PDA

View Full Version : Are you politically involved?



Patrysha
11-21-2009, 11:10 AM
Anne's post on the other thread about the future of manufacturing that started with the idea of buying USA-made prompted this question.

Are you involved in politics beyond paying taxes? (Beyond Mike, of course, I know he's involved on the political scene)

Or do you feel that because you are not part of a big lobby group that it's not worth the time and effort...

I try to keep my eye on things and know who the players and the issues involved. I know people on the local level to stay in the loop as much as possible, but I am not really actively involved at this point. I plan to more active at some point in the future, but staying informed is all I can muster now.

Growing up my parents were quite involved in the 70's & 80's - card carrying party members who got involved with delegate meetings and leadership voting for the federal party they support and so on. So I pretty much grew up thinking that everyone was like that...and that being a voice was as important to democracy as having a voice.

Harold Mansfield
11-21-2009, 01:18 PM
I don't know if I can say that I am "involved" although I do have CNN, MSNBC, with smatterings of Fox News on most of the day (mostly for the laughs). I certainly know the players without a score card and have had 2 political blogs in the past..although I haven't exactly gotten the formula right...but I'm going to try it again.

Last election I blogged daily throughout the year and got some good traffic and links, so as far as being "involved", I kind of feel like blogging my political views in support things that I feel important and smashing on issues and politicians that are full of it, is doing my part the way that I know how to do it.

cbscreative
11-21-2009, 02:13 PM
I never used to be politically involved other than a rare phone call on hot issues, but over the last couple years I've had to rethink that. There is so much going on right now with so much at stake that I don't feel I can afford to be silent. We've always had to deal with politics that threatens small biz and free enterprise, but in my view, it's worse than ever. I would dare say we are now dangerously close to socialism, and many people are trying to push us over that cliff.

What is really strange about the current situations is I find myself siding with entities I despise. I do not like banks, and I don't like insurance companies, but the political solutions to the problems we face are worse than the problems of corporate greed. A power grab by gov't is not the answer, and I believe they are using our disdain for the problems and problem makers to dupe the public into accepting a gov't takeover. I am compelled to speak out against that, and to contact reps to tell them how I feel.

If we end up taking a dangerous path to destruction (and there's plenty of history to know what those paths are and where they lead), I cannot live with having done nothing to try to prevent it.

billbenson
11-21-2009, 03:03 PM
I pretty much agree with everything cb steve said. I feel I'm a capitalist and not represented by either party. I'm also a defeatist, feeling that our country is slowly moving toward socialism and there isn't much we can do about it.

I do think that people who vote on special interests for the president are being very short sited. We need a president who can solve our problems. Whether you agree with him or her on hot special interests such as gay marriage or abortion is irrelevant. I'd vote for Attila the Hun if I thought he could fix our major problems.

Patrysha
11-21-2009, 04:27 PM
Interesting Bill & Steve...because I am a socialist :D

But I think it is either a different type of socialism that we have here or there is some sort of disconnect somewhere - maybe because it is all I have known and what we were raised on...I don't know...because what is going on down there seems more like shoving things down people's throats in sneaky ways...not a progression towards something better for everybody. But, of course, all my opinions are from the outside looking in when it comes to US politics.

Harold Mansfield
11-21-2009, 06:04 PM
At the risk of opening up a can of worms in this thread (maybe that was the point), my biggest problem is not with the direction of actual policy, is the constant in house bickering between the 2 sides of the major parties (Dems and Reps).

Ever since the election, it seems as if nothing is about what is best for the country or the American people, it's one side trying to beat the other side into submission..and that really pisses me off. It's like having a 3 some and the other 2 people forget that you are in the bed.

There is good and bad on both sides and there are good ideas and ridiculous ideas on both sides, but until our politicians stop playing amongst themselves and get back to working for us...nothing worthwhile will get accomplished except this constant blame game based on partisanship.

People with differing ideas work together all the time to do what is best for the company, the children, or what ever else they need to get done...but not these idiots.

The only thing that seems to be important right now, is who can muster up the biggest doomsday scare tactic to try and discredit the other side. At this point, I don't care what they decide on, but decide on it together. Take the best ideas from all sides and get something done. Everyone is sitting back fighting just to fight..so that they can turn around and say "See, I told you so..look at what they did".

All the BS about "patriotic duty" to work with the current administration, and bi-partisanship to do what is best for the people went of of the window the day after inauguration.

It's not about us anymore..it's about them. Everyone wants to take credit but no one is willing to risk taking the blame.

As far as us leaning towards socialism. I don't see it. The next President (if he/she is Republican) will just undo all the stuff that gets done during this administration.

I've been pissed off since the last administration announced that they were invading Iraq, and it's been a downhill slide ever since. Of course the corporate greed and pillaging didn't help things either, but it's not like you can repair all of that in 11 months.

I thought people understood that, but you know how impatient we are in America.

If we can get 3 things done in this administration it will go a long way towards our future:

1. Stop people from stealing from America : Medicare fraud, Corporate Tax cheats, Misappropriation of stimulus money and other federal funding.
(you know there's more money lost in Medicare fraud than we spend on education ? And it's not the individual citizens that are screwing us...it's doctors, hospitals and other medical professionals. The U.S. is a cash cow for fraud.)
2. Consumer Protection: CC, Mortgage, and Banking companies have been ripping us off for years and putting the screws to hard working people.
3. Energy: We need to figure something out. The Saudi's are being cool now because they just pocketed a few trillion dollars in the last 4 years, but you know how they are..the minute they get itchy, gas will be $5 a gallon again.

As far as health care goes..I don't care anymore. People have been complaining about lack of affordable health care, and treatment from HMO's since the first time I heard the words Health Maintenance Organization...at least 20 years, and now all of a sudden instead of working to get something down on paper so people don't have to die anymore and we can stop wasting money on fraud and archaic record keeping....everyone wants to play partisanship and spew a bunch of misinformation...instead of working together...I say screw it.
Drop the whole thing and no one gets nothing, and they can go back to whining 2 years from now when it happens to them, or their parents.

I don't see why the people with Health Care, care. Everyone is America is so scared that someone will get something that they don't get, that they will blow the car up, instead of letting someone else drive it. The old adage, "cut your nose off to spite your face" applies perfectly to American's. We are one selfish, spoiled society : "Give me mine and I had better get more than everyone else, and I don't care if other people don't have..even if they are relatives, friends, coworkers, or family. I'll cross that bridge when I get to it, but don't spend any money to repair the bridge".
"Where's my tax break?" "Wah, Wah, Wah!"

Patrysha
11-21-2009, 10:57 PM
No the point wasn't to open a can of worms...

I started it because I was reminded by the other thread that I often hear people saying they don't have a voice in government but the sadder part is those who don't pay attention to what the government is doing and who can't be bothered to vote. There are people with more invested in the next big football or hockey game than with what community and country leaders are doing.

Much as I have been hurt by the actions of the local Chamber over the summer, the fact is it's one way to stay connected to the local political scene. What the government is doing and planning to do can potentially affect my business, and there are some things I am not willing to wait to read about in the paper. Whether businesses show up or not (and sadly - most don't!) decisions are being made that influence our community (and sometimes beyond).

I wanted to know if other members were involved in politics...like I said for the most part I just keep my eyes on what is going on. I don't have much time to get heavily involved, but I stay informed. It's the best I can do at this point in my business and life.

But...you kind of led it in another direction and it was powerful.

You care! At least you have an opinion.

Do you know how many of your fellow countrymen really couldn't give a <ahem> what the government is doing?

I think the truly tragic thing about all the bickering and posturing the clowns who managed to get elected are doing is largely unheard, unwatched...because people care more about the latest installment of Survivor than who runs their country.

Harold Mansfield
11-22-2009, 12:57 AM
I think the truly tragic thing about all the bickering and posturing the clowns who managed to get elected are doing is largely unheard, unwatched...because people care more about the latest installment of Survivor than who runs their country.

So true. I know grown people that can name all of John and Kate plus Eight's kids, but have no idea who their Congressman is.
The really sad part is, in America, so many people get what they think are facts from sound bites on gossip programs, sensationalized T.V., and pundits...and many times it's out of context, or only half of the actual truth.

Even scarier is Americans are downright hateful against differing political views almost to the point of violence, even though the extent of their involvement in most political issues amounts to shouting at the T.V. or giggling to Rush Limbaugh's one sided rants.

I got a buddy (I still call him that) whom I cannot talk politics with because he is adamant that he is right about everything and I am wrong, yet in the last election, he couldn't be bothered to go and vote.

We are at a strange point politically right now. The same people that are angry right now , were angry during the last administration, as well.

I think many American's are just pissed on General Purpose and want to take it out on someone, even if it's wrong, because the people that they are really mad at, can't be found, or can't be touched.

Undertaking a new Political blog is risky, even though I love to poke fun at current events and politicians, because I know I'll have to deal with the hateful emails and comments from people who have different opinions. For some reason, people can't discuss politics, they have to insult each other personally. I don't know another subject matter in the U.S. that has such a juvenile effect on people.
It's strange.

Spider
11-22-2009, 09:30 AM
In my view, there is some bad in socialism and there is some good in it. What bewilders me, though, is the incongruent view most Americans have on socialism --

Listen to some and - All socialism is bad. Anything sounding like or smelling like socialism is bad.

But government run schools are supported and accepted. That's socialism at work.
-The roads are government owned and run - that's socialism.
-The bridges and levies are government run - that's socialism.
-The National Parks and National Forests are government entities - so they are socialism at work.
-The ports are QUANGOs (quasi-autonomous non-government organisations) which means "government-run" - so that's socialism in fact, if not in name.
-Likewise, the airports are QUANGOs and more-or-less "government-run" - so that's socialism in effect.

The Federal Reserve is listed as a private bank but is government controlled - that makes it a socialist entity. Also, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are socialist entities, too.
-Unemployment benefits are overtly socialist in intent and practice. Along with Medicaid and Medicare.
-The SBA (Small Business Administration) is a socialst concept, along with all the other government departments that reach into private life - the VA, the EPA, CPA, OSHA, and so on.

In fact, America is a very socialist country and I suggest very few peole would want it otherwise, despite all the posturing and ill-informed twaddle the talk show twits rant and rave about.

With that long litany of socially oriented government expression, much of which I have not mentioned, what would be so bad about having universal health/sickness coverage and government run hospitals? I think it would make a great deal of sense.

If not, let's start disbanding some of the other social entities - let's close down the VA and leave the soldiers to their own devices. Let's close down the National Parks and build towns and industrial estates on them. Let's shut down the schools and let parents send their children to private schools - or not!

Let's close the CPA and let people mistreat children as they please. Let's close the police forces and let citizens form their own security forces. Let's disband the various federal, state and local road authorities, sell all the roads and let the buyers turn every road and street into tollways!

Anyone who wants to "Keep America capitalist" had better start working towards disbanding the socialism we already have.

Harold Mansfield
11-22-2009, 11:05 AM
Great Point Frederick ! Kinda goes right along with what I was saying about the selfishness of Americans and how misinformed they really are about what thy are talking and complaining about.

Everyone screams less Government intervention, until something happens and then the first thing out of their mouths is "Where's the Government, why haven't they done something?".

Americans relationship with it's government is the equivalent of teen kids who on the one hand strive to express their independence from their parents and resist parental control, yet on the other, go running to Mommy and Daddy the minute something goes wrong or they run out of money.

I haven't researched this yet, but I'll bet some of the very companies that received stimulus or bailout money, donated funding to defeat the current administration in the last election. "Screw you..Where's mine?"

(Hmmnn, looks like I have my first post:))

Steve B
11-22-2009, 11:54 AM
It is just mind-numbing to me how misinformed the majority of people are in this country. Of course, everyone thinks everyone else is misinformed if they don't agree with their opinion - so, I'm sure, a lot of people would think I was misinformed if I ever disclosed any of my political opinions.

Evan
11-22-2009, 03:01 PM
Yes, I consider myself politically involved, but not nearly to the level I would like to be. At a minimum, I like to know what is going on at all levels of government.

One thing I've noted here is the use of the word "socialism". Since when is the word bad? It's made out to be as bad as the words "conservatives" and "liberals". Socialism, like capitalism, both work very well in theory. The problem is the real world isn't a theory.

The reason I think people see more, what is perceived to be "socialist" policies is because of the direction our nation has been on. Society in the 1900s was much different. When kids were growing up, they'd go outside to play. Good luck finding much of that today. People then also knew their neighbors, so if you needed a babysitter, your neighbors were there for you. No longer. Most people don't even know who lives two houses away from them. Certainly you wouldn't trust that person watching your kid! As a result, there is no real sense of community anymore. Nobody cares about their neighbors, it's just about themselves. And when some people have some misfortunes in life, people don't try to solve the issue. Instead, they think that "charity" will help, or most probably... the government. Think about the last homeless person you saw on the street that may have asked you for some money for coffee. You presumably thought it was alcohol or drug money, and didn't give them anything. Maybe someone else will give it to them, or most probably, you figure the government (or charity) should be the one helping them. But certainly if you were driving, you wouldn't give them a ride to the homeless shelter. Or even go into a coffee shop and purchase them a coffee and bagel.

So what is the fundamental problem? People depend on the government to solve problems. The government, in essence, provides us with some degree of insurance. But people criticize the government for everything it does, and considers each "new thing" it does as a move towards socialism. It reminds me of a chain e-mail I got before about "Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican". I tend to find that a bit skewed, but I think it shows the importance of government involvement. (So please note, this is not intended to be Republican bashing, and try to tune it to the need of government involvement. Further, some of these were proposed by Republicans.)


Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FDIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He drives it on the interstate highway, an idea of another stupid liberal. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican’s would still be sitting in the dark)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the host’s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, “We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have”.

So, skewing that away from all the "liberal vs conservative" bashing, you can see that there are indeed, many practical and useful ways the government helps protect people.

Then when the government isn't there (e.g. Hurricane Katrina/Rita), people continue to point fingers. Anyone been on an airplane recently? You went to an airport (quasi-government agency), went through TSA (government security), to board the plane that was checked out by...yet another government agency!

billbenson
11-22-2009, 04:20 PM
When I said I'm a capitalist, Frederick, I want to be encourged to make capitalistic ventures. If I make good money through hard work, I don't want to be taxed at a higher rate and given to people that are unwilling to work.

