Save America (a manifesto)

[joecoolfrog]

As someone else said, the manifesto doesn't go near far enough.

As hologram said;

Well, it looks like right now the economy will force the government to cut money to foreign policy and pull out from some of our overseas bases (like Japan and NATO) which will basically end our ability to police other nations in our own interests and then with a diminished military, the President's wartime privileges will be revoked and Congress will be given the power it hasn't had since the 20s.

Does this mean that with a super powerful Congress, they will take back their reins of lawmaking from the Judiciary? What a deal!

I agree this manifesto is simply half measures, clearly what is needed is a large wall all around the United States and the repatriation of all US citizens to home sweet home

[Napoleon Ier]

As someone else said, the manifesto doesn't go near far enough.

As hologram said;

Well, it looks like right now the economy will force the government to cut money to foreign policy and pull out from some of our overseas bases (like Japan and NATO) which will basically end our ability to police other nations in our own interests and then with a diminished military, the President's wartime privileges will be revoked and Congress will be given the power it hasn't had since the 20s.

Does this mean that with a super powerful Congress, they will take back their reins of lawmaking from the Judiciary? What a deal!

I agree this manifesto is simply half measures, clearly what is needed is a large wall all around the United States and the repatriation of all US citizens to home sweet home

What? Seriously; what the f*ck? Are you on drugs or something, or is this really the best "comic" primary and base anti-americanism you can come up with?

[PLAYER57832]

Definition of hateful?

How about thinking about the consequences of these things.  How about considering how you would feel if you were one of those "other" guys.  How about what you would DO if you were in their position. If the answer is "I would attack the US", as it often is now, then you can pretty well bet your actions were hateful.

Most intelligent people DON'T want to go out and fight, attack others.  MOST people want to live their lives, raise their kids.  They want to go to work, educate their kids, go to whatever religious institution they adhere (.. or not go, if they prefer), eat and have some time for a few fun things like sports, music and the like.  For the most part, the extremists are pushed aside as the idiots they are (look at how the KKK is viewed here, as an example).  UNTIL folks are pushed.

You know the REAL reason Hammas is supported by the Palestinians, for example?  Because for years, if a widow needed food for her kids, she went to Hammas.   If you wanted your children educated ... you would often have little choice but to turn to Hammas.

The same thing is happening now in Iraq.   Al Kaeda never had a hold there UNTIL the US came in.  Now?  There are thousands of young, educated men with no job options, no opportunities.   They want to work, to eat?   Al Kaeda will PAY THEM.  At least then they can support their families.

And, while they are eating this food, they just might LISTEN to those who are providing this largess.  When you are hungry and someone tells you ... "go blame THEM" ... it becomes pretty easy to listen if the speaker is the one giving you the food.  It becomes easy even when you know, in your heart of hearts, that these folks are spewing irrational hatred. Eventually, you lose sight of the irrationality.

So, if we want to "secure our borders" we can follow the path of many a failed nation and build up walls, build up armies. OR we can follow the path of the many more successful enterprises and, while not ignoring military defense, ensure that our greatest footprint elsewhere is economic plenty.

YOu want peace and security? Ensure that your neighbors have full bellies. Better yet, ensure that they know they can thank YOU for those full bellies... and you have the best security ever. Ironically, schools and farm programs happen to be a lot cheaper than bombs.

But, then, I guess I am just one of those "stupid commie liberals" (oh, you say commie and liberal are not the same ... does it matter? Names and labels are, after all what are REALLY important!).

[joecoolfrog]

As someone else said, the manifesto doesn't go near far enough.

As hologram said;

Well, it looks like right now the economy will force the government to cut money to foreign policy and pull out from some of our overseas bases (like Japan and NATO) which will basically end our ability to police other nations in our own interests and then with a diminished military, the President's wartime privileges will be revoked and Congress will be given the power it hasn't had since the 20s.

Does this mean that with a super powerful Congress, they will take back their reins of lawmaking from the Judiciary? What a deal!

I agree this manifesto is simply half measures, clearly what is needed is a large wall all around the United States and the repatriation of all US citizens to home sweet home

What? Seriously; what the f*ck? Are you on drugs or something, or is this really the best "comic" primary and base anti-americanism you can come up with?

Anti - American , whatever do you mean Kiddy ?

