Thread: Political Identity Crisis Syndrome (PICS)

Political Identity Crisis Syndrome (PICS)

“I’m not going to vote for him because I don’t want to live in a redwood tree, be forced to marry a homosexual, hear the greatest national anthem in Spanish, and have terrorist problems similar to rodents!”

“I’m not going to vote for him because I don’t want drink oil in wine glasses, let Halliburton run around like an only child, and use military force to stop the environment from its pollution enrichment!”

Don’t fret, just stick to your guns or better yet I should say their guns. Your party will diffidently tell you what you should think about this. Your party will never do wrong! If only you knew how similar your party is to the other…sigh. To the both of you the other is but a piñata. Your party bashes, hits, strikes the other in hopes they can get their sweet, sweet prize from the others tattered openings. They are the same. They will cheat, steal, lie and you will defend, believe, and stand by. Their lobbyists abduct our political system and seem to hold it for ransom. There hasn’t been drastic change, for the better of this country, in almost 50years.

I feel it would take outrageous gas prices (maybe $10-15 a gallon), the housing market to almost collapse completely, out of control inflation, mass loss of jobs, and a steady irresponsive government to evoke the sense of urgency that citizens of this country should already have. Don’t vote party lines demand from your government, because they do serve you whether they believe it or not, what kind of change you want. The populous has the all the power in the end. Will we use it?

Please people…don’t be PICS!

“Your vote might not be counted, but your dollar always is”
Anonymous

GUY; One reason, I even bother to respond to a post as your's, is to remind you that in posting any like statement has come from the freedoms mankind has not always had. Even in China TODAY, you would be found and made mute to their society.

I don't think 'Conservatives/Constitutionalist' or even liberal moderates, feel the evils of socialism should be banded, but should be discussed and made known to all what could happen if the ideas should some how become commonplace. I also believe, a society in this case the American Society, has a cultural/traditional heritage that must remain the foundation for existence in the form it was intended. It would take a month to write what all these qualities have meant to the world you live in and will continue to live in...

I do not think, if the most liberal (by limited record) ever to be nominated by a political party in the US, WINS the National Election we will be forced into anything or that most everything claimed as 'change' will or could actually happen. Our SYSTEM or the Constitution, has built in safeguards for any form of radical change.
He may indeed speak for the American People and we may be judged on what he says, but changes will be insignificant.

On Obama: I am still not sure he will be the final nominee, but if he is, he will lose and lose badly IMO. My worry is the aftermath, whether after the Denver Convention or the Election, and from people such as yourself who firmly believe the loss will be from some prejudice that no longer exist. He is simple not qualified by record or experienced in the areas normally required by the electorate. If he were to win, it would be simply because he is Black and he does have a funny name and his WHITE handlers have played on this tendency of an electorate to desire forgiveness for some perceived injustice by their ancestors.

What ever your doing in life, going to school, working at the local McDonald's or practicing law are a result of 230 years of these traditions and if your a minority or a woman these traditions have come to you. Don't kid yourself in thinking these are the same world wide today or that incremental changes back toward socialism will give you more rights...they will not.

As for Capitalism, the engine now in motion, giving each day more of everything to peoples that have never had anything. Haliburton, is by far the largest at what they do in all the fields they participate. Governments around the world, not just the US, rely on their expertise, for quick efficient actions. In fact their main office will soon be in Dubai, a Muslim Monarchy.

Jackson, you're highlighting the OP's point. American liberals are not socialists. I know it's fun to accuse them of it, and it makes your voting decisions easier to live in such a world of make-believe, but the reality remains that no major political group in America thinks Communism is a good idea. Nobody.

You're like Don Quixote charging at those windmills because he thinks they're giants. You just need a fight to fight, and if nobody gives you one then you'll dream one up.



As far as Halliburton:

Halliburton keeps getting hit by huge monetary losses, and then pulling itself from the brink of bankruptcy with the next government contract. That would be impossible if they were fair contracts.

Sure, they've got the gear to do certain, specialized tasks better than anyone else, and should be hired to do those tasks, but a huge amount of the contracts they get have absolute perfect zero to do with that.

Most of the civilian interrogators at Abu Graib were KBR (subsidiary of Halliburton at the time). We've also got them serving the meals on US bases in Iraq, which has caused a lot of strategic problems (because they refuse to adjust the meal schedule to something slightly less cost effective, but also less predictable by the enemy).

What do those two tasks have to do with their specialized equipment? What about those jobs makes it impossible for anyone else to do it?

kojax; American politics, today is basically large government verses small government and attempting to dislodge Constitutional principles by altering interpretation or maintaining the individual state rights to govern the people. Think you know which major party is which...

Government control of anything is by nature a communal philosophy or that of the Communist philosophy. The closer you can get to an equalization of the the majority the closer to communism and total control of the society. The USSR achieved this in large degree, Cuba achieved the nearest to pure, Venezuela under Chavez attempting to become and frankly China is trying to introduce Capitalism to Communism, which may not be compatible and Capitalism is winning the hearts and minds of their people. Universal Health Care, Higher Taxes, control of business by specialized taxation or limitations and mandating personal performance to even a noble cause are all based and smell of communism. They are all, also part of Obama's plans, which I don't think he could enact, under our system.

Haliburton, using the last quarter, Mar 30, 2008, was a 42 billion dollar company with 16 billion in sales and showed a profit of 2.6 billion, for its shareholders. I am not sure where you place brink of bankruptcy, but give me some more examples where I can invest. They also have 51,000 thousand employees worldwide and can assemble a large group, in moment compared to any other US entity, additionally have a track record and the finances to do the job. No other US firm comes near this and one German Company is a very distant second. Yes, KBR was instrumental in causing some problems for them and as any large concern dealing with Iraq, their personnel cost were astronomical compared to doing business in most countries, particularly the US. I believe this side business was sold off some time ago and was never profitable to begin with, cause cost of labor. I am disappointed that you don't give Chaney credit for foreseeing the potentials of King Hal, years before taking the VP office, where a year later their services, saved the day. As for adjusting cost of the final product....the meal, when the cost to serve that meal was 20 times the cost of the food, just what kind of sense does this make...

ackson33 One reason, I even bother to respond to a post as your's, is to remind you that in posting any like statement has come from the freedoms mankind has not always had. Even in China TODAY, you would be found and made mute to their society.