You are correct that there are many necessary socialistic services built into our system that are best operated that way. You forgot one. Insurance. While our insurance system is not government run (yet), insurance is really throwing a bunch of money in a pot and those that need it get to pull it out of the pot. Thats a socialistic concept.

Spider
11-22-2009, 08:37 PM
Bill, basically I am capitalist in leaning, too. However, you cannot have a society without socialism.

Notice that the root of those two words - society and socialism - are the same. What then of "capitalist society"?

Frankly, I do not see capitalism as the opposite of socialism. America is a capitalist society and it is a socialist society. It is possible to pick the best bits from both extremes and create a better world than either can provide.

Finding the balance, is what gets everyone up in arms.

Patrysha
11-22-2009, 09:09 PM
If I make good money through hard work, I don't want to be taxed at a higher rate and given to people that are unwilling to work.

That is where it gets tricky for me on a personal level. I don't like high taxes any more than the next person, but I don't want to live in a world without safety nets.

My mother's final mental diagnosis was bi-polar disorder with schizophrenic tendencies. When she was institutionalized when I was three, the diagnosis was flat out schizophrenic and the docs figured she would never live in the real world again. But then there were advances in medicine and cuts to health care-most mental institutions in the province she lived in were closed including the one she was in and she was released, but she was largely unable to hold a job for the 30-some years she lived after the release.

I shudder to think what things would have been like for her (and for me) if not for the government and non-profit supports available. Life was rough enough as it was...

Evan
11-22-2009, 10:28 PM
If I make good money through hard work, I don't want to be taxed at a higher rate and given to people that are unwilling to work.

In the 1950s, the highest tax rates were well in the 90% range. :)

billbenson
11-23-2009, 01:14 AM
This is getting kind of off theme, but I like the concept of luxury taxes. From McDonalds to expensive cars and boats. It's got to be a fairer system than income tax.

Spider
11-23-2009, 08:54 AM
I find the idea of variable taxes particularly abhorent. especially when it is placed under the concept of "everyone paying their fair share." Why is it more fair if one group of people pay more taxes than another group? That is grossly - and to me obviously - unfair. The worst part of it is that this is the politics of envy.

I particular hold envy in disdain!

I agree that it is practical for someone earning $1 million per year to be taxed more than someone earning $20,000. Perhaps it is even expedient. But it is not fair that one person should pay 10, 50, 100 times more to the common purse than another.

I accept the same tax rate for all, so that if the rate is 10&#37;, the $20,000/yr earner pays $2,000 while the $1 million/yr earner pays $100,000. That's still not fair, but, to me, it is acceptable. However, to charge a higher RATE in addition is bitter covetousness and jealousy.

This is the ugly side of socialism. It has a propensity to tear down rather than build up. It destroy enterprise rather than encourage it. The community suffers as a result.

KristineS
11-23-2009, 12:49 PM
When it comes to politics and government, I'm mostly disillusioned. I also wonder why we can't learn to work together. There are so many major problems in the United States, and in the world at large, and yet everyone seems more concerned with saying "I'm right and you're wrong". Add to that all the disinformation that's out there, and the truly scary people who are passing themselves off as experts and knowledgeable, and I start thinking it might be time to buy an island and establish the Republic of Kristine.

What makes me the saddest is that Americans are still being fed the pablum that our elected officials are in Washington working for us. That's not even remotely true. If you look at what they're doing, the people who voted for them are the furthest thing from their minds. It's sad really.

I still vote and I still do try to get involved when I can, but I really find the whole thing disheartening.

billbenson
11-23-2009, 03:10 PM
Thats one of my issues, Kristine. To truly be informed on even one issue would take incredible research. Take the medical insurance reform. There is so much false or misleading information out there, that how can I make an intelligent decision without incredible research. Every special interest group is putting out false or slanted information. They say the bill is so complicated that legislators voting on it don't understand it. Beyond that, legislators want to please their varying constituency. The elderly with insurance are dead set against it. But, do the elderly understand the bill? Will it be better for their kids, but harder on them?

I have yet to see a truely independent analysis of the bill. Who it affects, who will be better off, who will be worse off, how many government forms will we need to spend hours on daily to qualify...

The politicians should be looking at what is better for the future of America as a whole. They aren't doing that. They vote on party lines and their particular uninformed constituency. Thats not good.

I'd rather have no change than bad change, so I'm against the bill, but for all I know its a good bill. I'm uninformed, but so are most people.

My parents are very religious. They go to church and are told Obama is slime. I'm not sure. Ask me in 10 years whether I like him or not.

With this system, why would I want to be politically active. Sure I could push things that are best for me, and thats probably the way I would vote. But is that the best for America?

Evan
11-23-2009, 08:56 PM
This is getting kind of off theme, but I like the concept of luxury taxes. From McDonalds to expensive cars and boats. It's got to be a fairer system than income tax.

McDonald's is a luxury? The problem I have with that is what is a luxury, and who is defining it? Ultimately, the government defines it, and I don't think me getting McDonald's for dinner is a luxury. That can unfairly attack the poor, because it's cheap and food of substance. Certainly not a luxury. Perhaps if you taxed a high-end restaurant, but then again -- what is "high end"? I also think "high end" is much different in Omaha, Nebraska than it is in New York City.

Evan
11-23-2009, 09:06 PM
I find the idea of variable taxes particularly abhorent. especially when it is placed under the concept of "everyone paying their fair share." Why is it more fair if one group of people pay more taxes than another group? That is grossly - and to me obviously - unfair. The worst part of it is that this is the politics of envy.

The problem with that notion is the progressive tax system works because as you make more, there is a higher expectation that you contribute back to the system. Some of the ultra-wealthy don't, collectively, contribute a significant portion to charity, so that notion is moot. Sure, you have a few philanthropists, and good for them.

If you were to provide a FLAT TAX, which most would oppose, is that for the majority of people, their tax rate would INCREASE. Try telling someone in the 15&#37; tax bracket that they need to pay 25% instead (which is closer to the actual flat rate that would be assessed by the federal government). Even if you do that, their will be programs in place to REFUND a portion of that to low-income earners, so you still end up with a progressive system. It's just a matter of whether you give them the benefit up front, or would rather give people a "prebate" up front.


This is the ugly side of socialism. It has a propensity to tear down rather than build up. It destroy enterprise rather than encourage it. The community suffers as a result.Charging taxes and providing services really isn't socialism. I don't think I'd want to pay a fee every time I go on the highway because "Big Corp." runs it and wants to maintain it. Or trust that "Big Bank" will give me the funding for my education, because they're the only one you can get a loan from because the government doesn't loan to people. Or that "Big Bank" will provide me a loan at a reasonable rate, because the government isn't there to regulate interest rates.

greenoak
11-23-2009, 09:19 PM
im kind of involved...i sent money to obama and other progressive places..... i know i dont have a group to join that has the lobbying power of the chamber of commerce or the big pharma.... or big agricuture.....
i hope we are seeing a generation turn and a future more liberal , more tolerant, more colorful, etc etc....
i get my news online and trust jon stewart more than most other news places on tv........
im shocked tohave a conservative kid and several very conservative online buddies..my dad used to call my friends commies...

Evan
11-23-2009, 10:09 PM
I think most of my generation is more open-minded, but generally conservative. Perhaps that will change. My observation is that our generation just want to have a bit less government interference, though understand its importance. When it comes to, issues that can be quite divisive amongst our parents or grandparents, we tend to take the more open-minded approach.

Divisive issues such as abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty, legalization of marijuana, and other "hot button issues" seemed to have all been thrown in our faces growing up.

Of course, you still have a few extremists on both sides. And those are what scares me.

Spider
11-23-2009, 10:12 PM
...Charging taxes and providing services really isn't socialism...It isn't? What do you consider socialism, then?

Evan
11-23-2009, 10:48 PM
It isn't? What do you consider socialism, then?

Our taxes are not nearly at the level they would need to be at the level of a socialist nation. If the rates were between 40% (low bracket) - 95% (high bracket), and the government had heavy regulations on businesses to provide for the well-being of citizens, you'd be in a socialist nation. For example: Sweden. It works very well there, and people seem happy with it.

How does that differ, then, from communism? Well, with communism, you'd have a "classless" society. In the above, you can still earn millions a year, there is just a hefty amount of taxes and the government then provides for your well-being. With communism, the government would be running all industries, and there would be no private enterprises. Also, the government would keep all all money, and distribute it according to each persons need.

handprop
11-24-2009, 08:26 AM
I got involved with politics because I had experienced something happening to a single mom that I thought was wrong. My whole life I have been a middle of the road republican but now that I have seen politics face to face and have talked to the politicians we have all seen on TV it was clear my place was a hardcore conservative. Now that's doesn't mean I should bash the other side of the isle, instead we just need to understand each other.

The funny part is my political opinion doesn't matter because my job is to take any candidate and develop strategy.

I now have an opportunity to be campaign manager and might find my life in yet another direction.

One thing I can say is if you are unhappy with the system climb aboard and fight like hell. Politics has open arms no matter the party, we are all Americans and America will always have a place for honest people. I know this because there are very few.:D

Mike

Patrysha
11-24-2009, 09:16 AM
we are all Americans and America will always have a place for honest people.
Mike

No Mike, we aren't all American :p
Some of us are :eek: Canadian.
I think there are a few who have introduced themselves as being from other parts of the world too.

Spider
11-24-2009, 09:42 AM
Our taxes are not nearly at the level they would need to be at the level of a socialist nation. If the rates were between 40% (low bracket) - 95% (high bracket), and the government had heavy regulations on businesses to provide for the well-being of citizens, you'd be in a socialist nation. ....Interesting! So you determine whether a country is socialist or not by the amount of the taxes the government levies?

While it is true in many cases that government revenues in, what are called, "socialist countries" are higher than so-called "capitalist countries," how do you account for China's taxes being half what they are in the USA? (10% average against the US's 20% av.) Are you saying that China is twice as capitalist as the USA?

And I would have thought Japan was regarded as a capitalist country, yet it's taxes are on average double that of the USA. Is Japan socialist, too, in your reckoning?

I would think that more people paying more taxes would indicate a greater involvement in politics in socialist countries than capitalist countries. Certainly from a financial point of view, anyway!

handprop
11-24-2009, 10:17 AM
Come on Patrysha.....Canada isn't really a country is it??????:D:D:D:D

Just kidding of course.

I sometimes forget the internet is global. Geez am I behind the times.

All in good fun
Mike

Patrysha
11-24-2009, 10:36 AM
Ooooh dem's fightin' words...ya tried to invade us twice and failed...deal with it! :D

(And yes, the above is all in jest too...)

Dan Furman
11-24-2009, 11:34 AM
Divisive issues such as abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty, legalization of marijuana, and other "hot button issues" seemed to have all been thrown in our faces growing up.


This is one reason I don't get too involved politically. It's just such BS. People could be starving, but to some morons, the most important thing in the world is the abortion or handgun issue. Or gay marriage.

billbenson
11-24-2009, 10:28 PM
This is one reason I don't get too involved politically. It's just such BS. People could be starving, but to some morons, the most important thing in the world is the abortion or handgun issue. Or gay marriage.

Exactly!!!

Evan
11-25-2009, 12:03 AM
So you determine whether a country is socialist or not by the amount of the taxes the government levies?

No. But more money in the government means that they are able to provide more services. Generally!


While it is true in many cases that government revenues in, what are called, "socialist countries" are higher than so-called "capitalist countries," how do you account for China's taxes being half what they are in the USA? (10% average against the US's 20% av.) Are you saying that China is twice as capitalist as the USA?

Are you looking solely at the income tax? Keep in mind, China has a lot of additional taxes, which make up for that gap, INCLUDING a value-added tax.


And I would have thought Japan was regarded as a capitalist country, yet it's taxes are on average double that of the USA. Is Japan socialist, too, in your reckoning?

Income taxes in Japan are comparable to the United States.

Spider
11-25-2009, 12:09 AM
Bill and Dan -- You chaps would like the British attitude to politics, then.

Elections come once every four years but not on a set schedule - the prime minister can call an election at any time. Then, when the election date is set, they rush around for about 6 weeks "electioneering." Listening to the hoo-hah for six weeks is a lot better than listening to it for two years, as in America.

Between elections, the British populus generally ignores politics. At each election, the voters consider, Are we better off now than at the last election or worse off? If they feel they are worse off, they vote for the other party, if they feel they are better off, they put the same lot back in.

Then they go back to watching Coronation Street and cricket in the summer and football (soccer, to you) in the winter.

Politics is definitely low on the list of "Important Matters Worth Discussing."

Spider
11-25-2009, 12:21 AM
...Are you looking solely at the income tax? Keep in mind, China has a lot of additional taxes, which make up for that gap, INCLUDING a value-added tax...
...Income taxes in Japan are comparable to the United States.In both cases I am considering total taxes, fees, charges and whatever else you want to call government budget revenue. Income tax is only a part of the total taxes any government levies on its citizens.

Total tax revenue in China is 10% of GDP, 20% in USA and 40% in Japan. In total, China charges its citizens proportionally half of what the USA does and Japan charges its citizens double what the USA does.

So, does this have any bearing on whether they are socialist or capitalist?

Harold Mansfield
11-25-2009, 12:45 PM
In both cases I am considering total taxes, fees, charges and whatever else you want to call government budget revenue. Income tax is only a part of the total taxes any government levies on its citizens.

Total tax revenue in China is 10% of GDP, 20% in USA and 40% in Japan. In total, China charges its citizens proportionally half of what the USA does and Japan charges its citizens double what the USA does.

So, does this have any bearing on whether they are socialist or capitalist?

China is also a govt run society. Many areas are rural and poor and the gov controls the media and information. You get what they allow you to have.
I'll take our current tax structure over that any day.

I think we spend so much time complaining about taxes (as we benefit from Gov and municipal services when it suits us), that we forget how much money we lose from tax cheats and loopholes.