[PLAYER57832]

I agree this manifesto is simply half measures, clearly what is needed is a large wall all around the United States and the repatriation of all US citizens to home sweet home

I am sure many American Indian tribes would agree ....At least those that still exist after the rounds of plagues, genocidic wars, and abuses by the BIA.    Yep, makes a lot of sense!

[bradleybadly]

When you look at any policy, it does not simply do justice to look at what the policy does. In doing simply this, you would have a hard time at crafting or evaluating any policy, because there seems to be no justification or necessity to do anything. Hopefully that would end any claim that the policy need only be looked at by what it does, as such a comment or argument seems shortsighted.

That sounds like a bunch of verbal diarrhea to me. Policies are implemented for the exact reason of what they will do. I don't know where you get off saying that there's no justification to do anything. Events happen and policies are implemented to deal with them. In reality, you just disagree with policies you don't like and try to define them as shortsighted or simple.

The rest of your post is flawed because of your premise. I saw that you used the word assume at least 4 times based on your opening line of thought. You indirectly claim that people who support ideas that you're opposed to do so for non-altruistic reasons. Once again, a liberal attempt to paint people who disagree with you as non-caring.

I didn't quote everything you wrote to save some time and space. But essentially what you're doing is denying the fact that high tax rates on families, large government bureaucracy, illegal immigration, welfare for people who don't need it, low pay to military personnel, and trade deficits are already hurting a segment of the population. You probably don't want to admit to this, but you're choosing to favor one group of people over another. Why? Who knows, it's your life and you've probably had some type of experience that leads you to that conclusion OR you could be being indoctrinated by university professors who want young people to view the U.S. as racist, imperialist, or insensitive - but probably some combination of those titles.

[suggs]

Tonk, stop befuddling everything with your mass of caveats and over-multiplication of entities!
You said something about "policies not just being about what they do". NO! This IS exactly what policies are about. A policy whose aim is to reduce road congestion can only be evaluated by what it does: ie, did it reduce congestion or not?
Good intentions, or "the sociological context" of the policy are just irrelevant.

So I'm afraid the rest of your discussion was invalid.
Please apply some rigour to your thinking
One second- ah, my arse is calling - time to disappear up it, I'm afraid

[PLAYER57832]

 I didn't quote everything you wrote to save some time and space.  .

nor will I

But essentially what you're doing is denying the fact that high tax rates on families, large government bureaucracy, illegal immigration, welfare for people who don't need it, low pay to military personnel, and trade deficits are already hurting a segment of the population.

Let's take them one by one:

High tax rates

Compared to where? The US tax rate is far lower than most of Europe ... except they get health care, other "goodies" we don't get. The very rich in this country, in particular, pay far less tax. Also, think about this. Every time a corporation or small business hires someone and DOESN'T pay them a wage that allows them to reasonably feed their kids, buy a house, and get decent health care ... who do you think is asked to pick up the tab? We support these corporations every day. Factories are big in our area. The EXPERIENCED people tend to make $15-16 an hour. That is low enough that, with 2 kids, you qualify for WIC (the women, infant and children program), reduced lunches in school, etc. Now, I am the first to say this is really 2 problems. Yes, the income level is too high. We can support ourselves without that assistance. BUT, we also live in a an area where the average house costs around $50,000. In CA, that won't buy you a blank plot of rocky ground. On health care -- read my previous post, I won't repost.

large government bureaucracy

Easy criticism, but you have to be specific. Wasteful spending on "bridges to nowhere" or international airports in an area that had a population of 30,000? Yes, I would call that wasteful.

BUT, I do like to have safe roads. I don't like that our military is at war, but I absolutely do feel we need them supported. I also have a partiality to clean water ... and have all around me examples of streams that either are or have been polluted to the point of harming humans. Companies won't regulate themselves. It does take government intervention.

illegal immigration

This is the really interesting one. Historically, the "other" has always been the target. Go back a few years and replace ALL the rhetoric with the words "Italien", "Irish","Jews", etc, etc, etc, The REAL truth is that when you blame other workers instead of the employers, you defeat yourself. It is always easy to blame other folks for problems, but does the real blame go to the construction worker who is willing to take a job for $10 an hour ... or the employer who is making an extra $200,000 by hiring illegal aliens.