Well congratulations to me then! You highness it is a pleasure to be bothered with, by someone of your stature! I think if you read what I wrote then you would have stumbled across a little something about how the populous ultimately holds the power. I do not think I am confused about the freedoms that we enjoy in this country…quite the opposite…I am disturbed by the lack of participation of the rights we do enjoy. I thank you for informing me about china though. I’ve heard of this country, maybe in one of my childhood storybooks or something.

ackson33 Government control of anything is by nature a communal philosophy or that of the Communist philosophy. The closer you can get to an equalization of the the majority the closer to communism and total control of the society. The USSR achieved this in large degree

Governments have been controlling populations for 2,000years. The word government comes from the word govern and this means to control. Again, all governments control and is not just an attribute of communism. There has never been a true communist state. For communism to work you have to have a small group of people like a tribe or a small village. In this format communism has thrived and still does with indigenous peoples around the world.

I hope you realize that our country is about 55% capitalism and 45% is socialism. If we were 100% capitalistic then, essentially you would be looking at anarchic (anarchy) economic system.

jackson33 What ever your doing in life, going to school, working at the local McDonald's or practicing law are a result of 230 years of these traditions and if your a minority or a woman these traditions have come to you. Don't kid yourself in thinking these are the same world wide today or that incremental changes back toward socialism will give you more rights...they will not.

White males of certain euro-ethnicities have enjoyed this tradition for 230 years. Like I mentioned the last major change, “for the better”, happened around 50years ago with African American’s being right to vote, and the protest of the Vietnam War.

Trust when I say to you jackson33, that I am certainly not kidding myself about our rights being the same world wide! Compared to most countries we have more rights, but not compared to all countries. Some European countries provide much better social programs including healthcare, maternity leave for male and female, longer paid vacation, and equal rights pertaining to marriage, just to name a few. This is a great country, but don’t be so patriotic to the point of losing sight that anything can be improved. Even America.

I don’t want more government involvement and I don’t think that changes towards socialism will give more rights. I think the reform of existing social programs will improve quality of life. As far as more government involvement, the Rights philosophy is that they want less and I agree. So what the hell happened? Need I say more? Fine…Bush! That is also why I said “change for the better” previously and not just major change.

jackson33On Obama: I am still not sure he will be the final nominee, but if he is, he will lose and lose badly IMO. My worry is the aftermath, whether after the Denver Convention or the Election, and from people such as yourself who firmly believe the loss will be from some prejudice that no longer exist. He is simple not qualified by record or experienced in the areas normally required by the electorate. If he were to win, it would be simply because he is Black and he does have a funny name and his WHITE handlers have played on this tendency of an electorate to desire forgiveness for some perceived injustice by their ancestors.

Both of your nominees Mr. yes we can/change and Mr. straight talk express have the same qualifications. They will listen to their parties like good boys and be very loyal to their lobbyist friends.

I’m voting for neither, but still voting and I know the candidate that I vote for wont win. Whether Obama wins or loses you still sound like a racist. Can I ask you what color McCain’s handlers are?

jackson33Haliburton...

...sorry I just vomited, but I’m back now. Where was I? Oh yes, Halliburton! What a lovely and reputable company. Halliburton reminds me of the 50s and how everything was so gee, gosh, golly nice! I aspire to work for this impeccable corporation someday and I hope my kids and their kids and so on will do the same! In fact our beloved Dick Cheney worked for Halliburton, so maybe if I worked really, really hard for Halliburton I to could become the vice president!

"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office."
-Aesop-

Originally Posted by jackson33

kojax; American politics, today is basically large government verses small government and attempting to dislodge Constitutional principles by altering interpretation or maintaining the individual state rights to govern the people. Think you know which major party is which...

Government control of anything is by nature a communal philosophy or that of the Communist philosophy.

Careful, or you'll find yourself the teapot calling the kettle black. Of course the government controls some things, regardless of what system we live in.


Some of the most adamant supporters of "capitalism" are soldiers. The irony of that makes me laugh, when you consider just how perfectly socialist military life is.

The closer you can get to an equalization of the the majority the closer to communism and total control of the society.

It depends on what mechanism you're using. Even in a fully capitalist society you want to make sure poor people have some hope of climbing into wealth, but you don't want to give it to them for free.

Equality of opportunity is the only equality I'm interested in, and even that shouldn't be equal, only possible.

The USSR achieved this in large degree, Cuba achieved the nearest to pure, Venezuela under Chavez attempting to become and frankly China is trying to introduce Capitalism to Communism, which may not be compatible and Capitalism is winning the hearts and minds of their people.

Well, there are obvious and glaring problems with those systems.

If you think the only options are A) Unregulated Capitalism, B) Outright Communism or C) A hybrid between the two. .......... then you've obviously been trained never to think outside the box.

Universal Health Care,

Not a lot different from universal police protection. Just guarding people against an uncertainty. The question is whether the government can do it efficiently, which might have "no" as it's answer.

Higher Taxes,

Lib and con both run into problems at this juncture. If you lower your taxes by taking out more debt, then you're raising them more in the long run, because you'll have to pay interest.

It's only wise to borrow and spend if the things you're doing with that money are just so beneficial that you can be sure your income is going to grow by enough to negate the interest. (And in government spending..... that's rarely going to be the case)

control of business by specialized taxation or limitations and mandating personal performance to even a noble cause are all based and smell of communism. They are all, also part of Obama's plans, which I don't think he could enact, under our system.