It's the common man, working class citizen, that gets hit hard with taxes while larger corporations find a way to hide money offshore and hide behind loopholes and charitable trusts.

They are the ones screwing us, not the Gov.

cbscreative
11-25-2009, 02:28 PM
It's the common man, working class citizen, that gets hit hard with taxes while larger corporations find a way to hide money offshore and hide behind loopholes and charitable trusts.

They are the ones screwing us, not the Gov.

Harold, while I totally agree with you on this being a problem, I still believe that the gov't is the problem there too. The tax code actually creates this reaction with the way it is set up, and the money being forced offshore is bleeding out of our economy to avoid taxes.

The "rich" don't want to be penalized with taxes any more than you or I do, so these loopholes are their way to reduce the tax liability. Politicians then play the "class envy" card like they have been doing throughout history, and villianizing the rich who are just doing what either of us would in the same position. Why would they volunteer to pay more taxes to a system that penalizes them for productivity?

If anything, the rich are getting the screws from the same people supposedly helping them. These loopholes are created by lobbyists who get gov't to write the rules their way. Unfortunately, the lobbyists are more interested in keeping their job security than really helping the people who hire them. If they help too much, they give up the 6&7 digit salaries they collect off the system that supports them.

Find a way to put the lobbyists out of work and many of these problems get solved. BTW, us small business people have no lobbyists, so you don't have to wonder why we get very few favors.

There is something that lobbyists are scared to death of, something that will end their reign of manipulating the tax code at all our expense. If enacted, it will close all the loopholes, stop taxing productivity, bring back the trillions being leached from our economy to avoid taxes, and solve a good part of this mess we are in. It's called FairTax (http://www.fairtax.org).

The biggest obstacle? Defeatism. Almost everyone who understands FairTax (if they're not a lobbyist) believes it's a good idea and it will work, but it's just too good to be true. People feel powerless to get this kind of change. The fact is, we can if we give up that attitude. There are enough "common folk" that if we demand it, they will be forced to listen. As long as we feel defeated, those in power can do whatever they wish.

handprop
11-25-2009, 02:28 PM
The gov DOES screw us. The fact is anytime they promote waste were getting screwed because we have to pay for it. Cash for clunkers was $4,500 but the reality is the cost is close to 25,000 some economists say closer to 100,000 per unit. That's waste and we have to pay for it, if that's not getting screwed what it?????

The real estate tax credit.........More gov help and incentive right, HUH!!! 11% of those are now underwater and it's only been a few months.

I love paying taxes because that means i'm making money, but I want value for what i pay in. What % of what you and I are paying is "Going to the cause" VS paying for waste cause by gov inefficiency.

This is also important when comparing us to other countries like Denmark, the waste in our own government far exceeds that of other countries as a % of the total.

Just imagine for a moment.........

Spending on education is important but how important is it??? Imagine if we cut out waste!!!! We would be able to spend more on education but the total spent by the US gov would be less. Once again it's not a party issue, it's a club.

I did an interview with an Army General that told me point blank........"Hey Mike" He said...."tell me this isn't crazy, we just took about 2,000 computers and threw them in dumsters, and they were just bought at the first of the year" I said why, that doesn't make sense and he said " that way we could use the full budget and get even more"

Being in politics I can tell you stories all day long because I talk to thousands of people. That's not waste????? Who pays for it?????? Why doesn't that stop and go towards educating, health insurance for the less fortunate, or mental health patients wandering the streets..........Oh yeah, we have thousands of them, would you like to hear facts and stories about that? Of course not because that's a bit to close to reality.

I'm in politics to to fight for something much greater than myself, I fight for those who can't fight for themselves and it's tough. We live in a society that protects "the good old boys club" and feed into the machine knowing they can get away with it.

I'm sick of paying for the waste..........but happy to pay my share if it's going to people who need it and can't get help.

Not getting screwed????? Really?????

Mike

Spider
11-25-2009, 02:39 PM
I have been dancing around the edge of this discussion because I wanted to get others to see the truth of what they were saying. Sweeping statements, while good at relieving one's own frustration, are usually quite inaccurate.

Like, for example, the notion that large corporations, or wealthy people, or bankers, or whomever is the bogeyman of the moment, is screwing us. (Us being the common citizen.)

1. Corporations do not pay taxes. Never have. Only people pay taxes. Taxes on business is only another cost of doing business, and all costs of doing business are paid by the end customer, the people, who buy what the corporations sell.

2. Therefore, it doesn't matter what the corporations, or wealthy people, or bankers, or you and me, pay in taxes at the individual points of collection. It only matters what the country as a whole pays as a percentage of what we all collectively produce.

3. Then we have to consider the payment of those things that are necessary for basic living. In England, for example, garbage collection is included in the local government "rates" - a tax on private property. In America (at least, in my little corner of it) garbage collection is a private expense, but just as necesary. In many/most countries, health care is paid as a national insurance program, via the government (ie. a tax)) while in America, it is a private expense. Such national choices distort any comparison between countries.

The USA total tax is 20% of GDP, which does not include expenditure on healthcare. Canada's is 46% which includes Canadian healthcare costs. US annual spending on healthcare (2007) was $2.2 trillion, 16% of GDP. So, reconciling for this one metric alone, The total burden on the US citizenry is 36% (20% taxes + 16% healthcare = 36% plus a little bit for garbage collection!) -- much closer to Canada's 46% level.

But the original post was to ask who is 'POLITICALLY INVOLVED"? My involvement is participation in such debates trying to keep the discussions less heated and more illuminated. I hope I am succeeding to some degree.

handprop
11-25-2009, 02:48 PM
It's not what you spend Spider, it's what you get in return for what you spend.

If you bought a Toyota and I bought a Chevy of equal class who gets more bang for the money spent???? Simple math would say you! The resale value alone is much higher and you spend less, you get more for your money.

You can't just say "Well I spent 5% of my yearly income on a car", we have much more of the equation to think about.

I mean that in a nice way of course and have no disrespect towards you, it's just that things are a little more complicated than raw numbers.

Mike

Dan Furman
11-25-2009, 02:52 PM
The government is us. Plain and simple.

So are corporations.

Honest good people will create an honest, good government and/or companies. We are not honest, good people as a whole. We are greedy people who, in our personal lives, spend more than we make, surf the web at work, call in sick when we aren't, cheat on our taxes, would keep an extra $10 that the cashier mistakenly gave, etc etc etc.

The best I can do is be a good, responsible person in my personal life, and try not to depend too much on the government. But I don't really care about the collective / where my taxes go / what corporation got what / etc. That's because the guy on line in front of me not only has 19 items in a "12 items or less" line, he's buying friggen cheetoes and beer with a credit card, and probably making minimum payments. I should know - that was probably me 15 years ago.

As a whole, we should expect no more out than what we put in. Frankly, I'm stunned it works at all. :)

Spider
11-25-2009, 02:53 PM
I agree, Mike. I already fear losing much of my audience even delving into numbers as little as I have. To go all-out, even if I was capable, would guarantee me an empty auditorium! I'll leave that to the "experts" (and let them be ignored!)

Added: If I can just point a few people in a better direction, I will be happy. If I can get them to relax on the emotions and take a more pragmatic view, I think they will gain a better insight into the problems they would otherwise rant unproductively about.

handprop
11-25-2009, 03:00 PM
I tell ya Dan, that just made me laugh out loud and I needed that today, so thanks! Well said!

You can do something else however, you can participate in government, help someone you believe in, start up a group to help others you have experience in. Your an American and it's your right and you are qualified.

My latest project is helping a group of Hispanic business owners seek representation because of a really bad thing that happened by a bunch of lawyers taking advantage of them. It feels good to fight for people, it feels good to even try. You can also learn a lot.

I never gave much thought to the Hispanic crowd when I first got involved with politics but they are at a real disadvantage and need help. It brings me great joy to even think I could make a difference in peoples lives and you just may discover that as well.

The cheetoes on a credit card is classic though!!!!!! Dam that's funny.....and true!

Mike

handprop
11-25-2009, 03:02 PM
Actually, I like to hear numbers and thoughts, as long as it's thought out and comes from the heart.

Mike

handprop
11-25-2009, 03:03 PM
I going to catch hell from Patrysha so I should say even the Canadians can help!:)

Mike

Harold Mansfield
11-25-2009, 03:30 PM
This is one reason I don't get too involved politically. It's just such BS. People could be starving, but to some morons, the most important thing in the world is the abortion or handgun issue. Or gay marriage.

Funny, I saw a video that has been making the rounds of Palin supporters at a book signing, explaining why they support her. They managed to squeak out a few adjectives and buzz words but none could zero in on any concrete knowledge of what she really stands for, or maybe they did and it's just as vague as they made it out to be.

To be fair, I am sure the video was created to be biased, but it is kind of representative of how vague people are with what they think they are believing in and supporting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7wQk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7wQk&feature=player_embedded)

Since so many people were vague about cutting spending and not knowing her policies, I was curious how that particular community has benefited from the current administration's stimulus plan:
The City of Columbus Ohio is one of the main beneficiaries of stimulus funding reaping in over $3 billion for Law Enforcement, Education, Infrastructure, Environment, Business Grants and other projects.
I wonder how many of those people know that their community is directly benefiting from the administration that they seem to be fighting against? And how much of the money that they are against spending, they are willing to give back ?
43212 | OH | Performance Place | StimulusWatch.org (http://stimuluswatch.org/2.0/performance_places/city/OH/43212/columbus)

Mind you, I am not picking on Palin, or her supporters, this same ignorance could be true for many Americans on both sides of the coin. This is just an example of how ridiculously uninformed some Americans really are.

handprop
11-25-2009, 03:50 PM
The case of Palin is interesting, I'm a conservative but not a direct supporter of her. I do however like parts of her (not body parts)and her attitude.

From a marketing perspective we could all learn a thing or two. She strikes an emotional cord with many people and she has a massive following with everyday Americans. The reasons behind this following are many but most like her because they feel a connection to something missing in government and I agree. People feel a disconnect to government and she seems to fill the emotional gap.

From a conservative point of view I feel she lacks a few things, but what matters, she's just a US citizen who wrote a book and not running for office.

Mike

handprop
11-25-2009, 04:28 PM
FYI

Here is a link to an article about Sara Palin that I found interesting. It was emailed to me today, and the person wanted me to comment on it for an article about a candidate i'm working with.

American Thinker: The Wilding of Sarah Palin (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_wilding_of_sarah_palin.html)

Dan Furman
11-25-2009, 07:54 PM
FYI

Here is a link to an article about Sara Palin that I found interesting. It was emailed to me today, and the person wanted me to comment on it for an article about a candidate i'm working with.

American Thinker: The Wilding of Sarah Palin (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_wilding_of_sarah_palin.html)

The writer is complaining the Palin was turned into a sex object? This, the same Palin who "winked" at America (yea, a stodgy guy is getting away w/ that.)

She plays up her loooks every chance she gets. What a joke (the author, not you, Mike)

Patrysha
11-25-2009, 10:01 PM
I going to catch hell from Patrysha so I should say even the Canadians can help!:)

Mike

I wish my kids were as scared of me as you are.

Steve B
11-26-2009, 03:33 AM
How do you define "massive"? Her "numbers" are low (29&#37; before her book was released accordig to one major poll) compared to other political figures and compare closely to Dan Quayle after he was picked to be a vice-president. I'm guessing her book has given her a bump.

She definitely has extremely loyal supporters with a relatively small percentage of people. That may be the marketing lesson - segment your market and make them extremely loyal.

Harold Mansfield
11-26-2009, 11:23 AM
How do you define "massive"? Her "numbers" are low (29&#37; before her book was released accordig to one major poll) compared to other political figures and compare closely to Dan Quayle after he was picked to be a vice-president. I'm guessing her book has given her a bump.

She definitely has extremely loyal supporters with a relatively small percentage of people. That may be the marketing lesson - segment your market and make them extremely loyal.

Oh she has definitely just about mastered niche marketing. Personally, I don't see her base growing a whole lot, but the ones that she has, completely drink her Kool-Aid.
Of course she has people that help with her image, something the average small business person doesn't have, but she could be a good lesson in capturing a niche market.

She knows who they are, and what they want to hear and she is giving it to them, all wrapped up in a nice package.

She plays the underdog martyr very well, and there is a small segment of society that feel like they are underdogs..she found them, and speaks to them frequently.
She is definitely a niche marketer.

handprop
11-26-2009, 11:45 AM
It's massive when you consider she was a VP candidate who lost the election a year ago. Also consider she isn't running for anything! Now consider she is on the news every day.

I went to a campaign event and people are passionate about her and the energy she creates is out of this world.

Sara is a viable threat in politics, look at the Democrats and how they talk about her each day. Why is this? How is it these people who already occupy an elected position on the other side can't stop talking about her? Again, she is just a citizen who wrote a book, or is she????

I don't watch numbers like the 29% because that can be debunked in 5 seconds.

Like I said I have mixed emotions about her as a leader in the republican party but I do find it interesting. I had a chance to meet her last year and turned it down, I just felt she had nothing to offer me.....maybe i'm wrong. Either way her following is massive and the media knows it, that's why they follow her.

Mike

Harold Mansfield
11-26-2009, 11:53 AM
Honestly, I hope that the Reps do consider her a leader and a viable candidate for President, and run with it. I really, really do.
You have no idea how ecstatic I am that the G.O.P actually considers Rush Limbaugh "the voice" of conservative republicans.
Now, if they would just bring back Dan Quayle, I don't think I would be able to contain myself.

Maybe a "Palin/Quayle in 12" campaign ? That would be awesome !

Evan
11-26-2009, 12:21 PM
So, does this have any bearing on whether they are socialist or capitalist?

I'm not arguing about China or Japan, just America. Socialism, communism, or capitalism is not just about tax policies, but economic policies and many other variables. It also depends on the quality of life they offer to its citizens.

I don't think China's model is very beneficial to it's people. Japan's model, on the other hand, seems to work.

Evan
11-26-2009, 12:24 PM
Maybe a "Palin/Quayle in 12" campaign ? That would be awesome !

HA! That was one of the funniest thing I have ever heard.

Comedians would probably love it! It'd be a matter of which one would say the stupidest thing first.