Someone is hiring these folks. They are hired because they will work for less than citizens or under harsher conditions. We call them "evil" and "criminals". Yet, which of us, under the same circumstances would not do the same. Other laws we have are not like that. With the exception of minor "traffic" type laws, there for "convenience" as much as anything, most of us don't need laws to tell us to not kill, not steel, etc. We don't do them because we consider the behavior wrong. Yet, in this case, we condemn people for doing things we would do under the same circumstances. That is pretty strange.

The crime that is occuring is not that some bloke comes here to feed his kids. The problem is that they don't have health insurance and perhaps don't pay as much into some school systems as citizens. (they DO pay taxes, just not necessarily all the taxes). BUT here is the thing. Is the solution to put up a wall? The more inforcement, the more we ensure that those who do get through are smuggled by criminals or hardened criminals themselves. We ensure we get fewer and fewer of the just honest folks who want to make a living. We encourage the evil guys (and I truly mean EVIL) to abuse and condemn folks who just want to work, just want to survive. Meanwhile, the REAL criminals, the ones who are paying these folks so little... they get off almost scott free.

Does that seem right? The heads of corporations are free to reap profits, py a relatively small fine if caught. Those who only wanted to work get slammed in jail, separated from their kids (and say, what happens to those kids, by-the-way) .. all becuase they committed the "crime" of wanting to work. The truth is we should allow them to work, but TAX them to pay for the services they use at a higher rate than citizens. Let employers hire these folks, but require them to pay more for the non-citizen ... the excess paid in the form of taxes specifically to support medical care, schools and other social services.

welfare for people who don't need it

Agree. Except the largest segmant of the population currently receiving aid are WORKING folks. Start by requiring every employer to pay their employees enough to live on. Enough so they can buy decent food, have transportation (cars in rural areas, public transport in cities), a nice house, medical care and a bit left over. For those who truly refuse to work? I actually would be a bit hard-hearted. Why should my deadbeat neighbors get a three bedroom house? Why does being a single mother suddenly mean you are eligible for a literal bonanza.

I am married. I stay at home, mostly because if I went out to work, I would make less than $1 an hour by the time I subtracted what I would have to pay for child care, transportation, etc. If I divorced my husband, I would get a free house, childcare, food, AND assistance finding a job. That just isn't right.

Then you have the elderly & the truly disabled. They, ironically DON'T get help. Too many elderly work their lives only to find they cannot afford medicine, to fix their houses or even buy food. This is just wrong!

low pay to military personnel

Absolutely! Yet, the republicans balk at a new GI bill, talk a nice talk about providing help to troops ... but would rather pay Blackwater millions than pay troops afew thousand to do the same jobs.

and trade deficits

This is a tough one, but ironically is a place where the government does have a role. Yet, what is your answer ... you don't specify.

.

You probably don't want to admit to this, but you're choosing to favor one group of people over another.

Though this was aimed at someone else, not I, I will answer. EVERY decision you make or ask to be made by government "favors one over another". The only question is WHO you wish to favor. Myself? I want to ensure that working people have decent livings, no matter the job they do. Only AFTER can corporations, business folks take profit legitimately. If they cannot afford to pay employees, they cannot afford to do business .. period!

[Neoteny]

When you look at any policy, it does not simply do justice to look at what the policy does. In doing simply this, you would have a hard time at crafting or evaluating any policy, because there seems to be no justification or necessity to do anything. Hopefully that would end any claim that the policy need only be looked at by what it does, as such a comment or argument seems shortsighted.

That sounds like a bunch of verbal diarrhea to me. Policies are implemented for the exact reason of what they will do. I don't know where you get off saying that there's no justification to do anything. Events happen and policies are implemented to deal with them. In reality, you just disagree with policies you don't like and try to define them as shortsighted or simple.

The rest of your post is flawed because of your premise. I saw that you used the word assume at least 4 times based on your opening line of thought. You indirectly claim that people who support ideas that you're opposed to do so for non-altruistic reasons. Once again, a liberal attempt to paint people who disagree with you as non-caring.

I didn't quote everything you wrote to save some time and space. But essentially what you're doing is denying the fact that high tax rates on families, large government bureaucracy, illegal immigration, welfare for people who don't need it, low pay to military personnel, and trade deficits are already hurting a segment of the population. You probably don't want to admit to this, but you're choosing to favor one group of people over another. Why? Who knows, it's your life and you've probably had some type of experience that leads you to that conclusion OR you could be being indoctrinated by university professors who want young people to view the U.S. as racist, imperialist, or insensitive - but probably some combination of those titles.