I wouldn't mind directing a tax at companies that have bad track records for hiring illegals.

Haliburton, using the last quarter, Mar 30, 2008, was a 42 billion dollar company with 16 billion in sales and showed a profit of 2.6 billion, for its shareholders. I am not sure where you place brink of bankruptcy, but give me some more examples where I can invest. They also have 51,000 thousand employees worldwide and can assemble a large group, in moment compared to any other US entity, additionally have a track record and the finances to do the job. No other US firm comes near this and one German Company is a very distant second. Yes, KBR was instrumental in causing some problems for them and as any large concern dealing with Iraq, their personnel cost were astronomical compared to doing business in most countries, particularly the US. I believe this side business was sold off some time ago and was never profitable to begin with, cause cost of labor. I am disappointed that you don't give Chaney credit for foreseeing the potentials of King Hal, years before taking the VP office, where a year later their services, saved the day. As for adjusting cost of the final product....the meal, when the cost to serve that meal was 20 times the cost of the food, just what kind of sense does this make...

Oh yeah. Don't get me wrong. They've been doing really well since the war started.

Before that, they were having a bit of a hard time because of some asbestos suits they inherited from buying Dresser Industries. They lost about 4 billion on that from 2002 to 2004. Lucky thing the war in Iraq started, so they could make some of that back.

Let me understand you here: You hate communism and big government, but don't mind companies that make almost all of their money by working government contracts?

We both know the decision of how much a contract will pay and what will be expected of the company executing it is decided by politics, not the market. How can you love capitalism and not hate government contractors?

GUY I applaud your decision to vote for "neither". Not because I think it some kind of cool protest or idealistic sacrifice but because this, IMO, is the way to move policy change in the major parties. They are vote capturing machines, ultimately; they will and do move to suck middle votes and special interest votes. They have to. In fact they don't move at all for the party faithful - those votes are secure so meaningless. Your vote for "other" will get plenty of attention by both parties in the years leading to next election. The machines value it above all else.

Nobody can stop those machines but they are so easily owned.

Originally Posted by GUY

Political Identity Crisis Syndrome (PICS)

“I’m not going to vote for him because I don’t want to live in a redwood tree, be forced to marry a homosexual, hear the greatest national anthem in Spanish, and have terrorist problems similar to rodents!”

“I’m not going to vote for him because I don’t want drink oil in wine glasses, let Halliburton run around like an only child, and use military force to stop the environment from its pollution enrichment!”

Don’t fret, just stick to your guns or better yet I should say their guns. Your party will diffidently tell you what you should think about this. Your party will never do wrong! If only you knew how similar your party is to the other…sigh. To the both of you the other is but a piñata. Your party bashes, hits, strikes the other in hopes they can get their sweet, sweet prize from the others tattered openings. They are the same. They will cheat, steal, lie and you will defend, believe, and stand by. Their lobbyists abduct our political system and seem to hold it for ransom. There hasn’t been drastic change, for the better of this country, in almost 50years.

I feel it would take outrageous gas prices (maybe $10-15 a gallon), the housing market to almost collapse completely, out of control inflation, mass loss of jobs, and a steady irresponsive government to evoke the sense of urgency that citizens of this country should already have. Don’t vote party lines demand from your government, because they do serve you whether they believe it or not, what kind of change you want. The populous has the all the power in the end. Will we use it?
Please people…don’t be PICS!
“Your vote might not be counted, but your dollar always is”
Anonymous

GUY; This is the post I responded to which is full of innuendos, misrepresentation and indicated a hatred for the American political system. Blaming American politician or representation on all the ills of a perceived corrupt system.

No drastic change FOR THE BETTER, in 50 years, probably the most disgusting and incorrect of the statements. Since 1958 this country has made more changes than in the first 180 or so years and regardless your political affiliation, the changes came from both sides the isle. As a self proclaimed 'conservative' many have not been to my liking, but the system and what I will work with, is what has allowed those many dramatic changes, you seem to have ignored or refuse to accept has have happened.

Then your comments border if not taken from some of the extreme left ideology of move on dot org, or other places where nothing is good unless in agreeable with one set of ideas. Lobbyist are from the people and financed by the people and in my opinion the best source for the average person to access the Federal Government, even above their local Congressperson. Personal achievement, whether from corporate structure, political or your neighborhood are all good things and should be admired. You have the choice to vote for any one, even to write in a vote for Mickey Mouse, to protest the choices offered...the point is you have the right and your vote will count, contrary to what media or the losing party may say.

On your latest post; States have always been in charge of their own election and parties lately for who you have to chose from for national office. Blaming todays people for what was or the people from the past for what was accepted, is not a good argument. This country, a today union of 50 Sovereign States, was and I hope never will be a democracy of a majority rule. Most countries are not, what this country is and not comparable.

On improvement; Does this mean to your liking or mine. Please tell me how social programs could or ever has benefited, on an equal basis, people in all states. Thats why our Constitution left many issues to the States. Do you understand the difference in what a 1,000.00 is in NYC, LA or anyplace in the Midwest. This holds true for most your arguments.

kojax; This country today, allows for any one person from any place on the planet to achieve absolutely everything any one person has achieved from this country today or anytime in its history. I can't imagine a more equitable system or any place other than the US where this could be said.

Halliburton, during the Dresser merger 1998, which had merged earlier with KBR, which was a merger between Kellogg Company and Brown & Root Co, maintained a 20-30.00 stock value during the 90's, in spite of 13-20.00 price per barrel oil prices (low). The Tech bubble burst (2000) and later 9/11 bombings, dropped all corporate values down and HAL hit 4.30 in mid 2001. Think you will find, interest in exploration (from around the world) and the increasing value of crude, were much more instrumental to the value of HAL, than feeding troops in Iraq. I will add that KBR, never made money for HAL and was later split off or became its own company. You probable problem and to many anti-capitalist, was the fact Mr Chaney had a connection to the Company, which by the way he maintained those 20-30.00 price ranges in very hard times for any oil related industry.

