Third Party & Independents Archives

DADT: GOP Fear of Tea Party Trumps Fear of Public

Polling shows the majority of Americans support ending DADT, the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, regarding gays and lesbians in the military. Some polls have shown a majority of Republicans, as well, in support of ending the DADT policy. So, why are Republicans in the Senate filibustering the funding of our military, in order to prevent the ending of the DADT policy?

Forget what Senate Republicans are saying is their reason. It's all bogus. McCain said we have to wait for the Military to finish its review of the issue. But, that is bogus. Because the filibustered bill provides the military the authority to decide for itself, when, and if the DADT policy is to be abandoned. McCain is lying because he knows what the language of the amendment is.

No, the reason is the Tea Party and Fundamental Right Evangelical Christian (FREC) lobbyist groups, who oppose all things gay and lesbian. Just another case of minority special interests denying the will of the American public on a given issue. Senate Republicans know the Tea Party is a boisterous lot, capable of generating a lot of headlines and delivering on threats toward Republican incumbents. That is what these Senate Republicans fear. Should the majority of American voters be denied because of a Tea Party minority's influence in the media and on conservative Senators who put reelection potential above all other considerations?

The answer is YES, if the voters choose to reelect these same Senators who quake in their shoes at the thought of Tea Party or FREC opposition. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a policy which has, not fulfilled its promise. Some in the military violated the intentions of the DADT policy, by conducting witch hunts for Gays and trapping them into admission, or telling, usually off-duty, which was never intended to be used against a soldier. The original policy called for soldiers to leave their sexuality in their private off-duty lives, and not bring it into the military work place. That policy was quickly subverted and violated repeatedly by gay-haters in the military. Thus, the policy produced more harm than it saved.

Whether DADT is repealed, now lies in the hands of the general public voters. If ending DADT is a priority for them, they are obliged to withhold their vote from Senate Republicans who have filibustered not only the DADT revocation option, but, funding for the entire military as well. In more than 40 years, this has not happened before. Governing is about priorities. Clearly, Senate Republicans who place revoking DADT as a higher priority to funding our military in a time of war, have their priorities all screwed up.

The whole issue has become a farce. The Pentagon is surveying its 400,000 uniformed members of the military for their views on changing the policy. Since when did the U.S. military become a democratic institution where uniformed soldiers decide military and social policy based on polling results? Certainly was not the case in the U.S. Army I served in from 1972 to 1975. What a farce. As if America doesn't have bigger challenges and more important things to budget its time and our money on.

It is time to end the source of this farce. The filibuster in the Senate now used by the minority party to block the reverse the democratic process, and use it to impose minority will upon the majority of the nation's citizens. Revoke the Filibuster. Like DADT, it was a good idea that has been used for really bad purposes. Time to end them both.

Posted by David R. Remer at September 22, 2010 06:11 AM
Comments
Comment #309023

David,
What makes this so sad IMHO is that the Tea Party today with the help of Frec has become the same Oppressor the prginal Tea Party rebelled against. How ironic is it that King Greoge has once again taken Americans Taxes only to tell them how they will live their lives. Amd why today’s Humans have been warned these things are possible, I wonder how many Governors are willing to call home their states setting senators and begin to invoke the removal procedures against those who clearly and willfully put their interests above that of the Citizenry they are paid to represent?

Yes, why one could question the motives of the Tea Party before yesterday I do think the actions taking by the Conservatives in Congress over funding the Military and Troops will have more fallout than just stopping DATA and the Dream Act. For what was a strong suit for Republicans over the last 30 years can no longer be counted on especially in times of need.

Because why Senator McCain and others can claim they voted against the bill for one reason or another, the very fact if the Democratic Party would have pulled the same stunt a few years ago when they had the same opportunity Rush and Company would still be crying about it does more than show a double standard of governing.

So, now that the Tea Party has willfully defamed the orginal Tea Party and the Republican Party has proven they will no longer represent the citizenry of their states on issues of national importance. Can one say in full confidence that as of yesterday America is no longer a national two party political system?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 22, 2010 09:31 AM
Comment #309025

the partisanship and hate displayed in the vote is shameful, it diminishes us as a country when our leaders put politics ahead of civil rights. however it isn’t the first time, unfortunately it also wont be the last.

Posted by: john in napa at September 22, 2010 10:34 AM
Comment #309035

This was a military appropriations bill, DADT, the Dream thing and Abortions had NO BUISNESS being attached to the bill. If we are going to fund our troops fund them without the excess baggage. DADT is being thought out by the military higher ups, let them finish their job then bring it up to the congress.

Posted by: MAG at September 22, 2010 02:45 PM
Comment #309038

Funny how things change.

So rewrite the above post only change the players and use “health care reform” instead of DADT.

Polls show it’s unpopular so let’s have the Democrats repeal it.

My own take personally is that I think it is fine to repeal DADT with a few conditions.

I would want to see the review from the military to see if there is an overwelming military reason why not to repeal. I don’t think there is because the military even at the top brass seems to be divided. A clear military disadvantage not being presented with the report then I would support repeal.

What is mission in David’s post is that we are at war. In time of war, winning the war and keeping our military personel safe is the highest priority. Some of these issues can wait to peacetime.

If I had a report from the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying that repealing DADT wont impact the war, i would support it.

Right now it looks like politics. Not that Democrats would play politics on such an important bill as funding our troops in the middle of a war right near an election. That really is crap in a war. We are fighting two wars, and while men and women are leaving their families to be deployed over seas, and with some likely not coming home, Congress decides to play games.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 22, 2010 04:28 PM
Comment #309039

All good comments, Henry, MAG, john, and Craig and correct.

Henry, yes we are still a 2 party political system with both playing the same politics. Ballots in November’s elections will prove that.

john in napa, yes, civil rights which moves America toward her founding ideals as set out in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution’s Preamble, challenges peoples irrational fears, bigotry, and scapegoats, causing them to fight such change toward a better America for all.

MAG, absolutely right! Republicans and Democrats no longer wish to earn their pay, they want to cram as much together in a single bill as possible, so they can adjourn as soon as possible to go do what they really care about, secure their next reelection bid with voters back home. VOID has a remedy for that.

Craig, yes, Dems did the same thing. But, NO, war is not America’s ultimate goal and activity, to trump all other considerations like human rights, treaties, and domestic obligations, and certainly, not to be used as an excuse for abusing the rights of our soldiers. ON that, you are Dead Wrong.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2010 04:55 PM
Comment #309040

If we had 3 political parties, they would still play political games; if 4 or 5 or 6 political parties, they would still play the same games. A minority of liberals has hijacked the Democratic Party, and the Tea Party is trying to change the Republican Party. Don’t you think the wise thing to do is reform the existing party? What platform would a 3rd party run on? If liberal, then they would siphon votes from the Democratic Party, if they were conservative, they would siphon from the Republican Party.

Posted by: TomT at September 22, 2010 05:16 PM
Comment #309044

Mag,
Check the political video clips over the past six years and you will find that the Republicans have done the same thing to the Democats on several occassions. In fact, Rush and Company joked about the Democrats being put between a rock and a hard spot right before an election.

So why I would of done a one-up-manship on the Republicans and forced them to pass the bill or lose their states military funding, I do believe that the Tea Party has lost their innocence by not speaking out against the Republicans in Congress on this issue. To bad some kids never grow up.