Would not the situation and other contexts of the policies as well as the intent of the said policies also be important in the evaluation of a policy, and not just the outcomes?

[bradleybadly]

Compared to where? The US tax rate is far lower than most of Europe ... except they get health care, other "goodies" we don't get. The very rich in this country, in particular, pay far less tax.

There ya go again, shifting the terms of the discussion and now comparing us to Europe. They had to create a European Union with their own common currency because they had been lagging behind the U.S. for so many years. Still, the average American generates more GDP than even the closest competitor, Norwegian citizens. It's a good thing that the rich pay far less than European counterparts as THEY ARE THE ONES WHO PROVIDE JOBS! Poor people don't generate jobs or wealth. European productivity is only about 80-85% of American productivity.

As far as healthcare goes, they're not "getting" health care. They pay for it over there through higher taxation. Also, access to health care doesn't guarantee better quality of care. I see you conveniently failed to mention the protests by German doctors for the low payments they receive, people who are denied access to quality prescriptions due to cost concerns, Canadians running illegal for-profit medical centers because govt.-run facilities can't deal with the demand. There is no utopian solution!!

Also, think about this. Every time a corporation or small business hires someone and DOESN'T pay them a wage that allows them to reasonably feed their kids, buy a house, and get decent health care ... who do you think is asked to pick up the tab?

But of course liberal politicians will be there to save us and define what is "reasonable" and start dictating what companies must pay.

We support these corporations every day. Factories are big in our area.

Corporations provide new products and research things that help our lives. By the way, those corporations and factories provide jobs - jobs for real people. You guys like to portray them as just some big building where rich people sit around smoking cigars and laugh at poor people. There is no law requiring these corporations to hire anyone, and also no law requiring employees to offer their services and work for them.

The EXPERIENCED people tend to make $15-16 an hour. That is low enough that, with 2 kids, you qualify for WIC (the women, infant and children program), reduced lunches in school, etc. Now, I am the first to say this is really 2 problems. Yes, the income level is too high. We can support ourselves without that assistance. BUT, we also live in a an area where the average house costs around $50,000. In CA, that won't buy you a blank plot of rocky ground.

Nobody has a right to live wherever they want just because they desire it. This is starting to sound a lot like the rational behind the gay marriage thread. "We want to have it so we deserve it. If you don't give it to us then we'll get angry."

Easy criticism, but you have to be specific. Wasteful spending on "bridges to nowhere" or international airports in an area that had a population of 30,000? Yes, I would call that wasteful.

BUT, I do like to have safe roads. I don't like that our military is at war, but I absolutely do feel we need them supported. I also have a partiality to clean water ... and have all around me examples of streams that either are or have been polluted to the point of harming humans. Companies won't regulate themselves. It does take government intervention.

For the most part, that's a reasonable post. I'm not totally against some government oversight. I just don't like it when liberals try to paint all corporations as evil because they went to see Erin Brockovich and think they're now experts on the environment. Hollywood also has an agenda when they produce movies.

This is the really interesting one. Historically, the "other" has always been the target. Go back a few years and replace ALL the rhetoric with the words "Italien", "Irish","Jews", etc, etc, etc, The REAL truth is that when you blame other workers instead of the employers, you defeat yourself. It is always easy to blame other folks for problems, but does the real blame go to the construction worker who is willing to take a job for $10 an hour ... or the employer who is making an extra $200,000 by hiring illegal aliens.

It goes to both. The way your word it though makes people who want to protect their borders appear as borderline racist. Both parties should be punished.

Someone is hiring these folks. They are hired because they will work for less than citizens or under harsher conditions. We call them "evil" and "criminals".

Bullshit! You're saying that we're calling them "evil" or "criminals". We're saying they came here illegally.

Yet, which of us, under the same circumstances would not do the same. Other laws we have are not like that. With the exception of minor "traffic" type laws, there for "convenience" as much as anything, most of us don't need laws to tell us to not kill, not steel, etc. We don't do them because we consider the behavior wrong. Yet, in this case, we condemn people for doing things we would do under the same circumstances. That is pretty strange.

