"Money Trumps Peace" what is "Dubya" saying now?

[cannon_fodder]

quote: Where do you stand on spending?

I would make every attempt to halve the size of the Imperial Federal Government.  But not out of concern with our debt load, which in proportion to GDP is well below the levels of many post-industrial nations.  Of course, most of the budget is taken up by wealth redistribution programs; so they would suffer the most cuts... which I imagine you would resent.

[aoxamaxoa]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote: Where do you stand on spending?

I would make every attempt to halve the size of the Imperial Federal Government.  But not out of concern with our debt load, which in proportion to GDP is well below the levels of many post-industrial nations.  Of course, most of the budget is taken up by wealth redistribution programs; so they would suffer the most cuts... which I imagine you would resent.

You really are a right wing fanatic....

I am for education, helping the disadvantaged, and providing support for the oppressed amongst other programs the government can aid in raising the standard of living for all.

Pretty much opposite your view....

[cannon_fodder]

Again ignoring your personal attack...

So I am to believe your answer to "where do you stand on spending" would be "I want them to spend more."  I assume this is because you place great trust in governments and assume it has great competence to handle your money in a wise and efficient manner. I'm afraid my humble learning and observations have made be believe the opposite. Government is not responsible with other peoples money.

And no, we do not have an opposite view at all.  Though you try to disparage me as a non-caring individual I too am for helping the disadvantaged, believe strongly in education, and believe above all that raising the standard of living will solve most of the worlds problems.  However, I think governments roll in these endeavors is limited (ahh, remember the concept of limited government.  Thats so far out the window now its a joke).  Any and all who would like to see more done on these fronts are encouraged to contribute the efforts.

- Every school, institute, or university is constantly seeking contributions for scholarship funds.  They are able to take these monies with about 5% overhead and turn them around for students.  The government has more than 10% overhead just in collecting the money - some pathetic amount of the funding to the DOE actually makes it to students.  AND you are able to decide what institutions are worthy of your funding.

- Likewise, many highly reputable charities and churches do a wonderful job providing for the 'disadvantaged' (Im gonna just call them poor).  Again, they do this with less overhead than government and with a more targeted approach. Since they have competition they have to ensure a quality service.  Likewise, it is easier for them to monitor or control the way the aid is handled and ensure it is not squandered (as opposed to FEMA dollars at strip clubs or the long standing black market in food stamps for example).

- and lastly, the excessive taxation of income earners in no ways raises the standard of living of a nation.  The greatest periods of increased standards of living are associated with the wildest periods of free market capitalism and little government interference.  How do you think America got to the point where a person with a roof over their head, cable TV, a computer, an ipod and a car could be considered poor?  How do you think China is growing as a economic super power?  A rising tide lifts all ships,  bailing water out of some vessels to sink others merely gives the allusion of progress.  The details of which are a complex economic question for which I could suggest some reading if you desire.  

The purpose of our government, as created, was to protect the rights and property of the people.  Nothing more.  The founders felt the best way to do so was with a republican form of government within a federation of states.  Somehow that has turned into a government 1,200 miles away regulating what angle by sh!t has to flow out of my house.  GO figure.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Again ignoring your personal attack...

So I am to believe your answer to "where do you stand on spending" would be "I want them to spend more."  I assume this is because you place great trust in governments and assume it has great competence to handle your money in a wise and efficient manner. I'm afraid my humble learning and observations have made be believe the opposite. Government is not responsible with other peoples money.

And no, we do not have an opposite view at all.  Though you try to disparage me as a non-caring individual I too am for helping the disadvantaged, believe strongly in education, and believe above all that raising the standard of living will solve most of the worlds problems.  However, I think governments roll in these endeavors is limited (ahh, remember the concept of limited government.  Thats so far out the window now its a joke).  Any and all who would like to see more done on these fronts are encouraged to contribute the efforts.

- Every school, institute, or university is constantly seeking contributions for scholarship funds.  They are able to take these monies with about 5% overhead and turn them around for students.  The government has more than 10% overhead just in collecting the money - some pathetic amount of the funding to the DOE actually makes it to students.  AND you are able to decide what institutions are worthy of your funding.