Tom T.,
Limited on what I may say about a 3rd Political Party as an American Layman, If I was to consult someone looking to start a 3rd political Party I would direct them to the moderates of both parties since neither leadership seems to want to represent them. For in these days of great changes and the American Public in need of some political guidence I do believe the Idea that the Business Owner and Valued Employee can create an Employee Based Corporation that has the best interest of the stockholders and customers in mind can stand a chance those who believe Big Business are the only ones suitable to deal with Wall Street and Washington.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 22, 2010 06:07 PM
Comment #309046

Let’s just boil this argument down to what it really is:

Fear

Hate

Ignorance

Intolerance

and the effrontery to assume a judgment based on an intimate knowledge of what God wants

Posted by: LibRick at September 22, 2010 06:11 PM
Comment #309047

David:

Craig, yes, Dems did the same thing. But, NO, war is not America’s ultimate goal and activity, to trump all other considerations like human rights, treaties, and domestic obligations, and certainly, not to be used as an excuse for abusing the rights of our soldiers. ON that, you are Dead Wrong.

I’m not dead wrong because that is not what I said. You expanded what I said, to include something that is obviously wrong.

We are not talking about all business in the United States, we are talking about one specific policy that applies to one small but important minority in our military in wartime.

The point of the military is to defend our country. My support is contingent on being assured that this will not effect the military’s current missions around the world. I really do not thing it will. Admiral Mullan is for repeal. I can’t imagine an admiral being in favor of something that would jepordize our troops. However the report is not back yet.

It is disrespectful to ask the troops opinion and then make the decision before you hear it. It wont hurt anything to wait until they have spoken. You have an arguement about whether they should be asked. That is a separate issue. They have been asked. Now the question is whether we will hear their thoughts.

So assuming it is no big deal for our nations defense. (Like I predict the report will show) then lets go ahead and repeal.

To me it’s not a big issue. I just gays in the military who can shoot straight however.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 22, 2010 06:15 PM
Comment #309048

TomT, excellent point. I have been writing for years that political parties are not about governing, they are about winning elections and keeping control of power. By definition, corporations exist first and foremost to profit. All other objectives are secondary, by definition. Same with political parties, but, instead of profit, substitute the word, power. By definition, political parties are first objective is getting and keeping power, and all other objectives are secondary, including ethics, morality, values, governance, the voters, the people, the nation’s future. I would go further and say for political parties, all those secondary objectives, are not even objectives, but, tools to serve the first objective. Means to an end, not ends in and of themselves.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2010 06:19 PM
Comment #309049

Craig replied: “I’m not dead wrong because that is not what I said. You expanded what I said, to include something that is obviously wrong.”

Wrong Again, Craig. I responded to what you wrote, and I QUOTE: “In time of war, winning the war and keeping our military personel safe is the highest priority. Some of these issues can wait to peacetime.”

In your own words, war is first and foremost and all other issues like human rights should: “wait to peacetime”.

Sorry, bub, but, you cannot get away with saying you didn’t say what you said. Its there, in black and white. Own it, or apologize for the error of those words and retract them. But, attempts to deny your own words and blame others for observing them, is pathetic and immature.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2010 06:24 PM
Comment #309050

Librick, sorry, but, its not that simple. Not by a long shot.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2010 06:26 PM
Comment #309052

Yes it is. Explain it otherwise.

Posted by: LibRick at September 22, 2010 06:44 PM
Comment #309055

Henry, Yes Republicans did it to but that doesn’t mean it’s right. Cramming BS add ons to a bill should never be allowed. Congress wrights a bill things that only pertain to that bill should only be allowed.

Posted by: MAG at September 22, 2010 07:36 PM
Comment #309056

Librick, pick up a book on psychological motivation and decision making. It is a very complex arena of human behavior. Your comment is akin to Republicans claim that all Democrats are socialists. Nice, simple, easy, and entirely untrue. It is more complex than that.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2010 07:50 PM
Comment #309057

MAG, quite right. The single most efficient vehicle for waste, fraud, and abuse of tax payer dollars are the riders on major bills which add spending that would otherwise never pass on its own merits.

Keep up the good debate on this issue. IT IS IMPORTANT!

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2010 07:52 PM
Comment #309058

oddly enough, a republican president, Abraham Lincoln, signed the emancipation proclamation in the midst of the American civil war. This needs to be passed.
How long do our brothers and sisters in the military have to wait to be equal, to not be forcefully ousted from the services they love defending the country they love. there are gays in the military…they deserve their civil rights just like the men and women fighting right by their sides.

Posted by: john in napa at September 22, 2010 08:22 PM
Comment #309059

john in napa, quite right. The same thinking that kept African Americans segregated in WWII now opposes repeal of DADT. We moved passed that kind of thinking under Truman, we will move pass that kind of thinking under Obama regarding the DADT policy. I feel an executive order coming on, or Obama doesn’t deserve to be reelected.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2010 08:37 PM
Comment #309060

DRR…thanks in no small part to the Tuskegee Airmen !

Posted by: jane doe at September 22, 2010 09:06 PM
Comment #309061

David:

Sorry David.

My quote:

In time of war, winning the war and keeping our military personel safe is the highest priority. Some of these issues can wait to peacetime.”

Your characterization:

But, NO, war is not America’s ultimate goal and activity, to trump all other considerations like human rights, treaties, and domestic obligations, and certainly, not to be used as an excuse for abusing the rights of our soldiers. ON that, you are Dead Wrong.

Never said war is America’s ulitmate goal and activity. I said “when in time of war”.

Never said that a highest priority means trumping everyone’s civil rights.

Never implied it was fine to abuse the rights of soldiers.

On those issues you are Dead Wrong.

However, it is true that Soldiers give up certain rights when they sign up. Here is a document:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/27-1/Ch10.htm

Note this part:

Soldiers may not campaign as partisan candidates for nomination or as partisan nominees for civil office. However, the installation commander may permit a soldier on active duty for training who is serving on active duty for less than 30 days to file for nomination or candidacy as required by law. The filing must not interfere with the soldier’s official military duties. However, the soldier may not become a nonpartisan candidate for any full-time civil office while serving an initial tour of extended active duty or other obligated tour.

This would of course limit freedom of speech.

So every soldier who raises their hand allows the government to limit their civil rights to a degree. This is understood because to goal of the military is to fight and win wars/battles as directed under our constitution.


Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 22, 2010 09:06 PM
Comment #309066

Mag,
While following Statesmen Rules one would think our elected officials would put God and Country above all others; however, what seperates the Democrats and Republicans on this issue happens to be the Democratic Leadership allowed the measure to pass in order for the troops to be funded.

And why not true with the Republicans, the fact they sucessfully linked today’s Tea Party with the Oppressors of England who wished to Tax America without representation should have every Conservative calling for their heads on a silver platter.

What is next? Are the Republicans and Tea Party going to vote The Corporation mo longer has to provide the citizenry with paid lunches, healthcare, or any of the benefits our ancestors have worked for over the last 200 years?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 22, 2010 09:34 PM
Comment #309069

David Remer:

You are absolutely correct about the “Power”. Example: there are prominent republicans who have blasted Tea Party supported candidates, simply because they did not believe the TP candidates had any chance of winning. There are republicans who had no problem with moderate, or even liberal, republicans winning, because it is all about taking control of the Senate or House, and control means “Power”. So there are republicans willing to sacrifice conservative ideals to be the heads of committees. And of course the same thing is true of the Democratic Party. This leads us to why there are some republicans who dislike the Tea Party: because the TP has looked beyond power and looked at ideals. Now I know this will upset some on the left, but I am not talking left or right policies here, I am talking about political parties who do not represent the people.

Posted by: TomT at September 22, 2010 10:24 PM
Comment #309071

David wrote:

Librick, pick up a book on psychological motivation and decision making. It is a very complex arena of human behavior. Your comment is akin to Republicans claim that all Democrats are socialists. Nice, simple, easy, and entirely untrue. It is more complex than that.

