Third Party & Independents Archives

Election Results: Still Not Happy!

The overarching result of the 2010 elections was that American voters are not happy with the speed of the economic recovery, nor with either of the two political parties. Their votes registered these complaints. Republicans won a majority in the House absent the predicted Tsunami in their favor, and were denied the Senate majority. Democrats were in control while the nation attempted to recover from the worst Recession, begun under Pres. G.W. Bush, since the Great Depression. That recovery was not broad enough, or fast enough for voters, and their votes registered that complaint.

Both parties got some of what they wished for, and were denied some of what they wished for. The public holds no high regard for either Party. Gallup has October approval ratings of Republican job in Congress, 30% approval, 67% disapproval, and 3% unsure. Similar poll in September, same question about Democrats, 33% approval. Close to 2/3 of the American people disapprove of the job both Democrats and Republicans are doing in Congress. Clearly, by the numbers, this election was not an endorsement of the Republican Party or Republicans in Congress. Clearly, by the election results, the voters did not endorse the job Democrats have done.

Harry Reid, for example won, but not really, - the Tea Party clearly lost in Nevada, with only 34% of Nevadans approving of the Tea Party and their candidate. This is the same percentage as in New York (33% approval of the Tea Party). There is no mandate in this election, save to register dissatisfaction.

The election was a clear and definitive renunciation of a great many incumbents, all Democrats in this November election, as of the time of this writing. Republican incumbents suffered some losses in the primaries to Tea Party votes. Democrats held the most incumbent seats going into the election, which made the prediction of Democratic losses a foregone conclusion. There was no Republican Tsunami sweeping majorities in both houses of Congress. Some claims of the GOP winning as many as 90 House seats were wishful conjecture, now put to rest.

What do the results mean going forward, that we can be sure of? First, incumbents are an endangered species as evidenced by the 2006, 2008, and 2010 elections in which ever larger numbers of incumbents chose not to run again, or were defeated in primaries and the general election. The statistics now establish a clear bi-partisan anti-incumbent movement at work in American elections. Its driving force is the growing anxiety over the economic future of America, to include debt and deficits, and the appearance of neither Party being capable or willing to address it.

Most voters have only 3 realistic choices on their ballots, Democrat, Republican, and voting against the incumbent regardless of Party. That latter choice is being chosen increasingly. Unless, and until, our economy can support hope for voter's futures again, that third choice will be chosen more and more with each passing election.

Second, these election results demand bi-partisanship efforts to produce better results. The fact that public approval of the GOP is slightly lower than for the Democratic Party, while at the same time, Democrats lose enormous incumbent seats to Republicans, indicates voters are demanding results, and will exact a price on whichever party holds the majority if those results are not forthcoming.

Third, these election results imply that political reform is mandatory. If the money influence is not diminished from legislation and elections, bi-partisanship will not be possible. The outside wealthy interest groups will pour billions into insuring bi-partisanship does take place. Bi-partisanship means legislative and regulatory change for these wealthy interest groups like Wall St. banks, multi-national corporations, and whole industries like oil and coal, pharmaceutical and health insurance. For them, less regulation is better, and no regulation is heaven. They have a vested interest in insuring bi-partisan solutions remain impossible.

With every election these days, the politicians face a threat from voters toward their incumbency, and an opportunity to reform the system so that the voter's expectations of them can be met. These election results could not make that point clearer. The ball is now, again, back in the politician's court. Voters will watch, wait, and see, and remain ready to respond again in two years.

[UpDate Nov. 4: ]

The new Senate is absent 15% of its previous incumbents. The new House is absent 21% of its former incumbents.

In the Senate, 15 Incumbents either stepped down or were defeated in 2010 races. In the House, 91 Incumbents either stepped down, or were defeated in the 2010 election.

It was a good anti-incumbent year for Congress.


(This article previously published at PoliWatch.Org)

Posted by David R. Remer at November 3, 2010 12:53 AM
Comments
Comment #312194

David, I like the way you are able to take the most significant loss of Democrat seats since the 30’s and turn it into a ho-hum win for the Republicans. 63 Democrat seats were lost in the house and in all the polls; I never heard the republicans expected to pick up 90 seats. In fact most were saying 40 to 50 seats and the democrats, even up until yesterday was saying they would be able to retain the House. There were no predictions of the Republicans taking the Senate. A pickup of 7 or 8 seats in the Senate is undoubtedly a great victory, no matter what you say. Not to mention the gain of Governorships and control of state legislators. Yesterday’s election changes the face of politics for years to come, as the result of the 2010 census and redistricting.

You are wrong about the TP. It had a great effect on the election and it seems everyone except you, understands this.

You try to convince us; the anti-incumbent movement was the reason for yesterday’s results. Not true; exit polls clearly showed it was Obama’s liberal agenda that caused the democrats to lose. If it were an anti-incumbent movement, there would have been an equal loss of republican seats, and it didn’t happen. When blue states elect Republicans to open seats, it is not an anti-incumbent vote. How many republican house seats were lost? A seat in LA of a republican who was elected for one term in a solid blue district and voted with Obama was booted? How about the pickup of an open seat in the liberal east? Reid had one of the lowest approval ratings and if any incumbent should have lost, it was him, but he was re-elected.

I have to disagree with your assessment. It goes beyond anti-incumbent and goes to an electorate upset with Obama’s change.

Posted by: TomT at November 3, 2010 09:23 AM
Comment #312197

I am happy…

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 3, 2010 09:56 AM
Comment #312205

A mixed bag fer shure. I voted for someone running on the IG ticket instead of voting for a Dem on the ticket running against Cantor. So, my vote was anti-incumbent and a protest vote as the Dem was more likely to defeat Cantor, which didn’t happen of course.

Sorry to see Reid survive but he is essentially powerless for the next couple of years, naming court houses, etc.

Surely, the left wing socialist agenda has been dampened. That’s the only positive I see coming out of this election.

Hopefully, within the nest 2-4 years as things worsen and the status quo gets old, people will turn to a 3rd party to rout the Corpocracy and get some needed reforms in place.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 3, 2010 11:15 AM
Comment #312209

TomT, if the GOP leadership believes as you do, they will reap the anti-incumbent wrath in 2012.

The GOP has access to the same polling on American’s views as the rest of us. Less than 1/3 of Americans think the GOP has the answers and will to do what’s right for America. About the same as their view on Democrats. You clearly have to IGNORE the American people to believe the election last night was an embrace of the GOP. I understand your cognitive dissonance.

But, as I said, if Boehner is honest and DOES listen to the people and respond appropriately to what he hears as their majority common concerns, he will NOT return to the ways of the GOP from 2001 thru 2009. The American people already REJECTED the GOP on those ways of doing things and priorities. The majority of Americans believe Democrats are for big government and Republicans are for big business. The American people want their government to be for them.

If the Republicans get that message from last night, they may well improve their position in 2012, but, they can’t get there accomplishing nothing by way of going to war on Obama. Obama was the people’s choice, and 46% of Americans, like Obama. That’s more Americans than like the GOP and their record these last 2 years.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2010 12:10 PM
Comment #312210

Baretta9, you should be. Your Party got a second chance with the American people. Now, let’s see if they can avoid blowing it with the American people like they did in 2006 and 2008.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2010 12:11 PM
Comment #312213

Roy, I have to disagree with your assessment of Harry Reid being powerless. He will still control the agenda of the Senate. That is not powerless. Is in his 70’s and no doubt, has to be thinking this is his last term, and therefore, has no political capital to lose in fighting for what he believes is right for this country. Lastly, he knows what the polls are saying, and the polls are saying the American people did not embrace the GOP as having the answers - they rejected the Democrats saying they did.

Republicans were able to compromise and stymie Democrats in the Senate as a minority. Harry Reid is majority leader. That game of stymie and compromise of the Republican House can be more easily played by a majority leader than it was ever played by McConnell.

I hope I am proved wrong, but, I still can’t see how the Democrats and Republicans can possibly put their political agendas aside and accomplish the kind of reforms and objectives the majority of Americans want. Democrats in Congress are now more liberal with the loss of so many Blue Dogs. And Republicans like TomT above, and McConnell in his speech this morning, are taking the election as a mandate for the Tea Party agenda, with only 30% or so of Americans approving of the Tea Party, and McConnell still insisting that it will be the Republican way or none.

We have Boehner saying he will listen to the people, and McConnell saying he will listen to himself and right wing Republicans. If they think they have Obama over a barrel here, they will be wrong. Bi-partisanship is not a forcing of one party or branch of government by another. That NEVER works. Bi-partisanship is voluntary - and I seen no voluntary words of bi-partisanship coming from the GOP leadership at this time, and they will NEVER come from the Tea Party in the GOP. That poses a real problem for Boehner if he is sincere about listening to the people.

Because the people aren’t dumb. They know bi-partisanship is pre-requisite to government acting in their interests, instead of the interest of bigger government (Democrats) and big business (Republicans).

Reid wasn’t kidding or posturing about fighting, in his elated victory speech last night. McConnell has every intention of fighting as well. Doesn’t sound like compromise and bi-partisanship on the people’s behalf, to me. And there is no way in Hell Obama or Reid are going to roll back the health care bill. Republicans KNOW it will happen. To pass such a bill in the House is nothing more than the first volley in a renewed war between the Democrats and Republicans, and Obama and Democrats control the Senate agenda, and Republicans control the House agenda.

Nope, Reid will not be powerless. He has nothing more to lose. If anything, he will be even more powerful and forceful as majority leader. If McConnell didn’t like working with Reid these last 22 months, he is going to HATE working with Reid these next two years.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2010 12:32 PM
Comment #312244

David, I don’t know where you got your 30% of Americans supporting the TP, but Fox News did an exit poll with over 13,000 voters across the nation and over 50% of voters identify with TP conservative views.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4399971/exit-poll-tea-party-influence

Concerning Reid; he may have some trouble because some democrat senate candidates are now considered DINO’s. Manchen is a good example. He has distanced himself from Obama’s HC, and Cap and Trade. In fact he called for a repeal of the Obamacare. What does Reid do with him?

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 3, 2010 02:54 PM
Comment #312245

David, I don’t believe the republicans have a TP agenda, but I do believe the vote results were against the Obama agenda.

I do not know of one conservative in the media or one republican politician who has said the results of the election was a vote for republicans. But, even Boenher acknowledge it was a vote against Obama’s agenda and the republicans were given a second chance to get it right.

Posted by: TomT at November 3, 2010 03:00 PM
Comment #312252

Baretta9, you obviously have never taken probability and statistics. An exit poll isn’t even in the same ball park as more reliable and controlled polls. All kinds of sampling errors are involved in exit polls. Exit polls sample people’s reasons, not the population as a whole.

Also, exit polls are highly variable based on the pollster, the questions asked, the weather, etc. etc. all variables which are not controlled for.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2010 04:25 PM
Comment #312253

TomT, the vote results opposed the Obama progress. The agenda is a whole other ball of wax. The majority of Americans wanted the economy stimulated - wanted protection from the health insurance company practices - wanted their children covered up to the age of 26, wanted the Wall St. banks better regulated, wanted women to receive equal pay for equal work. The polling research bears this out. These were all part of the Obama agenda.

The voters rejected the pace of the recovery, the static high unemployment rate, and the perception of failure painted by the conservative propaganda machine, like, “government takeover of health care”, which was odd, since health care in this country is still provided, and was always going to be provided, by private sector health care practitioners under the Health Care Reform law, except for the VA and CDC roles which no one wants to get rid of.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2010 04:32 PM
Comment #312265

David,
Why I maybe wrong I do believe Americans are sick of hearing the same old excuses from the same people in the Media and Washington. For why I do realize the Older Folks are split on who should be in charge and how fast change should take place. The lack of vision or ideas on how to solve the issues America faces IMHO makes the election more about voting out the wosrt incumbents and being handcuffed by the incumbents who had even a worse candidate looking to take their job.

However, I do see a bright spot in the 2010 Elections given that no political leader from either party stepped forward. Now, can a real Third Party Presidential Candidate rise from the broken ramks of the Moderates in America. For why nothing can be done overnight, coming up with a Vision for Consumers and American Corporations to buy into IMHO is Childs’ Play. And what is nice comes from the fact you do not even have to build Flying Cars.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 3, 2010 05:26 PM
Comment #312281

It was not anti-incumbent. It was clearly anti-DEMOCRAT. Only three Republicans lost.

It may not be a mandate for Republicans, but it is clearly a defeat for Democrats and their leftist policies.

The people got a good change to see what they meant by change and it was not the change they wanted.

On the plus side, the people stopped the liberal lurch. If NOTHING happens in the next two years, it is better than the damage Democrats did last two years.

Obama and the liberals don’t get it. They think it is a messaging problem. Obama asks for new ideas, but only ideas that are already his.

I don’t expect much to happen in politics in the next two years. This is okay. It is better to do nothing than to do the wrong things. The economy will begin to recover by itself. Obama will be out in two years and we will be better off.

Posted by: C&J at November 3, 2010 07:29 PM
Comment #312282

Henry, if you read up on the many obstacles third parties have to hurdle just to remain a registered third party with some kind of following and financial support, let alone creating the ability to sweep one or the other of the Duopoly parties out, I think you would agree that there is no Third Party wearing a white hat off in the distance riding up to save the day.

Visit Ralph Nader’s site - he has a lot to say on this topic. The political system is rigged to remain a duopoly system. The fastest way to get cooperation and bi-partisan work out of Democrats and Republicans is to introduce a truly competitive third party. Dems and Reps will unite to shut them down faster than lightning hitting a wet bare rabbits butt.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2010 07:29 PM
Comment #312283

32% of TEA Partiers were elected. The vote on Reid has to be corrupt, but we may never know.

However, as Glen Beck is making us aware, we must try to keep an eye on both hands of government. Beck, and I, see the elections as a convenient shield for the Corpocracy to continue their work in getting us ready to compete in the globalized economy. I say that we can begin to compete when wages hit $3-5/hr. I’ve not heard Beck give a figure.

The dollar has lost 20% of its value over the past 20 years in getting us ready to compete in the globalized economy. In the same vein, we were given the great recession with a soft landing, only 25M or so out of work while continuing to destroy wealth. Today the FED began monetizing the debt by issuing bonds for sale to those who would buy them. In so doing interest rates will rise and the dollar will lose another 20% in value.

Perhaps the dollar has lost so much in value that world gov’ts won’t buy our debt. Or, our securities could lose their triple ‘A’ rating which would be instant depression as the dollar is about the only thing the US has to sell in world markets. We aren’t doing so well with cars, tv’s, solar panels, ad infinitum.