- Likewise, many highly reputable charities and churches do a wonderful job providing for the 'disadvantaged' (Im gonna just call them poor).  Again, they do this with less overhead than government and with a more targeted approach. Since they have competition they have to ensure a quality service.  Likewise, it is easier for them to monitor or control the way the aid is handled and ensure it is not squandered (as opposed to FEMA dollars at strip clubs or the long standing black market in food stamps for example).

- and lastly, the excessive taxation of income earners in no ways raises the standard of living of a nation.  The greatest periods of increased standards of living are associated with the wildest periods of free market capitalism and little government interference.  How do you think America got to the point where a person with a roof over their head, cable TV, a computer, an ipod and a car could be considered poor?  How do you think China is growing as a economic super power?  A rising tide lifts all ships,  bailing water out of some vessels to sink others merely gives the allusion of progress.  The details of which are a complex economic question for which I could suggest some reading if you desire.  

The purpose of our government, as created, was to protect the rights and property of the people.  Nothing more.  The founders felt the best way to do so was with a republican form of government within a federation of states.  Somehow that has turned into a government 1,200 miles away regulating what angle by sh!t has to flow out of my house.  GO figure.

Ooh. Lots of sublimated anger going on there.[]

Since I have a business degree I can understand and agree with much of what you believe. But some of it is based on political creeds that get repeated so often they are assumed to be true. The reference to Kennedy's remark that a rising tide lifts all boats. Often used and abused. I like the corollary that one senator replies with, "of course if you don't have a boat..."

I would also take issue with your generalization that the greatest periods of increased standards of livings are associated with the wildest periods of free market capitalism. Thats a mouthful. I thought of the late 1890's right off the bat that were one of those times. The standard raised for the upper class, not across all classes, and coincided with a rather nasty "panic" (we call them depressions now). Then again in those wild 20's which had the same results. I just don't think your assertion is anything more than business school/right wing rhetoric.

I also have trouble with your premise that govt.'s only role was and is to be as protector of  rights and property. That sounds pretty narrow and libertarian. I'm guessing your education was Oklahoman. Probably Tulsan. Tell me your beliefs about unions and we'll know for sure.[] Nonetheless, I appreciate your patience and civility.

[rwarn17588]

The greatest rise in the middle class in this country was during the 1950s, in which the rich were heavily taxed and the nation was more unionized.

Just an observation.

[cannon_fodder]

My under graduate degrees were earned in Iowa, my Juris Doctorate is from Tulsa. Certainly it would be hard to claim that a law school is a bastion of conservatism or that Iowa is anything but middle of the road.

The rising tide comment is over used, misquoted, and often misunderstood while being easily rebutted as you pointed out.  However, when considering ones audience it is sometimes needed to use such well known cliches.  I would prefer to phrase it:  an economic environment in which laissez faire governmental policies enable a industrious workforce to operate and profit from their endeavors is likely to produce an increase in goods and services of increasing quality and efficiency while contributing great wealth to few and an increase level of wealth to the majority.  However, the careful wording of that statement would probably be lost on many who are only facially interested in economics.  Anyway, I believe the basic idea of Kennedy's statement is correct: a robust economy is better for everyone.  It makes no promise of equality.

While I wholeheartedly agree that many of the periods of rapid uninhibited capitalism did not immediately result in anything beneficial to most of the poor; it was the growth in those period that eventually enabled the masses to enjoy prosperity.  Of course, the labor movement and the latter study of labor relations has greatly altered that equation anyway (with most modern companies relying on market policies to compensate employees in such a way so as to retain the best they can).

[full disclosure: I work closely with a union in town and have had no complaints with my relationship nor negotiations with them]

Thus, my view of union labor is mixed. While I think they serve a vital roll in establishing fair wages and working conditions, I think they often get the upper hand on a company and take all they can out of it.  Just as they complained companies were doing in years past.