You’re probably right that for a certain number of people there is something difficult and very complex at work that causes them to reject gay people as undeserving of equal rights in America. Still, when one takes the time to try to question these gay-rights rejectors at length, these folks will frequently end up boiling things down to one or a few answers that I think could be covered by the sorts of general terms that LibRick gave above.

In other words, even if the thinking and motivations of these people are extremely complex, their stated reasons and explanations when pressed very often do come off sounding pretty fearful, or cruel, or clueless, or bigoted, or fanatically religious.

Personally, when I hear such reasons being given (and incidentally I usually think the same thing whenever I hear racist or sexist comments) I almost always come away thinking that the problem might be a lack of insight and empathy. Because it seems as though such folks are completely unable to put themselves even temporarily into the shoes of someone who is being denied fair treatment and equality.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 22, 2010 10:33 PM
Comment #309075

Henry, In all the years I have worked I never had a paid lunch. Corporations do not HAVE to give you benefits, they do it because they want to keep employees happy and experienced people working for them. As far as BS add ons to bills being pushed through congress, it needs to stop. All because some senior congress person has a constituent who wants to study the sex habits of a bull frog he’s allowed to attach it to any bill he wants with nothing being said is pure BS. Like I said you want to fund the military fund them without the excess baggage thrown in and that goes for any bill in congress.

Posted by: MAG at September 22, 2010 10:59 PM
Comment #309086

Mag,
Unless you have only woeked part-time (less than 20 hours/wk) or you have worked under contract all your life than State and Federal Labor Laws require you get paid for a 30 minute lunch and two 15 minute breaks. Failure to do so can result in fines and jail time.

And yes, some businesses even today would like their employees not to know this information; however, thanks to advocates these signs are to be posted in plain sight around the time clock. In fact, Wal Mart and other stores are always getting into trouble for their managers not keeping these rules. And why the store with one or two employees are able to get away with it more easier than major retailers and factories, the violations of these laws are taking very serious exspecially by State Labor.

As far as putting add ons to bills, that is one of the reasons given by the past four presidents for a line item veto and why Congress will in good faith never give them that option. So why we have to put up with the way Washington works, nothing keeps us from voting the incumbents who willfully abuse the privilege out of office. The questions We the People need to ask ourselves is how many add ons and for what purpose creates abuse or provides for the Freewill of the People?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 23, 2010 02:20 AM
Comment #309091

Henry said, “As far as putting add ons to bills, that is one of the reasons given by the past four presidents for a line item veto and why Congress will in good faith never give them that option.”

Ronald Reagan, in his 1986 State of the Union speech to the Congress said, “”Tonight I ask you to give me what forty-three governors have: Give me a line-item veto this year. Give me the authority to veto waste, and I’ll take the responsibility, I’ll make the cuts, I’ll take the heat.”

Bill Clinton asked the Congress for the same thing in 1995.

Clinton was briefly granted this power under the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by a Republican controlled Congress. It was used by Clinton 82 times in 11 Bills. This Bill was declared unconstitutional in 1998, by a Federal Judge and by the SC. What is needed is a Constitutional Amendment, which will never take place under a Democratic controlled congress. The late Senator Robert Byrd was fiercely against the L.I.V, and of course Byrd took more pork back to WV than any Senator.

This is something the TP wants. America is headed for bankruptcy because of this out of control spending. I recently visited my congressman’s home page (a democrat), and his web site was full of the pork projects he had brought to our district. It was said as a boast, and it infuriated me and I imagine others also. We can’t continue down this path.

Posted by: TomT at September 23, 2010 08:48 AM
Comment #309092

Henry Schlatman Under federal law, your employer does not have to provide lunch or coffee breaks. Also, your employer does not have to pay you for lunch breaks that you are given.

However, your state might have mandatory meal breaks. The requirements vary, but many employees are guaranteed a 30 minute meal period per shift. To qualify, your shift will generally need to be 6 hours at minimum.
Like meal periods, the federal government does not require coffee breaks. However, any short breaks (usually 5-20 minutes) that you are given must be paid.

A few states give you a right to short breaks. In these states, you generally get a 10-minute break for every 4-hour shift. These states include: California, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington

Posted by: john in napa at September 23, 2010 09:13 AM
Comment #309093

but back to the topic at hand, the opposition of repealing DADT is nothing more than fear and homophobia. The senators and congressmen, and congresswomen that opposes it are simply put, bigots.

even if they do not share the views of the minority of their constituents (and in every poll yes opposition to repeal is a minority of Americans)for their reasons of not supporting the repeal, they give these fears and hatred a platform, thus guilty by association.

This smacks of McCarthyism and reminds me of those who opposed the civil rights movement of the 60’s.

Posted by: john in napa at September 23, 2010 09:43 AM
Comment #309094

John in Napa,
Thanks, why I know State Labor Laws vary and Federal Laws govern only limited things. The idea that we should give them up because someone in the 21st Century thinks it makes a good sound bite is plain stupid.

And why I hear people joke about corporations putting children back into the factories in order to increase the family income. I wonder if the Rich woukd care to lose their right to leave their children any money. For that is sure one fired way of leveling the generational playing field.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 23, 2010 10:03 AM
Comment #309095

Tom T.,
Why many Members of Congress get their add ons passed before you get upset you need to find out if they get funded. And if so for how much. For why the Add ons or Riders where intended to help the Members of Congress meet the community and regional needs of their state. A lot of times you will find they go unfunded or have limited funds depending on the Members ranking.

The problem IMHO over the last century was that these Riders were used by the Good Ole Boy System to buy favors and votes which until the Members of Congress call it unethical. Short of given the president a line item veto which could be used to change the bill presented by Congress, what are we suppose to do?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 23, 2010 10:22 AM
Comment #309096

Fox News did a poll and even the Republican Fox base voted 76.8% to repeal it. Just go to Fox News and search “Is It Time to Repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’?” and vote to see results.

Makes me wonder however, if the Dream Act wasnt part of the equation would it have passed?

Posted by: john in napa at September 23, 2010 10:34 AM
Comment #309099

Henry, I don’t know where you are from but every employer I worked for NEVER paid for lunch break and I always worked full time. You are wrong about that law it states that employees get a 30 minute UNPAID lunch period. Hell I was even required to punch out and back in at lunch period at my last employment even though
I didn’t leave the building.
As far as the add ons maybe we should pressure congress for the line item veto. Maybe all this pork and BS add ons will come to a stop and groups won’t get their stupid pet projects funded.

Posted by: MAG at September 23, 2010 10:58 AM
Comment #309105

Mag,
Why we probably can’t get a line item veto passed, watch groups should be able to use the Riders to point out which Incumbents are milking the system.

For example; most Americans could understand the funding of unexpected problems which can’t fit into the annual budget or the need to give a tax credit to corporations looking to expand into certain areas. In fact, I doubt if anyone would object to a Rider that helped a coastal area deal with the aftermath of the BP oil spill. And given they do not easily fit into a budget than Our Founding Fathers seen this as a good way for local communities and regions to obtain the funding they need. Because imagine your area losing the water reservoir, under normal conditions it could take years to get the project to fix it funded; however, as a Rider it could be done on the very next bill going to the president.

Nevertheless, like some in the private sector who wants to game the sytem so it seems that many in Congress today attempt to abuse their power by offering Riders that only help a few people they represent. In fact, somewhere in the early 1800’s our ancestors had the same problem with their elected officials and though I can’t recall exactly what they did to solve the problem. I’m sure the history books can offer watch groups some ideas on how we can get Washington to offer clean bills. Nevertheless, the most effective way still remains to vote the incumbents out o office who keep introducing Riders which have no place in the bills wanting to be passed or does nothing to help all Americans.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 23, 2010 01:56 PM
Comment #309106

Mag, just because you never got the same benefits as Henry relates to, doesn’t mean they didn’t or don’t exist.
Contract law often supersedes State laws, too.
I worked for the State of Ca. for many years and was a rep. when we still had Ca. State Employees Assoc….. prior to being swallowed up by SEIU.

