Rock the Vote

[jewels]

Pledging to vote in November (regardless of who for) can win you some free iTunes, an iPod or a trip to Ben&Jerry's in Vermont.
http://vote.benjerry.com/

[Darth Marley]

Some Polish immigrants own(ed) a Baskin Robbins location here.
They thought it would be a patriotic thing to give away a free scoop to all that registered to vote.
The Feds arrested them. Apparently this violated some kind of election law.
Seemed silly to me.

Originally Posted by Darth Marley

Some Polish immigrants own(ed) a Baskin Robbins location here.
They thought it would be a patriotic thing to give away a free scoop to all that registered to vote.
The Feds arrested them. Apparently this violated some kind of election law.
Seemed silly to me.

I wish they would arrest those guys giving out all the free steaks, hot dogs, chicken, bread, milk, and pizzas to buy votes. If you know where to report them please tell them they can start by arresting their leaders at the Democratic National Headquarters. They use some kind of voucher for their scam. I think they are called food stamps in the states where they don't get the freedom card.

No longer ranting, Antelope heads back to read the Battlestar Galactica threads.

[Darth Marley]

Alexis de Tocqueville said it over a century ago.
Once the public figures out that they can vote themselves other people's money, the republic will crumble.
Whether it is some kind of social welfare scheme or government jobs from which one can never be fired, and cost of living increases exceed inflation, money buys the loyalty of some voters.

Originally Posted by Darth Marley

Alexis de Tocqueville said it over a century ago.
Once the public figures out that they can vote themselves other people's money, the republic will crumble.
Whether it is some kind of social welfare scheme or government jobs from which one can never be fired, and cost of living increases exceed inflation, money buys the loyalty of some voters.

And when it comes to a democracy, it is useless without people being able to get something out of it. If they can`t get something out of it, democracy is really useless. The republic is rather more like a dictatorship, where you are able to choose your dictator. You can control who rules you, but not what he does.

A system without any laws is an anarchy. So long as you have laws that trancendes a complete anarchy, you will have to argue for it and win the vote. It`s not enought to say that "that is the way is suppose to be because the constitution says so".

[Darth Marley]

And when it comes to a democracy, it is useless without people being able to get something out of it.

Interesting point of view, but too conservative for my tastes.

[jewels]

Here I was just finding it funny that one could win an iTune just for pledging to excercise one's civic duty.....and hoping to encourage people to remember to register to vote.

Silly me. Republics are only as good as those who chose to participate in them. One of the founding fathers said our constitution was fit only for the governing of a moral people. Moral or not: go vote your conscience in November.

Originally Posted by jewels

Silly me. Republics are only as good as those who chose to participate in them. One of the founding fathers said our constitution was fit only for the governing of a moral people. Moral or not: go vote your conscience in November.

A very good point.

Our founding fathers were far wiser than the politicians who run our country and the rable that votes for them today. At the time of our Constitution who could vote was decided by the state governments. Although I do not agree with all their restrictions (like on women and minorities) the concept that only those who had a "stake" in the economy were wise enough to vote for the general welfare is a concept I wish we could get back to. Back in the days of our founding fathers only white male land owners were allowed to vote. If I had my way the federal government would send you a statement each year that showed how much you paid in all forms of federal taxation including social security taxes. The statement would then show how much you received in payments from the federal government. This would include all welfare checks, food stamps, social security checks, and federal employee pay. Those who paid more to the federal government than they received would receive their voter card valid for one year. Those who are net receivers from the government would not be able to vote during the next year. I think we would rapidly see a massive reduction in the size and scope of the federal government soon there after with a reduction of taxes on all those that actually pay them.

I was an economics and political science major in college. I realized while taking Latin American politics one semester and then Latin American economics the next that the lessons learned there applied to the U.S. as well. Major Latin American countries like Brazil and Argentina go through a series of democratic governments followed by military dictatorships followed by democratic governments followed by military dictatorships and so on. Why does this happen? Unlike early U.S. history when Latin countries become democracies they become mass democracies just like the modern U.S. The "masses" want things equalized so rapidly a welfare state is created. When the country can no longer borrow money to sustain this welfare state and taxes on the rich and middle class can no longer keep up with government demands the economy collapses. Usually this is followed by an outcry from the very masses who created the problem against government corruption. In order to stop the country from descending into chaos the military takes control of the government. Under military control taxes are lowered and the welfare state all but eliminated. Soon we hear about the economic miracle. Usually after 10 or so years of military rule the people want a return of their freedom of speach and democracy. The military usually steps down very soon once these demands start occurring. A new mass democracy comes into power. It usually takes about ten or so years for the mass democracy to financially collapse the economy again at which time the scenario repeats itself.