In 1940 the federal debt limit was $43B and now is pegged at $14.3T. Will this new congress raise the debt limit, or are they afraid we will lose the AAA rating and bring us down? Put another way, we get to lose 20% of our money or, all of it, whichever comes first. All will be done in secret, like the WTO, the NAU, and the healthcare bill, etc.

Best we watch both hands of the Corpocracy.

Otherwise - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 3, 2010 07:30 PM
Comment #312284

C&J, have you abandoned the English language and logic altogether? Not an anti-incumbent election? So, all those that lost last night were NOT incumbents?

You need figure out where you left your reason, because it certainly isn’t in this comment of yours. BY DEFINITION, this election was anti-incumbent. The absurdity of your spin is truly laughable, and I thank you for the chuckle. :-)

Yes, this anti-incumbent election hit Democrats vastly harder than Republicans, but, may I remind you, that there were so damn many Democrat incumbents compared to Republicans after the 2006 and 2008 sweeps.

If I take my shotgun and shoot at a flock of birds made up of 10 crows and 100 pigeons, I will hit one crow for every 9 pigeons. Get back to me when you find your reason and logic again.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2010 07:35 PM
Comment #312286

Roy said: “The vote on Reid has to be corrupt, but we may never know.”

That was a Glenn Beck like comment if I ever heard one. Reid won because Angle was incompetent in just about every way possible for the office. Americans and Nevadans are not fools. Given a candidate that runs away from questions about how they will govern, voters would have to idjuts to vote for that tabula raza candidate. Palin was like that with McCain, they lost. O’Donnel was like that, she lost. Joe Wilson was like that, and Murkowski who should never have even had a chance in hell as a defeated primary write in candidate, gave him a run for his money. The public wants and needs to know how candidates will respond to questions about how they will lead and what specifically they stand for.

Angle won the election for Reid - any credible Republican candidate would have routed Reid handily.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2010 07:41 PM
Comment #312287

David/Henry, I asked that very question to Michael Thompson (?) founder NAIP. They are registered in several states and I think are about 30k strong. He says that while there are some states that make it more difficult it hasn’t been an overburdening problem for him to register the NAIP. The voters don’t need to be concered with the difficulty factor. They should be concerned about where globalization is going, how fast, how far, who is pulling the strings, their kids future etc. The Corpocracy is trying to give us a soft landing but may indeed end up wrecking before we get there.

Otherwise - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 3, 2010 07:42 PM
Comment #312288

Roy wrote: “Beck, and I, see the elections as a convenient shield for the Corpocracy to continue their work in getting us ready to compete in the globalized economy.”

Even a dead clock is correct twice a day. So, Beck got one right for a change. Good for him.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2010 07:43 PM
Comment #312296

Roy, ask Thompson how easy it is to get ballot signatures in a State like Texas, California, or Florida. Again, Ralph Nader has had a lot to say on this topic. Such activities cost Perot 10’s of millions. Last I checked at the FEC, NAIP doesn’t have anything close to the money Perot had to launch a national 50 state campaign with the enormous sums it would take just to get public recognition in each of those states.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2010 08:05 PM
Comment #312297

From DRR:

Baretta9, you should be. Your Party got a second chance with the American people. Now, let’s see if they can avoid blowing it with the American people like they did in 2006 and 2008.

Agreed! I am hoping they look at it as a second chance and will be pulled in 18-months without a stronger showing. I will hope.

Posted by: Edge at November 3, 2010 08:10 PM
Comment #312298

C&J,
Conservatives might want to be careful considering if they allow Representative Boehner to become Speaker of the House they risk being shown as supporting the Status Quo of Washington.

Now can the No-Nothing Party prove they can solve Americas’ Issues of the 20th Century without Government?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 3, 2010 08:11 PM
Comment #312301

David/Roy,
Not one for political parties just because I do believe grass roots groups could over the next two years show Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders how (in detail) our government and society can work to solve the issues facing America.

For why the Main Stream Media and Pundits are busy supporting the Status Quo of Wall Street, showing the American Voter what they can do to prosper despite the party leadership on both sides willing to accept gridlock.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 3, 2010 08:21 PM
Comment #312309

Henry, I’m all for espirit de corp but there is such a thing as a bridge too far, a wall too high, etc. I am (unknown adjective)at Boehner (sic) for stating that the GOP is going to create jobs here, there and everywhere. Sounds very similar to what Obama was saying the last few months. Kain’t wait til 2012 so I can pull the lever for Nader one more time.

Otherwise - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 3, 2010 09:12 PM
Comment #312311

Roy, amazing, Nader’s lasting appeal across these many years, and his relevance, though appreciated by not too many.

Just wish the man had the least inkling of what is called charisma. But, alas, he was born with devoid of it, as far as I can see. One has to be fairly egghead intellectual to get anything out of listening to him to speak. Great mind, no public presence appeal, whatsoever.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2010 09:17 PM
Comment #312344

Well jeez, I sure thot the TEA Baggers would be in the news today with their new found influence in protesting the $600 billion giveaway to foreign entities as a way to devalue the dollar another 20% or so. But, alas, nothing! Silence speaks louder than words and all that.

“Our money, our tax dollars paid for a stimulus bill to create jobs – American jobs,” Hanna said. “There is no reason why we should be borrowing from our children to create jobs overseas when clearly the stimulus package was intended to create jobs at home.”

http://www.uticaod.com/business/x2077694102/Hanna-Why-are-U-S-stimulus-dollars-benefitting-foreign-countries

Ok, let’s muster up, get in line, get yer wallet out. It’s clear Calif expects us to bail them out. And, we’ll need to help NY with some billions too, and so on, and so on. Going to require some US innovation, a in bigger/faster printing machines, etc. Buy, hey, we are Amerians, we can do it!!

Otherwise - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 4, 2010 10:46 AM
Comment #312350

I am worreid about all the democrat workers who will loose there jobs. It just dont seem fair.

I am a single mother of 4 kids and I depend on government help. Do you think a republican congress will affect my checks?

I tried to get peopell to vote for democrats becasue i told them they care more about us. I just dont know what is goin to happen.

Posted by: Kathy at November 4, 2010 11:43 AM
Comment #312363

Kathy, might I suggest getting a job and not depending on taxpayers to support you. Perhaps you could ask the father of your kids to support them.

I wouldn’t worry to much about the slugs in DC who will lose their jobs. Liberals have a way of continuing to draw a paycheck from the government, i.e. taxpayers.

Hope this advice helps…

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 4, 2010 02:30 PM
Comment #312365

The new Senate is absent 15% of its previous incumbents. The new House is absent 21% of its former incumbents.

In the Senate, 15 Incumbents either stepped down or were defeated in 2010 races. In the House, 91 Incumbents either stepped down, or were defeated in the 2010 election.

It was a good anti-incumbent year for Congress.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 4, 2010 02:50 PM
Comment #312369

David, if you keep saying this, someone may eventually believe you. You have a need to justify VOID.

But all polls show it was about Obama’s agenda, and all dems were blamed for it.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/03/news/economy/Its_not_the_economy_stupid_midterm_election.fortune/index.htm

Posted by: Bill at November 4, 2010 03:05 PM
Comment #312376

Kathy and Beretta9

Your positions come close to representing the Dem and GOP ideology. The GOP has worked for 30 years to move major mfctring jobs overseas while suggesting the disenfranchised ‘get a job’. The Dem’s feel entitled because the GOP has the support of big oil, big corporations and has worked to ensure the top 1% controls about 90% of the wealth.

So, here we sit, stock market up to 11k plus today in a ‘jobless recovery’. The entitled are being supported by the middle and upper income folks and, politically we are back to the ‘status quo’ where no major legislation can affect the situation to any measurable degree.

Notice how the health care bill will receive some fringe change and cap and trade will remain on the political agenda. Notice the change you won’t be getting through the Corpocracy.

Exactly why we need a 3rd party with a different political attitude. Operating from the middle with a centrist/populist agenda. Let’s abolish corporate personhood and money is free speech weakening the corporate influence on government and the people. Let’s implement campaign finance reform further removing the money influence from government. Where everyone donates to one account which is managed by the IRS and distributed by the FEC to viable candidates/parties, socialism we can tolerate.

Let’s get off this race to the bottom through globalization of the economy. Let’s don’t rush headlong to give away the farm. Let’s protect SOME jobs in the blue collar sector. We MUST understand and PLAN for the fact that not EVERY person is going to achieve a college education. The wealthy among us should appreciate that fact. What would be the outcome if everyone did have a college education? 20% of the last class of lawyers can’t find jobs and 90% of those who did find employment are taking jobs paying $40-50k/yr, hardly worth the eight years and half-million or more investment. Instead of importing 40k nurses from the PI to care for retiring boomers why not train US taxpaying citizens for that work? Excuse is, ‘we don’t have the facilities or instructors’ While the colleges keep using grant money to build ivory towers for their tenured professors to carry out their ‘research’ they can’t find a way to train a few more nurses. And, the US taxpayer will say, ‘oh what beautiful towers they are building’. We’ve got to stop being STUPID at some point over the next four-five years.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 4, 2010 04:12 PM
Comment #312377


The American people are still the big losers. They still have a huge struggle ahead and they will have to continue the struggle, within a defective election process, until they regain control of their government.

The biggest winner, the Bush tax cuts.

The biggest looser, net neutrality.

Roy, it didn’t take Beck long to invent a new conspiracy theory.

I think Beck is a phenom that can only occur in America. He makes millions upon millions in profits for himself, his corpocracy boss and many corpocracy corporations by railing against the corpocracy.

If he is truly anti corpocracy, he now has four major subjects for attack and he must divide his ammunition accordingly, between Obama, Reid, McConnell and Boehner. The latter two being the biggest supporters of corpocracy. Of course, he could go after Mr. Corpocracy himself, but he is Glen’s boss.

Becks biggest concern right now is how to tailor his future message in such a way as to maintain or increase his viewing audience and his future wealth potential.

By the way Roy, there was a third party candidate running for every office on my ballot. It was the Libertarian Party.

Kathy, those least likely to vote are those who need and receive government assistance. I don’t think we can count on the Republicans to do anything draconian that would penetrate those peoples vail of ignorance. You have to also realize that the Democratic Party and a majority of it’s politicians have, in the name of bipartisanship, been far less than middle and lower class worker friendly for two decades now.

Some of the newly elected Republicans are already backing off their spending cuts promises. Apparently there are still two obstacles standing between the American people and their joy and happiness. Obama and Reid.

Posted by: jlw at November 4, 2010 04:34 PM
Comment #312378

To David Remer:

Can the Watchblog site add a spot for daily or weekly polls?

It would be fun and could possibly draw more people. I use Twitter and FaceBook all the time to promote my blog via links.

I’d like to know how people on here feel about this:

Do you consider the use of the term ‘Teabagger’ or ‘Teabagging’ offensive in speech and/or in writing?

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at November 4, 2010 04:48 PM
Comment #312384

Kevin, don’t know. I am not part of the management of WatchBlog. I left my position back in March. Just a writer contributor now. Send your request to the WB owner at editor@watchblog.com.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 4, 2010 05:07 PM
Comment #312385

Not at all Kevin. I consider it merely a description of those who ascribe to the TEA party philosophy.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 4, 2010 05:08 PM
Comment #312386

Bill, the ignorance in your comment is truly a profound self-admission. Have you even looked at the polls? Number one issue for voters, economy and jobs.

Thanks for the ignorant contribution however. My stats are verifiable in every media covering the election results. It was an anti-incumbent year, by DEFINITION, of so many incumbents having left or been removed from office. Apparently facts are too big to fit into the brain activity that fuels your comments. You are not alone, Bill. You are not alone.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 4, 2010 05:11 PM
Comment #312387

More, on point. Article in today’s Wash Post relates that Montgomery County, Md. is facing a nursing shortage and has enrolled 76 people in a program to help newly immigrated health professionals get the language skills and ‘credentials’ they need to work here. They found experienced nurses working as food servers and nannies, In one case, a surgeon from Cuba was stacking boxes at UPS.

Back in the Bush days when he was trying to recruit nurses from the PI I posted that 46k qualified US nursing applicants were turned down that year. I would expect the number per year hasn’t lessened. But, we have 70 people in Maryland specifically looking for immigrants to work in health care.

Reason is, the immigrants will ‘work for less’ and by keeping the US worker out of the work force in itself forces labor costs down. Just another ploy used in breaking the back of the middle class worker so that we can get on with globalization.

Kathy, I suspect it’s highly doubtful that you would make the cut for a student nursing position but you may want to try for the UPS box handling job. Still, the competition there will be awfully high as there are some millions of immigrants continuing to look for work as well. But, I’ve heard Boehner say he is going to create some jobs. Man, that must be some kind of ‘all time historical’ ludicrous statement by a politician.

jlw, little difference between the Libertarian and TEA Party movement, IMO. Reasoning: there are no rules to prevent their parties from being co-opted by the Corpocracy soon as they come to power. Waste of time and effort, IMO. This is 2010 and lest I can rant more tautalogous, people no longer believe/trust politicians/parties, etc. It ain’t our grandad’s politics any longer, IMO.

We owe much of the anti-incumbent vote in this last election to Beck who so metriculously pointed out the socialist/communist side of the democratic party as we now have come to know it.

Excellent idea on polling the readers, Kevin.

Otherwise - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 4, 2010 05:12 PM
Comment #312388

jlw, the bulk of the Bush tax cuts were going to remain intact regardless of the election results. Only the that portion of the cuts affecting those earning over 250,000 per year were ever in question. The Bush tax cuts were going to be a winner regardless as a stimulant to consumer activity underwriting jobs and GDP.

The Libertarians got a couple of my votes too, they were the opponents to a couple of incumbent seats held by Republicans. Damn glad to have those Libertarians as a choice. Otherwise, there wouldn’t have been one for a couple of those elected positions in my area.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 4, 2010 05:15 PM
Comment #312389

Roy, BMW is setting up operations in S. Carolina because American wages in S. Carolina are 1/2 those in Germany. Should Germany be prevented setting up their manufacturing in the U.S. due to cheaper wage costs? Or, should S. Carolina mandate a higher minimum wage? Globalization results in an equal opportunity exploitation of lower wages.