Posted by: jane doe at September 23, 2010 01:58 PM
Comment #309108

Why do I find it not surprising tha jane doe worked as a CA state employee and was affiliated with CSEA/SEIU. This info answers a lot of questions.

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 23, 2010 02:44 PM
Comment #309109

As long as the Democrats control congress or are able to block legislation, there will never be a line item veto.

Posted by: TomT at September 23, 2010 02:46 PM
Comment #309112

TomT, the line item veto gives the President the power of the purse strings. That was CLEARLY NOT the intent of the founding fathers and the Constitution.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 23, 2010 03:20 PM
Comment #309113

Jane, no wonder the state of Ca. is broke paying you while on a Lunch break. Maybe they do that in Ca. but not in Ohio.
Henry the point is there is to much of gamming the system. If helping the coastal system after the BP oil spill is important congress can rush a bill through without adding it to something that is unrelated it’s been done before and can be done again. To many unrelated things are being added to bills going through congress and that has to stop. Some on this blog have complained about the resent SC decision in favor of corporations campaign contributions, some congress person or senator gets a contribution from some corporation so he or she adds a favorable rider to a bill going through aiding that corporation happens all the time in congress. You want corporate campaign contributions to stop, stop the bill riders to.
Also jane NO corporation has to give you benefits they do it for the reasons stated above to keep good experienced -people working for them. Some are expecting to much from their employers and you wonder why they are moving or going broke. And like I said no wonder why the State of Ca. is broke.

Posted by: MAG at September 23, 2010 03:27 PM
Comment #309116

David, it may not have been the intent of the founding fathers, and was clearly shown by the courts to be unconstitutional, but it could be made into law by a constitutional ammendment.

How else would you propose controlling spending? It is certain that our politicians are drunk with power and oblivious to spending restraint.

MAG:

The reason pork spending is added to Bills is because these corrupt politicians, by their own declaraton, do not read the bills before they vote on them. Most of the time, these pork projects go through and are not even known about until a congressional watch group blows the whistle on them. By then it is too late. Every politician needs to be held accountable by the voters.

Posted by: TomT at September 23, 2010 03:54 PM
Comment #309118


Some people are willing to deny rights to others in the name of individual rights.

Beretta9, can you be more specific? What questions and answers?

“As long as Democrats control the congress or are able to block legislation, there will never be a line item veto.”

TomT, the Republicans could have passed a line item veto if they had chosen to do so. They could have added it to one of the huge pork laden bills that are irresistible to the politicians of both parties.

I see the Republicans are offering up a new Contract with America. Republicans should appraise it by comparing it to the other Republican Contract with America to see how well the Republican politicians did with that one.

Remember how they and Clinton made progress towards a balanced budget only to have the progress trashed by the Republicans after Bush became president?

I find it hard to understand why you would make such a statement in light of the shape the Republican president and the Republican Congress put this country in. Yes, the Democrats helped, but it was a Republican party.

Posted by: jlw at September 23, 2010 04:02 PM
Comment #309119

jlw, do you remember, it was a democrat congress who was in control during Bush’s last 2 years in office? Do they take any blame for the economy, or do we just continue to blame Bush?

Posted by: TomT at September 23, 2010 04:33 PM
Comment #309120

Sorry, mag, but you’re just whis’lin’ in the wind. Most corporations are unwilling to GIVE employees much of anything. That is kind of why unions got started. Corporations are in the business of making money, and keeping the owners smiling…not their employees happy. Your comments also go a long way to explain more of why you vote the way you do.
It’s always the little guy that gets shafted. You take some management person out of his/her back office and put them at the counter in a DMV office and just watch how long it takes for mass chaos to set in. Same mentality applied when cutting salaries or wanting to take away any benefits were being considered. Attack the little ones who do and know the jobs…..leave the empty suits in charge and sit back and watch.
The State was not broke,either, when I worked. We were totally solvent and our economy was rated about third in the world. That was before Pete Wilson, and now Ahhnold. Some people just seem never to be able to connect the dots, though.

Posted by: jane doe at September 23, 2010 04:40 PM
Comment #309121

TomT, putting the purse strings of our entire nation in the hands of ONE individual is akin to establishing an authoritarian dictatorship, much like Kim Jung Il enjoys in N. Korea. It completely circumvents representation in the taxation and government spending process.

The way to get control of spending in a democratically elected government is through the voters holding their representatives accountable for taxation and spending on election day.

There is no question that an authoritarian dictatorship is a far more efficient type of government, but, the threats such a government poses for the people of a nation, whether that dictator is elected or not, is vastly greater and more onerous than the more inefficient democratic process of Congressional representation in such matters.

I strongly recommend some research into the topic of division of powers and rationale behind America having established the people’s representatives as the controllers of the purse strings, which acts as a check and balance on the power of the executive who also has the power to control the military and engage in war, as well as to suspend individual rights and liberties in the name of national security. To give such a person the power of the purse strings is to literally erect a dictatorship without check or balance by the people or their Congressional representatives.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 23, 2010 04:42 PM
Comment #309122

TT, spin your “in control of congress” BS all you want. The fact remains that Republicans were not anything but obstructionists then…..just as they are now. It’s those closed minds and bad memories that perpetuate lies and the fear that accompanies them.
You all should be just tickled silly, yet that doesn’t seem to be too rewarding……

Posted by: jane doe at September 23, 2010 04:46 PM
Comment #309123

jane Unions were good once upon a time. Now no, unions are just as greedy as the corporations they are trying to fleece. Promise a lot and deliver nothing much like our politicians do. I was once part of a union in fact several. Painters, Steel workers, and Auto workers. I have no respect for Unions now. So why is your State Broke.

Posted by: MAG at September 23, 2010 04:54 PM
Comment #309124

MAG, Tennessee is a NON-UNION state. Why did their Governor report this last year in his budget proposal that their state was 1 billion dollars in the hole? Has nothing to do with unionization. It has to do with the Great Recession brought on by 8 years of Republican rule and Clinton’s signing of the Republican Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act resulting in dramatic reductions in expected tax revenues.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 23, 2010 05:08 PM
Comment #309126

Mag, your opinions and information are both a bit skewed.
Your question was answered before you asked it….. Republican governors!

Posted by: jane doe at September 23, 2010 06:00 PM
Comment #309128

Mag,
Why you may mot like Unions now, they are not the ones who broke the State of Ca. or anyother. In fact, most of them went broke listening to college educated financial advisors which are mase up of associations and have nothing to lose in given bad advise.

Now I have never belonged to an union or ever agreed to work for someone who would not pay me for my lnch break. And though you may believe the corporations will freely give these benefits away in order to keep their employees happy I can tell you from first hand experience that things like unemployment, workmans comp insurance, and even the 40 hour work week would not be the norm today unless our parents and grandparents stood up during their lifetime.

So before you blame the Working American or the Civil Leaders of our communities for the problems today look back at the turn of the last century when a 10 year old was forced to work 60 hours a week with deadly machinary or women were forced to work under conditions that made today’s Street Walkers look like they are living on top of the world.

Yes, America does face some serious problems and although personally I do not believe those on the Left or Right have the foggiest idea on what to do in order to fix them. One has to realize that the problem goes way beyond Wall Street and Washington. And while Main Street still deny they are part of the problem. Like most of the majority on both sides of the political spectrum in the 1970’s thought they were building a Better World so it seems IMHO that today’s majority would rather find excuses than look at what “We the People” can do given Our Guaranteed Civil and Constitutional Rights to help the Children of the 21st Century work to make every American Economically Viable and Financially Independent.