Why has the U.S. not collapsed yet? At this point the dollar is the world currency so the U.S. federal government is borrowing the money it prints, something no other country in the world can do to finance such a massive debt and welfare state. In time however as we continue to run massive budget deficits which is what we have been doing since the Johnson administration with the only exception being during the artificial budget surplus created by the stock market bubble in the Clinton administration our currency will eventually depreciate to a point where the federal government will be unable to borrow it back on world markets without creating hyperinflation or paying exorbitant interest rates. Whether this occurs ten or hundred years from now who knows. As countries like China or India possibly replace America as the number one world economy at some point later this century our currency will probably loose its place as the world currency thereby speeding up the eventual collapse . When that economic collapse occurs the U.S. will undergo some kind of profound political change. Whether that change will mean a military dictartorship or states or regions breaking away to form their own countries under new forms of government who knows. In the long run the U.S. of today will not survive under the current welfare state.

If I was a betting man I would predict that the U.S will break apart into regional countries. The more conservatives ones will rapidly return to financial stability while those that are based in the Northeastern corridor and the West coast descend into anarchy and eventually become police states. I think you'll find a seccession movement gain steam in Alaska and in the non-coastal Western states in the next 40 years. I highly doubt the America of today will exist in 100 years. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw these changes in our lifetime.

Battlestar Galactica although not focused on economics was focused on how the mass politicians were corrupt and short sighted compared to the military elite. George Lucas in an interview I saw before in reference to Star Wars believes in a similar theory and thinks the U.S. will become a dictorship at some point in the future. Lucas fears that short sighted politicians playing for themselves will throw away our freedom in the wake of the chaos and intrigue they create. The book Starship Troopers deals with these issues in its discussions.

[Darth Marley]

Shortly after the collapse of the USSR, I felt that a Balkanization of the US would be a good thing, and somewhat inevitable.

With the emerging global threat of radical theocracy whether from the M.E. or domestically, I do not think such a transformation is as desirable.

[Aeneas]

You think history might be repeating itself?

For crying out loud!!!!!! The latin american countries with the exception of Uruguay were never welfare states! Also, the coups happened way before anything close to a welfare state could be established. The coups in most countries happened just a few years after the initial leftwing victories, or just a few years after the swing in politics towards more left leaning polices. When it comes to budgets, most of the deficits are indirectly caused by the plight of capital and jobs to semi-facsist low cost countries. The european welfare state performed quite well during the fifthies, sixties and seventies. In Scandinavia, Denmark have very healthy public finances, and Sweden have gone in plus during most of the latter years, after the crisis in the early nineties. It`s no wonder that welfare states have problemes, when the deal in a "hostile" international environment. When they were safe behind tarriff barriers and capital market restrictions, they performed at least as well as the USA. What has happened is that these countries have been tricked by the socialdarwinists into allowing more international trade and export of capital, even if this does favour the more socialdarwinistic economies.

Originally Posted by Darth Marley

Interesting point of view, but too conservative for my tastes.

Why should anyone care about politics, when it doesn`t affect their lives anyhow?

[Aeneas]

Originally Posted by Norwegian

Why should anyone care about politics, when it doesn`t affect their lives anyhow?

I dunno :confused:

[Muffit]

Thanks Jewels


After 20 years of consciously not voting (due to an extremely unjust event which dissauged me from further participation), I have pledged to vote this year. But only because my conscience cannot withstand the terrible things being done right now by a certain leader I will not mention. America needs and deserves to be thought of with admiration, not contempt.

I do not know if my single vote will help, but if I do not try, I will have to live with my conscience.

(Enough ranting, please forgive... )
With respect to all,
Muffit

[bsg1fan1975]

Originally Posted by Muffit

Thanks Jewels


After 20 years of consciously not voting (due to an extremely unjust event which dissauged me from further participation), I have pledged to vote this year. But only because my conscience cannot withstand the terrible things being done right now by a certain leader I will not mention. America needs and deserves to be thought of with admiration, not contempt.

I do not know if my single vote will help, but if I do not try, I will have to live with my conscience.

(Enough ranting, please forgive... )
With respect to all,
Muffit

Thanks for echoing my thoughts Muffit. After vowing I would never vote as my opinon was it wouldn't matter anyway because the politicians do what they want anyhow, I did a total reverse. I was with my fiancee on a day trip when we stopped at a mall and there were people there signing up people to vote. Needless, to say I swallowed my objections and registered. Even though my voice is insignificant in a crowd. Many alike voices like mine will soon be heard. Things may change and then they may not. But just because you think your voice does not matter doesn't mean that you shouldn't vote. Cause if you do not then you have no one to blame but yourself for not voting and letting your voice be heard!