If this continues to its logical conclusion, I see a revival of unionism in the world in about 10 years. Whether one likes the concept or not, workers will collectively defend a perpetual erosion of their wages and benefits. It is, after all, the invisible hand at work - enlightened self interest.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 4, 2010 05:22 PM
Comment #312391

Beck is an idiot. By his logic we should get rid of the military, public education, public highways for toll roads, Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the White House, and all agencies of government, as they are all communist/socialist creations, costing everyone and benefiting only some, winners and losers in his parlance. Some of these ‘socialist/communist creations date back to the original Constitution and founding of this nation. Hell, some were even created in the Constitution itself. Those goddam founding fathers - all puppets of Lenin and Tolstoi, to be sure. Except that, the birth chronology is reversed - making this a true Beckian truism.

Beck is one helluva of a P.T. Barnum. He just keeps sucking those advertising dollars in through an ever larger audience of suckers.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 4, 2010 05:29 PM
Comment #312404

David, I truly don’t understand BMW or similar companies wanting to set up in the US. It seems plausible that BMW could locate in China or the Asian rim from which to export cars to the US and make oddles more money compared to US mfctring. But, what do I know? Seems with the P. Canal being four laned which will allow easy access to the South and East coasts and, with the China/Mex port being constructed in Mexico along with the NAFTA highway coming up through Texas, Kansas, Canada, etc that would give access to the middle of the country and greater access to the West coast. I admittedly don’t understand BMW’s thinking. Confusing to me as, you may recall, that a US mfctr of plywood can ship the lumber to China, have them cut, glue, dry and return ship to the US where the US mfctr applies the final finish veneer and sell the finished product for $20/sheet cheaper than if the US company did all the work. Perhaps it doesn’t work with cars.

Either way, the US worker at BMW will make half the comparable German wage and way less than the US automaker of ten years hence.

As to whether Germany should be permitted to locate here. Doesn’t matter what you or I think, the WTO and the Corpocracy mandates that Germany will locate here, lest you want to pay fines in the hundreds of millions range.

As to whether we should manipulate the minimum wage. Again, it doesn’t matter what you or I think. The Corpocracy and, I believe, the WTO will not allow any tinkering with the minimum wage.

Unions? Useless. All the unions together could not pull a wet string out of a sick hen’s ass relative to labor/mgmt issues.

http://www.thelaborers.net/documents/union_corruption.htm

Today unions are so corrupted and socialist leaning, looking to ‘globalize’ and buy politicians wherever possible.

No David, it’s going to take a lot of anti-incumbency work and a new 3rd party with a different political attitude.

Otherwise - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 4, 2010 07:00 PM
Comment #312409

Roy, the middle class of China can’t afford BMW’s profit margins. The American consumers can and do. Ergo, it is logical that BMW chooses the American marketplace to produce and sell BMW’s where both half cost labor and a large upper middle class and wealthy consumer class exist in the same country.

The marketplace decisions are very complex, and I don’t profess to understand the broad details for a wide range of companies. But, there is a fundamental difference between international corporations and domestic consumer based business. International corporations ultimately are capable of making decisions based on synergies of both cost of production and expansion of market share, and they have a far larger array of choices today than 30 years ago, before the rise of third world economies into the industrial and technological base of GDP growth.

Domestic companies (serving domestic markets), are limited by their market share and bottom line cost of production in the geography of their consumer and production market locale. Obviously, there a great many domestic companies that would love nothing more than to break out into international markets. But, the costs of doing so, can be prohibitive and the nature of their product or service may be geographically limited, by spoilage or transportation costs and foreign domestic competition precluding such export transportation costs.

A lot of fruit and vegetables lose their nutritional potency in a matter of hours or days. That factor plus packaging and shipping costs to foreign markets won’t allow them to offer a competitive price in foreign markets where local growers can produce the same product absent the shipping costs and decreased nutritional potency (freshness).

The WTO organization serves a vital function: It prevents wars. If corporations from country A were allowed to penetrate country B’s marektplace with economy of scale advantages creating wholesale unemployment or destabilization country B’s economy, a war would very possibly ensue, diverting GDP resources to the war machinery and build up of armies, which, in the long run, are a losing proposition for both countries. The U.S. is a major player in the WTO. Their calculation, under the Bush II administration for example was, what we lose in the export of jobs we gain in lower consumer prices for reciprocal imports. That makes sense for the corporations and politicians involved in such a trade agreement. It may not make sense to the workers of America in the long run if unemployment becomes structurally high as a result.

But, you have to remember the time line. Corporations and politicians are focused primarily on short term election and profit gains. The long term consequences of such agreements reside beyond the politician’s tenure and corporations shareholder’s demand for profits NOW. That, is the fundamental problem. And that problem is ALWAYS exacerbated with the increased intimacy between politicians and corporate leaders, lobbyists, and campaign donors. Which is what makes the current conservative Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizen’s United v. FEC absolutely devastating to long term economic interests of America.

The liberals of the court opposed that ruling knowing the long term consequences would enhance the incestuous relationship between the GOP and corporate world creating negative long term economic consequences. The GOP is rightly viewed by the general public in the polls as the big business party. The public is beginning to catch on. It remains to be seen if the general public will ever be able to stop it, in time to save our economic future.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 4, 2010 07:33 PM
Comment #312414

David wrote: “Roy, the middle class of China can’t afford BMW’s profit margins.”

A subjective issue at best. The Chinese buy little of what is mfctrd in China. And, when comparing $15/hr wages to $.50/hr wages it would seem more profitable to make em in China, IMO.

Makes no sense economically. Politically, by putting a $15/hr plant in the US it helps us to realize ‘our worth’ as a wage earner. Helps us to accept the b reaking down of the US middle class worker, etc.

David wrote: “The WTO organization serves a vital function: It prevents wars.”

Think back since WTO founding as to the number of wars and lesser violent actions taken by govt’s.

http://articles.cnn.com/keyword/territorial-waters

Sounds like, as the Asian rim gets globalized, they are quick to take up arms against each other.

Liberals were only one of many groups, including myself as a centrist/populist, to rail against Citizens United but the activist court and the Corpocracy rolled over us one more time. The Corpocracy, the invisible hand, gave us the Citizens United ruling, not libs or conservs, or populists.

David wrote: “If corporations from country A were allowed to penetrate country B’s marektplace with economy of scale advantages creating wholesale unemployment or destabilization country B’s economy, a war would very possibly ensue, - -”

Couldn’t agree more David, exactly what has transpired with the Asian rim - US trade relations. Their ‘economy of scale’ is quickly turning us into a 3rd world country. And, you wrote: “It may not make sense to the workers of America in the long run if unemployment becomes structurally high as a result.”

Yes, but when will they wake up? Globalization has failed, our government has failed, Treasury throwing a $600B ‘hail Mary’ and yet folks get up and go to work as if it were just another day in the Kingdom.

You wrote: “It remains to be seen if the general public will ever be able to stop it, in time to save our economic future.” I believe we can save the Republic but not the well being statue we have enjoyed since founding. But, it will take a 3rd party with a different political attitude, IMO. Pretty sure the Chinese aren’t going to like us peddling 2% T bills and devaluing our currency 20% MORE while asking them to stop manipulating their currency to hang with our devalued dollar.

Otherwise - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 4, 2010 08:51 PM
Comment #312429

Roy said in response to Chinese not able to afford BMW’s, “A subjective issue at best.”

Bullshit. Measurable in hard numbers. Average pay in China for a construction worker is $134 dollars per MONTH in constant 2005 U.S. Dollars. The average pay in the U.S. for a construction worker is just shy $2,000 per month. In which country’s market place would BMW find its best sales market.

The cost of purchase of a BMW in China is twice the cost in Canada, for example. If a BMW 1 series cost 46,000 Canadian dollars in Canada, it would cost 92,000 Canadian dollars in china. Reason: Chinese protective tariffs for Chinese car manufacturers.

Obviously, the cost of a BMW in China is entirely out of reach of the Middle Class in China at $134 dollars per month income.

Not subjective at all, Roy. What the hell do you think we have computers for if not to make such information readily available.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 5, 2010 02:00 AM
Comment #312430

Roy said: “Their ‘economy of scale’ is quickly turning us into a 3rd world country.”

Yes, indeed. But, it was voluntary on the American’s part. Completely and totally voluntary. No force. NO WTO edicts. The American people elected their representatives to work for the corporations and the corporation’s puppets in government voluntarily engaged in such trade deals with China, on the argument that American consumers would benefit at Wal-Mart through lower consumer prices to compensate their 30 year long decline in real wages.

All voluntary, Roy. WTO doesn’t even figure into it. We as middle class consumers do benefit from the lower consumer prices. Millions of American workers do not. That is the voluntary trade-off we Americans elected. To change it, American voters have to change their priorities in electing in their representatives. On that, I am sure we agree entirely.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 5, 2010 02:08 AM
Comment #312442

David, repeating - Chinese people buy little of what gets mfctrd in China. BMW could mfctr cars in China, taking advantage of low labor cost and ship them to the states where there is a market for BMW’s. By doing so they would make more profit than by mfctring cars in the US and paying higher labor cost, compared to China labor cost.

The American people had no say in globalization. It came about, just like the NAU and the NAFTA highway would have, had people not put the clamps on it.

Those pols that pushed so-called free trade/globalization implemented a flawed policy resulting in a failed government and should be held accountable for their actions. 3rd party and all that - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 5, 2010 09:17 AM
Comment #312444

I am watching the Weather Channel and they are showing a Hurricane headed straight for Haiti. There have been at least 1 million people living in tent cities since last January. What will happen to these people and how many will die.

If the money used to pay for President Obama’s trip around the world had been used to build these poor people homes, they would not be facing death. I believe these borders on criminality by the American government.

Posted by: Compassion at November 5, 2010 09:42 AM
Comment #312447

Compassion,
although i understand your worry about the folks in Haiti, when did Haiti become the 51st state?

Posted by: JOHN IN NAPA at November 5, 2010 10:28 AM
Comment #312462

Roy said: “BMW could mfctr cars in China, taking advantage of low labor cost and ship them to the states where there is a market for BMW’s.”

NO, Roy, BMW can’t, and won’t. First, there is the issue of Chinese industry protective measures which won’t invite foreign car maker competition into their domestic economy. Second, BMW would never consider giving their reputation for quality over to the Chinese, and risk losing their marketing advantage around the world built on quality.

Chinese production quality is notoriously bad from export foods to machine part manufacture. Mass production competes with quality for a company’s profit margins. The Chinese are a mass production economy and their psychology is hinged to mass production. BMW has built its reputation on quality, not quantity.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 5, 2010 01:55 PM
Comment #312468


One of the greatest changes in America over the last thirty years is the number of investors and the amounts of money that has poured into the market. That has created a conflict of interest among American workers.

Roy, David is exactly right when he says we did it to ourselves. First off, barely more than half of us bother to vote and in some elections, the turnout can be significantly lower. Then there is the partisans who, more often than not, vote for the rhetoric rather than the results of their favorite party and it’ politicians.

Posted by: jlw at November 5, 2010 02:50 PM
Comment #312469

John in napa, they are human beings and they are our neighbors. That should be enough. Just because Haiti doesn’t offer oil or military advantage like other nations we have helped, it doesn’t mean we just ignore their plight.

Posted by: Compassion at November 5, 2010 02:54 PM
Comment #312485

Roy, I think Mr. Remer has the best argument by writing…”Chinese production quality is notoriously bad from export foods to machine part manufacture. Mass production competes with quality for a company’s profit margins. The Chinese are a mass production economy and their psychology is hinged to mass production. BMW has built its reputation on quality, not quantity.”


Posted by: Royal Flush at November 5, 2010 04:04 PM
Comment #312490

Compassion, if America does not dedicate more of its own resources to shoring up its own economic future, we will become as devastated as the nation of Haiti. Family first, Community second. It is the natural order of things. Our foreign aid spending is entirely at odds with our current economic decline and deficits and debt growth.

We don’t have the resources to be universally compassionate. Tis time we focused on our compassion on our own and rescue ourselves, so that we may afford to be able to extend dollar compassion to other nations down the road. Compassion without responsibility can be as bad as having no compassion at all.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 5, 2010 05:01 PM
Comment #312491

David Remer responding to ‘Roy’

Roy said: “BMW could mfctr cars in China, taking advantage of low labor cost and ship them to the states where there is a market for BMW’s.”

“NO, Roy, BMW can’t, and won’t. First, there is the issue of Chinese industry protective measures which won’t invite foreign car maker competition into their domestic economy. Second, BMW would never consider giving their reputation for quality over to the Chinese, and risk losing their marketing advantage around the world built on quality.

Chinese production quality is notoriously bad from export foods to machine part manufacture. Mass production competes with quality for a company’s profit margins. The Chinese are a mass production economy and their psychology is hinged to mass production. BMW has built its reputation on quality, not quantity.

Indeed, BMW is in China. In fact, If you are a vehicle manufacturer in the world, and you are NOT in China, YOU ARE NOT A VEHICLE MANUFACTURER!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703811604574531361034879846.html

I consider myself a subject matter expert on the global automotive industry. Besides having worked there for 22 years (including earning a BA and MS while there), one of GM’s most successful executives, Philip Murtaugh, helped me get my job at GM in 1985. Murtaugh went on to lead GM in China as the Chairman and CEO of GM China Group from 2000 to 2005. More importantly, and most people do not know this, GM China was the cash cow for GM during this period. The lost Billions in the North American market during this time frame.

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/09/07/061244.html

Murtaugh, after leaving GM abruptly in 2006, became became Exec. Vice-President of Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC). This umbrella group in China is part of the ‘Big 3’ in China. They have joint ventures with:

Volkswagen
GM
New-Holland Ag Machinary
Chery Motors (20% stake)
Ssang Yong Motors (49% stake)
Shanghai- Sunwin Bus Group
Shanghai-Hizhong Automotive Manf.
Shanghai-Xingfu Motorcycle
Shanghai-Pengpu Machinary

He is now CEO of Asia Operations for Chysler.

My point is: China is where the money is and every major manf. in the world is there (and I’m not only talking about autos). Intel, Microsoft, IBM, Coke, Nike, Apple, GE, and countless others manufacture ‘good’ quality goods. Otherwise, their business model would fail.

China controls these ‘joint-ventures,’ however, GM, BMW and all others have operating control over the manf. ‘sourcing, process, and quality.’

The fact is, auto manufacturers and others cannot afford to ‘NOT’ go into china. That’s the trade-off - share your technology and we’ll let you into our market, says the Chinese.