For why we can fight for the next 2 years on what is the best way forward for all Americans. Until the Grass Roots or the leadership of the Democratic and Republican Parties realize that the Labor and Management Movement in America of the last 150 years cannot stay competitive in the Global Market which includes 3rd World Countries on their own. And why that means “The Corporation” are going to have to be educated that today’s technology gives them the ability to help their customers find an income by the products and services they offer. Short of an Industrial Revolution or the introduction of some innovations that will reduce the expenses the average American faces I do not see the learned and Unlearned of Society working together in order to make a Better World for every Human on Earth.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 23, 2010 06:26 PM
Comment #309129

DRR I was commenting on janes rant about unions. I doubt very much if unions were the sole reason for Ca. going broke or if they even had a hand in it. I just like messing with union people. I know that mismanagement was the reason. But I do not have any respect for unions. Asc far as Arnie goes he’s more Democrat then Republican.

Posted by: MAG at September 23, 2010 06:32 PM
Comment #309130

MAG, the concept of unions as a bargaining unit with employers is valid, given that business will and does exploit labor beyond all sense of fairness if allowed to. Business has an obligation to reduce costs, including labor costs to the absolute minimum required to maximize profitability. Without regulation and, or, unions, the result is the horrible history of labor exploitation at the turn of the last century, to include child labor sweat shops and burying unnamed workers on the job site as they perished (railroad construction).

You are absolutely right however, to point out that when unions become corporations in their own right, they have the same exploiting agenda as the employer, but, in reverse. To maximize labor compensation well beyond what is fair and sustainable for both employer and labor.

There are a number of employers who have incorporated fair and positive employee benefits and compensation as a means of precluding the need for unions. Apple Computers and USAA Insurance company come to mind. If all large employers would adopt such a business model, unions would no longer make sense or cents. But, that is not yet the case in industries like mining which cut corners and costs on labor safety.

I do not believe there exists a perfect resolution to prevent exploitation by either employers or labor. The best that can be achieved, I believe, is what now exists, regulations that allow unions to form where exploitation has reached the point of motivating workers to form or join a union. It serves as a check and balance upon employers, motivating them to insure their labor force does not choose to unionize.

Even in this system, there is a balancing when employers or labor unions become extreme in their exploitation, as GM workers found out, with the restructuring of GM where the union had to concede a very great deal in order to keep GM operational and themselves employed. Their excesses were checked and curtailed by the company’s becoming bankrupt. A healthy balance has been restored at GM where both shareholders and labor can look forward to a more prosperous relationship going forward, for some time, at least.

It ain’t perfect. But, little in this world is. We do have a self-correcting system however, with the regulatory protections for union formation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 23, 2010 07:12 PM
Comment #309133

My “rant” about unions, Mag? No rant..just the truth, and I don’t have a clue how you managed to misinterpret what I said, but it was not anything about unions playing a part in the economy tanking. I do know now, that you taking out of context what I said and making it fit your own agenda, is certainly kin to the rest of your right-wing brethren. Read the words and change the meaning to fit..
We used to sit and wait for the legislators to bring in a budget. The first threat to try to make them take care of business, was to threaten State employees with getting docked on pay. That was blocked for a number of years, then our Controller stopped them. He later became the Governor…..
Ahnold, is not anywhere close to being a Democrat. If he were, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are.

Posted by: jane doe at September 23, 2010 07:17 PM
Comment #309134

Henryu Read comment 309129. No I do not have any use for unions as stated above in a former post I was a Union member in at least 3 different unions. Neither did anything for me except take my money. I think Unions today are for those who can’t stand up to management on their own and need them as a crutch. And your right about those onn the left or right not having the foggiest notion of how to fix what they BOTH SCREWED UP.

Posted by: MAG at September 23, 2010 07:19 PM
Comment #309136

I’m still waiting for a rational explanation of why the military should not allow gays into its ranks.

I don’t think one can be provided. I’ve explained why the rule exists in my first post… and those characteristics explain why it is difficult to change the current rule.

Politicize all you want. I’ve never heard a rational argument for such a policy as it existed in its inception… or for such a policy that exists today.

Posted by: LibRick at September 23, 2010 07:32 PM
Comment #309137

Took a break from a couple of hot projects to come here to see if anything reasonable is going on. Gotta go read todays paper starting on the comic page to get a better chuckle. You wanna be standup comedy specialists need some more practice on your lines.

Posted by: tom humes at September 23, 2010 07:35 PM
Comment #309138

jane doe, obstructionism by Congressmen and Senators is standard operating procedure for both Democrats and Republicans. So your statement can be applied to any of the last 111 Congresses. In the same sense “closed minds” and “bad memories” can be applied to either party. I don’t believe I will be “tickled silly”, but I will be relieved to have a Congress that can a put stop to out of control spending.

Mr. Remer, I am fully aware of the separation of powers. Exactly what part of my statement, that it would require a Constitutional Amendment to implement line item veto, don’t you understand? How do you feel about “czars”, who control and yet answer to only the President? How do you feel about a government that mandates we must purchase insurance, and who we must purchase it from? How do you feel about a government takeover of private companies? How do you feel about a government who believes it is their duty to tax those who accomplish, in order to redistribute t hose who will not work? Do you consider these a violation of Constitutional rights?

However Mr. Remer, I will agree with you that Unions become a corporation within themselves. Obama bailed out and took control of GM for the sake of protecting the Unions and their benefit packages. The Democrats love to talk about US jobs being sent overseas for a profit. Well, here is something interesting:

This came out in November of 2009;

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/china-to-buy-gm-reloaded/

And this came out on September 20, 2010:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100920/ts_alt_afp/uschinaautocompanygmsaicipo

If the Chinese bought out GM or even Chrysler, what use was the bailout? There is something terribly wrong when a communist government can buy a US company. Do we blame this one on Bush too?

Posted by: TomT at September 23, 2010 07:42 PM
Comment #309140

LibRick said:

“I’m still waiting for a rational explanation of why the military should not allow gays into its ranks.”

When I was in the military and we were standing butt naked in line for physicals and shots. The DI was screaming at us, “move up the ranks, nuts to butts, make he guy in front of you smile”, and that is a direct quote. It was uncomfortable, but I believe it would have been a whole lot more uncomfotable if you KNEW the guy in front or behind you was actually enjoying it.

How do the men in the military actually feel about living with queers? Political correctness run amuck.

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 23, 2010 07:53 PM
Comment #309142

TomT stated: “Obama bailed out and took control of GM for the sake of protecting the Unions and their benefit packages.”

Of course, it couldn’t have been to save a major industry in the US and to save a million jobs.

Of course, it was only Obama that bailed out GM. Forget about the almost 20 billion dollars in loans made by the Bush administration prior to leaving office.

In regard to Chinese investment in US auto manufacturing, good. At least we have an industry to invest in.

Posted by: Rich at September 23, 2010 08:27 PM
Comment #309145

Rich, bankruptcy was the proper direction to go. The courts would have split up the companies and they would have been sold. It happens to hundreds of companies every year. Obama had ulterior motives for taking them over. And in the end, the left has nothing to say about jobs going overseas if China is allowed to take over GM or Chrysler.

The conservatives were just as upset with Bush as they are with Obama on the bailouts.

Posted by: TomT at September 23, 2010 08:42 PM
Comment #309153

Tom T.,
Although ome can claim President Bush and Obama were right or wrong to bailout or loan money to GM and Chrysler; however, given the narrow view of producing gasoline cars and trucks at a time when America is looking for an alternative toward dependence on foreign oil I can see where someone might believe it is a waste of time and money especially since just a few years earlier the Republicans such as Hannity and Company was screaming that they would never give up their 9 mpg SUV’s.