Spider
11-26-2009, 03:18 PM
...I don't think China's model is very beneficial to it's people. Japan's model, on the other hand, seems to work.Why? Low taxation seemed to be a need/desire of yours when considering benefits to its people - and China's system taxes it citizens half as much as the US. That makes China's system twice as beneficial as the US, doesn't it? Why do you think China's model is not beneficial?

Japan's taxation is double that of the US, and thus - considering low taxation as desirable - is twice as bad as the US. Why do you say that system works?

Obviously you have some other criterion at play. I'm interested to know what that is.

What about Sweden? You mentioned Sweden as a socialist country and seemed to acknowledge the benefits the citizens derive - not least of which, they generally approve of it.

I'm not understanding your measurement process, Evan.

Evan
11-26-2009, 05:34 PM
Low taxation seemed to be a need/desire of yours when considering benefits to its people.

And China's system taxes it citizens half as much as the US. That makes China's system twice as beneficial as the US, doesn't it? Why do you think China's model is not beneficial?


I did not say that. Low or high taxation is generally (though not always) related to the level of services provided to citizens.

China has low taxes, and people generally have a low quality of life when that is coupled a communist government. If there was capitalism in the area, then I think the combination of low taxes would be beneficial. The problem is that a communist government is OVERLY restrictive on what people can do. If there was capitalism and general market freedom, people would be able to improve their quality of life without the need to depend on the government. Because the Chinese government is so restrictive, really it just creates a society of a poor working class. The only "rich" that exist are in government.


Japan's taxation is double that of the US, and thus - considering low taxation as desirable - is twice as bad as the US. Why do you say that system works?

What about Sweden? You mentioned Sweden as a socialist country and seemed to acknowledge the benefits the citizens derive - not least of which, they generally approve of it.

Is low taxation beneficial? It depends on who you ask and where they are brought up. To be quite honest, I think taxation at any level could be beneficial as long as it's used to actually benefit people and not eaten up in greed or government bureaucracy. If you had $2 and two buckets to donate to, and $1 went to the government, and another $1 to "charitaucracy" (a new word)... I'd be really interested in how much of my $1 goes to their intended goal. Say the government said that bucket was for education -- how much of that dollar is going to pay for books or do something to directly benefit students? Same thing with the "charitaucracy".

The reason I combined charity and bureaucracy is because some certainly have lost sight on what exactly they do.

Back to this case, Japan has high taxes but is also capitalistic. Citizens are also pretty well off, relatively speaking, because the government collects more and is CAPABLE of providing more services. Combined with less bureaucracy, that means a lot of people could benefit from every tax dollar that goes into this bucket. Certainly they are very capitalistic, but their government also runs efficiently.

Sweden, on the other hand, has very high taxes and is socialist. Sure, they could be capitalistic and maintain the same tax structure, but that would almost make no sense as the reason taxes are so high is because of everything they provide currently.

Steve B
11-27-2009, 03:36 AM
Sara is a viable threat in politics, look at the Democrats and how they talk about her each day. Why is this? How is it these people who already occupy an elected position on the other side can't stop talking about her?

Man - I thought it was obvious why the dems can't stop talking about her. You can literally see the gleem in James Carville's eye when he talks about her as a candidate. They want her to run for the reason eborg points out - they know her candidacy makes it a lock that the democrats will win.

handprop
11-27-2009, 09:02 AM
The Democrats should be busy worrying about doing a job we are paying them to do instead of spending time talking about a book author.

According to the trend numbers I have the Democrats are just about finished! People have seen what they accomplish and the hidden agendas they push, the people in this country as a whole have had enough.

Obama, Pelosi, Reed, Frank, and Dodd are the best thing with Democrats in the minority. 2010 is going to be a great year.

Sometimes the country needs a healthy dose of reality. The Democrats have done that and the people don't want what they pedal!

It's like Rush Limbaugh, his numbers are amazing. In a free market the people choose and they don't choose liberal radio for a reason.
Mike

Harold Mansfield
11-27-2009, 01:35 PM
The Democrats should be busy worrying about doing a job we are paying them to do instead of spending time talking about a book author.
Dems want Palin to run. If nothing else the distraction alone would be enough to split conservative votes. Let them throw a "Tea Party" candidate in there as well, and the G.O.P will be all over the place.

That's why Dems like the idea of Palin. They don't like her, it's strategy.


According to the trend numbers I have the Democrats are just about finished! People have seen what they accomplish and the hidden agendas they push, the people in this country as a whole have had enough.
Really ? All of the Democrats in every position and representing every state are finished? They just got elected.
That attitude is important, because it represents the partisanship that is crippling progress.
It's not a fight against individual policy or particular politicians view points.
It's against the entire party on general purpose.

I'll bet you, or anyone else that generalizes any any party as a whole, can't name all the elected members of the party...or even just the ones in the Senate..or even the ones in their own community. But it's always "The Democrats" like it's a race of people or something.

That's sad.

I am still trying to find out what his "secret agenda" is that conservatives are talking about while they are cashing their unemployment checks and requesting stimulus and bailout money.



Sometimes the country needs a healthy dose of reality. The Democrats have done that and the people don't want what they pedal!

It's like Rush Limbaugh, his numbers are amazing. In a free market the people choose and they don't choose liberal radio for a reason.
Mike
You know it's funny that so many (R) Congressman, Senators, The Conservative Press, and die hard Republican voters can find nothing but fault with the current administration with absolutely no cooperation, but I have yet to see any of the people that are moaning say publicly that they are so against the current spending that they want their state or community to give back the stimulus money that they are benefiting from.

Some of the very politicians that keep fighting the President, and the party as a whole, represent states that have received billions from the very stimulus that they are bitching about spending. I didn't see any of them turn it down, or writing a check to give any of it back.

Some of these guys have stock portfolio's that contain some of the very companies that received bailout funds, yet, all they can do is find fault with it.
Do you know how many portfolio's, retirement, and mutual funds would have completely tanked if we didn't bailout a few hundred banks and mortgage companies? Probably all of them. Would that have affected you? Your Parents? Relatives? Neighbors? Employer?

I also don't see any alternative solutions to the constant disagreements and whining since the election...just complaining.

One of my buddies is a die hard Republican, and everything that Obama does is wrong, however, he has been unemployed for months and the only reason that he is able to pay his bills and eat is because of extended benefits. On the one hand, "Dems are spending too much", but on the other, "But I'll take some of it".

There is not one of us that has not directly benefited from recent Gov spending, either directly because your community didn't have to lay off the teachers that educate your kids, or police that patrol your neighborhood.
Maybe your bank or mortgage company received enough funding to stay afloat, or the company that makes the car you drive is still in business so your warranty is still good.

Yet all I hear all day long is whine and moan. "They spend too much. They have a hidden agenda"..yeah. The hidden agenda is to run up the deficit by saving hundreds of companies and banks from collapse and giving unemployed Americans $400 a week to feed their families. How Horrible!

I have an idea..in the face of financial collapse of our entire economy and a serious credit and mortgage crunch, why don't we do nothing and run a series a commercials on T.V. and tell people to "Just say no". That worked so well in the 80's when the Colombian's were flooding the country with cheap Cocaine...and that made everything better.

This is what I mean when I say that Americans are incredibly selfish and misinformed...not just because people don't agree with me, but because so many are just straight out hypocrites.

The top 5 contributors to the McCain campaign, are also among the top recipients of the Obama Administrations bail out loans. If they are against him so much, whey did they take the money? And the hypocrisy in this country never stops. People will bitch and use terms that hey don't even know the definition of like "Socialism" and "Liberal" as if they are some kind of insult, while they are on the Government funded freeway going to work, or sitting at home collecting unemployment, social security, or disability...or their parents are getting cheaper prescriptions through Medicare.

I know people driving around in new cars from the recent "cash for clunkers" deal, and still have nothing but spite for Obama.
People have purchased new homes with the recent tax credits for new home buyers, and spew words like "Liberal" as if it was snake venom.

It's ridiculous.

By the way, Rush Limbaugh has a radio show.He's not a politician, economist, foreign policy expert, has no military experience, and has never held any public office. He bitches and whines to people that want to hear bitching and whining. He flunked out of college and has no education past High School. He got his first break replacing Morton Downey Jr. (of all people), and is half deaf so the only person he can hear clearly speaking, is himself.

That's who you take your political ques from?

Seeing some praise and quote him when it comes to political issues and take it as some kind of gospel is about as ridiculous as if I got my political views from Howard Stern, Kasey Kasim, or Wolfman Jack.

..and who still listens to commercial radio anyway? What's he on... A.M.? :)

Evan
11-27-2009, 04:19 PM
The _______________ should be busy worrying about doing a job we are paying them to do instead of spending time talking about _______________.

According to the trend numbers I have the ____________ are just about finished! People have seen what they accomplish and the hidden agendas they push, the people in this country as a whole have had enough.

_________, __________, _________, _________, and __________are the best thing with ________ in the minority. __________ is going to be a great year.

I feel like the above is political mad libs ever two years!

In your comment though, it is Senator Reid (D-NV). Senator Reed (D-RI) isn't majority leader.

billbenson
11-27-2009, 09:30 PM
I've voted republican all my life. with her on the ticket I had no option to vote democratic. Didn't like it, still don't but she is chasing people away from the republican party.

handprop
11-27-2009, 10:44 PM
Eborg, erroneous and incoherent is about the only words I can think of about what you wrote. If you can't write without any more professionalism than that you should be embarrassed. It's one thing to have an opposing view but the hatred you display in what you write is something I really don't have time for.

If you would like to talk in a civilized way that's fine, but to talk like a child I want nothing to do with.

Both parties have issues......grow up!

Mike

greenoak
11-27-2009, 11:12 PM
ditto with eborg ...
.i think the right is pretty smart...when they have old teabaggers on social security and medicare howling against government in medicine....and poor people howling about raising taxes on people making over 250,000....i think obama will probably get killed....the hate is just scary ...in the store today a respectable looking guy joked about using an obama licience plate for target pratice....
imho rush l. is a disgrace and sarah p. is fun and interesting....but for pres? thats amazing...
ann

handprop
11-28-2009, 12:15 AM
We just completed a survey for a couple different campaigns and it was quite clear the number one issue with the common people just working to get ahead is both parties are leaving them in the dust. Accountability (both parties) doesn't exist. People are really freaking out about not only (Current) out of control spending but WASTE........waste in a president that campaigned against it. But don't get me wrong Bush did the same thing.

We talk to all types of people and they are not just upset they are livid!!!

Both parties are to blame. Can anyone really look at the Health care bill and say it makes sense? Forget what party wrote it, the fact is people don't buy for a reason. The republicans are just as guilty, they had a chance to solve it and did nothing, so they have no right to complain either.

Poll numbers don't mean much to us as a group, it's the trend we watch and it's trending quickly away from irresponsible leaders.

Mike

Harold Mansfield
11-28-2009, 12:19 AM
Eborg, erroneous and incoherent is about the only words I can think of about what you wrote. If you can't write without any more professionalism than that you should be embarrassed. It's one thing to have an opposing view but the hatred you display in what you write is something I really don't have time for.

If you would like to talk in a civilized way that's fine, but to talk like a child I want nothing to do with.

Both parties have issues......grow up!

Mike

I don't have any hatred. Cynicism, yes. Sarcasm, of course. Do I think politics is funny...absolutely...especially the part where people can't discuss it without attacking an opposing view or opinion personally. That's really funny !
How civilized do you want to get ? Do I need to agree with you ?
I think what you said and how you generalized it is ridiculous.

"According to 'trend' numbers"..What trend numbers ? Where?
"The Democrats"? Who specifically ?

and then this one:


In a free market the people choose and they don't choose liberal radio for a reason.
Really ? What people ? What do you back that statement up with ? What is "Liberal" radio ? Someone who disagrees with Rush ?

Do you have statistics and Nielsen ratings for all of the radio shows in America to prove that or are you just spewing opinion based on what you heard someone else say? Everything you said, sounds exactly the way the pundits speak on T.V. and radio....little generalized, sensationalized sound bytes with little substance or fact to back it up.

I'm not sure if you are saying that we do indeed have our freedoms and have the right to enjoy them as we see fit, or if you are on the other side that keeps complaining that our freedoms and liberties are being infringed on
And by the way, people like Rush, Hannity, Dr. Laura, Savage, Beck, and Imus are the only ones still left on the radio, so of course they will have ratings...everyone else abandoned radio long ago for mediums that appeal to a more educated audience. (In case you didn't get it, that was a cheap shot :))

Have an opinion, but don't spit propaganda and try and pass it off as fact like you heard it from some neutral agency that is beyond reproach.

..and before you try and call me on the same thing..it's really easy to check stimulus awards and distribution, as well as who has been bailed out and with how much so far. I'm sure if you look, you are bound to see a company or bank that you do business with. Maybe you should take your business with them elsewhere for accepting such wasteful spending from the current administration...that is if you can find a bank that didn't take a few million.

http://bailout.propublica.org/main/list/index vs. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00006424

and then you can look here and see just how much your community has benefited from the administration that you hold such disdain for:
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx
http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_state

And just so you know, I'm not angry..I enjoy talking politics, I really get into it... and you don't have to worry about me calling you names the way you did me.

Business Attorney
11-28-2009, 03:09 AM
Eborg, erroneous and incoherent is about the only words I can think of about what you wrote. If you can't write without any more professionalism than that you should be embarrassed. It's one thing to have an opposing view but the hatred you display in what you write is something I really don't have time for.

If you would like to talk in a civilized way that's fine, but to talk like a child I want nothing to do with.

Both parties have issues......grow up!

Mike

I see nothing "erroneous and incoherent" or displaying hatred in eborg's words. He is simply pointing out that the "right" often accept all the benefits proffered by government programs while bemoaning "big government." On the other hand, I have never heard of a "liberal" sending an extra $10,000 to the Federal government because his taxes were too low to support the level of programs in place. But the fault is not limited to "conservatives" or "liberals" or politicians of either bent.