I was fortunate enough to have been a GM spokesperson at the Detroit International Auto Show for many years, and can tell you that the Chinese are coming on strong (albeit, they are the KINGS of ‘knock-offs.’) Take a look at some of these Chinese automakers in the below link and how their corporate symbols look VERY similar to ‘other’ manufacturers around the world - my favorite is the ‘BMW’ knock-off:’ BYD Auto and Chang ‘am.

http://www.chinacarforums.com/chinese_car_manufacturers.html

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at November 5, 2010 05:09 PM
Comment #312501


Thanks for that info Kevin,

I was about to head for Google and ferret out Chinese automakers. Certainly, GM/Chery are building decent vehicles. And, the Chinese are working hard to develop computers. I think they have an interest in developing a flying wing also.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7187228-chinas-tianhe1a-is-worlds-fastest-supercomputer

I have an email of a flying wing developed in the 40’s by the Nazi’s. About 8 photos, Kevin you would like this. If anyone is interested send me an email to ellis999@peoplepc.com and I’ll forward to you.

Well, it’s clear the globalized economy as we know it is has not worked and is a failed policy. I am fully convinced the effort on our end is to break the back of the middle class worker, get us down to $4-5/hr so that we might be able to compete. What is to be gained by dumping $600B on the world markets other than increasing our debt, devaluing the dollar by 20% and perhaps sending prices and interest rates up? If, as a result, mortgage interest rates go from 4.2% to 3.9% do you think that will ‘stimulate’ the housing market?

Let me have anuther shot at it. Labor intensive mfctring jobs are not coming back to this country. Not sure we would want the ‘smokestack’ industry back anyway. Mfctring jobs are more technical and require more education. But, so what? You can educate yourself but, unless you want to work overseas you aren’t likely to gain employment in the mfctring industry. And, as I pointed out in an earlier post relating to unemployed lawyers, it doesn’t take too many degreed folks to flood the market.

Peter, the Univ. of Md. Prof of Economics, said that healthcare and the service industry are creating about 60k jobs a month, nothing near the numbers required for recovery. He relates that US trade policy, ie globalized economy, has failed and that the US needs to get some stuff right with China. China is using protectionism, currency manipulation and essentially, every trick in the book, like Kevin mentioned, because they can. Nobody, the WTO, EU, the US, is telling them to change their stripes. China and those companies who located to China have enjoyed a 20 year win-win while most of the globalized economies of the world took a nosedive.

David say’s the American people signed on for it. I say the people had no say in the matter, they just sat back and watched it happen. The Corpocracy rolled over the people and it’s no different today. If the people could vote on immigration they would vote to deport illegals from the country. But, what we get is exactly the opposite, the Corpocracy doing business as usual, still trying to break the back of the middle class worker by flooding the job market with super cheap labor. Thirty Brazilian illegals were arrested at a NJ airport today while taking flying lessons from an illegal. The only thing illegal about illegals is the Arizona immigration law. Nobody, or few wanted a health care bill but we sure got one. And, please don’t think the TEA baggers are going revolutionize the Corpocracy. IMO, it will be the other way around in time.

It’s just more tautology. Politicians caused the Republic to fail and must be held accountable. Only way to do that and restore the Republic is to support a new 3rd party with a different political attitude, etc.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 5, 2010 07:05 PM
Comment #312504

Compassion, if America does not dedicate more of its own resources to shoring up its own economic future, we will become as devastated as the nation of Haiti. Family first, Community second. It is the natural order of things. Our foreign aid spending is entirely at odds with our current economic decline and deficits and debt growth.


was going to respond to “Compassion” however Mr. Remer said exactly what was on my mind prior to me doing so. Thank you

Posted by: JOHN IN NAPA at November 5, 2010 07:22 PM
Comment #312509

JOHN, Compassion…et all,
We have been the first to respond to global calamities for nearly as long as I can remember. It has been with a great sense of pride that I always acknowledged and appreciated those efforts.
We are suffering here right now and have a large percentage of our own population finding themselves in dire straits. There just comes a time when it has to stop, or at least slow down significantly.
I’d be willing to bet, though it won’t match what has been done in the past and in similar instances, that “we” will be part of the helping hand extended in that direction.

Posted by: jane doe at November 5, 2010 08:43 PM
Comment #312514

So much for all that liberal compassion on the down trodden.

Do you guys feel the same way about illegals receiving SS benefits, free healthcare, food stamps, and welfare?

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 5, 2010 09:16 PM
Comment #312519

Don’t believe I was addressing you B…and if they’re in this country, contributing to the work force, then yes.
I figure they’ve been duped with wild promises and forged documents somewhere along the line.
They’re doing a lot of stuff you probably wouldn’t think of soiling yourself with.
How much have you donated????

Posted by: jane doe at November 5, 2010 09:42 PM
Comment #312543

JOHN, Compassion…et all,
We have been the first to respond to global calamities for nearly as long as I can remember. It has been with a great sense of pride that I always acknowledged and appreciated those efforts.
We are suffering here right now and have a large percentage of our own population finding themselves in dire straits. There just comes a time when it has to stop, or at least slow down significantly.
I’d be willing to bet, though it won’t match what has been done in the past and in similar instances, that “we” will be part of the helping hand extended in that direction.

Posted by: jane doe at November 5, 2010 08:43 PM


Then jane doe said, “Don’t believe I was addressing you B…”

et al: meaning “and others”

jane, unless you were using the term “et al” just because everyone else does and without knowing the meaning was trying to impress us; you addressed “John, Compassion, and all others”.

Now you could have said, “John, Compassion, et al, except Beretta9”, and you would have left me out. But you didn’t, so, you addressed me also.

By the way, there is only 1 “L” in et al. It was probably just a typo.

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 6, 2010 12:02 AM
Comment #312548

Just a follow-up on the BMW / China / thing.

Roy, you are correct with the wage difference between a German BMW (autoworker in general - Mercedes/Volkswagen) autoworker and a US autoworker.

However, this new wage amount in the US auto manufacturing sector just came about after the near bankruptcy of the
Big-3. Even before the end of the pattern-bargained 4-year UAW contract was up in 2008, Union and Management ‘opened up’ the contract for emergency purposes (recall Big-3 CEOs testifying before Congress and getting slammed!) This is a RARE thing, but had to be done because of the bailouts, the economy and global competition.

At any rate, any ‘New-Hire’ for the UAW will start out with what is called a ‘Tier-2” wage of $14 - $15 per/hour, depending on assembly work or parts plant work. Their wages will rise after 3 years, but slowly. The issue is, the $15 per/hr. employee, in many cases, will work side-by-side, doing the same work, but the seniority ‘Tier-1’ worker will make approx. $28 per/hr. (Btw, when newspapers and other reports say the average UAW auotoworker makes $71 per/hr or even $56 per/hr, that includes all benefits).

The UAW was smart enough, however, to only let a certain ‘percentage’ of the Tier-2 wage earners at a particular plant in the contract language. But over time, this Tier-2 wage will become the norm.

Btw, German autoworkers were always the best paid in the world. Japan pays an equivalent, even a little more, than the Big-3 Tier-1 earners make in the US.

As for the Spartansburg, SC BMW plant, the $14 per/hr starting wage is pretty good compared to surrounding wages for similar-type work. IMHO, and after 14 years on the assembly line, and given global competition, $15 - $20 per/hr is about right for this unskilled labor.
If any of the foreign ‘transplant’ auto plants (Nissan, Honda, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, Volkswagen, Kia or Hyundai) were hiring in the US, the line for applications would be many miles! It is good, clean work. There are many professionals working there and the training and benefits are very good. I would work at a ‘transplant’ in a heartbeat.

Finally, I believe the last 3 presidents, including Obama must force China to fairly value the Yuan. They purposely keep the value down for two reasons:

1. to not give the Chinese workers too much income, so they don’t rise up against the State.

2. and obviously, to keep the trade deficit in their favor.

China is very protectionist; however, it’s a fine line to force China into certain agreements. Japan was extremely protectionist. It took decades to be able to get GM vehicles sold there. And the import tax was prohibitive for the US makers.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at November 6, 2010 02:37 AM
Comment #312552

Beretta9


“So much for all that liberal compassion on the down trodden”


hey, and speaking of liberal compassion. have you heard that san fran is banning the happy meal. know it’s off topic, but i just couldn’t resist throwing it in there. LMAO !

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/02/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103

glad i got the hell out of cali.

Posted by: dbs at November 6, 2010 08:28 AM
Comment #312554

You couldn’t pay me to live in that state. They are so irresponsible in CA and yet are the first ones to the trough for taxpayer’s bailout money. I can remember when CA’s gdp was larger than many countries. Not anymore. I had heard about the happy meal. No wonder the TP became so popular so fast. A democrat strategist on TV yesterday said the TP is a place where the common flyover country people can vent their frustrations at government and feel they have been heard. I guess there are some dems who understand what is going on.

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 6, 2010 09:21 AM
Comment #312555

Beretta9

lived in that state for 47 years, and hate that it’s been ruined by liberalism. to top it off they just re elected governor moonbeam. they just don’t learn it would appear. on the bright side my newly adopted state of ohio seems to have taken a step in the right direction. if this doesn’t pan out my next stop may be texas. we’ll see. hopefully the TP will help point the republican party in the right direction and help restore some fiscal sanity. speaking of fiscal sanity. who wants to print $800 bil in cash? OMG!!! time to by some gold.

Posted by: dbs at November 6, 2010 09:57 AM
Comment #312557

dbs, welcome to my state. Lived here 64 years, except for some traveling time in the military. Yes, we TP buckeyes are very excited about the election outcome. Booted Strickland, replaced RINO Voinovich with a conservative, and most of all, sent Dreihause packing from 1st district.

We now have an AG who will file a lawsuit against obamacare, life is good. I’m sorry I doubted conservative Americans 2 years ago when the liberal talking heads said “conservatism was dead”.

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 6, 2010 10:16 AM
Comment #312558

There is a little dispute in the blue column between jane doe, Marysdude, and Beretta9 concerning Olbermann’s dismissal. I found this article and found it ironic:

“Isn’t That Special
November 2, 2010 4:00 P.M.
By Jonah Goldberg
A reader forwarded me this from the transcript of Keith Olbermann’s “special comment” after the passage of Obamacare (full video and transcript here):

“Failed Mr. Boehner. You lost. You blew it… . I would think the “will and desires of your fellow countrymen” should be pretty damn clear by now: Your countrymen think your policies are of the past, and your tactics are of the gutter… . And so I offer this olive branch to the defeated Republicans and Tea Partiers… . You are rapidly moving from “The Party of No,” past “The Party Of No Conscience,” towards “The Party of No Relevancy.” You are behind the wheel of a political Toyota. And before the mid-terms, you will have been reduced to only being this generation’s home for the nuts.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/251986/isnt-special-jonah-goldberg

This is ironic, because Olbermann is irrelevant and Boehner is Speaker of the House, to be.

Posted by: TomT at November 6, 2010 10:37 AM
Comment #312567

Hmmmm….Olbermann got the boot for making federal campaign donations (the maximum allowed) to Democrat politicians he interviewed on his show?

What’s wrong with that?
After all, Congress and the federal government are FOR-SALE, since 99.7% of the 200 million eligible voters are vastly out-spent by a very tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more.

As for the impact of the election, how much is likely to really change, when:

  • the majority of voters are merely letting the IN-Party and OUT-Party (i.e. dumb and dumber) take turns destroying the nation with these abuses?
  • the $13.8 Trillion national federal debt and $57 Trillion nation-wide debt is most likely untenable?
  • the federal reserve and federal government don’t have any more tricks, and the federal reserve’s announcement yesterday to create $600 Billion more out of thin air is so typical of dozens of other nations (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Examples_of_hyperinflation) that have already tried to money-print, borrow, and spend their way to prosperity (it didn’t work; hyperinflation debauched the currency, and made things worse)?
  • Congress and government bloat and waste is rampant (www.akdart.com/gov1.html) and growing ever worse beyond nightmare proporations?
  • there are no easy fixes for dozens of serious problems now coinciding simultaneously?
  • government is FOR-SALE, and will continue to be FOR-SALE, corrupt, and dysfunctional, as long as the majority of voters repeatedly reward incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates; and Congress violates Article V of the Constitution, which would very likely result in term-limits and other common-sense amendments?

Realistically, real change is unlikely as long as the federal government and Congress are FOR-SALE, violating the constitution in many ways (One-Simple-Idea.com/Abuses.htm#Lawlessness), and repeatedly rewarded for it by the majority of voters with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 6, 2010 12:37 PM
Comment #312591

Roy said: “David say’s the American people signed on for it. I say the people had no say in the matter”

Poppycock. The people had their say every two years at the election polls. Don’t give me that crap the people had no say in it. In China the people have no say in their economics. In America the people have a say. And they had a lot to say in the 2006, 2008, and this week’s elections. The politicians and Parties however, no longer have to listen to them, because the people have only two choices on the ballot, elect incumbents or not. Most Americans don’t yet understand the wisdom of not electing them, routinely, to remind them who their boss is.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2010 03:33 PM
Comment #312592

Baretta9, show me one case of an Illegal alien receiving Social Security benefits. You CAN’T. But, there are a million or so illegal aliens who are paying into Social Security through payroll deductions. The ignorance and gullibility in your comment mirrors that of the commentators on Fox, pretending to offer news.

If you want honest information from a reliable source, get on Daryl Issa’s web site. Issa is one of the few rational, intelligent, well informed, and mostly honest Republicans holding office today. I found his candor and intelligence refreshing on the Bill Maher show this week. If the GOP would select more like him to run for office, the GOP just might be able to hold on to power for more than a few years every 20 or so.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2010 03:40 PM
Comment #312593

D.a.n, it is said, Olbermann violated the conditions of his contract. And it appears to be a valid claim. In America, we have rights, but, we also have the freedom to sign those rights away, which Olbermann appears to have done in his contract. Freedom is not without consequences and responsibilities. Olbermann was a huge money maker for MSNBC, and MSNBC appears to have put contract responsibility ahead of money in their consideration to act rapidly and with clarity upon discovering that breach of contract. Would our government act similarly, we might all be much better off.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2010 03:45 PM
Comment #312595

And Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House. Doesn’t say much for Boehner having achieved the position, does it? The question will be, can Boehner keep the position longer than Pelosi did? There’s a test of fundamental importance to America and the American people.

Winning an election ain’t the hard part.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2010 03:52 PM
Comment #312611

Mr. Remer wrote; “
If you want honest information from a reliable source, get on Daryl Issa’s web site. Issa is one of the few rational, intelligent, well informed, and mostly honest Republicans holding office today.”