What on earth do Police, have to do with the failures of individuals to obtain health care. We all chip in tax money and to some degree they self finance their programs just as fire departments or the school systems (particularly higher level).
Are you suggesting, health care is an obligation of society more important than a home, a job, retirement package, food or anything we should individually be responsble for...

I really hate discussing TAXES. For starters, every member of the US Congress and most every politician probably knows how little income tax is to the total received by government. Corporate taxes alone are 35-40% of the all profits received by all industry and the higher amounts (36-40%) apply to small business profits, which is passed onto the consumer. Fifty percent of people pay, I think 3% of the income taxes, the rest by people making 250k, BUT most of the SS & Medicare Taxes, sin taxes, gas/diesel taxes, local school taxes and in general all sales taxes. You are told taxing the achievers, will some how solve problems, lower the National Debt and cure all the problems of mankind. Not only is that an outright misconception, a lie, its a political tool toward the mass voter and would make very little difference, alone, in the income for government. Think politicians say, the Bush Tax cuts cost over a trillion dollars, yet tax revenues have gone up about half that amount, very little of any of which was INCOME TAXES.

Illegal immigration, is another issue I dislike; Here you have a society in rage today over something thats been going on in magnitude for 60 years and has been address by several political administrations. Now, today people want this very old problem somehow fixed this week. Laws protecting Americans and visitors illegal or not, for 230 years are now somehow wrong and an entire economical system should somehow suffer for things that have occurred long ago. The agriculture system, in total has used illegal immigration since farming went commercial (large producers). You probably could slap a unpaid tax bill on many for unpaid SS taxes, since they started, putting them out of business (thats punishment) but where do you think half your food is going to come from and my goodness, what would it cost....

Pong; Which party are you referring to, they are both very different with intended reasons for being different. Dem's, were concerned about getting a Candidate to far left, which they now have and can't work the desired system and maintain their base simultaneously. Reps, figured a conservative should take enough early States to steam role a national candidate into office, but forgot the incumbent would be judged in those early primaries 'winner take all'. This cycle we have the exact opposite in each party system was intended to help...Which ever is your party already knows and voting 'none of the above' will do or mean nothing....

Originally Posted by jackson33

Pong; Which party are you referring to, they are both very different with intended reasons for being different. Dem's, were concerned about getting a Candidate to far left, which they now have and can't work the desired system and maintain their base simultaneously. Reps, figured a conservative should take enough early States to steam role a national candidate into office, but forgot the incumbent would be judged in those early primaries 'winner take all'. This cycle we have the exact opposite in each party system was intended to help...Which ever is your party already knows and voting 'none of the above' will do or mean nothing....

To an outsider the 2 US parties are nearly identical. Coke & Pepsi, you know.

The way most people vote, it's like the last ballot they will ever cast, a last ditch effort to make the best of here and now. Because they gamble to "win" the impending election. But policy doesn't answer to such strategy. What party policy cares for, is how it must maneuver between elections to appeal to more voters. It cares for those votes "lost" last election.

When people vote, for example, likely republican instead of no-hope independent, they say they cast a "strategic" ballot. However this is the least strategic way to vote possible. It offers the supported party no reason to change in the long term. Remember that the whole purpose of this exercise (by popular reckoning) is to effect change.

I can guarantee you that if 1% of voters support the UFO party, Democrats and Republicans will resent those lost votes which could have decided the struggle between major parties. They will be careful, next time, not to alienate the UFO interest group, and so grab a few maybe crucial ballots.

Pong; The actual two parties are very different, not only in ideology but in practice.

Dem's; Big Government, where as much of human activity is controlled by some governing force. A living Constitution, where as things change, so should the foundation for the legal system. Control of Business, where if seen not obliging to government should be held accountable to government, through taxation or oversight and the regulations that they make. The Rep's the opposite on these and many other major issues.

I would admit, this cycle offers less a difference than some in the past. If you go back in history, parties formed from others, with a simple single issue at odds. In 1856, the Republican party formed on the slavery issue alone and others were based on Public opinion, Populist (opposed to constitutional rule/people power, etc). If you think about it though, Americans should and do have many common interest. Do you really think the parties should be so different, maybe even to the point they ARE today...

This is going to be an interesting election, possibly a defining one for the future of the Republic Concept itself. There are many problems occurring in the society, domestic and geopolitical. We have one candidate advocating changing things which have been the practice for a hundred years, both in world affairs and at the local policing level. Negotiating in faith with the perceived bad. The other, wants to take any issue to a compromised conclusion. This did work in the beginning of the Nation, but the desired outcome was held by all. The voters, seem to be lining up on a negative vote, rather than voting for the best choice for the country, they are tending to vote against a person. This is not good...

The founders, in many letters and through the Federalist Papers, were aware of a general public getting caught up on personal interest, opposed to the Interest of a Country. The one thing that worries me the most; One of the current APPARENT (presumptive) nominees, taught 'Constitutional Law' at Chicago University for 12 years, and if he practices what he speaks, will trash the very documents he taught.

On additional parties; There have always been movements, in the US, even back before it was an independent nation. Taking an agenda, placing it on a National Election through a person seems to be a natural process for advancing any particular agenda. There is a cost and if its worth that cost to the authors, then it should be worth the attention, disingenuous as it may seem...

Originally Posted by jackson33

kojax; This country today, allows for any one person from any place on the planet to achieve absolutely everything any one person has achieved from this country today or anytime in its history. I can't imagine a more equitable system or any place other than the US where this could be said.

I don't disagree with you on this. I just think it's not magic that caused it. It's because we actively made it so, and if we ever stop struggling to keep it so, it will stop being true.