Nevertheless, knowing the President of the United States of America must look at how any move will affect America as a whole I wonder if any Democratic or Republican would be willing to support America losing over 2/3rds of her Military Producing Power exspecially at a time of war?

Now, we can debate what good the loans made by President Bush and Obama has done for the market or we can expand the debate to include how effective these loans have been in helping America move toward energy indepemdemce from foreign oil. And both would be fair as they deserved to be answered.

Nonetheless, with America and Americans in need of saving money, wanting cleaner air, and producing an exportable product I cannot understand why the Pundits on the Left and Right are not asking why these loans did not go toward replacing Americas’ Fleets with Electric cars and trucks. For although one could say that it would be a waste of money for government agencies and major private fleets to buy the vehicles as GM and Chrysler works out the kinks on tommorrows electric car. Given the major advancements made to unleaded cars in the 70’s when the same idea was used to change America from leaded fuel I do believe one can also make the case that today political leaders are more wrried about the dollar than working to make Americans Energy Independent from foreign oil.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 23, 2010 11:12 PM
Comment #309159

jane doe, Californians are in the mess they are in today for reasons dating back many, many decades, beginning with “free” college education for California residents. Great idea, but, Californians utterly and completely failed to acknowledge the kind of future surplus investments that would be required to sustain such a program. Hence, they pushed down that road of expanding accommodation of voter’s wishes without the prerequisite fiscal discipline needed to underwrite such an agenda, and the deficit pressures just kept piling up. This road was being traveled down even as Brown and Reagan were Governor.

In the real world, met needs have to be planned for and saved for. California has not resided in the real world for more than 50 years now. That is why California is where it is, today. And what a waste of a booming and growing state and economy which California enjoyed during those decades. The dream has to be followed by the hard, persistent, and disciplined skill, effort, and savings to make the dream a reality. Californians were never willing to follow up their dreams with the requisite fiscal discipline, effort, and savings to make their dreams a sustainable reality.

I knew California was headed for trouble back in the early 1970’s when I lived their a short while and learned of their “free” college education for residents. I didn’t stick around for it, knowing it was not a policy that could be sustained. My earnings State taxes were just too low. The rest is history. Now, California is the largest debtor state in the Union, and larger debtor than even many countries in the world.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 24, 2010 12:12 AM
Comment #309160

TomT asked: “How do you feel about “czars”, who control and yet answer to only the President?”

Depends. Czars operating withing the purview of executive authority already granted by the Constitution or Congress are just fine with me in principle. Czar’s whose responsibilities exceed executive authority are a breach.

“How do you feel about a government that mandates we must purchase insurance, and who we must purchase it from?”

Having had my only vehicle destroyed by a drunk, leaving me begging for rides to work from where the bus route ended, I am all for mandated liability insurance, and even a government program funded by insurance premiums to aid those whose livelihoods have been jeopardized by some drunk without insurance.

Compared to 30 million Americans prepared to use Emergency Rooms for free health care, while driving my paid health insurance premiums through the roof, I am in favor of mandated health insurance, designed to slow that inflation of my health insurance premiums passed down from the uninsured to premium payers.

“How do you feel about a government takeover of private companies?”

Are you referring to General Motors? Damn glad they did, and that it worked out, so that GM will again become a private corporation which continues to employ my relatives and their friends in the Metropolitan Detroit area and other places. People’s lives and livelihoods were on the line. The Government restructuring of GM saved those people’s lives and livelihoods, and in the end, it will have cost me, the tax payer, nothing, as GM is repaying the tax payers as they banks have. Good deal, all around.

“How do you feel about a government who believes it is their duty to tax those who accomplish, in order to redistribute t hose who will not work?”

I think everyone who enjoys the enormous benefits and luxuries of living in a safe and secure America which so many overseas long for, have an obligation to pay taxes in accordance with their ability to pay, while enjoying their quality life experience in America, compared to so many overseas. Charity can only help so many, and those primarily in urban areas where a charitable dollar can do the most good for the greatest number. Without government assistance, millions of rural area Americans would be in dire straits, since their widely dispersed populations would go unaided by most charitable organizations. Rural areas tend to be more Republican, btw.

“Do you consider these a violation of Constitutional rights?”

Now you have gone off the deep Right wing Extremist end. Please provide for me the Constitutional provisions that you believe are being violated by such policies. But, be sure to include in your review, all amendments and Supreme Court rulings since the adoption of the Constitution, because they are part and parcel of our Constitution today, as provided for in the original Constitution. The original Constitution provided that amendments would become part of the Constitution and that Supreme Court rulings would also become Constitutional law of the land defended and upheld by the Constitution.

So, please, provide for me the part of the Constitution you believe has been violated.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 24, 2010 12:34 AM
Comment #309161

Mag,
Although I can understand why many today feel that paying for things they will hopefully never need makes them mad; however, where hve these people been for the last 30-60 years since now they can be thought of as the Status Quo. Nevertheless, one of the Fenale Republicans IMHO should be ashamed of herself for her comments on the matter. For I do believe as a Man she had no problem with her Moms friends paying for her to have children, but now that she no longer can have children somehow it is wrong for her to pay so other women an have children? What about all the males who pay for the services, does she believe no male should have to pay for women medical needs? How about senoir female problems or the fact they live longer than men?

Yes, life is not fair and if one loks hard enough they will find they pay for things they may never have a need for, but if Americans want to live in a civilized world than there are things even every so strange that must be paid for or we will all suffer in the long run. For example; we pay for police, fire, and 911 services, yet if one is lucky they will never require those services. So, do we stop funding them just because a few people believe they do not need them?

David and Tom T.,
Lets take your list from the bottom up and see if you two do not look at it differently.

Do you believe government violates the Constitutional Rights in order to redistribute wealth?

Although I realize it is hard to believe the Constitution does not make it illegal to redistribute wealth, I wonder how many Americans are ready to pay the full price it takes for a farmer to produce an ear of corn or a factory worker to make the shrit and pants people wear. For certainly these citizens should be able to charge the full market price it takes to to create their product, bring it to market, and cover the cost it takes to maintian the status of a productive citizen. Yet, business practices which date back thousands of years would rather give that wealth to a select group of people who can orginize the products and sell it to the general public at prices well below their true costs.

“How do you feel about a government takeover of private companies?”

Well, since one could say that all companies are in business by the grace of the government and citizenry they serve the idea of a takeover due to times of war or because the company no longer is meeting their obligations to the Citizenry, State, or Government still does remain the Right of “We the People” since all that has to be done is pass a Law making it illegal to proform such acts.

“How do you feel about a government that mandates we must purchase insurance, and who we must purchase it from?”

In order to keep Grandma from taking pot shots at her children and grandchildren who believe they can drive through her backyard, Grandpa mandates that we drive on the roads. And though not every American can drive on every road made we still mandate they help pay for the roads to be built and maintianed. And while some may believe these actions are unfair, can you imagine having to pay full price of making the road since we can always find citizens who believe no roads need to exist in the first place?

Yes, mandated insurance does seem a little extreme and to me totally wrong; however, considering the alternative is to allow the Individual to be able to purchase all medicine across the counter and permit anyone with the stomach to preform operations than something has to be done in order to maintain a reasonable healthcare system.

For example; a few weeks ago I needed a few muscle relaxers and pain pills for an ongoing back problem; however, due to the fact I refuse to be labeled a long term medical problem no Doctor can write me the piece of paper so I may gave access to prevetative medicine. Yet, this past weekend the pain got so bad that I was forced to seek my local ER in order to get the same medicine I needed three weeks ago. So do we need mandated medical insurance or can Americans come up with a better system that is not subject to abuse or a degree in medicine?