Thanks for the link Mr. Remer. Do you agree with the following from his website; http://issa.house.gov/

Issa Election Night Statement
SAN DIEGO, CA – Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, released the following statement on the results of tonight’s elections:

“Tonight was a referendum on the Obama agenda and the American people rejected it. The American people have sent a clear and direct message to Washington that they want less spending, limited government and more accountability. The mandate is clear: advance an agenda that will create real jobs - not government jobs - but real jobs to get our economy moving again. Reduce the footprint of government in our lives, get government to live within its means and make government more transparent and accountable.”

Issa: Vote on Tax Breaks or Resign
WASHINGTON D.C. - Following the statement today by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) that the Congress is not likely to vote on extending tax cuts that would benefit all Americans until after the November 2nd midterm elections, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said today that if Democrats are willing to leave Washington without acting on tax relief for the American people, they might as well resign:

“This is embarrassing. For the second time in three months, Congressional Democrats want to leave Washington so they can focus on trying to keep their jobs, while abdicating their responsibilities as members of Congress. How is it that we have time to vote on post offices and listen to testimony from a comedian, but can’t seem to manage the time to have a straight up-or-down vote on a tax cut that will benefit all Americans?

“Every Democrat in Congress should be appealing to Speaker Pelosi to allow this vote before adjourning. There isn’t a single American who would be able to keep their job if they didn’t it, Congress should be no different. Does anyone really believe that politicians will be more willing to act in the best interests of the American people after they’ve been voted out of office, rather than before? If Congressional Democrats refuse to put the interests of the American people ahead of politics, they should just resign, because this whole thing is disgraceful.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 6, 2010 07:05 PM
Comment #312615

Some were saying the President’s trip would cost on the order of $2B. Heck, he broke through that ceiling his first couple of days in India, the first country to visit. He has kicked in $10B to get his India trade pact off the ground. I suspect the pact is a lot like the health care bill, will get wrote as we go along and figure out what to do, etc. It’s hard to know just how and how much money the gov’t spends on anything. So many agencies involved and the effort required for some watchdog to dig through it all. Here are some AID figures that reflect some of that. Notice there are a number of PAC’s involved.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/cost_of_israel.html

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_com_to_for_aid-economy-commitment-to-foreign-aid

Had Olbermann donated to his Boss’s PAC I suppose he would have been legal. But, then his boss would have got the credit for giving Keith’s money. But, fair is what you can get away with in politics.

In politics it’s more often what doesn’t get said than what does. I’ve yet to hear a politician give a speech where he praises open borders immigration policy as a way to refill social security coffers. Yet, that is THE plan as I can tell. But, the politicians aren’t talking and nobody is asking the question, status quo etc. It has been real comical to watch the Repub’s try to answer how they will create jobs and turn the economy around. It’s like they had never given it a thought until they ended up being elected.

A new 3rd party with a different political attitude, only way to go, IMO. Obama is over in India creating jobs with $10B of your money and Bernanke is spending $600B, primarily overseas, to get the banks lending again. I think we heard that with the Bush Stimulus I. I think I am in need of one of those $6 energy drinks and an aspirin.

Otherwise - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 6, 2010 07:41 PM
Comment #312616

Roy, make that a double with two aspirins.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 6, 2010 07:47 PM
Comment #312618

Roy wrote; “Some were saying the President’s trip would cost on the order of $2B. Heck, he broke through that ceiling his first couple of days in India, the first country to visit. He has kicked in $10B to get his India trade pact off the ground.”

Assuming what Roy wrote is true, it would seem to me that our playboy prez couldn’t spend money fast enough at home so he went abroad to spread the bucks. Yup, spread the wealth around the world. Great idea. GAWD…what a bonehead.

I now know why so many planes were needed, to carry the cash.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 6, 2010 07:52 PM
Comment #312621

Royal Flush, Issa said: “The American people have sent a clear and direct message to Washington that they want less spending, limited government and more accountability.”

I agree with that. But, then, he doesn’t define what limited government and more accountability means for those voters, does he. For that information, you have to go to the opinion polls. And the polls show the majority want government limited to the extent that it is capable of insuring their and the nation’s general welfare, but, not wasteful on anything it does. As for more accountability, here again, the polls show this most likely means transparency in the conduct of their affairs and being held responsible for failure - which is also what this week’s election was about.

As for the election being a referendum on the Obama agenda, that is dubious at best, since most Americans could not name what that agenda was, and of course, those who can, would define it differently from from Obama’s actual agenda. The majority of Americans in the polls in 2008 wanted health care reform. They weren’t specific of course, and what they got was a disappointing to both the right and left. Polls show the people wanted Wall St. reform, and Obama gave us Wall St. reform, though he left the effects of the Gramm Leach Bliley Act intact. The American people wanted the rapidly rising unemployment rate to stop and the economic recession to end. Obama delivered on both. In the end, however, voters obviously decided that wasn’t enough to keep their votes for Obama’s Democrats.

Issa said, and let’s see if you agree with this, that NO ONE wants to end Medicare/Medicaid, or Social Security, and that the people want and need such safety nets. He proposed means testing both SS and Medicare benefits. I agreed with him entirely. Issa said the Middle Class Bush tax cuts are absolutely necessary to the economy and the wealthiest 2% tax cuts aren’t as necessary and probably negotiable in light of the 700 billion cost in government revenues over the next 10 years. Struck me as eminently reasonable. Do you agree?

Issa said Tuesday’s election was not an endorsement of the GOP, but, an opportunity for the GOP to earn their endorsement. I agree, because that it precisely what the opinion polls show on that specific question. Do you agree with Issa?

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2010 09:12 PM
Comment #312622

Royal Flush and Roy, that 200 million per day figure came from an anonymous blogger in India who has absolutely NO WAY of know what Obama’s trip would cost. Not even Americans have access to that information for security reasons. If past Presidential trips are an indication however, the trip to India, no vacation mind you, will cost about 3.5 million dollars per day.

The Knuckle heads like Bachmann, Rush, and Limbaugh touting that anonymous Indian blogger as a true and credible source (laughable), also tried to spin the trip as something akin to a vacation. Nothing could be further from the truth. This trip was planned quite some time ago for state reasons, and delayed twice before for domestic needs. India sits next to Afghanistan and Pakistan and is incredibly important as our ally to maintaining stability in that region, and there are trade issues to be discussed with India.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2010 09:17 PM
Comment #312645

Issa said, and let’s see if you agree with this, that NO ONE wants to end Medicare/Medicaid, or Social Security, and that the people want and need such safety nets. He proposed means testing both SS and Medicare benefits. I agreed with him entirely. Issa said the Middle Class Bush tax cuts are absolutely necessary to the economy and the wealthiest 2% tax cuts aren’t as necessary and probably negotiable in light of the 700 billion cost in government revenues over the next 10 years. Struck me as eminently reasonable. Do you agree? (RF, yes I agree for the most part. Means testing would work but a way must be found to reimburse those who paid in who will receive no benefit. There is room to compromise on tax cuts for those earning over $500k.)

Issa said Tuesday’s election was not an endorsement of the GOP, but, an opportunity for the GOP to earn their endorsement. I agree, because that it precisely what the opinion polls show on that specific question. Do you agree with Issa? (RF, yes, I agree it was not an endorsement of the GOP, but rather a vote against big spending entitlement programs, ear marks, more stimulus money, more unnecessary regulation, vote buying pork, incomprehensible legislation, bailouts, carbon taxes, and much more. I beleive it was a vote against liberalism gone wild)


Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2010

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 7, 2010 12:36 PM
Comment #312653

Ah yes, tax cuts. As important as the economy itself or the job market. Gov’t making winners and losers, something for everybody gives reason for all to be ‘for’ the US tax code.

You can immediately write off $500k on new business investment this year and next. Maximum deduction for cars purchased by business this year is $11,060. Buy an SUV and up to $25k of the cost can be expensed with half the balance eligible for bonus depreciation and 20% remaining cost is recovered through normal depreciation. If for 100% business use the first five-year-write-off for a $50k SUV is $40k. For a large pickup you can deduct the full cost.

Thousands of pages of tax code and thousands of tax agents keeping it up to date, enforced, etc. Why not just absolve businesses of taxes? Taxes simply serve as one more reason for businesses to lobby gov’t, looking for a leg up on the guy who can’t afford to lobby as much, etc.

For the really big guys they lobby on an international level. Boeing makes up 1.8% of US exports. As with all corp’s they are looking for the competive edge in taxation, getting the taxpayer to pony up for R&D, etc. Boeing wants the Defense Dept to R&D biofuels and generate demand and start a market for biofuels by contracting to use it in Boeing’s planes. So, they will lobby for you, the taxpayer to pick up the tab there. Last year the WTO found that Boeing and Airbus had received illegal subsidies (taxpayer dollars)

I like to rant about Brazil suing the US (taxpayer) a couple of years ago because the USDA subsized cotton growers, illegal by a court higher than the US court, the WTO. The USDA subsizes the cotton grower using your tax dollars. Brazil sues and wins through the WTO who fines the US (taxpayer) for subsidizing cotton. Who is the fool in this picture??

Abolishing corporate personhood law would nix the lobbying industry and implementing a flat tax would nix gov’t making winners and losers through the tax code. Save some millions of billions in the process.

Neither will ever happen unless put in place by a 3rd party with a different political attitude, rules, accountability, etc.

Otherwise - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 7, 2010 04:17 PM
Comment #312655

Roy Ellis said: “Ah yes, tax cuts. As important as the economy itself or the job market. Gov’t making winners and losers, … “

That is a bullshit argument with no meaning whatsoever. The very definition of government is to collect taxes and spend money, and in spending that money, some will get business or financial assistance while others not in need of it or unable to provide the service or product being purchased will not.

It is a truism, which means it goes without saying. To say it, as a criticism, as if there were an alternative, is ignorant of the truism. Unless one is an anarchist and wants to do away with government altogether.

Every dollar spent protecting this country benefits some and not others financially. What alternative does ANY government have other than creating winners and losers by its very existence? Tell me, Roy, what?

And yet, I hear this ignorant argument time and again as if it means something relevant, which it does not, except for anarchists. Should we end our military defenses because spending on it creates winners and losers?

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 7, 2010 04:38 PM
Comment #312660

David, if I give you an inch you take a mile. Is it not true that the income tax didn’t come along until the early 1900’s? Yes, and before the IRS we depended on trade tariff’s to fund government. How can you make the leap that by suggesting a more rational tax policy equates to anarchy? Do you not believe that adopting a flat income tax would save millions of billions for the taxpayers?

No, not an anarchist but would like the gov’t to back out of about 80% of the things they wrongly stick their nose into. Like, another federal mandate for schools. The gov’t mandated a pilot program for the rental of college books because students were paying $600 - $900 /yr for college textbooks. Twelve schools were awarded up to $1M this fall to start rental programs, several of them targeting lower-income or first generation immigrant college freshmen-freshwomen. This done while publishers face no consequences if they fail to comply with a federal law requiring publishers to give professors the price of textbooks and to list revisions to new editions. In other words – two lobbying groups, Barnes and Noble types and book publishers, each buying opposed legislation. This begs the question; can some private entity not start up a book rental venture? Why must the federal gov’t spend taxpayer funds to initiate some low level commercial enterprise? I object.

The President is off to India as they have been stepping on our toes through protectionism, failing to comply with long made promises, etc. Now, it seems some economists are saying the US is in danger of losing a sizeable piece of its knowledge based industry to India in much the same way Detroit lost its lead to Japan in the auto industry. Cars moved to Japan, mfctring moved to China and now high-tech engineering is moving to India. So, while it’s not deemed necessary to save US jobs by stemming immigration or protecting the auto-industries blue collar jobs it is now, all of a sudden, important to put India straight on trying to play in high-tech. Reason: politically connected folks are feeling it. Up with the ugly head of TAXES!! Obama is urging Congress to close tax breaks that encourage the creation of jobs in foreign countries. ???? Obama wants to change “a tax code that says you should pay lower taxes if you create a job in Bangalore, India, than if you create one in Buffalo, New York!! Who knew? Me, and several millions of other hacked off US taxpayers. With great help from the Corpocracy foreign entities have built a business model where they not only offshore large numbers of jobs, but the fraction that remain in the US are filled by lower-paid foreign guest workers. I object.

3rd party with a different pol att. And all that.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 7, 2010 05:42 PM
Comment #312666

Mr. Remer wrote; “What alternative does ANY government have other than creating winners and losers by its very existence.”

I can think of a couple off the top of my head. Government on occcassion structures contracts for products or services it seeks to purchase in such a way that only one or two companies can meet the requirements to bid on the contract. The government has the alternative not to do this as it show favoritism.

The HC bill has a number of examples of government arbritarily choosing winners. They gave exemptions to the Cadillac tax to select groups while not to others in a purely arbritary manner. Some in congress went so far as to favor some states over others with special rules and regulations.

And of course, our tax code is full of arbitrary tax breaks or tax punishment.

Government does have “alternatives” but for many reasons chooses to favor some over others.

My wife is a retired Texas educator. She retired drawing her annuity payment and continued to work as a self-employed contractor to a school district. For five years she paid both the employee and employer portions of Social Security and amassed enough quarters, along with employment other than as a teacher, to qualify for Social Security.

When she retired Social Security applied a special formula to her benefit reducing her SS benefit to about one-sixth of what she was entitled to. Her SS pays just enough to cover her medicare premium with $20 left over.

Government arbitrarily created a loser for her, and thousands of other retired TX teachers because of their teacher status. The least they could have done was to refund a portion of the SS payments she made into a system that had no intention of paying her the full benefits she had earned.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 7, 2010 07:05 PM
Comment #312669

Hear, hear Royal Flush. Or is it here, here?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 7, 2010 07:12 PM
Comment #312694

Royal Flush said: “Government on occcassion structures contracts for products or services it seeks to purchase in such a way that only one or two companies can meet the requirements to bid on the contract. The government has the alternative not to do this as it show favoritism.”

Even if, as you suggest, the contracts were awarded based on differing qualification criteria, some bidders would win, and some would lose. You have not countered my argument one iota. Anytime government spends for services and products, it picks winners and losers. Anytime government makes a policy decision, it picks winners and losers. It is intrinsic in the definition of government. It collects taxes from all, and spends that money with only a small segment of the population. The government for example collects taxes to pay Congress persons, but, those Congress persons do not represent the views and wishes of ALL Americans. Winners and losers. It is intrinsic in the definition of government, regardless of what kind of government it is, Chinese, American, Brazilian, Russian, New Zealand — all the same, all pick winners and losers by making choices on how to spend tax dollars.