That is a HUGE leap of logic to jump from traffic laws to laws against murder! That's so ludicrous. Murder & stealing are morally wrong! They're not even close to traffic laws. It is really condescending of you to assume that other people would do the same thing under those circumstances. You don't know that! You create this assumption and then treat it as it's absolutely true and then conclude that it's pretty strange. Of course it is, when you've already set the premise that you know how other people think - once again, just like in the gay marriage thread - you act as if you know the motivation of people who disagree with you.

The crime that is occuring is not that some bloke comes here to feed his kids. The problem is that they don't have health insurance and perhaps don't pay as much into some school systems as citizens. (they DO pay taxes, just not necessarily all the taxes).

Nope, the crime is that they came here illegally without proper authorization. But as you mentioned, the employers are equally to blame.

BUT here is the thing. Is the solution to put up a wall? The more inforcement, the more we ensure that those who do get through are smuggled by criminals or hardened criminals themselves. We ensure we get fewer and fewer of the just honest folks who want to make a living. We encourage the evil guys (and I truly mean EVIL) to abuse and condemn folks who just want to work, just want to survive. Meanwhile, the REAL criminals, the ones who are paying these folks so little... they get off almost scott free.

No wonder most of you liberals are against the war on terror. By this rationale let's not enforce laws because it's only going to cause the truly evil to become more violent and act out against society. The truth is that evil must be confronted and stopped. You may not get everyone, but at least you make it as hard as possible.

Oh yeah, nice job once again making a HUGE leap and comparing smugglers to shady employers. But I forgot, speeders are the same as murderers.

Does that seem right? The heads of corporations are free to reap profits, py a relatively small fine if caught. Those who only wanted to work get slammed in jail, separated from their kids (and say, what happens to those kids, by-the-way) .. all becuase they committed the "crime" of wanting to work. The truth is we should allow them to work, but TAX them to pay for the services they use at a higher rate than citizens. Let employers hire these folks, but require them to pay more for the non-citizen ... the excess paid in the form of taxes specifically to support medical care, schools and other social services.

Evil, evil, evil corporations!! They're not just making profits - they're REAPING profits! OMG everyone run for your lives - they're REAPING!

They broke the law and knew the possibility of getting caught. Of course it's our fault for actually enforcing our own laws. They shouldn't be here in the first place. You naively leave that part out of your post.

Agree. Except the largest segmant of the population currently receiving aid are WORKING folks. Start by requiring every employer to pay their employees enough to live on. Enough so they can buy decent food, have transportation (cars in rural areas, public transport in cities), a nice house, medical care and a bit left over. For those who truly refuse to work? I actually would be a bit hard-hearted. Why should my deadbeat neighbors get a three bedroom house? Why does being a single mother suddenly mean you are eligible for a literal bonanza.

Yes, and liberals will once again be the ones to define what is "decent", "nice" without letting the free market work. But at least you see that there's a problem with some people.

I am married. I stay at home, mostly because if I went out to work, I would make less than $1 an hour by the time I subtracted what I would have to pay for child care, transportation, etc. If I divorced my husband, I would get a free house, childcare, food, AND assistance finding a job. That just isn't right.

not only that but you probably wouldn't have to put up with the toilet seat being left up all the time

Then you have the elderly & the truly disabled. They, ironically DON'T get help. Too many elderly work their lives only to find they cannot afford medicine, to fix their houses or even buy food. This is just wrong!

Agreed, I'm not against some sort of assistance for these people. Unfortunately we live in a world where people abuse the system and screw it up for the truly needy.

Absolutely! Yet, the republicans balk at a new GI bill, talk a nice talk about providing help to troops ... but would rather pay Blackwater millions than pay troops afew thousand to do the same jobs.

Yeah, and you'll only have to serve 3 years to receive the benefits. Democrats know that that will cause more hardship on re-enlistments and that's what they want. Notice that they reject people serving for 6 years in order for the benefits to kick in. Look, it's only going to expand govt. spending by $51.8 billion over the next 10 years. How will they pay for it - higher taxation of course. Of course they also added on an expansion of unemployment benefits as part of that package.

This is a tough one, but ironically is a place where the government does have a role. Yet, what is your answer ... you don't specify.

Generally lower tariffs on quality products coming from overseas. This will force U.S. companies to compete.