There's a saying that everybody likes to build bridges, but nobody likes to do maintenance on the ones we've already got. Nothing survives without maintenance and constant vigilance. De-regulation is dangerous for this reason, unless it's well thought out and strategically executed deregulation (which is sometimes beneficial).

Halliburton, during the Dresser merger 1998, which had merged earlier with KBR, which was a merger between Kellogg Company and Brown & Root Co, maintained a 20-30.00 stock value during the 90's, in spite of 13-20.00 price per barrel oil prices (low). The Tech bubble burst (2000) and later 9/11 bombings, dropped all corporate values down and HAL hit 4.30 in mid 2001. Think you will find, interest in exploration (from around the world) and the increasing value of crude, were much more instrumental to the value of HAL, than feeding troops in Iraq. I will add that KBR, never made money for HAL and was later split off or became its own company. You probable problem and to many anti-capitalist, was the fact Mr Chaney had a connection to the Company, which by the way he maintained those 20-30.00 price ranges in very hard times for any oil related industry.

From what I understand, the laundry and food contracts pulled them out of a mess in the early 90's. It may not be all that profitable anymore, which is good thing if you're right, because maybe we'll put it back in the hands of the military where it belongs.

What on earth do Police, have to do with the failures of individuals to obtain health care. We all chip in tax money and to some degree they self finance their programs just as fire departments or the school systems (particularly higher level).
Are you suggesting, health care is an obligation of society more important than a home, a job, retirement package, food or anything we should individually be responsble for...

You could just as easily talk about the "failure" of a private citizen to hire bodyguards to protect their homes and families.

Health insurance, just like police, is something you hope you'll never need, but you really wouldn't want to be without it when trouble strikes. The government already probably pays for half the health insurance in this country anyway, through Medicare and Medicaid. (An old person's insurance cost is about 3x higher than a young person's)

I really hate discussing TAXES. For starters, every member of the US Congress and most every politician probably knows how little income tax is to the total received by government. Corporate taxes alone are 35-40% of the all profits received by all industry and the higher amounts (36-40%) apply to small business profits, which is passed onto the consumer. Fifty percent of people pay, I think 3% of the income taxes, the rest by people making 250k, BUT most of the SS & Medicare Taxes, sin taxes, gas/diesel taxes, local school taxes and in general all sales taxes. You are told taxing the achievers, will some how solve problems, lower the National Debt and cure all the problems of mankind. Not only is that an outright misconception, a lie, its a political tool toward the mass voter and would make very little difference, alone, in the income for government. Think politicians say, the Bush Tax cuts cost over a trillion dollars, yet tax revenues have gone up about half that amount, very little of any of which was INCOME TAXES.

I actually can agree with you there, mostly. My only disagreement is that clearly we have to garner tax revenue from somewhere. We can't just go on borrowing forever, especially when the dollar is depreciating. (I think it's dangerous to use a devalued currency on a debt).

Shrinking government would be nice, too, but then you've got to find jobs for all those displace bureaucrats and I don't think the white collar job market is fat enough to handle the current US government's grease.

Illegal immigration, is another issue I dislike; Here you have a society in rage today over something thats been going on in magnitude for 60 years and has been address by several political administrations. Now, today people want this very old problem somehow fixed this week. Laws protecting Americans and visitors illegal or not, for 230 years are now somehow wrong and an entire economical system should somehow suffer for things that have occurred long ago. The agriculture system, in total has used illegal immigration since farming went commercial (large producers). You probably could slap a unpaid tax bill on many for unpaid SS taxes, since they started, putting them out of business (thats punishment) but where do you think half your food is going to come from and my goodness, what would it cost....

Don't fool yourself that food agricultural industrialists are essential to anything. That land *will* be worked, no matter who you put out of business. Farmland never lays around unused.

The reason the USA has so much food is because we have so much arable land, not because we have so many people working that arable land. The people industrializing it are a dime-a-dozen (as cold as that sounds). Force some of them out of business and land prices will go down temporarily, allowing private farmers to step in and fill the void.

Originally Posted by kojax

There's a saying that everybody likes to build bridges, but nobody likes to do maintenance on the ones we've already got.

Or, re exporting democracy:

"It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them." - Alfred Adler

Originally Posted by jackson33

The actual two parties are very different, not only in ideology but in practice.

Compared to any other two parties of any country? No, you've got two siblings at the same table: one likes a bit of alfalfa honey on the medium brown toast, one likes a bit more alfalfa honey on the medium brown toast. To them, it seems a huge difference worth fighting about. Meanwhile: poached eggs, fermented beans, fried bananas, oatmeal, you have no idea.

Many countries brave such political diversity and conviction that coup or revolution is a real possibility.

Besides most countries have more than the absolute minimum # of parties, and any party could become obsolete since no ideology is perfect and timeless.

Pong; What you say is true with in many States of the US. Demographics of each State can also change, while in normal times they have remained near the same on a national level, just in different places. Then parties themselves have changed, with the intend to remain relevant. Members from one movement or another, also can run under an existing party, by playing the primary system. All these things are unique to the American system.

FDR, Truman, JFK, Johnson, Carter, Clinton...all members the democratic party but each had a VERY different political agenda and Eisenhower, Ford, Nixon, Reagan, even the two Bush's though Republican were also different. On National Interest, primarily security, defense and constitutional authority, they all agreed.
Then the electorate has changed or changes from time to time as certain issue dominate over others. Usually the economy, which none of the above could have changed, but occasional the simple desire for a change....