So, that yarn by Republicans about winners and losers is no argument at all, it is a truism, red herring, straw man political argument without meaning, except to the ignorant who believe it has meaning simply because Republicans bring it up.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2010 12:35 AM
Comment #312695

RF, extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% is a picking winners policy decision. Every decision made by government is a winner/loser pick. The decision to maintain a nuclear arsenal picks winners for contractors and losers for peace-niks, all of whom pay taxes to the same government.

Sorry, you argument continues to have no logical merit at all. If you want to argue that government is spending its money wisely, frugally, or maximizing the benefit for every dollar spent, fine, that is an entirely separate argument with an empirical basis for deliberation. But, the picking winners and losers argument is meaningless, since, every decision by government by definition picks winners and losers. That is part of the definition of government, political parties, and the tax and spend budgetary process.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2010 12:40 AM
Comment #312696

Roy said: “David, if I give you an inch you take a mile.”

Crap! You issued a truism as a complaint. The fact of the matter is the very definition of government is picking winners and losers. Your complaint is invalid, UNLESS, as I said, you want to make the anarchist’s argument that there shouldn’t be government. The instant you accept government you MUST accept that that government will pick winners and losers by its tax collecting and spending decisions.

A flat tax doesn’t solve the problem. Everyone pays a flat rate does not mean the government will spend a proportional share of each tax dollar on each tax payer. Ergo, picking winning winners and losers, some will perceive getting more their tax dollars and others will perceive getting less for their tax dollars. Winners and losers, no matter how you cut it.

Drop the conservative straw man argument, and accept the logical reality that the very definition of government includes picking winners and losers with each and every decision it makes. Whether it is Hitler robbing the Jews and spending the money on non-Jewish schools and health care, or the U.S. deciding on a particular stimulus policy or tariff, the consequence is that winners and losers to such decisions are inevitable an inescapable.

To be rational and logical, one has no choice but to dismiss the argument of winners and losers. It doesn’t matter if Republicans or Democrats or Independents are in control of government, they will, of necessity, make policy decisions which benefit some more than others. Winners and losers. A truism which has no logical basis as a political argument made by one or the other party. All parties will pick winners and losers. The very election of a party majority or party’s candidate for president is a winner/loser proposition, in which those elected will make more decisions with consequential winners and losers as recipients of those policies or expenditure of tax dollars.

I know you can grasp the validity and logic of this. The question is whether you choose to, or not. If you choose not to, well, what can I say? It is your choice.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2010 12:53 AM
Comment #312703

I absolutely grasp the validty of it, David. And, as usual, you are accepting, offering no alternative. Agree that winners and losers are made through expending tax dollars. But, it’s real clear that implementing a flat tax will diminish the problem. Also, reducing the size of govt’ by about 80% would have a similar effect, IMO.

I have ranted a lot about the EU running every fish over six inches long to ground in coastal Africa.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101107/ts_alt_afp/environmentfishtuna

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/business/03cotton.html

I plugged in ‘prices on goods rising’ and the first page showed that silver, gold, corn, clothes, gas charcoal, cocoa, homes, and oil are on the rise. Throw a little inflation in the mix and it should make for some interesting times ahead.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 8, 2010 09:45 AM
Comment #312705

David Remer wrote; “Anytime government spends for services and products, it picks winners and losers.”

Perhaps we are merely arguing nuance here. If government awards a contract on the basis of low bidder (all else being equal such as quality of the product or service) I don’t call that winning as there is no choice or adverse selection occurring. Rather, that is the most competitive bid. Government is expected to award contracts to the lowest bidder and if it doesn’t, then, and only then, is it picking a winner.

If government auctions off something (oil leases for example) the highest bidder would be called the winner.

I see a difference between letting a contract for bids and auctioning something. And, I see a difference between picking a winning bid based upon something besides bid amount and an automatic process of awarding the contract to the most competitive bid.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 8, 2010 11:22 AM
Comment #312712

Royal Flush said: “If government awards a contract on the basis of low bidder (all else being equal such as quality of the product or service) I don’t call that winning as there is no choice or adverse selection occurring. “

It is still awarding a contract to one bidder, and not others. Winners and losers, and the winning and losing bidders view it just that way as well. No getting around it. Every decision government makes has winners and losers associated with that decision. To have a military or not - winners and losers. To conduct Elections on Tuesday instead of Saturday - winners and losers. To raise the debt ceiling or not - winners and losers. To hire this public servant and not the other applicants - winners and losers.

The complaint that government selects winners and losers is as true for Republicans as it is for Democrats, and there is no getting around it. Haliburton, KBR, and Blackwater were winners in Republican’s decision to invade Iraq. Tax payers and all those who were injured and died in that war were losers. Those Americans who would have lost coverage due to pre-existing conditions or couldn’t get coverage for the same reason were winners of Democrat’s Health Care Reform, and the insurance companies were the losers.

The examples are infinite. It is not possible to make a logical rational argument against this obvious reality that government, by definition, is engaged in selecting winners and losers with its every decision, regardless of who is in government. Even the decision to have government at all, would select winners and losers.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2010 01:30 PM
Comment #312713

Roy said: “Agree that winners and losers are made through expending tax dollars. But, it’s real clear that implementing a flat tax will diminish the problem.”

NO! It would just change who the winners and losers are. The wealthiest would be the winners, and the Middle Class would be the losers. A flat tax would not be a progressive tax as we have now, and the wealthiest would no longer pay a higher rate of income tax than the bottom tier of the Middle Class. The Middle Class would bear a larger share of the tax burden. Winners and losers.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t benefits to be gained by a Flat Tax, like efficiency, lower government cost for tax policy implementation and enforcement, and simplicity and predictability for the tax payers. But, any tax system will engage in picking winners and losers. Even choosing to abolish taxes would have winners and losers. Rendering such an argument as to whether or not a change in tax law would pick winners and losers a moot argument. All tax policy picks winners and losers.

Now if you want to argue that there will be more American winners and less losers as a result of a flat tax, that can be debated, but, there is no escaping the fact that a flat tax will select winners and losers over the current tax policy.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2010 01:38 PM
Comment #312765

David and RF, BP paid no taxes for 2009, etc. The tax system is beyond corrupt through congress making winners and losers. A flat tax would address, not all but, most of the associated corruption.

And, we all know of congresspersons pushing to build planes that don’t fly well or tanks that don’t shoot straight to help some state enterprise. A 3rd party with a diff. att. where national membership can vote up/down on your state rep, if that rep is a member of that 3rd party, would allow such politicians to be held accountable for their actions.

Calif. is broke and can’t make their insurance payments, borrowing $40M a day from you and me, which we will never see again. Did anyone in congress put that to a vote? Is anyone asking? Does anyone care? A 3rd party with a diff att does.

Glen Beck is doing a three night stint exposing George Soros’s dark side, ie throwing money at every socialist event he can create. Beck says Soros has been funding the UN in bringing civil rights charges against the US. China, Iran, Cuba and Soros ganging up to accuse the US of torture at Gitmo I believe. Should be some entertaining viewing, IMO.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 8, 2010 09:27 PM
Comment #312767

The Corpocracy buys a few laws, Congress makes a few laws, the Supreme Court makes some. What’s missing from this equation of balance of power? Why, the people are left out of the equation. Not what the Founder’s intended. The Founder’s provided Article V Convention for the people to make laws. But, the Corpocracy, Congress and the Courts have shut the people out, denying a Constitutional right for well over 200 years.

Are you all right with that? There is a move to get AVC before the public. Join and/or support. Next meeting 11/21/10 @ high noon EST.

www.conventionusa.org

Note that RSP, a 3rd party with a different political attitude supports AVC. Does your Party?

Otherwise - - -


Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 8, 2010 10:08 PM
Comment #312774

Roy, yes the tax system is corrupt, but, since Obama came into office, a whole more taxes are being collected and a whole lot more Medicare/Medicaid fraud investigations and prosecutions are underway. Its a beginning.

I personally, don’t think corporations should be taxed, but, only if they are concurrently deprived of personhood under the law. Fair exchange as I see it. Corporate taxes just end up in higher product and service prices for the general public anyway, and thus end up being hidden taxes on consumers.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2010 11:09 PM
Comment #312782

Roy, I say good for Soros. Torture should never have been sanctioned by the U.S. Government, nor implemented, creating an open season on Americans to be tortured.

Soros has some pretty kooky utopian ideas that so many conservatives hate. But, you know, the same was said of the founders by British Loyalists, and colonialists responding negatively to notions like, all men are created equal, and the role of government being to promote the general welfare. I certainly wouldn’t vote for Soros for President. But, he is certainly not the evil villain so many jealous conservatives attempt to make him out to be.

Soros is a very successful and wealthy person with his own notions of making the world a better place. His money in politics is no worse nor better than Koch brother’s money in politics. Ironically, most conservatives voting Republican probably never heard of the Koch brothers. But, a whole lot of liberals have certainly heard of Soros. I think there is something politically meaningful in that, perhaps.

Glenn Beck as usual, gets it wrong. When Glenn Beck has demonstrated the same education and intelligence as Soros and the same philanthropy, get back to me. Soros believes in democracy, environmental protection and preservation, and human rights, and puts his money where his beliefs are. That, as far as I can tell puts him in some pretty good company with some highly regarded Americans in history, like Teddy Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Bill Gates, Patrick Moore, Danny Thomas, and host of others.

Glenn Beck is a selfish, egotistical, ignorant, under-educated P.T. Barnum wannabe. And he is pretty good at all that. Good for a chuckle now and then as an entertainer crying crocodile tears like a novice to acting school, from what I have watched of him.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2010 12:37 AM
Comment #312790

Roy wrote; “A 3rd party with a diff. att. where national membership can vote up/down on your state rep, if that rep is a member of that 3rd party, would allow such politicians to be held accountable for their actions.”

I sure wouldn’t buy into that Roy. I want my representative to be influenced by the folks back in HIS/HER home, not some other place. It is the people’s house and the people are those back home as our founders intended.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 9, 2010 11:29 AM
Comment #312793

Good point David. There seems to be four or five major players, Rupert Murdoch. the brothers David and Charles Koch, and Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. It’s important that people know of these characters and their political bent.

We were doing pretty good with ‘all men are created equal’ and ‘one man, one vote’. Then along comes ‘corporate personhood’ and tars the whole political/governmental system.

I’m hopeful that we don’t lean any further towards socialism a la Greece and Spain. I think the battle should be fought from the center and we will need a populist/centrist 3rd party for that.

Royal Flush, I’m don’t favor pork and perks as a way of governing. Like you said, there should be a contract when taxpayer monies are expended. A Charlie Rangel wouldn’t make it in a 3rd party with a different political attitude. He would surely want to stay Dem or Rep. If Murkowski gets reelected in Alaska it will surely be that those folks are voting for Ted Stephens pork/perks in abstentia. Those are my taxpayer dollars too and a 3rd party with a diff pol att would be looking out for me in that regard.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 9, 2010 12:19 PM
Comment #312801

Roy, the primary fault of Greece was not socialism in the usual way one defines that term. The primary fault was that an estimated 40 to 60% of Greeks didn’t pay their taxes, and that trend had been growing for decades. The fault was the politicians in Greece fearing a crackdown on enforcing tax collection would cost them their reelection. That is why Greece’s balance sheet crumbled. And of course, Greece couldn’t continue to provide social services without collecting the taxes to pay for them. Ergo, bankruptcy was inevitable.

I am not familiar with Spain or their economic woes. Ireland found themselves in a similar situation as here in the U.S. using similar or same mortgage and banking procedures and leveraging that brought the U.S. economy down. Turns out, a great many nations had adopted U.S. practices after the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and the U.S. banking leverage bubble bursting was the first domino in a near global banking domino effect, with so many international banks holding paper assets of other failing banks.

BTW, these facts were not lost on the Obama administration which, early on in 2009 commenced a very strong tax collection reform and enforcement policy. One of the reasons so many wealthy interests aligned against the Obama administration, I am pretty sure.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2010 12:57 PM
Comment #312803

Roy said: “I’m hopeful that we don’t lean any further towards socialism”

Well, we certainly cannot afford to, can we? Social spending programs are admirable and promote the general welfare of the nation and economy during times of growing GDP and economic expansion and low debt to GDP ratio. However, in times of contracting economic growth and dropping tax revenues, social program spending can become a true threat to the solvency of a nation if there isn’t the political capacity to either increase revenues or lower the costs of those social programs.

In our case, it is absolutely mandatory that our government lower the costs of health care in order to halt the growth of the Medicare/Medicaid deficits, and make other adjustments as well; chief among them, like Daryl Issa said, is to means test Soc. Sec. and Medicare/Medicaid benefits. The political will to take these measures against what is sure to be a tsunami political backlash, is the dead end that must be circumvented.

I wish I could see where that political will could come from, but short of a rapid and large growth in the anti-incumbent movement, I simply can’t see where such political motivation would come from.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2010 01:09 PM
Comment #312804

RF, you and I have a real difference on this issue: “I want my representative to be influenced by the folks back in HIS/HER home, not some other place. It is the people’s house and the people are those back home as our founders intended.”

First, our representatives take an oath first, and foremost to the nation’s welfare and Constitutional mandates. They DO NOT take an oath to represent their constituents first, which speaks volumes about what the Founders intended. They intended that representatives put nation first, and their individual state, and district second. For, if the nation fails, so shall the states and local districts. Regretfully, far too many representatives haven’t a clue about this intention of the Founders, who thought it was so important that federal elected officials put Nation first, that they incorporated these oaths right into the Constitution itself, short pledge of allegiance to the Constitution for Congress members, and longer more detailed version for the President.

Clearly, the founder’s intent was that elected representatives be bound to the national welfare first and foremost. No such oath is prescribed by elected officers to their district’s constituents.

Regretfully, public ignorance of this fact has lead to the hyper-partisanship that now exists in D.C. over competing local interests above and beyond what is necessary and essential for preservation of the nation (e.g. earmarks, deficits spending, etc.)

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2010 01:30 PM
Comment #312806

I agree with REp Issa regarding means testing these entitlement programs as well Mr. Remer in ways I suggested in another post.

What concerns me, and many American’s, is that the new HC bill, admittedly another huge entitlement program, will suffer the same fate as those that we currently have. In a decade or two will we be discussing means testing for those under the new HC bill? Will costs be unsustainable? Will premiums continue to rise?

Our entitlement programs are passed with the best intentions but historically lead to uncontrollable costs as we are discussing today right here.

Entitlement programs always involve the loss of some individual freedom for what is perceived as the common good. And, such programs, in my opinion, tend to cause folks to become more dependent upon government and less dependent upon themselves.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 9, 2010 01:34 PM
Comment #312808

I would remind Mr. Remer that our founders placed the control of the national purse in the hands of those elected to the house, not the senate or the president. This was done as the house is most responsive to the people’s will and that will can be exercised every two years.