Yes, we can look from the top down or the bottom up and see where many of the problems we face begin; however, thanks to Our Founding Fathers and Ancestors we are not limited just to these two paths in order to create solutions to the seen and unforseen problems of a civilized world. In fact, though limited in their ability and contract with America even Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders can address the Issues of the 20th Century. The problem has been and continues to be they both can only look at the issues from the top down correct? Now how does one go about changing that problem which arose from the Late 60’s and Early 70’s?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 24, 2010 03:09 AM
Comment #309162

Henry asked: “Do you believe government violates the Constitutional Rights in order to redistribute wealth?”

If that is true, then our Founding Fathers believed it was just and right to redistribute wealth to fund the Continental Army in its battle against the British and from British Loyalists who were colonialists as well, and would not have chosen to fund the Revolution. After the Constitution was passed, the federal government was authorized to raise tariffs, increasing the cost of goods for Americans, which was a form of wealth redistribution, from consumers to those protected industry owners from the elevated tariffs. The Constitution authorized the raising of funds to pay for its federal activities, and those costs were born by citizens who otherwise would have chosen not to pay them, directly or indirectly (tariffs).

America began as a nation engaged in the redistribution of wealth. The laws it passed, benefited the financial situation of some at a cost to others. Slavery was endorsed in the Constitution at grave cost to the slaves and for the financial profit of slave owners. Taking people’s labor without compensation, indeed, taking their freedom without compensation, was the most onerous form of wealth redistribution ever conceived.

Our nation began as a wealth redistribution nation and never has their been a moment in our history when our government and its people have not been engaged in wealth redistribution. The Louisiana Purchase was wealth redistribution. Paid for by some, and opened to others for free settling. It created opportunities for some, and not others, while expanding the breadth and wealth of the nation as a whole, for posterity. Wealth redistribution has taken many forms since the Colonialists arrived, but, it has always been an integral part of America before, and after the ratification of the Constitution.

An amendment to the Constitution created the income tax, and as an amendment, wealth redistribution took another form and all very Constitutional, as provided for by the original Constitution’s provision for amendment by the states and Congress. There is NOTHING unconstitutional about wealth redistribution. There is only the endless quarrel between those who benefit and those who feel deprived by that redistribution.

As a matter of reality, one cannot establish any kind of nation, or society, without engaging in wealth redistribution. It is as old as the human species and division of labor in tribal societies, where some in the tribe were afforded more tribal assets or resources than others, based on a host of different value criteria.

The instant a group establishes division of labor, community resources will be redistributed along the lines of value of each of those labor divisions, as well as along lines of other values the group holds as high priority, always with some getting more than others. It has always been so, and will always be so. In many situations of food deprivation, it has been the case that children received more food than adults where that group valued the lives and futures of their children more than the adults, to survive the deprivation. Just another form of wealth redistribution along the lines of who the group values more in a time of limited resources. Wealth redistribution is an intrinsic human quality and capacity, exercised wherever groups of humans congregate into communities sharing limited resources.

The most classic example in many societies is when food is short, and women with suckling babies are chosen to receive whatever amount of food is required to keep their breasts in milk production. The babies are valued by the group, and dependent upon their mothers, and the group allocates, as a result of these two facts, a higher value on feeding the mothers than anyone else in the group while food shortages exist. The survival of the group has its best chance if the dependent and helpless babies have their futures elongated out past the food shortage to carry the community’s existence forward. The elderly have, in many such situations been provided the least of the food resources, often voluntarily, often not. The Group or Community decides how to redistribute the resources available to it. Unless, of course, it is an authoritarian group or society, and then the authoritarian decides in their own favor first and foremost.

Which is why most people in the world today, despise and oppose authoritarian regimes. Those who can take all for themselves by force of will, are the least regarded amongst peoples of the world, today. That is the legacy of Democracy having become rooted in the psychology and sociology of the world’s people, today.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 24, 2010 04:14 AM
Comment #309163

David,
That is a whole lot better explaination than I got when I was a child. Something to do with Kings and Queens Servents as seen by the Learned and Unlearned of Society.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 24, 2010 05:57 AM
Comment #309167

“Rich, bankruptcy was the proper direction to go.”

Well, GM and Chrysler did go through bankruptcy.

“Obama had ulterior motives for taking them over. And in the end, the left has nothing to say about jobs going overseas if China is allowed to take over GM or Chrysler.”

Attributing some nefarious ulterior motive to the bailouts of the auto industry by Obama is typical of the right’s paranoid fear driven attacks on Obama. Bush did the same thing for GM and Chrysler. What was his “ulterior motive?”

Normally, one would think that renewed interest for capital investment in GM would signify that the bailout and structured bankruptcy was a success not a failure. The rumored single digit investment interest of a Chinese firm in a GM IPO reflects the success of GM sales in China. If only more US corporations could have such success.

Posted by: Rich at September 24, 2010 08:43 AM
Comment #309177

If it had been a republican president and congress who had bought a controlling stock in GM with taxpayers money and then GM had contributed to republican candidates with taxpayers money, how would the left feel then?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/04/AR2010080407086_pf.html

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 24, 2010 01:10 PM
Comment #309178

B9,
I’m not sure what the Democrats thought about the time President Regan bailed out Chrysler in the 1980’s; however, I do know over the last 25 years their mini vans have out sold all other brands and the Republicans have never complained even about the M-880.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 24, 2010 01:54 PM
Comment #309179

Henry, read this and perhaps you will understand what happened to Chrysler:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/1983/07/The-Chrysler-Bail-Out-Bust

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 24, 2010 02:09 PM
Comment #309181

A lot of gnashing of teeth going on over the Corpocracy’s effort to break down the middle class so that the nation can begin to compete in the globalized economy. Understandable.

The taxpayer paid for GM to relocate to China, paid to get GM out from under their antiquated legacy equipment and pensions. All, while GM is building plants in Brazil and other places around the world.

Young people are priced out of the market in getting a college education while foreign students, many subsidized with taxpayer funds, comprise one-half of graduate students.

Over a short 25 years we have witnessed the greatest xfer of wealth, bigtime redistribution, in history. Your benevolence is greatly appreciated by Communist China.

Here is an excerpt or two from “Free Trade Doesn’t Work”: “16 of 19 non-Western nations who were rich in 1960 traversed into less affluent categories by 2000. Against that, four Asian non-rich moved into the first group. Most non-Western rich nations in 1960 joined the second income group by 2000, and most non-Western upper-middle-income countries in 1960 had fallen into the second and third categories by 2000. Of 22 upper-middle-income nations in 1960, 20 had declined into the third and fourth income categories. Most nations in the third group in 1960 descended into the lowest income category by 2000. Only Botswana moved to the third group from the fourth category, while Egypt remains in the third category. We seem to inhabit a downwardly mobile world with a vanishing middle class, by 2000 most countries were either rich or poor, in contrast in 1960 when most nations were in the middle-income groups.”

The stock market is moving on up. Word is that Corporations have recovered by 70% from the recession. Yet, some 15M remain unemployed and another 9M are underemployed. That suggest a jobless recovery and we have about 15M excess workers that will have to be carried for years.

Real clear that ping-ponging amongst the duopoly is making matters worse. Could be we need a new 3rd party with a different political attitude.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 24, 2010 02:25 PM
Comment #309182


TomT said, “jlw, do you remember, it was a democratic congress during Bush’s last 2 years in office? Do they take any blame for the economy, or do we just continue to blame Bush?”