Though this was aimed at someone else, not I, I will answer. EVERY decision you make or ask to be made by government "favors one over another". The only question is WHO you wish to favor. Myself? I want to ensure that working people have decent livings, no matter the job they do. Only AFTER can corporations, business folks take profit legitimately. If they cannot afford to pay employees, they cannot afford to do business .. period!

That would be nice but it's not based in reality. The "people" need the corporations to make profits or they will soon be out of a job. Corporations do not exist just so people can have a job. It's an agreement between employer and employee that benefits both parties. You start mandating businesses to act a certain way and they'll withdrawal from hiring and increasing salaries. Sometimes, government does need to set the rules, but not to the extent of mandating what is a "correct" wage.

Nobody feels that they're ever paid enough for what they do. Hell, I know I don't.

[joecoolfrog]

Bradley

Your figures for GDP per capita are way out of date, the USA has been steadily declining for years in this respect and now stands only 8th worldwide behind several European countries. The situation would in fact be far worse if Europeans generally worked as long a week and had as little vacation time as their American counterparts, France for example would be above the USA on a productivity per hour basis.

[bradleybadly]

Bradley

Your figures for GDP per capita are way out of date, the USA has been steadily declining for years in this respect and now stands only 8th worldwide behind several European countries. The situation would in fact be far worse if Europeans generally worked as long a week and had as little vacation time as their American counterparts, France for example would be above the USA on a productivity per hour basis.

Wikipedia ranking of countries by GDP Only by coming together as a Union has Europe outproduced the U.S. I may be mistaken about Norway being at the top of the European Union as I did read about it in an old Newsweek article.

[got tonkaed]

ill be honest with you bradley...as long as you take such a simplistic mindset toward policy making, your never going to have much of an understanding about why things occur in the fashion that they do.

[CoffeeCream]

ill be honest with you bradley...as long as you take such a simplistic mindset toward policy making, your never going to have much of an understanding about why things occur in the fashion that they do.

I'm sorry, but that is truly condescending

[InkL0sed]

ill be honest with you bradley...as long as you take such a simplistic mindset toward policy making, your never going to have much of an understanding about why things occur in the fashion that they do.

I'm sorry, but that is truly condescending

And yet true. Sorry.

[CoffeeCream]

ill be honest with you bradley...as long as you take such a simplistic mindset toward policy making, your never going to have much of an understanding about why things occur in the fashion that they do.

I'm sorry, but that is truly condescending

And yet true. Sorry.

If that's the attitude you're going to take then that's unfortunate.

[InkL0sed]

ill be honest with you bradley...as long as you take such a simplistic mindset toward policy making, your never going to have much of an understanding about why things occur in the fashion that they do.

I'm sorry, but that is truly condescending

And yet true. Sorry.

If that's the attitude you're going to take then that's unfortunate.

What attitude?

All I mean is that I agree that people should look at things in a more nuanced fashion, whether saying so is condescending or not.

[got tonkaed]

coffeecream...i think i tried to spend a fair amount of words on explaining why the idea was set up the way it was. The fact that he rejected the first little premise, suggests a disconnect that i cannot bridge. And at the same time i think there is truth to the post and the following statement.

I ask you, do you think policy making is simply about how a policy is enacted and what it does? If this is anyones response i feel they are missing important parts about the policy creation and its enacting that cause them to miss important things. Im sorry if it was condescending, but it didnt seem like it was a point that needed to be spent another 500 words on, when the response was likely to be very similar.

[joecoolfrog]

Bradley

Your figures for GDP per capita are way out of date, the USA has been steadily declining for years in this respect and now stands only 8th worldwide behind several European countries. The situation would in fact be far worse if Europeans generally worked as long a week and had as little vacation time as their American counterparts, France for example would be above the USA on a productivity per hour basis.

Wikipedia ranking of countries by GDP Only by coming together as a Union has Europe outproduced the U.S. I may be mistaken about Norway being at the top of the European Union as I did read about it in an old Newsweek article.

My figures are per capita which is a better pointer, obviously a developed country with 3 times the workers is likely to produce more overall but the per worker figure is the important one.

[Napoleon Ier]

I didn't quote everything you wrote to save some time and space. .

nor will I

But essentially what you're doing is denying the fact that high tax rates on families, large government bureaucracy, illegal immigration, welfare for people who don't need it, low pay to military personnel, and trade deficits are already hurting a segment of the population.