The house is most sensitive to local concerns and the electorate has much more direct access to their representative than senator or president. As a body, the house certainly must take into consideration national interests, and, by the founders intention, should take their direction from the folks back home. In this fashion, our representatives most closely reflect the national will of the majority.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 9, 2010 01:44 PM
Comment #312810

Royal Flush said: “Our entitlement programs are passed with the best intentions but historically lead to uncontrollable costs as we are discussing today right here. “

That is because the wealthier folks in America, usually Republicans, opposed the concept of means testing safety nets when these programs were debated. Inside the FDR administration, Soc. Sec. was first proposed as an insurance program against poverty, not as an entitlement. The very name of the program is proof that it started out conceptually as a means tested safety net, but, ended up in Congress becoming and entitlement program absent means testing and the insurance component.

I am not up on the Medicare/Medicaid original legislative debate before it was passed, but the result is the same. It became and entitlement, instead of an insurance program. The Public Option which some progressive Democrats called for last year would have provided for that very insurance component with means testing that would have ended the entitlement aspect, thereby driving down the costs of the program dramatically. But, most Democrats and all Republicans in Congress opposed it, despite the public being overwhelmingly in favor of, including 50% of Republican voters.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2010 02:23 PM
Comment #312811

RF, I am surprised at your ignorance of our Constitution, when you make the false and erroneous claim: “I would remind Mr. Remer that our founders placed the control of the national purse in the hands of those elected to the house, not the senate or the president.”

Allow me to quote our original Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, entitled, Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.

I am perplexed that you would make such a wildly false claim without having referred to our Constitution, first. Seems to be a real common practice amongst conservatives these days.


Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2010 02:27 PM
Comment #312814

David, why do you always include, “I am surprised at your ignorance”, in all your responses? Just curious. You seem to always accuse anyone who disagrees with you as being ignorant. Is there a psychological reason for this?

Posted by: justcurious at November 9, 2010 03:50 PM
Comment #312823

My statement; ““I would remind Mr. Remer that our founders placed the control of the national purse in the hands of those elected to the house, not the senate or the president.” was called ignorance of the Constitution by Mr. Remer.

He countered with the fact that the president can veto bills but the Constitution also provides for an override of the veto. Seeking to misdirect folks, he argues something else entirely…the veto pen. The fact remains, “our founders placed the control of the national purse in the hands of those elected to the house, not the senate or the president.”

Spending must originate in the house. The president and the senate can only disagree. If, while eating in a resturant I don’t like the food I can refuse to pay or ask for another order. But never, ever, have I been allowed into the kitchen to prepare my own meal.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 9, 2010 04:32 PM
Comment #312827

RF, I use the word ignorance because it is absolutely the most appropriate word where folks utter forth false information, when valid information is available to them within seconds on the Internet. I can’t think of another word to describe comments who authored by those who don’t know what they don’t know, but, profess to know in their commentary, as you did.

Ignorance, is the best apropos’ word, and I can’t think of a better substitute.

It took me all of about 30 seconds to retrieve the facts and truth from our Constitution and paste it in my comment. Why you didn’t check the Constitution before making such an ignorant statement is inexplicable, save for perhaps, a laziness regarding one’s opinions and thoughts, lacking in verification and research of relevant facts and verifiable data.

Ignorant: 1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

You said: “I would remind Mr. Remer that our founders placed the control of the national purse in the hands of those elected to the house, not the senate or the president.”

The Constitution, adopted by our founders, CLEARLY contradicts you. By definition, your comment was ignorant.

It’s a good word in today’s political climate where so very much misinformation and deception and lack of education permeate public debate.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2010 05:20 PM
Comment #312829

My Bad, apology extended. My comment above should have referenced justcurious, not Royal Flush.

To Royal Flush, who insists on proceeding with even MORE ignorant comments, said: “The fact remains, “our founders placed the control of the national purse in the hands of those elected to the house, not the senate or the president.””

That is not a fact, Royal Flush. The Constitution clearly states “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate,…” which has an inescapable meaning, that NO purse strings legislation can become law ABSENT the Senate, and further, stipulates that the President may veto, requiring the HOUSE to revisit the budget and OVERRIDE that veto. Failing that override, the House loses ALL control of their proposed purse string legislation and must begin again. Which gives SOME control over the purse strings to both the Senate which MUST ASSENT (or Reject), and the President. Without the assent of the Senate and, or, override of a veto, the House proposal cannot pass into law.

Passing purse string issues into law is control of the purse strings. And both the Senate and President have constitutional power to assent or REJECT the House proposal. And that gives partial purse string control to both the Senate and president.

Which, again, makes your comment IGNORANT. But, you know what? This time, with your reassertion, it is WILLFUL ignorance, rather than an accidental ignorance. Which is a true trademark of many conservatives in public blogs. Give them the evidence of truth and fact, and pride denies them the gift of educating themselves. And I call that action, DUMB!

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2010 05:33 PM
Comment #312830

If you drop the phrase, “not the Senate or the president”, from your statement, and change it to read: “Our founders placed the control of initiating the national purse string legislation in the hands of the House of Representatives”, then, and ONLY then, would you have have a true and defensible statement.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2010 05:36 PM
Comment #312831

Picky…Picky. You and others understood exactly what I wrote and meant. Some are just feeling cantankerous today.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 9, 2010 06:09 PM
Comment #312834

RF, I can only understand what you write. Can’t hear your voice, see your face, body language or anything else, other than the words you choose to convey your intent. Your words may have been poorly chosen, but, that doesn’t change the fact that what you wrote was wrong, and a contradiction of the the very wording of our founders, as set down and agreed to in the Constitution. Perhaps reading it, would help, and for understanding would help even more, but, that of course, would require research outside of the Constitution.

There is quite a voluminous history behind the precise words that were chosen and agreed to in the Constitution. The meaning and import of many of the passages in it and the Amendments are not readily understandable in total, absent the context of that history and understanding of their time.

Those who want to repeal Amendments and Supreme Court rulings to return to the original content of the Constitution, for example, utterly fail to comprehend the Constitution and why a return to the original simply would not work today. Those Amendments and Rulings and Interpretations that followed over the next 2 centuries were both provided for, and anticipated as being needed by, the founders as the nation grew and changed. Which is why the founders charged the Supreme Court with interpretation and provided for an amendment process both for their time and the future.

We would have to scrap 95% of our military defense, space program, border interdiction, drug enforcement, and terrorism surveillance and pursuit, for example, if we were to return to the original Constitution before S.C. Rulings and Amendments, relying on tariffs as the source of revenue to fund the government. Such persons are ignorant in the uneducated sense of the word, which leads to their impossible conclusion and decision as to their remedy for modern times.

Their view would have more credibility and possibility in calling for scrapping the Constitution and starting over, instead of their call to roll back the hands of time and undo the change which has occurred over the last 2 centuries.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2010 07:50 PM
Comment #312841

“our founders placed the control of the national purse in the hands of those elected to the house, not the senate or the president.”
Posted by: Royal Flush at November 9, 2010 04:32 PM


I agree, Royal Flush! Make it so! Repeal the 17th amendment.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 9, 2010 08:52 PM
Comment #312843

Weary Willie, that was an idiotic statement. The control of the purse strings shared and passed by the House, Senate, and President is in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, not the 17th Amendment.

Even if Senators remained elected by the State Legislatures, it would not alter how the budgetary process of the federal government is provided for in the Constitution.

Do you even know how to find the Constitution on the internet? It is there for easy reference, I assure you. Apply yourself. I am sure you can find it. Just not sure how much comprehension will take place if you do find it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2010 08:58 PM
Comment #312845

David R. Remer, you are afraid of what I will find in the Constitution!, aren’t you?

Even if Senators remained elected by the State Legislatures, it would not alter how the budgetary process of the federal government is provided for in the Constitution.

Are you admitting the 17th amendment is immaterial? Are you saying;

Even if Senators remained elected by the State Legislatures, it would not alter how the budgetary process of the federal government is provided for in the Constitution?


Is that what you’re saying, David R. Remer?

If the 17th amendment is immaterial to your arguement, why do you oppose it’s repeal?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 9, 2010 09:14 PM
Comment #312854

Weary Willie, apt name, said: “David R. Remer, you are afraid of what I will find in the Constitution!, aren’t you? “

I know what is there. Why would I fear your discovering what it says as well? In fact, I pray you do read it and discover what it actually says. Here’s the link.

WW asked: “Are you admitting the 17th amendment is immaterial?”

Yep, immaterial in the way you referenced it to the House having control of the purse strings, which is false on its face, right there in the Constitution.

Tell me, do you even know what the 17th Amendment says? And if so, how does it relate in your mind to the issue of control over the purse strings. How would its absence relate to Article 1, Section 7?

I am really curious. Please reply.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2010 10:20 PM
Comment #312861

It’s my understanding that the federal govt was created to handle international affairs and defense. Article 10 gives the states the most power, including the power to keep the federal gov’t in check. But, all that’s been turned upside down. Now all we get are federal mandates for schools, healthcare, roads, carrot and stick measures. Upside down, IMO.
From wiki: “Congress often seeks to exercise its powers by offering or encouraging the States to implement national programs consistent with national minimum standards; a system known as cooperative federalism. One example of the exercise of this device was to condition allocation of federal funding where certain state laws do not conform to federal guidelines. For example, federal educational funds may not be accepted without implementation of special education programs in compliance with IDEA. Similarly, the nationwide state 55 mph (90 km/h) speed limit, .08 legal blood alcohol limit, and the nationwide state 21-year drinking age were imposed through this method; the states would lose highway funding if they refused to pass such laws.”
Beck generally covered Soros’s life and his money influence in world affairs. Noted that Soros was a staunch socialist, is looking for a new world order with a world gov’t. Soros said he fantasizes about such big aspirations, sees himself as somewhat Godly. Soros says he wants to be seen as the conscious of the world.
Beck relates how Soros brought down several governments in Asia, collapsed the bank of UK, brought revolution to Croatia, Yugoslavia, Georgia and Czechoslovakia, etc. Says Soros always uses the same formula: form a shadow gov’t, (as he has done with the obama admin), control airwaves, destabilize the state, provoke election crisis (voter fraud, etc) and seize power.
Mentioned some of the numerous shills Soros funds such as moveon.org, appolo alliance, Open Society, etc.
Gives an example of duplitious modus operandi: Soros called for strong campaign finance reform, then McCain –Fingold Act, then behind the scenes creates numerous front groups who use 501C3’s to buy gov’t influence. Soros was the big push behind green jobs and cap & trade. Cap and trade failed but I see where the green jobs thing is still being pushed by the admin. Taxpayer funds to hire ‘certified’ workers to patch up anybody’s home that the ‘certifier’ says needs patching up and will ‘qualify’ for gov’t funds. More socialism, using your tax dollars to fix up other folks homes because they can’t or won’t.
Soros said he was able to squelch corporations money through use of 501C3 and now has control the Dem party.
Soros said the main obstacle to stable and united world order is the US. That ole ‘ironside’ Constitution getting in his way fer shure.
Soros wants a one world gov’t, global society and open borders.
Has loyal networks in 50 countries.
A Soros rep and VP of FOX had a meeting and FOX was told that Beck was corroding the foundation of America and was hurting their business. The FOX rep related that Soros had collapsed some world govt’s and that Soro’s was pushing one world. The rep dismissed that and related that he didn’t think he was being heard or understood - - Beck is hurting our business. Handed a movie to FOX VP, didn’t get the name, starred Andy Griffith and sort of a get rich quick scheme that collapsed. Where was Rupert during all of this? Cheering Soros on? Shouldn’t Rupert call out the Spookie Dude?

We’ve heard about gov’ts, Russians and the like buying tracts on the moon in hopes of being able to mine lunar helium three, H3. Supposedly, a kilogram will run a fusion reactor that could power a major city for a year. I think the price is something like $36/acre. But, you can bet the Super Dude is well invested on the moon.
I think Soros has a lot of chutzpa and can’t really do much harm so long as the people know who he is and what he is up too. He makes no bones about it, wrote a number of books, etc.
Two more Beck episodes on the Super Dude the next two days.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 10, 2010 07:48 AM
Comment #312862

Ahhhh….the spooky dude (i.e. Soros).

This touches on one of the biggest problems with our government today; it is FOR-SALE.

99.7% of all 200 million eligible voters are vastly out-spent by a tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more, not to mention other massive spending to influence government.

This is why I don’t think we’ll see any REAL change; not as long as our government is FOR-SALE, and voters reward that practice and incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election.

Only then, perhaps, will Congress start trying to uphold the Constitution (e.g. Article V , etc., etc., etc.).

One way to disrupt this control of power by the puppeteers that abuse of vast wealth and money is to stop rewarding their incumbent puppets with perpetual re-election.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with re-election finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 10, 2010 08:42 AM
Comment #312865

d.a.n, agree that voting incumbents from office in large numbers hss great merit and will serve to weaken the corpocracy and the likes of Spookie Dudes influence. The corpocracy has set up these 501’s and have a myriad of ways of circumventing any laws that were set up to control the flow of ‘influence monies’. And, the Courts are helping as best they can with rulings like on the ‘Citizens United’, etc.

I see where President Bush is being brought out of cold storage, appearing in front of any camera that is powered up.

I think the TEA Party will teach us a great lesson but will take about 4 years to mature. Platitudes and promises will quickly morph into secret meetings and back room deals and leave folks ping-ponging back to the Dem’s ‘one more time’. Meanwhile, the Independent’s numbers keep growing.

A 3rd party, with rules, can’t be too far out there in the future, IMO.

d.a.n, you may like this url on mining the moon.

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/19296/

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 10, 2010 09:36 AM
Comment #312871

Roy, a lot more talk is taking place on Cable politics about the time being ripe for a third party, but, the always attendant caveat always immediately follows, that the system is rigged to deny a third party ever taking hold.

If, however, the Independent numbers do continue to grow, as you suggested, something will have to yield. I think the prospect may be more hopeful as we go forward.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 10, 2010 12:26 PM
Comment #312873

d.a.n, that is why political reforms with campaign finance reform and overturning or circumventing the S.C. ruling Citizens United as the spearhead reform, are crucial to a peaceful route to rescuing our nation’s future. Time is getting very short, however. And neither of the Duopoly Parties appear to have any interest in these kind of reforms.