Also in the US, we have a Three Branch System (Executive/Legislature/Judicial) designed to cooperate in the running of the total. Ironically under the Constitution and the first four administrations, Washington/Adams/Jefferson, this meant two parties could have and were from different parties. (went to party selection before Jefferson's second term) The first and second choices of the combined State Legislature, while voting for the President, inadvertently chose the VP, as second choice for president. Did you know Washington's party was the 'Democratic Rpublican'....Anyway the other two branches are still a mix of the parties, rarely limited to the majors...

kojax; The original Constitution was designed, promoted and formed the first EVER, government where the people of many otherwise independent and sovereign nations/common wealths/states, by representation GOVERNED themselves as a Union of Nations (sound familiar). Each unit, however was its own entity of the total, but subject to free access to the others, both in business and personal residence. None of this had ever been tried by any combination of Nations/Countries in the past. Along with the guidance of the 'Bill of Rights', these free travels restrictions and the acceptance of law, which still prevails, citizens have achieved. Many blacks, women or any ethnic/religious minded person from any point in history, did just that at at levels unknown in the world at that time.
Maybe those founders were guessing, or maybe they feared revolt, but the result could only itself give evidence of a human spirit and its ability to strive for and occasional achieve success.

I don't know what the cost is today, to train a military person and give him/her the privileges after service, but its pretty high. Out sourcing is hear to stay and will probably take on all duties, not related to combat itself, if not that way now...

Before corporate farming, you had ten thousand small farmers for each of the corporate today. Many did practice some forms of community farming, using the same equipment or share cropping to the more efficient, but by enlarge they struggled from year to year, eventually heading of to town to earn a living. I am most familiar with a system used in California, where the top ten corporate farms work together. They each have massive land (fields), rented, leased or owned and equipment no single farmer could afford, much less have a need to use. Planting 30-50 rows at a time. Migrant workers, dating back to the late 50's have followed these companies, 'chopping' weeding the fields, to harvesting by the thousands. A few hang around for minor chores year round, but the majority will work Central California in the spring and summer, then going south to do the same thing in Southern California and Arizona up to December and January. The same workers and their families and the same equipment. The warehouses, also owned and operated by the corporation are community by nature (used by all) and can ship hundreds of Truck loads per day each, in addition to thousands of containers heading for international distribution each season. You are welcome to believe this type operation will be serviced by people from any of these slimly populated areas or that folks from LA or SF will journey to the fields, but its just not going to happen and though attempted by those corporations, never has. They are in the 3rd and 4th generation of workers, that migrate and travel with the work, unlike any other ever practiced.

Originally Posted by jackson33

kojax; The original Constitution was designed, promoted and formed the first EVER, government where the people of many otherwise independent and sovereign nations/common wealths/states, by representation GOVERNED themselves as a Union of Nations (sound familiar). Each unit, however was its own entity of the total, but subject to free access to the others, both in business and personal residence. None of this had ever been tried by any combination of Nations/Countries in the past. Along with the guidance of the 'Bill of Rights', these free travels restrictions and the acceptance of law, which still prevails, citizens have achieved. Many blacks, women or any ethnic/religious minded person from any point in history, did just that at at levels unknown in the world at that time.

Maybe those founders were guessing, or maybe they feared revolt, but the result could only itself give evidence of a human spirit and its ability to strive for and occasional achieve success.

The only major difference on this issue between the parties today is over what it means to "defend" that situation.

One focuses on defending it from external threats, and the other on defending it from internal threats. (with a little cross over sometimes) Both threats are equally dangerous.

I don't know what the cost is today, to train a military person and give him/her the privileges after service, but its pretty high. Out sourcing is hear to stay and will probably take on all duties, not related to combat itself, if not that way now...

The worry is that too much control over the millitary's ability to operate will fall under the control of people not subject to the chain of command. (You can't court martial people from the private sector as easily) It might be worth the extra cost in order to stay tactically agile. The millitary does like to try and present the image of being cost-effective, though.

Before corporate farming, you had ten thousand small farmers for each of the corporate today. Many did practice some forms of community farming, using the same equipment or share cropping to the more efficient, but by enlarge they struggled from year to year, eventually heading of to town to earn a living. I am most familiar with a system used in California, where the top ten corporate farms work together. They each have massive land (fields), rented, leased or owned and equipment no single farmer could afford, much less have a need to use. Planting 30-50 rows at a time. Migrant workers, dating back to the late 50's have followed these companies, 'chopping' weeding the fields, to harvesting by the thousands. A few hang around for minor chores year round, but the majority will work Central California in the spring and summer, then going south to do the same thing in Southern California and Arizona up to December and January. The same workers and their families and the same equipment. The warehouses, also owned and operated by the corporation are community by nature (used by all) and can ship hundreds of Truck loads per day each, in addition to thousands of containers heading for international distribution each season. You are welcome to believe this type operation will be serviced by people from any of these slimly populated areas or that folks from LA or SF will journey to the fields, but its just not going to happen and though attempted by those corporations, never has. They are in the 3rd and 4th generation of workers, that migrate and travel with the work, unlike any other ever practiced.

It sounds like most of the problem was that each farmer owned too little land individiaually to make it worth the trouble of automating it. I fully agree there. You *do* need economy of scale. The question is how much.

In micro-economics "economy of scale" is understood to maximize at a specific point in growth, and actually get smaller if you continue grow the operation bigger than that point.

If you make it a question of deciding between small mom and pop operations, and putting all the nation's farmland under the control of maybe 5 corporations...... then you're over-simplyfying the question.

I'm suggesting that operations smaller than what we're seeing might actually be more efficient, more competitive, and less corruptible. But, clearly that would only remain true if they didn't get so small that they lost their economy of scale.

So the real question is: how small would they get?

Jackson you are clearly proud of the US political system. Please do give credit to the events that occured in a meadow near Runnymede on 15th June 1215.

Also, in your continued castigation of socialism you fail to recognise that it has served Western Europe very well for well over half a century. In my regular trips to the US I never fail to be appalled by the poverty visible at the bottom end of the ladder that leads to the American dream. Europe is not perfect, but the contrasts between rich and poor are much more muted than the glaring differences to be seen in the US.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Jackson you are clearly proud of the US political system. Please do give credit to the events that occured in a meadow near Runnymede on 15th June 1215.