A study of Waterloo Iowa and similar industrial towns exemplifies this.  Waterloo is a company town, John Deere, a strong AFL-CIO company, is by far its major employer.  The union greatly improved working conditions in the plants (especially the foundry) and help arbitrate disputes between often distant management and workers.  At its peak John Deere had nearly 25,000 workers in Waterloo.  Today it employees around 6,000 employees and 19,000 robots.  From a business standpoint, John Deere can not afford to pay someone $50,000+ a year to put bolts on a tractor tire... continuing to do so would deprive everyone at the company of a job in the long run.  Thus, people have been laid off and as people retired no one is hired to replace them.

Rath packing was based in Waterloo and employed nearly 10,000 people.  The union leveraged increases in wages until the company was in financial ruin.  Under threat of closure the union voted to loan its pension fund to the company to keep it running... it failed and all pensions were lost.  Everyone, even non-union members, were out of a job.

Another issue I draw with the unions, that will come to light in the near future, is the gap between new members and old members.  The new guys in a union shop often made 50% or less of what the legacy members make.  They often do the same job. The older members, nearer to retirement, are happy to trade wages for better health coverage or a lower vestige for their pension, while they pull in $50,000+ a year and the guys that have been there for 5 or 6 years make $25-30,000.  With all the members, young and old/father and son, I know in the AFL-CIO this is commonly known and the old guys have no doubt they are sticking it to the young guys.  There are fewer jobs and the union protection is limited for new members.  Likewise, when enough old members are no longer voting... it will turn the tide the other way and Im sure the federal government will be paying Union Pensions and underfunded health care promises.  

Other strong Unions in the nation include legacy airlines, automakers, steel manufacturers and mining.  All industries that are seeking to automate as much as possible and with the exception of mining, are in a rapid decline.  Most of the strong non-governmental unions in the nation have caused their industries to become non-competitive in a global market and many are losing their jobs as a result.  I dont think its a coincidence that the most heavily unionized industries are the ones that lay off the most people and are in general decline. (the longshoreman, teamsters and associated shipping unions are an odd duck in this mix.  While they are strong, provide good wages, and are thriving... its hard for them to argue against free trade or increased imports.  Thus their interests are much more muted than others).

I guess it would have been a shorter answer to say greed is a two way street.  Some companies want to get all they can from their workers and dont care about their labor force.  Some unions want the same from the company and have no regard (or understanding?) or its long term viability.

and while I have to agree that many people spout similar rhetorically pros, I am happy to report mine is research, considered, debated, and decided upon independently of anything I may have heard on the AM dial.

Per government, Libertarian as charged.  As I stated before, I am of the opinion that the Federal Government is not trustworthy, inefficient, knee jerk, power hungry, and  detached.  It operates with an unlimited budget and completely unrestrained - remember, we are supposed to have a government of limited enumerated powers.  Base on those beliefs and my experience that a larger government rarely solves any problems, a smaller government seems better.

Contrary to belief, this actually places me well outside the stereotypical lines of 'right wing' as such a statement of limited government would also inhibit the federal government's ability to dictate social policy and many individual behaviors. Hence I remain a pariah, basically outlawed in Oklahoma (which requires a minimum of 10% of a presidential vote to be considered a political party: http://www.oklp.org/obar/2006_OBARpacket.pdf). Stupid two party system.

[rwarn17588]

Interesting thoughts, cannon fodder.

What do you think of the trend in which more and more corporations are begging the government to institute universal health care?

[waterboy]

You're going to get along fine here. Like I said, much of what you believe I do too, for different reasons. I would transfer some of those same criticisms of big government to big business. The leadership of both move back and forth carrying their invasive, uninspired practices. There are successes in govt. solving problems or at least lessening their impact just as there are companies who serve their missions well. Don't forget that for all its sloppiness, the govt. through payroll deduction has kept our old and infirm from being tossed into the street or poor houses.

Libertarians (not that there's anything wrong with that [])are part of a growing group of pariahs here in Okieland. Those who think for themselves, liberals (not that there's anything wrong with that), those who use turn signals, gays (not that there's anything....) and those who can express themselves without the use of their middle finger. Welcome.