The sad truth is that most people seem to want more than they are willing to pay for, and most politicians of both parties pander to the voters in that regard, just in different ways. Republicans may argue for tax relief but rarely accompany their proposals with meaningful reductions in expenditures, particularly in the areas of social security and defense spending. Democrats may propose strengthening the safety net and even raising taxes on "the wealthy" to pay for the programs, but don't acknowledge that there are not enough "wealthy" people around to cover the costs of the programs.

If a candidate speaks the truth, however, what are the chances that he or she will get elected? We can complain about the politicians all day, but in the end we the people of the United States choose our representatives in Congress and the state legislatures. We put these people into office and we keep them there.

Of course, we do from time to time turn one party out of power and replace it with the other, but we want incremental change, not seismic change. So when voters bought into the "Vote for Change," I suspect they meant "Change the things that I don't like and leave everything else alone."

In a free society, we cannot lay all the blame on the "government." To paraphrase the immortal Pogo: "WE HAVE MET THE GOVERNMENT AND HE IS US."

Spider
11-28-2009, 09:41 AM
I have been living in the USA for the past 20 years, so I am a little less the casual observer that I once was. However, I have never heard so much invective from any political party as I am currently hearing from the Republican party and its supporters.

I see the Republican party imploding. The ugliness of Rush Limbaugh is leading the remains of the party over a cliff, like lemmings. Which I find a shame because I am basically Republican in political belief.

Frankly, I am looking to see who will form the next "party of the business people" and what that party will be. I am no great supporter of Democratic political doctrine but, to me, the signs are that the Republican Party is in serious decline. Present Republican antics are paving the way for, either a new political party or a string of Democratic landslides.

My sole purpose now, in political terms, is to prepare myself and my business for a generation of Democratic governments. That is where my involvement with politics is focussed.

Harold Mansfield
11-28-2009, 12:28 PM
A big part in understanding opposing view points is knowing the person that has them.
Everyone's expectation from their Gov is going to directly reflect their current needs and we all have different situations.

For instance, I am a single man living in Las Vegas without kids scratching out a living for myself, so I am going to be more apt to respond to things that I want...Small Business help and tax breaks, a stable housing market and economy, fair banking regulations, and being ex military..I'm torn between knowing how over extended our troops are and the need for more support to make sure they have everything they need.

Growing up in Detroit in the 80's, I don't see why anyone needs automatic riffles and I don't want them to be legal. When I envision that, all I see is criminals and militias (Michigan has a lot of militias) hiding behind the law at gun shows and arming themselves without any red flags going up.
But people who live in rural N. Dakota without a high murder rate, bank robberies and drug killings, may think differently, all they may envision is target practicing and hunting.

Someone who is say 50 years old, with kids at home, or in college,a high mortgage, tons of credit card debt, with an out of work spouse, worrying about retirement is going to have different immediate needs and therefore will probably respond to things that speak to that.

I don't believe that there are politicians who want to destroy America and I haven't seen where any of our freedoms and liberties are being infringed on (outside of the Patriot act, much of which has been reversed). I can do the same thing today that I could do 20 years ago.

I don't believe in conspiracy theories, or that there is some hidden agenda to implement policy that will cripple the country. There is no attack on Freedom, Religion, or values in America..but religion cannot dictate laws for all of us no matter how bad some people want it to.

I think everyone has their best interest at heart, but I try and look at the best interest of the country as a whole, not just my needs....I survived through Regan and 2 Bush's, I'll be fine for now.

I disagree with Conservatives, but I think they actually believe what they are saying, they just aren't saying anything that appeals to me, and I don't see anyone like me supporting them, or showing up to their rallies. They speak to one demographic and it ain't me.

We all have different needs, so it is inevitable that we cannot agree on everything. the best we can hope to do is what is best for all of us as a country, not just our individual needs. I'm not going to support or vote for something that will screw over other people.

billbenson
11-28-2009, 03:57 PM
I don't have any hatred. Cynicism, yes. Sarcasm, of course. Do I think politics is funny...absolutely...especially the part where people can't discuss it without attacking an opposing view or opinion personally. That's really funny !
How civilized do you want to get ? Do I need to agree with you ?
I think what you said and how you generalized it is ridiculous.


I agree. Name calling and using unsubstantiated facts as gospel only discredits yourself.

Steve B
11-29-2009, 02:45 PM
Do you have any poll numbers that show Sarah Palin could win for president in 2012? If you do - I'd be amazed beyond belief.

I think it's the opposite - that it would be virtually impossible for her to win as the head of the ticket - which is why the Democrats and the liberally slanted media can't get enough of her. They want to continue having her as the "candidate to beat". The conservative slanted media can't get enough of her either because she is saying a lot of things they feel need to be said. All of this coverage from both sides could add up to her continuing as a major factor in the next presidential election, thus making a re-election of Obama a certainty.

Hopefully, Republicans will have a couple potential leaders surface soon and give Americans a credible option with more conservative positions.

Harold Mansfield
12-01-2009, 11:21 AM
Hopefully, Republicans will have a couple potential leaders surface soon and give Americans a credible option with more conservative positions.

It will be interesting to see who rises to the top as a front runner. He/She is going to have to be squeaky clean.

Have you seen the proposed new G.O.P purity test ?
A GOP purity test? - First Read - msnbc.com (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/11/23/2134917.aspx)

billbenson
12-01-2009, 01:37 PM
It will be interesting to see who rises to the top as a front runner. He/She is going to have to be squeaky clean.

Have you seen the proposed new G.O.P purity test ?
A GOP purity test? - First Read - msnbc.com (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/11/23/2134917.aspx)

I saw the test. They really want to chase everybody except the extreme right away from the party!

handprop
12-01-2009, 03:21 PM
The republicans have no leaders up front. Hillary Clinton will be the next president.......JMHO.......and i'm a republican

Mike

Spider
12-01-2009, 03:34 PM
Are you saying you expect a Democratic White House through 2024? Or that Hillary will become a Republican?!

Harold Mansfield
12-01-2009, 03:44 PM
The republicans have no leaders up front. Hillary Clinton will be the next president.......JMHO.......and i'm a republican

Mike

Yeah and it's funny that the Republicans who keep their names in the press, are not strong enough to lead the party.
I say bring back Fred Thompson. I'm a Dem, but at least he had my attention long enough to listen to him..maybe it was the Law and Order thing, but he at least looks the part.
Worked for Regan :)

As far as Hillary, provided Obama is elected a second term, she would be the logical front runner, especially now with this post as Secretary of State, but that's 7 years away, she'll be 69 years old.

Steve B
12-01-2009, 06:10 PM
I'm confused Mike. You have two different opinions that can't co-exist.

"According to the trend numbers I have the Democrats are just about finished! People have seen what they accomplish and the hidden agendas they push, the people in this country as a whole have had enough.

Obama, Pelosi, Reed, Frank, and Dodd are the best thing with Democrats in the minority. 2010 is going to be a great year.

Sometimes the country needs a healthy dose of reality. The Democrats have done that and the people don't want what they pedal!"

OR

"Hillary Clinton will be the next president.......JMHO"

I guess the terms "the people", "the country as a whole", and "finished" could be interpreted differently - but, in the first quote it seems to me you think the democrats will quickly be turned out of office. Then you say that Hillary will be the next president ???

Spider
12-01-2009, 07:09 PM
That's it, then! Hillary will turn Republican!!!! It's the only way the two ideas can be reconciled.

greenoak
12-01-2009, 07:18 PM
i think it will be all about jobs.... and i wish obama had the down home charisma of bill clinton.... i m sick of so many democrats...like my senator whos wife gets millions from the health companies.... ann

Evan
12-01-2009, 08:56 PM
As far as Hillary, provided Obama is elected a second term, she would be the logical front runner, especially now with this post as Secretary of State, but that's 7 years away, she'll be 69 years old.

This was her only chance to be President. I don't see her running against Obama in the primary in 2012. And at 69, people will question her age just as much as people did with John McCain.

The only "house" he should have checked into was a nursing home. They need to have a mandatory retirement age in politics! It'll be a start for term limits.

handprop
12-02-2009, 05:09 PM
Hillary Clinton was my attempt at being funny.......

I like balance in government and as I look at both parties looking forward I just don't see future presidents that really stand out. I'm not an Obama fan by any stretch but I'm smart enough to know John McCain would of been a bad deal also.

For me it was the worst election cycle in my life so far. Looking forward past the Obama term I see zero people I would vote for....sad really

Mike

Evan
12-03-2009, 12:58 AM
The 2008 election was unique in a few aspects. There was no president seeking re-election, or vice president running for the presidency. That has been the "usual" for awhile (early 1900s). Granted, they may not win, they were still running. That means BOTH parties had a wide open field of candidates.

Secondly, many of our recent past presidents have been Governors, and not from Congress. The fact that there were two U.S. Senators as the two major party nominees was very unique. The last sitting Senator to become President was JFK.

For Republicans in 2012, I've heard Bobby Jindal (R-LA) mentioned. I don't know much about his politics, but he certainly has youth on his side. He also isn't tainted by national politics currently, and that may be a bit refreshing.

We'll see what happens! I think that if the Republicans want to win, they need to nominate another chief executive (governor) for that spot.

Steve B
12-03-2009, 03:35 AM
"Hillary Clinton was my attempt at being funny......."

Oh - now your comment makes sense. I should have figured you were joking.

With that said - maybe it could happen. Her approval rating is far higher than Obama's and about twice that of Palin's.

Harold Mansfield
12-03-2009, 12:06 PM
With that said - maybe it could happen. Her approval rating is far higher than Obama's and about twice that of Palin's.

I'm pretty sure as a rule in both parties, no one from the same party runs against the sitting President going for a second term, which means Hillary will have to wait until 2016, or resign as Sec of State and run as an Independent, or change parties.

billbenson
12-03-2009, 12:11 PM
I'm a republican (I think) but Hillery is someone I'd strongly consider at this point. She certainly has experience, smarts, etc.

Harold Mansfield
12-03-2009, 01:10 PM
I'm a republican (I think) but Hillery is someone I'd strongly consider at this point. She certainly has experience, smarts, etc.

I liked Hillary too, and I was leaning towards voting for her if she got the nomination, however, I strongly believe that her camp was the one that leaked the photo of Obama in the traditional Kenyan dress on his trip to Africa to insinuate some kind of collaboration with terrorist, which in turn gave Palin some ignorance ammo....a bad move for the party as a whole.
I think she played a little dirty and lost some of my respect.

I'd still trust her gut on foreign policy. I'd definitely vote her "Most likely to send in a team of Navy seals to take someone out"

Funny part is, I was open and willing to listen to McCain and see what he had to say, maybe would have even voted for him, but he didn't really say anything and then adding Palin to the ticket was a "no brainer" for me. If he had added say a Mit Romney...I may have had a decision to make.

Comparing 2 "D' students, Palin with 5 years in 3 colleges to get a 2 year degree in Broadcasting, and McCain (with all due respect to his military career) who graduated at the bottom of his Naval Academy class and didn't even use email.....against 2 scholars (Senators at that) with Masters in Constitutional Law, and Economics was just too hard to vote against.

If I had to do it all over again, I still would have voted the same way. I have to stick with the President for now. Its only been less than a year and it is a bad time....no matter who would be in office right now...it was gearing up to be a bad time. It was inevitable.

I cringe to think how much worse things would be if Mccain was President and didn't have the insight (or education in economics) to stop the rest of the major corporations and banks from going bankrupt. The potential for a full on depression was very real.

I honestly think this administration stopped the blood gushing in it's tracks...now we have to rebuild. Let's face it..the mortgage and banking industry got greedy and screwed us..really bad. There is no quick fix to it.

The President can only guide and support policy to create and support a friendly business environment...he can't make people hire employees..especially when so many companies don't exist anymore.

If you just take Shearson Lehman Bros alone...that whole company doesn't exist anymore after 150 years on wall street. How many people is that not paying bills to other companies and industries ? It has to be in the hundreds of thousands alone...that in turn made other companies lay people off.

The President can't fix that. Those jobs are gone forever. The government didn't do it to them...Lehman did it to themselves by over investing in sub prime mortgages that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on for nothing more than greed....they were flipping bad paper ..they knew it...and they got caught with their pants down when the market crashed.
Now multiply that by a few thousand other investment companies and banks.

The President can't fix that. It was done and over before he even got there.
No one can fix that.

billbenson
12-03-2009, 01:31 PM
I liked Hillary too, and I was leaning towards voting for her if she got the nomination, however, I strongly believe that her camp was the one that leaked the photo of Obama in the traditional Kenyan dress on his trip to Africa to insinuate some kind of collaboration with terrorist, which in turn gave Palin some ignorance ammo....a bad move for the party as a whole.
I think she played a little dirty and lost some of my respect.

I'd still trust her gut on foreign policy. I'd definitely vote her "Most likely to send in a team of Navy seals to take someone out"

Funny part is, I was open and willing to listen to McCain and see what he had to say, but he didn't really say anything and then adding Palin to the ticket was a "no brainer" for me.

Comparing 2 "D' students, Palin with 5 years in 3 colleges to get a 2 year degree in Broadcasting, and McCain (with all due respect to his military career) who graduated at the bottom of his Naval Academy class and didn't even use email.....against 2 scholars (Senators at that) with Masters in Constitutional Law, and Economics was just too hard to vote against.

If I had to do it all over again, I still would have voted the same way. I have to stick with the President for now. Its only been less than a year and it is a bad time....no matter who would be in office right now...it was gearing up to be a bad time. It was inevitable.

I cringe to think how much worse things would be if Mccain was President and didn't have the insight (or education in economics) to stop the rest of the major corporations and banks from going bankrupt. The potential for a full on depression was very real.

Really agree with all of that Eborg. In the last election I didn't like Hillery. Her new york politics seemed to place her as a power monger IMO. Her marriage to Bill seemed to be a business relationship. Now, however, in her current position she is doing a good job and matured. Completely changed my position on her.

And, like you said, Oboma had the credencials and McCain's selecting palin was an obvious play to put a woman on the ballot and a bad political blunder for which I lost trust in McCains ability to play the political game needed at that level.

Harold Mansfield
12-03-2009, 02:08 PM
Really agree with all of that Eborg. In the last election I didn't like Hillery. Her new york politics seemed to place her as a power monger IMO. Her marriage to Bill seemed to be a business relationship. Now, however, in her current position she is doing a good job and matured. Completely changed my position on her.