Also, in your continued castigation of socialism you fail to recognise that it has served Western Europe very well for well over half a century. In my regular trips to the US I never fail to be appalled by the poverty visible at the bottom end of the ladder that leads to the American dream. Europe is not perfect, but the contrasts between rich and poor are much more muted than the glaring differences to be seen in the US.

I have no idea, how often I have mentioned the 'Magna Carta'. I'll repeat from memory what should be in many of my post. I feel sure you could google my handle and 'Magna Carta' and find a couple.

The US Constitution, was designed to give organization to (then 13 colonies and now 50 States) in common interest and the 'First 10 (ratified) Amendment limits to those various states. The amendments WERE IN FACT, taken from the then 'Rights under Virginia's Constitution', which was in large part taken from the British 'MAGNA CARTA' 1215.

I have also, even opposing your post, argued the validity of the British Empire and their practice, in their time in history. However, the US government was set up to equalize rights of 13/50 separate and considered sovereign Nations, NOT to make equal, individuals in those states, equal to each other. There is a difference...

As for SOCIALISM; In short it is government mandated equalization of wealth. It punishes achievement and rewards failure, with out regards to the people involved, or not charitable.

There are obvious differences in how people wish to live, how they got/get there and what is perceived important in their lives. When you observe the poorest, say like in Houston, your observing people who already exist in pure socialism. They live in Public Paid housing, receive food stamps, allocated dollars for their children, have in many cases never worked and are of third or more generations of the same lifestyle. Houston, also has housed thousand of New Orleans transplants and is the home of hundreds of thousands, so called illegal immigrants, who by choice and traditions, commune in living conditions. There are towns around Houston, that most achievers have moved to over years, where average per capita income is twice the National average. There are also towns near by where no one lives on any form of welfare, but live on half the National Average.

kojax;

Out sourcing; KBR or which ever company used, is responsible for their workers, on a Military Installation. From paper work to payment for service or activity off base, all very costly if the inefficient US government is involved.

Cost/efficiency; Wal-Mart, not only replaced Mom and pops but introduced products/services previously unavailable in many towns. They purchase in truckloads, redistributing product from centralized warehouses. Sam's Warehouse, in turn sells products to business and individuals in quantities, at cheaper prices than possibly, by even suppliers when transportation involved. The estimated average difference in purchasing power at WM or Costco or other like systems is estimated at 2,000 per year per family.

This analogy, works for farming or agriculture as well. Those ten major Corporate Farming Operations in California, order rail cars of fertilizer/seed and other things used by all. In many parts of the country, Co-op's have formed where the same is done for a good number of still existing farms. In the mid west or plains, for wheat/corn and in the southern States for sorghum/cotton and for cattle/dairy product/ poultry/hogs in other places.

As for corruption, I don't think it exist anywhere near a degree for worry, or ever would. If your thinking price control, raw materials are a minor factor in what the customer pays. Beyond this manufacturers or distributors are tied up in the competitive nature of business.

Corruption and servicing the military, assume by Hallibuton is just nonsense. If you build up a business over 100 years, with a track record of large projects and establish a work force of 50-100k, easily having the ability to gather large number over a short period and have the resources to wait while all efficient government gets around to paying you...your company will get the job and on those merrits...

The corruption I see in the agricultural industry is in the form of what they do with/to to some of their products. It's impossible for a consumer to tell that a pound of beef in a store has growth hormones in it that will mirror the effects of taking a very small dose of steroids every time the eat it.

To expect consumers to regulate this with their buying practices is very nearly the same thing as requiring them to be psychics, or to require every single last one of them to hold a phd in biochemistry and set up a testing lab in their homes. The labeling practices are set up by the federal government, which you don't seem to have a lot of faith in, so I rather doubt the labels are ever going to reflect the degree of contamination the food has suffered.

How long do you think this can go on before every woman in the country has a mustache and the men are infertile?

Originally Posted by jackson33

kojax;

Out sourcing; KBR or which ever company used, is responsible for their workers, on a Military Installation. From paper work to payment for service or activity off base, all very costly if the inefficient US government is involved.

That's exactly what I mean. KBR doesn't and can't court martial its employees. It has internal politics just like any other corporation, and so from the moment a base commander makes a request of the food staff, it could easily be a week's worth of decision making before it's actually followed.

Cost/efficiency; Wal-Mart, not only replaced Mom and pops but introduced products/services previously unavailable in many towns. They purchase in truckloads, redistributing product from centralized warehouses. Sam's Warehouse, in turn sells products to business and individuals in quantities, at cheaper prices than possibly, by even suppliers when transportation involved. The estimated average difference in purchasing power at WM or Costco or other like systems is estimated at 2,000 per year per family.

A lot of that cost efficiency comes from having the ability to bully suppliers. No supplier can adjust its ability to produce on a dime, but Walmart can choose to carry or not carry their product on a dime.

If you've opened and outfitted ten factories, complete with staff, in order to meet the demand created by your contract with Walmart, you can't afford to suddenly close them. That gives Walmart a lot of leverage at the bargaining table every time your contract comes up for renewal.

Don't confuse leverage with efficiency. Efficiency benefits absolutely everyone. Leverage benefits one group at the cost of another. Size gives you leverage no matter how big an operation gets, but it only gives you efficiency up to a certain size.

Walmart sells cheap goods, but it also drives down wages everywhere it touches. The net effect is neither positive nor negative with regard to peoples' budgets. It's harder for them to make rent or buy food (especially food that's healthy), but they can afford more cheap consumer crap with the disposable income they have left.

kojax;

Viable times a product remains good/fresh on you market shelves has increased ten times over the past 50 years alone. Chemicals added have a lot to do with this as has vacuum packing, homogenizing and shipping/storage procedures. The point, less people die from 'bad food'.