Let's take them one by one:

High tax rates

Compared to where? The US tax rate is far lower than most of Europe ... except they get health care, other "goodies" we don't get. The very rich in this country, in particular, pay far less tax. Also, think about this. Every time a corporation or small business hires someone and DOESN'T pay them a wage that allows them to reasonably feed their kids, buy a house, and get decent health care ... who do you think is asked to pick up the tab? We support these corporations every day. Factories are big in our area. The EXPERIENCED people tend to make $15-16 an hour. That is low enough that, with 2 kids, you qualify for WIC (the women, infant and children program), reduced lunches in school, etc. Now, I am the first to say this is really 2 problems. Yes, the income level is too high. We can support ourselves without that assistance. BUT, we also live in a an area where the average house costs around $50,000. In CA, that won't buy you a blank plot of rocky ground. On health care -- read my previous post, I won't repost.

large government bureaucracy

Easy criticism, but you have to be specific. Wasteful spending on "bridges to nowhere" or international airports in an area that had a population of 30,000? Yes, I would call that wasteful.

BUT, I do like to have safe roads. I don't like that our military is at war, but I absolutely do feel we need them supported. I also have a partiality to clean water ... and have all around me examples of streams that either are or have been polluted to the point of harming humans. Companies won't regulate themselves. It does take government intervention.

illegal immigration

This is the really interesting one. Historically, the "other" has always been the target. Go back a few years and replace ALL the rhetoric with the words "Italien", "Irish","Jews", etc, etc, etc, The REAL truth is that when you blame other workers instead of the employers, you defeat yourself. It is always easy to blame other folks for problems, but does the real blame go to the construction worker who is willing to take a job for $10 an hour ... or the employer who is making an extra $200,000 by hiring illegal aliens.

Someone is hiring these folks. They are hired because they will work for less than citizens or under harsher conditions. We call them "evil" and "criminals". Yet, which of us, under the same circumstances would not do the same. Other laws we have are not like that. With the exception of minor "traffic" type laws, there for "convenience" as much as anything, most of us don't need laws to tell us to not kill, not steel, etc. We don't do them because we consider the behavior wrong. Yet, in this case, we condemn people for doing things we would do under the same circumstances. That is pretty strange.

The crime that is occuring is not that some bloke comes here to feed his kids. The problem is that they don't have health insurance and perhaps don't pay as much into some school systems as citizens. (they DO pay taxes, just not necessarily all the taxes). BUT here is the thing. Is the solution to put up a wall? The more inforcement, the more we ensure that those who do get through are smuggled by criminals or hardened criminals themselves. We ensure we get fewer and fewer of the just honest folks who want to make a living. We encourage the evil guys (and I truly mean EVIL) to abuse and condemn folks who just want to work, just want to survive. Meanwhile, the REAL criminals, the ones who are paying these folks so little... they get off almost scott free.

Does that seem right? The heads of corporations are free to reap profits, py a relatively small fine if caught. Those who only wanted to work get slammed in jail, separated from their kids (and say, what happens to those kids, by-the-way) .. all becuase they committed the "crime" of wanting to work. The truth is we should allow them to work, but TAX them to pay for the services they use at a higher rate than citizens. Let employers hire these folks, but require them to pay more for the non-citizen ... the excess paid in the form of taxes specifically to support medical care, schools and other social services.

welfare for people who don't need it

Agree. Except the largest segmant of the population currently receiving aid are WORKING folks. Start by requiring every employer to pay their employees enough to live on. Enough so they can buy decent food, have transportation (cars in rural areas, public transport in cities), a nice house, medical care and a bit left over. For those who truly refuse to work? I actually would be a bit hard-hearted. Why should my deadbeat neighbors get a three bedroom house? Why does being a single mother suddenly mean you are eligible for a literal bonanza.

I am married. I stay at home, mostly because if I went out to work, I would make less than $1 an hour by the time I subtracted what I would have to pay for child care, transportation, etc. If I divorced my husband, I would get a free house, childcare, food, AND assistance finding a job. That just isn't right.

Then you have the elderly & the truly disabled. They, ironically DON'T get help. Too many elderly work their lives only to find they cannot afford medicine, to fix their houses or even buy food. This is just wrong!

low pay to military personnel

Absolutely! Yet, the republicans balk at a new GI bill, talk a nice talk about providing help to troops ... but would rather pay Blackwater millions than pay troops afew thousand to do the same jobs.

and trade deficits

This is a tough one, but ironically is a place where the government does have a role. Yet, what is your answer ... you don't specify.