[cannon_fodder]

Health care is obviously a complex issue.  Like all things, I would prefer we do whatever we can to keep it out of the hands of the government as it will surely increase costs and decrease quality in the long run (see, e.g.,  postal service which was dismal until semi-privatized).

Generally speaking, companies are seeking to avoid health care costs because they dont want the expense of keeping their workers happy. Likewise, workers that are clamoring for health coverage should realize that it comes at the expense of other benefits. Health insurance costs companies large sums of money, they get a rate for their bulk purchases but it is still damn expensive; but because workers dont see "health care benefit $500 this month" on their check it usually goes unappreciated.

I hope to see more companies offering split-cost health insurance to their employees (the type white-collar jobs have seen forever, where I pay $400 a month for my family and company both gets me a discount and pays some).  I also hope to see an increasing trend of insurance companies rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior.  Yes, you have the freedom to do as you please in this country, but you are not free from the burden of paying for it:

If you go to a yearly physical you get a 5% reduction in premiums.  Likewise, if you keep your cholesterol and weight in a reasonable range you are granted further discounts.  If you smoke, are morbidly obese, or refuse preventive care you should be required to pay more.  That's the way it works with auto, unemployment, workers comp, and home owners insurance (with different variable clearly)... and so it should work with health insurance.

Currently the healthy bastards I see biking in Riverside are subsidizing the future heart care of the lazy slobs drinking beer while eating nachos as they watch them roll by.  I saw these thought I am more likely the beer/nacho man... but actual costs could encourage me to do what I should be doing anyway.

For the record, the idea of taxing this benefit is HORRIBLE.  It would, in essence, punish companies and individuals who opt-in to health care plans to subsidize those companies that dont even offer them.

[cannon_fodder]

Thanks for the compliments waterboy (I think), but I would like to point out that a grossly incompetent and inefficient company tends to get put in its place quickly.  Companies rise and fall all the time; 15 years ago IBM was by far the biggest computer maker in the world and GM made more cars than any 2 foreign companies combined.  Today IBM is all but out of the PC market and GM's I have better credit than GM.  Many of the largest companies in America arent that old and many economic gods of yor' are history.  

That and corporations are true democracies.  Shareholders vote and things change.  There is a set criteria for what is expected and anything else you get the boot.  Funny how people seem to pay attention and actually vote when it directly effects them in the pocket book.

Meanwhile, the government only grows off of its own inefficiencies in a nearly pornographic horror show.  Sadly, that spiral usually continues until great struggles are required to undo it.  I'm not a doom and gloom the end is near revolt - kind of person, but historically speaking that's what happens.  Hell, even the founding fathers believed a little revolution every now and then was a good thing to keep government in its place.

Again... not advocating revolution.  Well, unless Kucinich is elected.

[shadows]

When unions were accepted by government it brought a complete change in the relations of both labor and management. Its largest failure was to not limit the powers of both.   You took a group of labor's and gave them the power to establish a unit acting as the supplier of productivity without restrictions on their demands.   It turned over to the labor unit the right to question and demand a greater part of the resources on which management relied on to continue the operations.  Health care, vacation pay, holiday pay, sick leave and etc., along with the duplication of Social Security retirement caused management to replace workers with robots just to meet the demands of unionization.  This did not accomplish the intended results as management faced another rounds of cost that the robots, of which they depended on, was to become a new source of income for insurance companies, health insurance [which was demanded and increased several folds] to Social Security increases, Medicare and liability insurance.   In the end management was forced to lay off workers, which lowered by the ripple effects the living standard of all workers, placing them into the working poor class.
We ask ourselves which came first the chicken or the egg.  There is an answer to the labor-management as to why management has taken their product to other countries where labor is obtained at a cheaper rate.  They also resort to hiring illegal immigrant at a lower wage in order to balance the books.  In the meanwhile government has increased it costs of operation in salaries and employment of personnel giving them a sign check for them to make out the amount they think their services are worth.

Most citizens do not realize Tulsa voted to change to a councilor form of government, giving the part time councilors the right to set their own salaries, which they have increased twice and are covered with the best health insurance that is available.

We are entering into a downward slide but who will we blame?