And, like you said, Oboma had the credencials and McCain's selecting palin was an obvious play to put a woman on the ballot and a bad political blunder for which I lost trust in McCains ability to play the political game needed at that level.

I really miss Bill Clinton. In his personal life..he was pretty stupid, especially to be a sitting President (Geez), but I really felt that he had everyone's best interest at heart and had no problem pulling the trigger when needed.
Yeah, he could have done more in Darfur and he has always said that was one of his biggest regrets, but , at the time...no one really knew how bad it was...plus we can't be everywhere, every time..especially when the rest of the world doesn't seem to care.

I am getting tired of being the only country that cares in situations like that, while the rest of the world sits back, watches and passes judgment on us.

The current situation is different, IMO, we are fighting a well armed private militia intent on terrorism and killing us specifically (it has nothing to do with what religion they claim), but I really don't see Afghanistan getting their act together nor do I trust them to.

To me the U.N is a joke..we send 100k troops and a combined effort of 40 other nations send 4k troops. You would think that countries that have been attacked by extremist linked to Al Qaeda and The Taliban over the last 20 years like Spain, Japan, Ireland, The Netherlands, Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Israel, The Philippines, Jordan, and countries that have discovered and foiled plots like France and Germany....would pony up either some real troop numbers, or some money.
It's has to always be U.S.

It seems that no one else in the world does anything to help any other country anymore. Sure the U.N will send obligatory humanitarian aide here and there, but the minute a few gunshots go off, they are out of there. I mean what's the point of sending protection and aide if you can't engage anyone...there are just big blue uniformed sitting ducks.

I can guarantee, even with everything we have going on right now, if a Typhoon, or earthquake happened anywhere in the world, we would be there in 2 days with a carrier group loaded with supplies and medicine. Where is everyone else in the world ? What are they doing ?

Harold Mansfield
12-03-2009, 02:21 PM
i think it will be all about jobs.... and i wish obama had the down home charisma of bill clinton.... i m sick of so many democrats...like my senator whos wife gets millions from the health companies.... ann

Ann if you ever want to check where all politicians money comes from, as well as most political organizations and P.A.C's, you can always check:
OpenSecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/).
You'd be surprised where money comes from.

Most companies hedge their bets and give almost an equal amount to both sides.
I don't know who your Senator is, but there is nothing illegal about a spouse working in the private sector no matter what kind of company it is, as long as there is no influence that can be proved. It sucks, but it's not illegal.

Many of them work as consultants, and lobbyist, which is where most Washington politicians go after they leave office.

billbenson
12-03-2009, 02:29 PM
I'm a proponent of hit and run tactics. If others can do it, so can we. It's what daddy bush did. Attacked Iraq and left. Blow up nuclear facilities an leave. Both Iran and Korea. It'll save money and US lives. Napalm on the terrorist training camps in Somalia and elsewhere. After that, if we are attacked, blow up something big of theirs. They'll leave us alone.

Never happen, but that's my opinion. The world would be a better safer place.

handprop
12-03-2009, 04:41 PM
I'm confused Mike. You have two different opinions that can't co-exist.

"According to the trend numbers I have the Democrats are just about finished! People have seen what they accomplish and the hidden agendas they push, the people in this country as a whole have had enough.

Obama, Pelosi, Reed, Frank, and Dodd are the best thing with Democrats in the minority. 2010 is going to be a great year.

Sometimes the country needs a healthy dose of reality. The Democrats have done that and the people don't want what they pedal!"

OR

"Hillary Clinton will be the next president.......JMHO"

I guess the terms "the people", "the country as a whole", and "finished" could be interpreted differently - but, in the first quote it seems to me you think the democrats will quickly be turned out of office. Then you say that Hillary will be the next president ???

I stand by the statement Steve. BUT, I do think a republican president is still far away,as much as I love the right I'm just being realistic here. The Hillary quote was a joke but I do think she could do a good job. The key is balance and right now the scale is tipped and it will settle back in the future.

Mike

Steve B
12-04-2009, 06:01 AM
You may be the only republican that thinks Hillary could do a good job. I listen to a lot of talk radio - and, I've never heard that statement before from someone that more than just leans a little to the right. There seems to be a vial hatred for her from the right.

I'm pretty sure you're right in the upcoming elections that the Dems will lose quite a few seats. That seems to be the usual pattern after either party gains a large majority.

Your opinion on balance is very popular.

Spider
12-04-2009, 12:35 PM
...To me the U.N is a joke..we send 100k troops and a combined effort of 40 other nations send 4k troops. You would think that countries that have been attacked by extremist linked to Al Qaeda and The Taliban over the last 20 years like Spain, Japan, Ireland, The Netherlands, Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Israel, The Philippines, Jordan, and countries that have discovered and foiled plots like France and Germany....would pony up either some real troop numbers, or some money...
..It seems that no one else in the world does anything to help any other country anymore. Sure the U.N will send obligatory humanitarian aide here and there... In my quest to keep the facts straight and not let rhetoric rule the day --

According to GlobalSecurity.org - as of October 2009, ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) - that's the foreign troops in Afghanistan - had 67,700 troops contributed by 40 different nations, many of them very small nations with a small military contingent. Of that 67,700 foreign troops, 31,855 were US troops - that is to say, less than half were American troops.

Of the 13 countries critisised above, 7 have troops in Afghanistan. Japan cannot send troops as dictated by their constitution, imposed on them by the US after WWII. Some have few troops - Ireland, for example, has only 7 troops in Afghanistan but their national active troop strength is only 10,000. Could they send more? Probably, but we must take into account the relative sizes of the countries being condemned for "not contributing enough."

Consider, also, that Afghanistan, itself, has a quite extensive military and armed police forces which, I believe, are about 90,000 in total. (About.com says, The Afghan army in 2007 numbered 32,000 troops, the Afghan national police at 61,000.)

So American armed forces amount to approx. 20% of the boots-on-the ground. Considering the relative economic strength (The USA GDP is 21% of total world GDP) it can be argued that the USA is not contributing any more than "its fair share."

The additional 30,000 US troops just announced have already been matched by 7,000 troops from other countries and France and Germany are yet to announce their increases. It is expected that 10,000 troops or more will be added by other nations to America's 30,000. That will change the above figures in that the US will then be making a 57% contribution to foreign troops in the country and a total of 30% of total boots-on-the-ground.

No, the US is not doing this alone. I do wish the American news channels would keep the American public better informed of what their country is doing. This is supposed to be a nation "governed by the people" yet the people largely have no idea what their country is doing in the world.

billbenson
12-04-2009, 01:37 PM
Good post Frederick!

greenoak
12-04-2009, 03:01 PM
eborg....my senator is bayh....and his wife was put on some big pharma boards in her 30s..and now makes a whole lot of money ...pretty good for a hoosier housewife.......i know its not illegal....
ann

Harold Mansfield
12-04-2009, 03:35 PM
In my quest to keep the facts straight and not let rhetoric rule the day --

According to GlobalSecurity.org - as of October 2009, ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) - that's the foreign troops in Afghanistan - had 67,700 troops contributed by 40 different nations, many of them very small nations with a small military contingent. Of that 67,700 foreign troops, 31,855 were US troops - that is to say, less than half were American troops.

Of the 13 countries critisised above, 7 have troops in Afghanistan. Japan cannot send troops as dictated by their constitution, imposed on them by the US after WWII. Some have few troops - Ireland, for example, has only 7 troops in Afghanistan but their national active troop strength is only 10,000. Could they send more? Probably, but we must take into account the relative sizes of the countries being condemned for "not contributing enough."

Consider, also, that Afghanistan, itself, has a quite extensive military and armed police forces which, I believe, are about 90,000 in total. (About.com says, The Afghan army in 2007 numbered 32,000 troops, the Afghan national police at 61,000.)

So American armed forces amount to approx. 20&#37; of the boots-on-the ground. Considering the relative economic strength (The USA GDP is 21% of total world GDP) it can be argued that the USA is not contributing any more than "its fair share."

The additional 30,000 US troops just announced have already been matched by 7,000 troops from other countries and France and Germany are yet to announce their increases. It is expected that 10,000 troops or more will be added by other nations to America's 30,000. That will change the above figures in that the US will then be making a 57% contribution to foreign troops in the country and a total of 30% of total boots-on-the-ground.

No, the US is not doing this alone. I do wish the American news channels would keep the American public better informed of what their country is doing. This is supposed to be a nation "governed by the people" yet the people largely have no idea what their country is doing in the world.

At the time I posted that, it was just confirmed that we would send 30k more starting in 2010 taking the total to over 100k.
That day the Sec Gen of the U.N said that he could confirm at least 4k in U.N troops...they are now saying 7k.

However, as of July 2009 troop numbers in Afghanistan according to Rueters:

* United States 62,000
* Britain 9.000
* Germany 4,050
* France 3,160
* Canada 2,800
* Italy 2,795
* Poland 2,000
* Netherlands 1,770
* Australia 1,090
* Romania 1,025
* Spain 780
* Turkey 730
* Denmark 700
* Belgium 510
* Norway 485
* Bulgaria 470
* Sweden 430
* Czech Republic 340
* Other nations: 2,378

TOTALS: 96,513


We have waaay more than 37k troops in Afghanistan...Not all of our troops are under direct U.S. command, some are under NATO command .

And lets not forget the 117k in Iraq.
I'm not saying that we are doing it alone...I'm saying the commitment is lopsided.
Seriously, if that's all the numbers they have to give to fight a terrorist militia...no wonder none of those countries could protect themselves during WWI, or II. (Excluding Canada of course)

Spider
12-04-2009, 05:37 PM
...I'm not saying that we are doing it alone...I'm saying the commitment is lopsided.
Seriously, if that's all the numbers they have to give to fight a terrorist militia...no wonder none of those countries could protect themselves during WWI, or II. (Excluding Canada of course)I'll not get into a battle of the numbers - they would only be estimates, anyway, the actual numbers would surely not be advertised. My point is, the world IS contributing.

Even using the Reuters numbers you quote, the US has 64% of the foreign troops and 32% of the total troops once you add in Afghanistan's own armed forces. If you are not saying that we are doing it alone, then why say, "It seems that no one else in the world does anything to help any other country anymore."

And, I object to the view (often heard from US commentators) that the rest of the world could not defend itself during WWs I and II, and remind you that in both instances the world had been doing just that - defending itself - for two or three years before the US deigned to join in either war. And in both cases, the involvement of the US was not to defend the world but because America came under attack - by the German u-boats in Feb.1917 and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in Dec.1941.

I don't wish to pick at old sores, but if you were to read world history a little more closely than I presume they dish out in American schools, you will find that America is not nearly as pure as present-day rhetoric would suppose.

But, back to Afghanistan, you might like to remember that America was the target of 911. Although, many of the 3,000 people killed were not American, still, it was on American soil and America took the battle to Afghanistan, as a result. The rest of the world has had no comparable terrorist attack against it and has chosen (rightly or wrongly) not to take the battle to Afgahanistan except as allies of America. These countries joined American at the time, not two years later. They are not there, in general principle, to defend themselves - they are there because America asked and they responded.

I think a little more gratitude for that by the American people and American commentators would be appropriate.

Harold Mansfield
12-04-2009, 06:41 PM
But, back to Afghanistan, you might like to remember that America was the target of 911. Although, many of the 3,000 people killed were not American, still, it was on American soil and America took the battle to Afghanistan, as a result. The rest of the world has had no comparable terrorist attack against it and has chosen (rightly or wrongly) not to take the battle to Afgahanistan except as allies of America. These countries joined American at the time, not two years later. They are not there, in general principle, to defend themselves - they are there because America asked and they responded.

I think a little more gratitude for that by the American people and American commentators would be appropriate.
Gratitude ? These people are at war against everyone...not just us. This isn't our war. They have been terrorizing the entire world without prejudice!
Everyone has the same thing at stake, and I don't see where everyone is equally committed to the long term progress. I am sure that we and the U.K are not the only ones in the world that can dedicate double digit troop numbers. Especially out of all the countries that have had Al Qaeda or Taliban attacks against their citizens. The have proven that they don't care where you are from or what religion you are...they kill Muslims as well as Jews and Christians. This should be a World War, not a Police Action.