.

You probably don't want to admit to this, but you're choosing to favor one group of people over another.

Though this was aimed at someone else, not I, I will answer. EVERY decision you make or ask to be made by government "favors one over another". The only question is WHO you wish to favor. Myself? I want to ensure that working people have decent livings, no matter the job they do. Only AFTER can corporations, business folks take profit legitimately. If they cannot afford to pay employees, they cannot afford to do business .. period!

Government bureaucracy: probably best illustrated by the fact that Civil Service is 1/3 of the French workforce, or that more people in "administrative roles" exist in the NHS than do actual Doctor and Nurses (ratio of 5:4 compared to 1:5 in private British sectors), and in Education, where teachers are only a fraction of government employees. 100% Pure-breed bureaucrats raised on a strict diet of herbal fair trade tea and tofu payed for by yours truly, the working man or business entrepreneur...sorry, Shylock the oppressing capitalist banker, that is.

Illegal Immigrants: ahhh yes...you mean, that have cost the average Californian household $5.000 so far? What's that? But legal immigrants are so much better, are they? Nope, they cost the treasury $55.000 (yes, 5 figures) more than they input in toto, on average. Not, as Norse once mentionned, that anyone would care toput a price on the cultural damage they've caused. Of course, again, the capitalist businessman is the addie, because he refused to think at the margin in terms of costs. Silly him for following rule n.1 in "managing a succesful business based on sound economic principles"...he must be "re-educated", must he not?

Welfare benefits...well, they've worked so fucking well in Britain. I mean, c'mon..only 5p in every working British man's pound going to the Treasury ends up in the hands of estimatedly fraudulent welfare seekers, and it hasn't created a culture of dependance and de-incentivized work at all, has it?

Trade deficits...yes, which your Keynesian buddies fund by printing reams of dollars (at a rate 13 times faster than goldis being mined) to give to Abdul or Xiao before whinging when it turns out they can buy controlling stakes in your crumbling, stagflationnary economy.

As for your final point...well, sweetheart, that's the Industrial bloody Revolution you've thrown out the window, but never mind, eh?

Now if you'll excuse me, Comrade, I have to bugger off now, GOSPLAN production targets to meet at my Kolkhoze etc...

[Dancing Mustard]

ill be honest with you bradley...as long as you take such a simplistic mindset toward policy making, your never going to have much of an understanding about why things occur in the fashion that they do.

I'm sorry, but that is truly condescending

Given that Bradley's usual contribution to debates is "Stop calling me fucking names you fags! Calling names is what you do when you don't have points, you gays!!! No I won't reply to any of the arguments you have presented, no I won't provide any arguments of my own, but fags are fucking faggy twats and I fucking wish they were dead!!! Here's some pictures of a gay-pride festival. You fags!!", it's only fair to suggest that he might be reaping what he's sown.

It's all very well spending half your life whinging about people calling each other names, but if you spend the other half doing exactly the same thing yourself, then you kind of give up your right to be taken seriously... Exhibit A: BradleyBadly

[Nobunaga]

i wholeheartedly support this candidate and think all neo-cons should vote for him. and his manifesto (in soviet russia, manifesto read you!). here in america, generally there's a "platform", but hey. semantics.

we need more splinter political groups off the republican single issue voter conservatives.

this is good for democracy. especially the democracy supporting Obama.

... Reminisco, why do you support BHO? Please be policy/platform specific, because nobody ever takes it that far. You seem brighter than the "It's all about change!" crowd.

... Just wondering.

[InkL0sed]

i wholeheartedly support this candidate and think all neo-cons should vote for him. and his manifesto (in soviet russia, manifesto read you!). here in america, generally there's a "platform", but hey. semantics.

we need more splinter political groups off the republican single issue voter conservatives.

this is good for democracy. especially the democracy supporting Obama.

... Reminisco, why do you support BHO? Please be policy/platform specific, because nobody ever takes it that far. You seem brighter than the "It's all about change!" crowd.

... Just wondering.

I'm not sure what BHO is, but that was a pretty sarcastic post you quoted...

[got tonkaed]

BHO = obama

[InkL0sed]

BHO = obama

Oh.