For most of history all meat came from animals that grazed in open fields. Then they added some feed and that feed was improved. Today, much of what you eat has never been in any field. This included fish, poultry, hogs, dairy cattle, even some beef products. Yields in every plant product, farm produced are also well up in those 50 years, for genetically cured/genetic seed and fertilizers used.

If any of these things bother you, capitalism has given you 'Natural Food' stores where you can spend your money. The few farmers I do know still prefer shopping at Kroger's/Safeway and that terrible/corrupt Wal Mart Super Center.

The President, my Governor nor the Mayor of my town does not tell me what I can eat, how its fix or punish me for my choice. Why would a base commander have any more rights then them. The folks eating in the 'mess halls' can and often do dictate changes.

Leverage is a by product of efficiency, NOT separable in business. I agree Wal Mart, on occasion does bully (so to speak) its suppliers. However Wal Mat has made many small companies, very large. Three or four times a years they hold meeting for small companies (from around the world) in Arkansas. Of the thousand (thousands more refused attendance) or so, in any one year that attend, 20-50 may be chosen to place products in some to all their outlets. Many do so, at a loss to expenses, considering the process to name recognition which would cost much more otherwise. There is no bill board sign anywhere, where more people will see your product on a daily basis. To top this off, if your product or service is successful (sells) WM will not pull your product. They do have a THREE PRICE system, based on locations and areas where some products do good opposed to others, work with suppliers and in many cases buy out the company.

Actually Wal Mart, has increased labor cost in every town it enters. Mom and Pops, as a rule pay the least wages, never with any form of benefit package. Its been a good many years since I checked this out, but think by 2000, there were some 3-4000 people who had retired from WM millionaires, from Stock in their retirement programs.

WM is not the only story on these issues. Big business has done no less in many fields and I won't bother you with statistics on what these companies have done for towns, counties or states through taxes of civic involvement.

Originally Posted by jackson33

kojax;

Viable times a product remains good/fresh on you market shelves has increased ten times over the past 50 years alone. Chemicals added have a lot to do with this as has vacuum packing, homogenizing and shipping/storage procedures. The point, less people die from 'bad food'.

For most of history all meat came from animals that grazed in open fields. Then they added some feed and that feed was improved. Today, much of what you eat has never been in any field. This included fish, poultry, hogs, dairy cattle, even some beef products. Yields in every plant product, farm produced are also well up in those 50 years, for genetically cured/genetic seed and fertilizers used.

If any of these things bother you, capitalism has given you 'Natural Food' stores where you can spend your money. The few farmers I do know still prefer shopping at Kroger's/Safeway and that terrible/corrupt Wal Mart Super Center.

What concerns me is the steroids. That's why I talk about women and mustaches. , and men and infertility. My personal familiarity with a local chicken farmer has shown me that chickens are typically fed massive amounts of steroids in order to increase the yield (lower the death rate), as well as massive amounts of antibiotics (which will increase the tendency of bacteria to become resistant to anti-biotics)


The problem with expecting consumers to somehow react, and stop buying a product that has these things is that of imperfect information (the great bane of capitalist systems everywhere. )

You can't tell what chemicals the animal was or was not fed by looking at a leg of chicken. You can't even tell by the taste. And, unless you've basically got a phd in bio-chemistry, you're not going to know how severe an effect all the chemicals listed (or sometimes not listed) on the package label will have on you or your children.

It's unrealistic to expect companies to to share their expertise in this area too much (like by placing warning labels on the product). So what I'd like to understand is how consumers are going to do something that is absolutely impossible for them to do? How are they going to be the regulator, like their supposed to?


If you don't want government to do it, and you know the consumers absolutely can't do it, then what? Should the job just not get done?

The President, my Governor nor the Mayor of my town does not tell me what I can eat, how its fix or punish me for my choice. Why would a base commander have any more rights then them. The folks eating in the 'mess halls' can and often do dictate changes.

The major complaint is that mess halls refuse to alter their hours, and the enemy then knows exactly when the troops will be eating every day. (So they can plan their attacks around our guys' meal times.)

If the mess halls were a military function, the commander could simply order them to change up their hours all the time, and they'd just do it. It would be less cost effective in terms of the dollars per meal (but more cost effective in terms of how many of our guys get killed, which costs money as well).

Leverage is a by product of efficiency, NOT separable in business. I agree Wal Mart, on occasion does bully (so to speak) its suppliers. However Wal Mat has made many small companies, very large. Three or four times a years they hold meeting for small companies (from around the world) in Arkansas. Of the thousand (thousands more refused attendance) or so, in any one year that attend, 20-50 may be chosen to place products in some to all their outlets. Many do so, at a loss to expenses, considering the process to name recognition which would cost much more otherwise. There is no bill board sign anywhere, where more people will see your product on a daily basis. To top this off, if your product or service is successful (sells) WM will not pull your product. They do have a THREE PRICE system, based on locations and areas where some products do good opposed to others, work with suppliers and in many cases buy out the company.

Actually Wal Mart, has increased labor cost in every town it enters. Mom and Pops, as a rule pay the least wages, never with any form of benefit package. Its been a good many years since I checked this out, but think by 2000, there were some 3-4000 people who had retired from WM millionaires, from Stock in their retirement programs.

WM is not the only story on these issues. Big business has done no less in many fields and I won't bother you with statistics on what these companies have done for towns, counties or states through taxes of civic involvement.

Yeah. I have to admit it is a balanced issue. Huge businesses have benefits and liabilities both.

The major reason retailers like Walmart worry me is because I think people confuse inexpensive consumer goods with quality of living. Real Estate prices continue to rise steadily as wages go down, and the real choke hold ends up being whether you can afford the rent.

No matter how cheap consumer goods get, you've got to *have* a disposable income first, or you can't buy anything at all.