* 1993 (Feb.): Bombing of World Trade Center (WTC); 6 killed.
* 1993 (Oct.): Killing of U.S. soldiers in Somalia.
* 1996 (June): Truck bombing at Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killed 19 Americans.
* 1998 (Aug.): Bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; 224 killed, including 12 Americans.
* 1999 (Dec.): Plot to bomb millennium celebrations in Seattle foiled when customs agents arrest an Algerian smuggling explosives into the U.S.
* 2000 (Oct.): Bombing of the USS Cole in port in Yemen; 17 U.S. sailors killed.
* 2001 (Sept.): Destruction of WTC; attack on Pentagon. Total dead 2,992.
* 2001 (Dec.): Man tried to denote shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.
* 2002 (April): Explosion at historic synagogue in Tunisia left 21 dead, including 11 German tourists.
* 2002 (May): Car exploded outside hotel in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 14, including 11 French citizens.
* 2002 (June): Bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12.
* 2002 (Oct.): Boat crashed into oil tanker off Yemen coast, killing 1.
* 2002 (Oct.): Nightclub bombings in Bali, Indonesia, killed 202, mostly Australian citizens.
* 2002 (Nov.): Suicide attack on a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, killed 16.
* 2003 (May): Suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
* 2003 (May): 4 bombs killed 33 people targeting Jewish, Spanish, and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco.
* 2003 (Aug.): Suicide car-bomb killed 12, injured 150 at Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia.
* 2003 (Nov.): Explosions rocked a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, housing compound, killing 17.
* 2003 (Nov.): Suicide car-bombers simultaneously attacked 2 synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 25 and injuring hundreds.
* 2003 (Nov.): Truck bombs detonated at London bank and British consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 26.
* 2004 (March): 10 bombs on 4 trains exploded almost simultaneously during the morning rush hour in Madrid, Spain, killing 191 and injuring more than 1,500.
* 2004 (May): Terrorists attacked Saudi oil company offices in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 22.
* 2004 (June): Terrorists kidnapped and executed American Paul Johnson, Jr., in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
* 2004 (Sept.): Car bomb outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, killed 9.
* 2004 (Dec.): Terrorists entered the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killing 9 (including 4 attackers).
* 2005 (July): Bombs exploded on 3 trains and a bus in London, England, killing 52.
* 2005 (Oct.): 22 killed by 3 suicide bombs in Bali, Indonesia.
* 2005 (Nov.): 57 killed at 3 American hotels in Amman, Jordan.
* 2006 (Jan.): Two suicide bombers carrying police badges blow themselves up near a celebration at the Police Academy in Baghdad, killing nearly 20 police officers. Al-Qaeda in Iraq takes responsibility.
* 2006 (Aug.): Police arrest 24 British-born Muslims, most of whom have ties to Pakistan, who had allegedly plotted to blow up as many as 10 planes using liquid explosives. Officials say details of the plan were similar to other schemes devised by al-Qaeda.
* 2007 (April): Suicide bombers attack a government building in Algeria's capital, Algiers, killing 35 and wounding hundreds more. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb claims responsibility.
* 2007 (April): Eight people, including two Iraqi legislators, die when a suicide bomber strikes inside the Parliament building in Baghdad. An organization that includes al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia claims responsibility. In another attack, the Sarafiya Bridge that spans the Tigris River is destroyed.
* 2007 (June): British police find car bombs in two vehicles in London. The attackers reportedly tried to detonate the bombs using cell phones but failed. Government officials say al-Qaeda is linked to the attempted attack. The following day, an SUV carrying bombs bursts into flames after it slams into an entrance to Glasgow Airport. Officials say the attacks are connected.
* 2007 (December): As many as 60 people are killed in two suicide attacks near United Nations offices and government buildings in Algiers, Algeria. The bombings occur within minutes of each other. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, formerly called the Salafist Group for Preaching, claims responsibility. It's the worst attack in the Algeria in more than 10 years.
* 2008 (January): In the worst attack in Iraq in months, a suicide bomber kills 30 people at a home where mourners were paying their respects to the family of a man killed in a car bomb. The Iraqi military blames the attack on al-Qaeda in Iraq.
* 2008 (February): Nearly 100 people die when two women suicide bombers, who are believed to be mentally impaired, attack crowded pet markets in eastern Baghdad. The U.S. military says al-Qaeda in Iraq has been recruiting female patients at psychiatric hospitals to become suicide bombers.
* 2008 (April): A suicide bomber attacks the funeral for two nephews of a prominent Sunni tribal leader, Sheik Kareem Kamil al-Azawi, killing 30 people in Iraq's Diyala Province.
* 2008 (April): A suicide car bomber kills 40 people in Baquba, the capital of Diyala Province in Iraq.
* 2008 (April): Thirty-five people die and 62 are injured when a woman detonates explosives that she was carrying under her dress in a busy shopping district in Iraq’s Diyala Province.
* 2008 (May): At least 12 worshipers are killed and 44 more injured when a bomb explodes in the Bin Salman mosque near Sana, Yemen.
* 2008 (May): An al-Qaeda suicide bomber detonates explosives in Hit, a city in the Anbar Province of Iraq, killing six policemen and four civilians, and injuring 12 other people.
* 2008 (June): A car bomb explodes outside the Danish Embassy in Pakistan, killing six people and injuring dozens. Al-Qaeda claims responsibility, saying the attack was retaliation for the 2006 publication of political cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten that depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
* 2008 (June): A female suicide bomber kills 15 and wounds 40 others, including seven Iraqi policemen, near a courthouse in Baquba, Iraq.
* 2008 (June): A suicide bomber kills at least 20 people at a meeting between sheiks and Americans in Karmah, a town west of Baghdad.
* 2008 (August): About two dozens worshippers are killed in three separate attacks as they make their way toward Karbala to celebrate the birthday of 9th-century imam Muhammad al-Mahdi. Iraqi officials blame al-Qaeda in Iraq for the attacks.
* 2008 (August): A bomb left on the street explodes and tears through a bus carrying Lebanese troops, killing 15 people, nine of them soldiers. No one claims responsibility for the attack, but in 2007, the army fought an al-Qaeda linked Islamist group in Tripoli.
* 2008 (August): At least 43 people are killed when a suicide bomber drives an explosives-laden car into a police academy in Issers, a town in northern Algeria.
* 2008 (August): Two car bombs explode at a military command and a hotel in Bouira, killing a dozen people. No group takes responsibility for either attack, Algerian officials said they suspect al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb is behind the bombings.
* 2008 (September): In its first acknowledged ground attack inside Pakistan, U.S. commandos raid a village that is home to al-Qaeda militants in the tribal region near the border with Afghanistan. The number of casualties is unclear.
* 2008 (September): A car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4 civilians. At least 25 suspected al-Qaeda militants are arrested for the attack.
* 2008 (November): at least 28 people die and over 60 more are injured when three bombs explode minutes apart in Baghdad, Iraq. Officials suspect the explosions are linked to al-Qaeda.

They have attacked just as many or more countries than any dictator in history. They are just not using tanks.

I still stand by my belief that we shoulder too much of the burden around the world. I could be wrong, but I don't see any other battle and carrier groups patrolling the Persian Gulf so oil can get out safely.


Curious:


But, back to Afghanistan, you might like to remember that America was the target of 911. Although, many of the 3,000 people killed were not American,


What were they ?

Spider
12-04-2009, 08:10 PM
Gratitude ? These people are at war against everyone...not just us. This isn't our war. .. Yes, gratitude. Why is it that only America deserves gratitude? This discussion is showing little gratitude for the input of the other nations of the world. In fact, the general tone is that nobody else is making any sacrifice except America, but we can see from the numbers mentioned so far that there is considerable input from other countries. It might not be as much as you would like, but it is a substantial input.

And, Yes, it IS your war - America's war. America - the prime target of 911 - chose to take the war to Afghanistan. I think it is pretty clear that most other countries would prefer to deal with the problem as criminal activities within their own borders. Maybe that would not be sufficient, but it is not America's place to dictate to all other countries how to deal with their internal problems. Nevertheless, these other countries have gone along with America and responded immediately to America's request for help. In November 1939, Winston Churchill begged America for help against Hitler. What was America's response? The Act of Neutrality! It's a good thing the 43 countries that have committed troops to Afghanistan did not give America a similar response in 2001.

As it is, the task is a difficult one for American troops in Afghanistan, there is no doubt. It might be easier if other countries sent more troops, but I wonder how American troops would fair if the 35,000 other foreign troops were not there giving a hand. Yes, I think a litle gratitude would be well placed.



...This should be a World War, not a Police Action...Maybe it should. But we do not have a world government, at this point in time, and America is not it. You cannot dictate or demand that other nations will not decide to operate differently to the way America and Americans think they should. Any more than you or your countrymen would agree to run your affairs as the rest of the world thinks you should.

If you want a world government, then take steps to bring that about. In the meantime, we have to work with the laws and the system that exists.



...many of the 3,000 people killed were not American...
What were they ?It was the World Trade Center that was demolished - you know - "world" - that bit of the planet outside America's borders! There were many foreign nationals that died when the twin towers collapsed..

Harold Mansfield
12-04-2009, 08:31 PM
Yes, gratitude. Why is it that only America deserves gratitude? This discussion is showing little gratitude for the input of the other nations of the world. In fact, the general tone is that nobody else is making any sacrifice except America, but we can see from the numbers mentioned so far that there is considerable input from other countries. It might not be as much as you would like, but it is a substantial input.

And, Yes, it IS your war - America's war. America - the prime target of 911 - chose to take the war to Afghanistan. I think it is pretty clear that most other countries would prefer to deal with the problem as criminal activities within their own borders. Maybe that would not be sufficient, but it is not America's place to dictate to all other countries how to deal with their internal problems. Nevertheless, these other countries have gone along with America and responded immediately to America's request for help. In November 1939, Winston Churchill begged America for help against Hitler. What was America's response? The Act of Neutrality! It's a good thing the 43 countries that have committed troops to Afghanistan did not give America a similar response in 2001.

As it is, the task is a difficult one for American troops in Afghanistan, there is no doubt. It might be easier if other countries sent more troops, but I wonder how American troops would fair if the 35,000 other foreign troops were not there giving a hand. Yes, I think a litle gratitude would be well placed.


Maybe it should. But we do not have a world government, at this point in time, and America is not it. You cannot dictate or demand that other nations will not decide to operate differently to the way America and Americans think they should. Any more than you or your countrymen would agree to run your affairs as the rest of the world thinks you should.


Well, I can't say that I can disagree with much of that. You are right in that America doesn't dictate to other countries how to handle their problems, and I don't think that we should...but this isn't a couple of punk kids setting off smoke bombs..they have declared war on most of the world and many countries are too stupid to figure it out. They want to destroy and kill us, and they want to destroy and kill you. The entire country and way of life and they will continue to bomb innocent people forever. That's not something that you handle in civil court when something comes up.

If the same rules apply as has before in the world...this organization continues to attack countries on every continent. If the same actions had been taken by any other "organized" country..it would be considered an act of war....I don't understand why this is not seen the same way.

Sure every country has the right not to get involved, or get involved as much as they feel necessary...or they can just sit back and do nothing..so be it. But inevitably, they still benefit.

China doesn't have any ships in the Persian Gulf, but they benefit economically from American Navy protection of shipments in the region.

Would the rules be different if Saddam had just launched a few scuds at Kuwait, instead of marching troops in ? It's still an act of war and that is what Al Qaeda has declared on at least 30 countries over the last 20 years.

I don't think the rules should be different just because they don't wave a flag over a battalion of tanks.

It didn't take Hitler this long to get people's attention and make them understand his intentions and countries threw everything they had at him as if their very existence depended on it...because it did.

I say to other countries, "They have declared war on you, why not respond in kind?" They are never going to stop coming.
What are you going to do, take them all to court?

It's only a matter of time before they get their hands on something that will devastate an entire land mass and they will set it off where ever it's easier..and that could be anywhere in the world. What then ?

They have already set the rules, they told us..it's us or them.
A place is not safe just because they don't get involved.
No, it's not just our war. They have been bombing the entire world for over 20 years. It's everyone's problem.

Spider
12-04-2009, 08:59 PM
Just a couple of points, Harold. I like your characterisation - this isn't a couple of punk kids setting off smoke bombs.. - that's very true. But who are they?

they have declared war on most of the world They? The Taliban? Al-Quida?

Actualy, I don't think they have declared war on the rest of the world. The only remarks on that score I recall are that they have declared war on America and all who help her. So, as I see it, the other countries of the world have a pretty good incentive not to help America. Thank goodness there are 43 countries (plus a few who have contributed financial aid, military equipment and logistics but no troops) that are too stupid to figure that out, too.

I'm thinking that the government of Afghanistan was the Taliban, but it was Al-Quida that brought down the World Trade Center. So, how could one declare war on Afghanistan for a supposed "act of war" by a criminal element operating in that country. That's like Britain invading the USA for criminal acts carried out in Britain by the American Mafia. Doesn't hold up, does it?

It's a messy business, for sure.

billbenson
12-04-2009, 10:00 PM
Patrysha, see what you started :)

Harold Mansfield
12-04-2009, 10:45 PM
Al Qaeda has been bombing people all over the world since the early 90's that we know of. Not just the U.S. They are an organization. They set up shop in specific locations, have members all over the world, and train their army in camps. The only thing they are missing is a specific land mass to fly a flag over.

Of course we aren't declaring war on Afghanistan, we want to rid it of Al Qaeda, and make sure that they don't just move over to Pakistan for a few months and move back.

They bomb specific targets of specific countries. They hit the trains in both the U.K and Spain specifically. In the 90's they made a business out of bombing embassies..that is an attack on native soil, no matter what embassy it is, in any country...they know that.
They attack synagogues specifically targeting Jews.

Their attacks are deliberate and against specific targets and nationalities..they are not random. To me, they are committing acts of war on specific countries. I don't care what their rationale is..if you bomb Spain without provocation , it's an act of war against Spain. If you bomb Turkey, it's an act of war against Turkey.
If anyone else did it..it would be considered as such without question.

I've been watching them for years and they have said their intention is to destroy the western world, and specifically the United States.

When Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito and Hideki Tojo did it there was no question it was an act of war ....and everyone rallied with everything they had.

When the Lusitania was sunk (and that was only one ship)...there was no question it was an act of war....and everyone rallied with everything they had.

This organization has hit hundreds of targets, ships, churches and Government buildings all over the world over a span of 20 years...How have they not declared war on each and every country and it's citizens that were targeted ?
They have a pretty big rap sheet ad I'm still not convinced they didn't have anything to do with the Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland (Full of Marines going home for X-mas). hate to put all the eggs in one basket and generalize but Abdelbeset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi (one of the men convicted) is a Libyan native...seems to fit previous and subsequent Al Quaeda patterns.

I don't see the difference...and I think the world should hunt them down with the same earnestness that they did against others who have done less, in a shorter amount of time.

The Taliban is another story..they hate us too. and we are actually fighting them both simultaneously, not to mention whoever else feels like joining the fight. There is evidence of Iranian army in Iraq...it's a free for all at this point.

Spider
12-04-2009, 11:39 PM
I agree. So you and I are on the same side. But you and I are not sovereign states. And Al-Quida is not a sovereign state. Who do you declare war on and how to do we attack them? War means attacking land, buildings and people of some sovereign state. So what happens is we finish up doing Al-Quida's job for them.

All those people you mentioned - Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito and Hideki Tojo - were leaders of sovereign states and retaliation was taken against those states. When the Lusitania was sunk it was owned by a soveriegn state and sunk by another sovereign state who were already at war. America did nothing, as far as I am aware, even though American citizens lost their lives in the attack.

When the Palestinians were blowing up places in the 1970s and 80s, was that acts of war? Whether it was or not, nobody attacked Palestine because the PLO and others were not the sovereign state of Palestine. When the Zionists were carrying out their terrorists attacks in Palestine prior to the creation of Israel, nobody attacked Palestine because the Zionists were not a sovereign state. When the IRA was blowing up places and killing people in Ireland and in Britain, was that acts of war? But Britain did not declare war on Ireland because the IRA was not a sovereign state.

