacation you cut it short and start thinking about going back to work. After boarding your plane for the return trip you sit back and think about the highlights of your vacation. You wonder if the textbooks they use are different colors. Seeking solace, sanity and friendship you pop on the video screen and click on republicsentry.com. A relaxing smile comes to your face … . .

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 24, 2010 06:12 PM

Roy, this is the same vacation you took me on last year or the year before. Your future is possible but not probable.

I have read at least a couple thousand different scenarios for the future. My favorite is, wealth uses capitalism to deplete the earth of natural resources then moves to their space habitats leaving the rest of us to cope.

Nothing is going to stop globalization except possibly armageddon and the second coming of Christ, and even he is going to rule a New World Order, a Garden of Eden, a utopia.

Although he may not have known it at the time, in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue on behalf of globalization.

Some would say that the quest for globalization can be traced back to Adam’s apple and MardukHorusAzazelSatan.

Posted by: jlw at June 25, 2010 11:59 PM

Jlw, I don’t agree that utopianism is a forgone conclusion. It’s primarily the business sector driving that train. At some point people will develop enough backbone to reject WalMart, sweatshops, unregulated food supplies, etc. I’ve used the ‘poison pet food’ scenario as an analogy in previous posts. In “cornered”, by Barry Lynn, he relates that investigation determined that eh Chinese toothpaste makers were using diethylene glycol, a component of brake fluid and antifreeze, as a sweetener. Some Chinese toy makers had coated their products with lead-based paints. Some Chinese farmers had fed unapproved drugs to catfish bound for US plates. Some Chinese slaughterhouses had mixed ‘oversulfated chondroitin sulfate” into the pig intestines that were used as the raw material for the blood thinner heparin.
Getting to the pet food, China had captured the market on wheat glutin and the production of numerous other inputs into the pet food process. Then then it was found that the US pet food industry was dependent on a single supplier of canned and pouched pet food. Five of the top six US independent brands, including Colgate-Palmolive, Mars and Procter & Gamble, had hired Menu Foods, an Ontario based company to stuff pet food for them. So had, 17 of the top 20 US food retailers that sell ‘private label’ pet foods under their store brands, including Safeway, Krogers and WalMart. In total, the Menu Foods recall covered products that had been retailed under 150 different names. Equally disturbing was that the recall revealed that high-end, expensive brands like Iams and Hill’s Pet Nutrition Science Diet rolled off the same Menu Food packing lines as the cans that were labeled as Supervalu and Price Chopper.
Well, that should be enuff tautology to make my point. I would agree that we could clean up this kind of action in 500-1000 years or so. But, I prefer local markets and distribution. As Barry relates a decade earlier – “the big pet food brands largely operated their own factories, and packed their own cans, and they also actively managed their supply bases to avoid concentration”.
Monopolies now exist for most every product, tooth paste, beer, etc. Most every beer is mfctrd and distributed by Anheuser-Busch or MillerCoors, including imports like Corona, Becks and Tsingtao, regional beers like Rolling Rock, once independent microbrews like Redhook and Old Dominion, and even “organic” beers like Stone Mill Pale Ale.
Just one facet of why utopia is not for fer me, jlw.

Today am hearing that Kellogg cereals is recalling cereals having bad odors. Wondering what that’s all about?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 26, 2010 06:26 PM

Roy, most of those tainted products were reported by progressive minded consumer protection groups and so called liberal media outlets. Remember one of the conservative mottos is caveat emptor.

What you are describing is not a human, but rather a corporate utopia which would exempt most slave wagers and many comnsumers. A one size fits all utopia.

Posted by: jlw at June 27, 2010 12:09 AM

I agree on the corporate utopia thing. The people had no say in GATT, WTO, IMF, NAFTA, NAU, etc. It’s a corporate thing. They would like the consumer to buy without knowing the source, content, weight, etc.

Caveat emptor begins at home, IMO. Things mfctr’d and produced locally. Your neighbor farmer might care about the source/content of his product but a drug kingpin from Macao raising catfish in Burma may not have your interest at heart. But the price is right. Then, we could go on to sticky gas pedals and the like. The BP-MMES cozy relationship.

David’s last reply goes to the problem but the fix is lies with removing the influence of money from politics. That means abolishing corporate personhood and money is free speech. That would allow us to at least have a US utopian existence. Can you imagine a small country like Togo/Lome or Trinidad/Tobago taking on BP or WalMart?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 27, 2010 10:17 AM