I have written Obama, Reid, and my Sen.’s and Rep. in Texas on these matters. Only response was from Hutchison saying she 1st amendment speech should not be abridged - her way of saying money is speech and she won’t go there.

Which raises another issue. Are any of our politicians ever really listening to constituents who contact their representatives? Appears not from here.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 10, 2010 12:41 PM
Comment #312874

Roy said: “Soros said he was able to squelch corporations money through use of 501C3 and now has control the Dem party.”

Really? Provide quote please.

Roy you are sounding more like a Tea Party ditto head every day that you listen to Beck’s mostly unfounded and entirely unsubstantiated infotainment news for the paranoid Right.

Soros is an influential person with enormous wealth. But, where Beck gives himself away as Big F’ing LIAR, is by putting words into Soros’ mouth that an intelligent, powerful, and wealthy person like Soros, would not EVER say. Whatever Soros is, he isn’t Stupid. You don’t get to be as influential and wealthy as Soros saying Stupid things that undercut your wealth and influence. I can guarantee you Soros NEVER said what you assert, Beck said is what Soros said.

Provide me with a first hand publicly recognized reliable source for your assertion above and I will send you $50. Soros would NEVER say he had control of the Dem. Party. NEVER! That would undermine his control of the party, if he had it. The logical contradictions that spew from Beck, and get repeated uncritically as if true by persons such as yourself, is disconcerting.

As a student of philosophy, I have listened to Soros several times speak about political philosophy. The man is not dumb. He is wrong in several of his assumptions which lead to his holding wrong conclusions on certain topics, but, the man understands power, and is smart enough to never undermine his own power of influence with a comment as demonstrably false as the one you repeat, apparently from Beck, the infotainer who holds truth, sourced fact, evidence, and logic in the hightest contempt.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 10, 2010 12:58 PM
Comment #312894

You’re right, David R. Remer. My bad.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 10, 2010 05:27 PM
Comment #312898

Weary Willie, thanks. Been there, too, and responded as you have. I tip my hat to you with respect.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 10, 2010 06:03 PM
Comment #312908

house of reps should be truly representative. should be a law stating that no party my hold any more seats in the house than their percentage of the electorate that registers and votes. just a thought, or is that completely insane?

Posted by: JOHN IN NAPA at November 10, 2010 07:43 PM
Comment #312909

David, Beck talks fast and I write slow. I had pause in posting Soros saying he had control of the Dems’ but I really believe I heard it, saw it and wrote it down correctly. = = Perhaps not.

I missed tonights show. Hope someone can fill me in on the highlights. I’m speculating that Beck may drop the big conspiracy bomb on Soros in that Soros HAS achieved his objective in falling the US but we just don’t recognize it yet for what it is. We are about 14T in debt and the Repub’s have come up with about $400B in potential savings towards paying down the deficit. That won’t even pay a years interest on the debt. The world is already bitching about the FED devaluing the dollar by 20% so we can’t go to the well there again any time soon. I don’t see any way out without really turning the countries of the world strongly against us.

I love that Donald TRump has had enuff globalization. Says he wants a trade war with China, now. As the worm turns, IMO.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 10, 2010 07:45 PM
Comment #312917

Roy wrote: “We are about 14T in debt and the Repub’s have come up with about $400B in potential savings towards paying down the deficit.”

And 700 billion more in deficit increasing tax cuts for the wealthiest. Do the math. And Rand Paul now says he will fight for Kentucky’s earmarks in the budget, after campaigning on fighting earmarks and wasteful spending. The minute they are elected, we get to see Jeckyll’s Hyde face. Some Libertarian Paul turned out to be. Ron Paul should be ashamed of his son, right about now.

What the one hand giveth, the other will taketh away thrice fold. That is how Republicans increased the national debt by 5 Trillion dollars in 8 years and left a ruined economy as a tip on their way out the door. Now they are back. But, what realistic choice did voters have on their ballots to register their dissatisfaction?

Actually, I expect to see quite a bit of bi-partisanship in Congress over the next two years on raising the debt limit, porking up the budgets, and repaying their campaign donors with our tax dollars. Yes, I am quite confident about that.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 10, 2010 08:40 PM
Comment #312918

John in NAPA, would require a Constitutional Amendment, and America and the Parties has not the ability anymore to pass such a thing.

To get those kinds of changes, there are three options, Vote Out Incumbents until they submit to the will of the people, or, insurrection and revolution. The system is rigged, and the Parties are integral to that rigging. Altering the system constitutes a threat to the status quo which both parties benefit from and stifle all other competition to their game of musical chairs for power.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 10, 2010 08:44 PM
Comment #312925

Here, hear, david. A 3rd Party with a different political attitude seems closer by the day. Fer instance, I just mentioned Trump is put out with globalization and they are others jumping off the bandwagon.

The US just got through saying they would hold the line on globalization and wham! they unilaterally drop the dollar 20%. China, the great money manipulator, ain’t liking that. Neither are Japan and Germany who have big trade surpluses with China and want to keep it that way. Goes toward what Ian Fleming tells us, 10% is Free Trade and the rest is what you can get away with. The G-19 is going to Soeul to kick ass on G-1. Then there’s China, Iraq, Cuba, Venez, etc, at the UN on George Soros’s nickel bringing accusations against the US for civil rights violations, torturing at Gitmo, etc.

One world order and one world gov’t. What a joke that is turning out to be.

What is really shameful is that the Corpocracy, with over 30k killed on the Southern border since 06, illegals running to and fro, $50-100B drug market mostly funneled through the border patrol check points, huge arms shipments south to the druggies, US banks up to their armpits laundering/transferring drug money southward, five US citizens killed within the last few weeks, will not act to close/secure the Southern border. The money is just too good and, oh yes, it would hurt Latin America to dry up the drug market in these times of recession, or something like that. So shameful.

But, what they will do is take funds from the US Defense Dept to assist the Mexican military/police in fighting the drug cartels. Under no circumstances will the corpocracy take any action to stem/slow/deny any kind of ‘business’ associated with the border but, they will send your tax dollars to help the Mexican gov’t. No one can take the hit but you, the taxpayer, as usual.

Otherwise - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 10, 2010 09:28 PM
Comment #312944
Roy Ellis wrote: A 3rd party, with rules, can’t be too far out there in the future, IMO.
Yes, it could happen as more voters get more angry, as government continues these 10 abuses.
Roy Ellis wrote: d.a.n, you may like this url on mining the moon: www.technologyreview.com/energy/19296/
Interesting. And even more interesting were the comments that followed the article by people who actually know something about fusion, fission, H3, titrium, etc.
David Remer wrote: d.a.n, that is why political reforms with campaign finance reform and overturning or circumventing the S.C. ruling Citizens United as the spearhead reform, are crucial to a peaceful route to rescuing our nation’s future. Time is getting very short, however.
Yes, not only is time getting short, but we may have already passed the point where we can change course before colliding into the painful consequences of 3+ decades of fiscal and moral bankruptcy.
David Remer wrote: And neither of the Duopoly Parties appear to have any interest in these kind of reforms.
Agreed. Not yet. Not until the consequences become too painful.

There are probably a lot of happy Republicans these last few weeks, but give it time.
The IN-Party and OUT-Party merely take turns now, but that can’t last forever, because it will eventually become too painful.
Money is power, the government is FOR-SALE, and power corrupts when and where there is insufficient Transparency and Accountability … at least until rampant greed and selfishness finally becomes too painful.

Based on how deep the hole we’re currently in is, I think it will be 1 or more decades before things start getting better.

But, things could possibly get very bad and it could happen very quickly.
Then, subsequently, things may start getting better (after a reset, of sorts; in which tens of trillions of the $57+ Trillion nation-wide debt is written off).
A global run on the banks (like what almost happened in Mar-2008) could still happen, since debt has only grown MUCH worse; already way beyond nightmare proportions.

Still, either way, I think it will take many years (possibly decades) to climb our way out of the horriblely deep hole we’ve dug.

Few (if any) will like any of the solutions necessary to set the U.S. on a better course.
Few (if any) are willing to take their medicine now.
Therefore, I think continued inaction, incompetence, government FOR-SALE, and corruption will lead to the default solution, which will be even worse than taking our medicine now.

And it appears, as many suspected, the government and Federal Reserve would create more and more money out of thin air, rather than default.

    As a result, as of year 2009:
  • A 2000 dollar is now worth only 78 cents.
  • A 1990 dollar is now worth only 58 cents
  • A 1980 dollar is now worth only 34 cents.
  • A 1970 dollar is now worth only 17 cents.
  • A 1960 dollar is now worth only 14 cents.
  • A 1950 dollar is now worth only 11 cents.
  • A 1940 dollar is now worth only 07 cents.
  • A 1930 dollar is now worth only 08 cents.
  • A 1910 dollar is now worth only 04 cents.
  • A 1900 dollar is now worth only 04 cents.
  • A 1980 dollar is now worth only 04 cents.

Notice the drastic acceleration of inflation (and erosion of the U.S. dollar) since 1970!

The problem now is that:

  • there are NO easy and painless solutions,
  • but more inflation is not the solution, since it erodes the wages, savings, social security, etc. of the majority of U.S. citizens.

But there’s no mystery why the federal government and Federal Reserve are creating more and more new money out of thin air (e.g. The Federal Reserve is buying $600 Billion in U.S. treasuries; i.e. loaning MORE money to the federal government).
It’s because inflation is preferrable to defaults and a potential nation-wide or global run on the banks.
However, such fiscal lunacy is how we got here to start with, and no nation has ever money-printed, borrowed, and spent its way to prosperity.

David Remer wrote: I have written Obama, Reid, and my Sen.’s and Rep. in Texas on these matters. Only response was from Hutchison saying she 1st amendment speech should not be abridged - her way of saying money is speech and she won’t go there.
Of course Kay Bailey Hutchison won’t denounce “money is free speech”, and neither will most (if not all) FOR-SALE, incumbent politicians in the corrupt, incompetent, arrogant, FOR-SALE Congress. But then, who repeatedly rewards the majority of the incumbent puppets of the wealthy puppeteers with perpetual re-election?

That is, there is dumb and dumber in the two-party duopoloy, and then there’s the majority of the electorate that repeatedly reward both with perpetual re-election.
So whose the dumbest?

David Remer wrote: Which raises another issue. Are any of our politicians ever really listening to constituents who contact their representatives? Appears not from here.
Of course. Why should incumbent politicians care, when they are repeatedly rewarded with re-election? At least, until enough voters have finally decided they’ve seen enough, and possibly start voting out incumbents by the hundreds like unhappy voters did during the Great Depression (206 of 531 ousted in year 1933)?

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress for these abuses with re-election finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 11, 2010 12:33 AM
Comment #312965

d.a.n, I’m thinking that the world gov’ts will force the US hand on the dollar being the prime currency. I can see nothing we could do to strengthen the dollar in a way that would be acceptable across the world. Welcome to globalization in that regard.

Perhaps the US will be forced to return to the gold standard to the extent possible.

Yes, a strong anti-incumbent movement/sentiment across the country is, and will continue to have, a positive influence in the political realm. We should be able to keep the ‘fire’ alive as 2012 electioneering is getting started as we speak.

Also, there is a lot more talk of third parties lately and that, in itself, has a dampening effect on the Corpocracy.
Every day more people are coming to realize that our gov’t has been thoroughly corrupted by the money influence through the Corpocracy. We have reached the point where it makes no sense to try and move forward with legislation. Any legislation, reform, domestic, all the gov’ts work is conducted with the invisible hand of the corpocracy in the wheelhouse. The time has come to implement REAL reform of government. Doing so will require a new 3rd Party with a different political attitude.

Was watching cspan and noted Common Cause is calling for reform that nullifies much of what the corpocracy has achieved through the Court’s relating to corporate personhood laws. The top issues on their agenda are: no more secret elections, change the way we pay for elections and, overturn ‘Citizens United’.
From their website:

1. Create a modern campaign finance system that enables federal candidates who swear off special interest money to run vigorous campaigns on a blend of small donor and public funds.

2. Ban lobbyists contributions, bundling and fundraising for federal candidates.

3. End internal fundraising quotas on Capitol Hill that essentially require members of Congress to buy their way into key committee posts and foster a corrosive dependence on K Street for cash.

3. Close loopholes that allow candidates to evade contribution limits by soliciting amounts up to 3,000 percent of those limits for “joint fundraising committees” and unlimited amounts for national party conventions.

5. Increase transparency by requiring electronic fi ling of campaign fi nance reports for the U.S. Senate (already
in place for the House), and full disclosure of bundlers who raise, or help raise, $50,000 or more for
congressional and presidential candidates.

6. Replace the moribund Federal Elections Commissions with a new nonpartisan enforcement agency.

That kind of thinking is gaining ground across the country, Sounds like much of RSP’s mantra in removing the money influence from politics and government.

Of course, gaining our Constitutional right to an Article V Convention will provide a sure, while lengthy, path to government reform. It’s still a ‘David and Goliath’ battle at this point but things they are a changing, IMO.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 11, 2010 01:10 PM
Comment #313028

Roy,

It’s not likely foreign governments can do much to stop the growing U.S. debt and inflation. Most foreign nations already block much of our exports. China and other countries that invested in the U.S. debt pyramid could dump U.S. dollars and U.S. debt instruments, but not without screwing themselves too.

But that’s what may happen anyway, since the U.S. federal government and the federal reserve have decided inflation is better than panic caused by defaulting on debt and risking another run on the banks (possibly a global run on the banks, like what almost happened in Mar-2008).

The federal government will NOT stop creating new money out of thin air (i.e. inflation), borrowing, growing the debt ever larger, and rampant spending, until there is no other choice (i.e. when the economy has collapsed).

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 12, 2010 12:29 PM
Comment #313230

d.a.n, I don’t have a problem with FED in principle, using monetary policy toward the dual objective of maintaining full employment and minimizing inflation. The problem for the FED at this point, however, is that the employment situation is not born of a lack of liquidity or credit for business growth. It is a result of diminished aggregate demand due to public overleveraging, which they are now correcting by paying off debt instead of consuming more. There IS NOTHING in the Fed’s toolbox to address this fiscal issue. And it is a structural fiscal issue, not a monetary issue. Therefore, the FED’s action to increase the money supply and lending liquidity will NOT, I repeat, NOT have the stated desired effect of spurring business growth and thereby increase job creation.

In other words, the FED shadow boxing a problem not even within its reach. I am perplexed by this. Which leads me to believe that the FED has an ulterior motive and reasoning behind their action which they are not making public. And that is worrisome and troubling in its own right.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 16, 2010 01:46 AM
Post a comment