When an organization commits acts that would otherwise be considered acts of war, you go after the organization, not the state in which they reside. As far as I am aware, no-one - not even America - has declared war on Al-Quida. Because it cannot be done. We can only go after the personnel of the organization.

And, technically speaking, that can be done just as well, if not better, by local police forces and the court systems of sovereign states in which they operate and whose laws they break. Strange as it may sound.

Harold Mansfield
12-05-2009, 01:08 AM
I agree with you on all points, except war doesn't have to be against a sovereign state. We are at war with Al Qaeda, no matter what country they hide in..The Philippines, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Dearborn Michigan.

We should keep doing what we are doing. We know where they are, what they do, where they hide, and how they make money...just keep hitting them until they don't exist anymore...after all..that's what they want to do to us.
Someone has to win.
I just wish it was with the same zeal (globally) as previous organizations that reaped havoc in the world.

New world, new kind of war.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the fact that we have troops in harms way, and innocent people are displaced, or even killed..but I don't see any other choice. They are not going to stop and everyone in the world is at risk.

Spider
12-05-2009, 08:42 AM
You bring up an interesting example, Harold - ...war doesn't have to be against a sovereign state. We are at war with Al Qaeda, no matter what country they hide in..The Philippines, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Dearborn Michigan....

Suppose, Bin Laden himself was hidding in Dearborn, Michigan. Would the US government bomb the city? send in US troops? the Marines? 101 Airborne? Have rocket-launcher gunfights in the streets of Dearborn? Tanks shooting from a distance? Helicopter gunships firing from above?

Hardly! It would be illegal, I think. There would certainly be a tremendous outcry. It would be morally incomprehensible. Well, if it is illegal and morally incomprehensible in Dearborn, Michigan, it is illegal and morally incomprehensible in Manilla, Philipines, Kabul, Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the world.

So, what would be the best and most effective procedure if Al-Quida were hiding in Dearborn, Michigan? What would you advocate now?

Harold Mansfield
12-05-2009, 12:50 PM
You bring up an interesting example, Harold - ...war doesn't have to be against a sovereign state. We are at war with Al Qaeda, no matter what country they hide in..The Philippines, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Dearborn Michigan....

Suppose, Bin Laden himself was hidding in Dearborn, Michigan. Would the US government bomb the city? send in US troops? the Marines? 101 Airborne? Have rocket-launcher gunfights in the streets of Dearborn? Tanks shooting from a distance? Helicopter gunships firing from above?

Hardly! It would be illegal, I think. There would certainly be a tremendous outcry. It would be morally incomprehensible. Well, if it is illegal and morally incomprehensible in Dearborn, Michigan, it is illegal and morally incomprehensible in Manilla, Philipines, Kabul, Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the world.

So, what would be the best and most effective procedure if Al-Quida were hiding in Dearborn, Michigan? What would you advocate now?
I am pretty sure if Osama Bin Laden or any other Al Qaeda militia were held up in a some, warehouse, or compound in Dearborn Michigan the FBI would have no problem serving a well armed warrant for their arrest. The fight is already here. If they bomb a Starbucks and go running to hide in a residence, what would you have authorities do...politely ask them to come out and talk? Or go and get them ?

If they were armed with the same type of weapons that they are known to use, Automatic riffles, and RPG's it would be a no brainier (Since those types of weapons are illegal to posses in the U.S.)....of course they would storm the joint guns blazing and I don't think the citizens of Dearborn would be too upset about it.

I'm grew up a few blocks of where Detroit ends and Dearborn starts, and I know I wouldn't have a problem with it.

As far as I have seen, we don't hunt them down in parts of the world without the consent of the countries that they are hiding in (Of course Iraq is the big exception, but I don't want to get into how many levels that invasion was wrong and how many lies we were told to get our support).

Not too many sovereign states want that plague and intimidation living within their borders.

They won't be able to hide in a country that is an alli of the U.S.
Many countries police forces have stormed strong holds and arrested Al Quaeda militia on their streets and it's not infringing on anyone's rights anymore than busting in the doors of a crack house.

Patrysha
12-05-2009, 01:32 PM
Patrysha, see what you started :)

Yes I see...:eek:

Can I have a do-over??

Spider
12-05-2009, 01:35 PM
I am pretty sure if Osama Bin Laden or any other Al Qaeda militia were held up in a some, warehouse, or compound in Dearborn Michigan the FBI would have no problem serving a well armed warrant for their arrest. The fight is already here. If they bomb a Starbucks and go running to hide in a residence, what would you have authorities do...politely ask them to come out and talk? Or go and get them ?....Yeah - that's where I thought we were heading.

So, the authorities - police, that is - maybe special anti-terrorist police units - go in and get them, right? Do you mean go in and kill them? Without due process? No, I think you mean go in and arrest them. For what? To shoot them in jail? No, to try them in a criminal court. Yes?

To answer your earlier point (post#102), yes, this is something we handle in civil court - well, criminal court, anyway. And, if police action would be more suitable for Dearborn MI, it would be more suitable for anyplace else in the world. (ref yr.post#100)

So, I come back to declaring war on an organization. Declaring war is giving legitimacy to bombing and destroying buildings and possesions and killing people fairly indiscriminately. And that will not bring a dispersed organization to submission - it only works against a sovereign people and a sovereign state.

To boil this down, "declaring war" on Al Quida is pure rhetoric. And I think rhetoric, while useful, is not the way to fight terrorism. I think what we are doing - a virtual police action - is the way to go. I would add, capturing offenders - arresting them, as you would have the pollice do in Dearborn - and trying them in criminal courts, not lock them up forever in places like Guantanamo.

I come to the conclusion (this has been an exploratory trail for me) that the US and the world are handling this correctly, and that we just have to keep up the pressure, keep our hands as clean as possible (no torture, no humiliation, no religious insults) and we will wear them down. We, the world, can go on forever, while an organization will lose support if we do not feed it by said torture, humiliation and religious insults.

We will win this "war" by being better than them - not more brutal, more evenhanded, more civilized.

Harold Mansfield
12-05-2009, 04:43 PM
Of course due process is the way we do things here, Obviously we aren't going to attack within our own borders like we do in a battle zone...unless the situation warrants it. We aren't going to let people get away with arming themselves with illegal weapons. I don't care if they are Al Qaueda or just some racist militia in Ohio...that's just the way it is.

Just about every local law enforcement agency in America has trained special assault teams, snipers, tactical armored vehicles, explosive specialists, and air units...and that's just for our own domestic crime that has nothing to do with terrorist organizations.

You can't compare Dearborn to Afghanistan...Afghanistan is a war zone...it was a war zone before we ever got there, and we are there at the blessing of the current Afghan gov to help rid their country of Al Quaeda. They aren't sitting around in cafe's bad talking people..they are terrorizing the country and launching assassination attempts against Gov officials. The are hiding in the mountains, among the people, in cities, towns, farms and everywhere else..that by definition makes all areas where they are part of the playing field..which in tun makes most of the country a war zone. We aren't there to arrest them. It's a war.

Even the Branch Davidian incident started as the serving of a warrant to search for explosives..grenades specifically....but officials aren't stupid enough to walk up to an organizations that has automatic weapons and explosives with a couple of squad cars and uniformed LEO's.

People in the U.S. expect to be safe. But, no one expects the FBI to just start kicking in doors and shooting unarmed suspects and I don't see where we have been doing that with suspected terrorists or just your average crack dealer..suspects are arrested, charged and tried.

We are not at war on our own soil but we are constantly looking for members of the organization that we are at war with..much like German officers who fled after WWII and were still being arrested and tried years later....some as late as 5 years ago. However, I'll be willing to bet if Al Quaeda members organized into large groups and took over Sandusky OH or a Nuclear Power Plant in Illinois....I am pretty sure the military would storm and then it would be a war zone where resisters would be shot on site....just like any other operation of it's kind.

Being ex military police..I know there are certain situation where use of deadly force is always authorized...robbing a bank, or seizing a nuclear facility would be at least 2 of them..no matter who you are...Al Quaeda or just the local gang...and the only way not to get shot on site, is to surrender.

You don't have to believe that we are at war with Al Qaeda, but they have made it perfectly clear that they are at war with us, so call it what you want.
You can call it American arrogance or survival, but I didn't do anything to these people..I don't even know them..but I know if the catch my butt on the wrong side of the world with an American or military I.D. on me...you'll see my beheading on CNN. War has been declared on us both as a country and individually.

Spider
12-05-2009, 06:53 PM
There's a hint of something I don't like there -- due process is the way we do things here. I think if it's the right thing to do here, it's the right thing to do anywhere. I think you can compare Dearborn to Afghanistan - because what we are discussing is not the place, it's the way people behave, and especially how we behave. If it's right to treat our own people one way, it's right to treat everyone else the same way. Trying to function using double standards is how we will lose this fight. Trying to fudge what was or wasn't torture, lost the US a lot of respect internationally, and who knows how much that affected the willingness of other countries to pony up more troops now (which is where this debate began.)

If the people of the US expect to be safe and not have the FBI kicking in their doors and shooting unarmed suspects, why should the ordinary Afghan citizen not expect the same and not live in fear of US troops breaking down their doors and shooting unarmed suspects? You say, suspects are arrested, charged and tried. I haven't heard a single report of the fighting in Afghanistan that described Al-Quida suspects being arrested, charged and tried. I hope they are, though, and not just being shot because that is more expedient.

I share your frustration, Harold. This is not a fight that can be won using the tactics and strategies of the last war. We cannot smash Al-Quida into submission. The blanket bombing of WWII will not destroy them. The napalm raids of the Vietnam era will not subdue them. Even the overwhelming force of the first Iraq war will be insufficient against Al-Quida. I believe victory will come from denying them recruits and undermining the support they receive from local communities. We will do that by winning potential recruits and supporters to our side - by being people they wish to be like, by being role models of fairness, respect and promise.

That doesn't mean we lay down our guns and invite them to tea in the cafes of Kabul. Not yet, anyway. There was a time in our own history when anarchy was a well-respected philosophy. It's not, today. There was a time when racial segregation was a respected philosophy - not today. Times change and people change. And the longer we fight Al-Quida using outdated tactics, the longer the journey we will have to take.

Harold Mansfield
12-05-2009, 07:46 PM
Due process is the way we treat our citizens. It's our constitution . Rules in war are different and are covered under the Geneva Convention. The U.S. constitution is only the law inside the U.S. (and it's territories and sovereign land such as Embassies), it doesn't apply in a war and it certainly is not the law in Afghanistan. You can't put our expectations and laws on another society.

The last group in control there was the Taliban and believe me when I say the people were not treated under any kind of constitution..they ruled with intimidation and fear and killed who ever they felt like killing. Women weren't allowed to learn, boys were kidnapped and forced to join, and the rule was what ever the Koran said it was..which men could kill their wives and fathers could stone their daughters.

I know if someone invaded my town or home to use as a strong hold and stash weapons and held me and my family hostage, I would hope that someone..anyone would come and kick the door in to get them out.

Sometimes the cost of freedom is giving up certain liberties in the process. Just ask anyone in Israel, or here in the U.S. when they fly, go to a football game, NASCAR race, etc.

New Years 2001 here in Vegas, an American city. There was an army of FBI, National Guard, Bomb sniffing dogs, Secret Service, and Helicopters circling the Las Vegas strip..one was a military gun ship with a manned 50cal hanging out of the door. Some hotels still check every vehicle coming in for bombs. We aren't used to that in America, but that's the way it is. the fight has come home.

I am sure there are prisoners and hopefully, under this administration they are treated under the Geneva Convention as we have treated all prisoners of war since the rules were created.

I'm not saying we should throw out any laws just to deal with these people..we don't have to..but as we have seen in Italy recently..our laws don't mean squat elsewhere and everyone else could really give a damn...they do their thing their way.

Our armies are not police and district attorneys...they are soldiers. They do one thing. We didn't send private investigators over there...we sent our war people. We went to kill and capture...there is no Constitution in a war.

And you are right...you can't beat someone into submission who thinks dying will make them a martyr. You have two options. Capture or kill.

Spider
12-05-2009, 09:32 PM
...you are right...you can't beat someone into submission who thinks dying will make them a martyr. You have two options. Capture or kill.That's no choice. Killing them will make martyrs of them and increase Al-Quida's recruiting capacity. Capturing them and sticking them - without due process - in places like Guantanamo, will also make martyrs of them and help Al-Quida gain more recruits. Torturing, and insulting them and belittling them will make them martyrs, too, and aid the enemy's recruiting. This way we feed the beast we are trying to destroy.

There may be no constitution in war, but the aftermath dictates how you conduct yourself during it. Due process is included in the American Consititution, not because it is a neat trick but because it is the right thing to do. If it is the right thing for Americans to do to each other, it is the right thing for Americans to do to non-Americans. Unless you are going to conduct an all-out war against a sovereign state. And I am trying to prove that is guaranteed to fail.

Our goal should be - and maybe it is - to undermine the attraction of joining the enemy, deny them recruits by making possible recruits prefer our way of living, helping possible recruits choose living instead of dying as a way to salvation.

This is a war in which beligerance itself is the enemy.

Harold Mansfield
12-08-2009, 12:06 PM
There really is no easy answer, but as long as they are hell bent on launching attacks on us and the western world, I guess hunting down their strong holds and destroying their support systems is all we have right now.

We can't just leave them be or more of us will die. There is no reasoning with them, diplomatic channels won't work and there is no end in sight.

Some of the best military minds in the world are on this and I have to believe they are doing what is most efficient and effective.

Spider
12-08-2009, 01:25 PM
...Some of the best military minds in the world are on this and I have to believe they are doing what is most efficient and effective.Agreed. I hope they go outside their own ranks for input, though. It's an oft-repeated statement that generals always try to fight the last war. I think the last war is no guide to how we must fight this one. It needs more than the best military minds, perhaps the best human behavorists and psychologists can help win this one.

But whatever, like you I have to believe we are doing what's best. I don't worry too much. The problem will be solved eventually - and there's probably not much they need from me!