Here is how I would assess blame for the economy in order of most responsible.

Republican/corporate free market economic strategy, Republican/corporate economic policy on regulation, Ronald Regan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack H. Obama, nearly every Republican politician and more than half of the Democratic politicians.

The last two years in the Bush, the Democrats deserve much blame for lying to the people. They said, if given control of Congress they would return to pay as you go. They did not do that. They said they would end the wars. They did not do that. IMO, those were the two main reasons the people voted them back into control and they achieved neither. Instead, they continued to support the corpocracy and the Republican policies and they are still doing it.

You see TomT, I have no problem recognizing the truth, both political parties have abandoned representation of the American people as a whole in favor of joining forces on behalf of wealth and the corpocracy vision of globalization.

The Democrats now control the Congress and they have tried to fake it, pretend to do good things on behalf of the people while continuing support for the corpocracy. They deserve to lose control of Congress. The biggest problem facing the people is that the Republicans don’t deserve to win. Classic Catch 22.

The first thing people should prepare themselves for after November….Inflation. The people are being cautious about spending. That is unacceptable behavior in an economy dependent on mass consumption.

Posted by: jlw at September 24, 2010 02:31 PM
Comment #309185

B9,
But the same case is being made by sone today about GM and Chrtsler, yet no one is talking about the need to keep Americas’ Military Manufacturing. So should we out source that capability to China? Seems that we already do with some of our aircraft parts.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 24, 2010 02:39 PM
Comment #309186

Back to DADT, we understand that being a member of the military involves accepting that one does not have all the same rights as being a private citizen. Many of the rights we have as private citizens are not recognized, or greatly curtailed, in the military.

There have been court cases involving the US government funding chaplins and religious buildings on military bases. To date, all courts have decided in favor of religious funding by government in the military. This policy is called “accomodation” and it recognizes that as a service member one may be otherwise restricted in the practice of their religious beliefs due to their being a service member.

How does that relate to DADT? One could argue that asking gays and lesbians to restrict openness about their sexual preference accomodates other service members who find such behavior disgusting. As a straight service member I do not have the choice to avoid conversations and situations which I may find objectionable.

Should DADT become…Do Ask, Do Tell? Will this change in policy present opportunities for even more disunity among the ranks?

The question of DADT is very similar to Gay marriage rights. We no longer write laws prohibiting copulation between consenting adults of the same sex. As a society we have collectively decided (in most states) that we don’t wish to elevate such behavior to the same level as marriage between opposite sexes. To date, courts have decided that it is not a violation of constitutional rights. I would think that the same is true for DADT. Those gays and lesbians who wish to serve in the armed forces must understand that certain rights and privileges afforded private citizens are restricted while serving in uniform.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 24, 2010 02:47 PM
Comment #309187
One could argue that asking gays and lesbians to restrict openness about their sexual preference accomodates other service members who find such behavior disgusting. As a straight service member I do not have the choice to avoid conversations and situations which I may find objectionable.

Should DADT become…Do Ask, Do Tell? Will this change in policy present opportunities for even more disunity among the ranks?

You say that upon becoming a member of the military, one gives up some of one’s rights. I agree with that. When heterosexuals sign up with the military, they are giving up their ability to avoid contact with homosexuals. If contact with homosexuals makes someone uncomfortable to the extent that it causes disunity, then that person isn’t fit to be in the military.

If you let me indulge in a little mimicry:
Those gays and lesbians heterosexuals with anti-homosexual sentiment who wish to serve in the armed forces must understand that certain rights and privileges afforded private citizens are restricted while serving in uniform.

Also, just you know; many of my peers serve in the military (mostly through the ROTC program at my school) and I have yet to meet one that supports DADT. The Right is just trying to force their ideology onto servicemen & servicewomen.

Posted by: Warped Reality at September 24, 2010 03:29 PM
Comment #309188

I noticed Warped did not argue any legal issues with DADT but just his idea of social justice. In that case, when and if same sex marriages are socially acceptable by a majority of Americans then DADT will also.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 24, 2010 03:57 PM
Comment #309189

Same-Sex marriages are legal where I live.

Posted by: Warped Reality at September 24, 2010 03:57 PM
Comment #309190

SO?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 24, 2010 04:03 PM
Comment #309191
To date, courts have decided that it is not a violation of constitutional rights.

The above statement is false

Posted by: Warped Reality at September 24, 2010 04:14 PM
Comment #309195

RF & WR,
Not taking sides on the issue of DATA, could one not say that the goal of the Military is tp promote the Alpha Male mentality in its troops and as such anything that works to take away from the ideology would be considered harmful to the mission. Afyer all, the military does not promote “Mommas’ Boys” or tell the female troops they have to be more Lady-like do they?

In fact, from boot camp to advance training is not the goal to weed out those who can not make the cut? Thus, unless we want to force our military leaders to keeps the troops who can make the cut from dating anyone or having any kind of relationship during their enrollment than shouldn’t our attention be put towatd who can and can’t meet the demands our civil leaders put on them?

After all I would hate to think one could call for time out because they broke a nail.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 24, 2010 06:02 PM
Comment #309199

Henry,
do you honestly believe that because someone is gay that makes them effeminate and weak? wow dude you need a huge reality check.

that is a bigoted statement and feeds into stereotypes and hate speech. i have plenty of gay friends, some in the military. none are pansy’s.
interesting how i read some of the most uninformed and backwards opinions being passed off as reality right here on this site.

i love this site though, without free speech whats left?

Posted by: john in napa at September 24, 2010 07:41 PM
Comment #309201

John in Napa,
Sorry for your misunderstanding of my point, but having seen many in the military who can’t make the cut for whayever reason I do believe that is the Pronciple and Standard we should look at when we ask the young Lacies and Gentlemen to serve.

Now, just because we have some citizens (gay or straight) that can’t make the cut of Basic Training or the Advance Training does not make them any lesser of an American, but should weigh heavy on if they belong in the military. Since after all, if we are going to ask them to attack or defend a position the last thing we need from any gay or straight troop is wimping out.

Thus, it is not their sexaul interest that I am concerned about, but their Courage and Freeill to see their fellow troops and objectives are carried out.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 24, 2010 08:02 PM
Comment #309203

John, you are quite correct…being gay does not imply weakness. Whether gay or straight, when lives are in danger only performance and training counts.

When I served in the Army in the 60’s we had one gay guy in our barracks. He was a great guy and everyone knew he was gay. He didn’t talk about his gayness and we didn’t ask. That seemed to work fine then and should now.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 24, 2010 08:10 PM
Comment #309206

RF,
The fact that you knew your comrade was a homosexual, meant he would have been a violation of the military’s policy if you were serving in the 1990s/2000s instead of the 1960s. (actually he was in violation of the military’s policy in the 1960s too). The whole point of repealing DADT is to make it OK for that fellow to serve as he did. Of course if anyone is disruptive on account to their sexuality, then that person should be disciplined appropriately. I don’t advocate tolerance for such behavior; I just don’t see why we need a different standard for people based on sexual orientation.

Posted by: Warped Reality at September 24, 2010 10:07 PM
Comment #309218

WR…sorry you don’t get my point of view and that of most American’s. I did my best to explain. The final decision is not up to you or me.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 25, 2010 11:34 AM
Comment #309269

RF, social policy is ALWAYS up to you and me, in a Democracy. That’s the odd thing about Americans, they don’t understand what a democracy is, or how to use it to get the government, politics, and national policy they, as a majority, want. They still haven’t figured out what universal suffrage means, despite having it for more than half a century, now. In this regard, the French, and many other democracies, have moved past Americans as responsible and mature democratic citizens, despite our having invented the contemporary version.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2010 12:22 PM
Post a comment