[Eric Paddon]

I intend to vote as I have since 1988, my first election, and in large part because I approve of the things done by a certain leader who shall not be named and have no desire to see a certain other person who shall not be named ever be put in charge of leading the country.

Norwegian:
By welfare state I mean: Any government that spends more money on social welfare spending than if can tax from its citizens or borrow from foreigners. Maybe I should have said out of control welfare state.

The massive debts incurred by the Latin American states were all to finance various social welfare reforms. Since their per capita income is lower than European countries to start it takes a lot less social spending to ruin them. You may get free health care but to a person in a smaller economy getting free rice, beans, corn or an unproductive government job has the same effect. If you balance your books and keep your foreign debt down you can keep some kind of welfare state. I wouldn't sing the praises of Europe too loud. The per capita debts of most EU countries are worse than the U.S. situation. Most EU countries have been slowly moving the same direction which is stagnate economic gains and high debt loads. 40 years is a blink of an eye to history. You also had a culture of hard work, education, and family in many European countries. The welfare state is increasingly destroying this culture. Over time it will create a situation where more of your people are on the government dole and less paying to support them. Most Europeans are living off the hard work of prior generations as your societies slowly decay. (In case you wonder I lived in Germany for 2 1/2 years, my brother lives in the UK today, and I have in laws in France).

The democracies in Latin America have never been overthrown in times of good economies just look at your economic data. It only takes a few years of left wing policies to destroy their economies. Watch Argentina, since returning to democracy they have again went down a path of financial disaster. Brazil just elected a far left President. It won't be more than another decade before we start getting military rule in these countries again. The freely elected leftist President of Venezuela has also destroyed their economy with leftist policies. He is increasingly becoming an outright dictator to stay in power. Over time the economic situation will force him out. I hope they learn this time so they can keep their freedom but history continues to repeat itself.

I like your statement about how when your EU states are safe behind tariff barriers you do just fine. What a joke! The very countries you call semi-fascist are supposed to import your products while you exclude them from your markets. If every foreign country acted like what you want for yourself we would all be poor together just like the Great Depression. As a result of the early industrialization of Europe relative to the rest of the world the liberal in Europe now wants to lock the newly industrialized countries out of his market. Europeans talk a good story but truth be told the mentality hasn't changed since the colonial days. You want to buy cheap raw materials from the third world, curtail third world industrialization, and then sell them back the value added finished products at a profit. Your current welfare state was built on the backs of the people who live in those "semifascist" states and the accrued wealth of previous generations. It also helps that for the past 60 years the Europeans shouldered only a small fraction of their defense. This is like a big welfare check from America to Europe. If America wasn't shouldering the burden of 90% of the free worlds defense we could probably reduce our federal budget by about 25%.

Bottom line: You can be fat dumb and happy thanks to the raw materials dug out of the ground by little brown people in countries that if you had your way couldn't export a finished product in your country and the American tax payer.

Life is going to get tougher in Europe. The little brown people aren't playing your game anymore and you are quickly spending away your inheritance. You probably need to end your 6 week annual vacations, 36 hour work weeks, unlimited sick leave (I remember how that worked) and put your nose to the grind stone like the rest of the world. When our country financially collapses you'll have to defend yourselves too. Your Grandchildren are going to face a harsh reality compared to your good life today and that's assumming your grandchildren are even around to see it. That is a big question when you see the EU's asylum, immigration policies, and slow natural birth rate.

P.S.: Thanks UK: You are the only country in the world that through thick and thin has stood by America when we needed a friend. My Grandfather took British troops ashore on D-Day and I was part of the U.S. VII Corps that included the 1st UK Armored Division in Desert Storm. Britain joins America at a fight to cover our back and fight not to get in on the spoils or put up a token force for political expediency.

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by Darth Marley

Some Polish immigrants own(ed) a Baskin Robbins location here.
They thought it would be a patriotic thing to give away a free scoop to all that registered to vote.
The Feds arrested them. Apparently this violated some kind of election law.
Seemed silly to me.

I believe it! WHat a PAIN for those POOR People when they were only trying to help!

Originally Posted by Norwegian

Why should anyone care about politics, when it doesn`t affect their lives anyhow?

Unfortunately politics today is more about legalizing theft from one group of people to another than it is about figuring out how to pay for the shared infrastructure we all use and need in a civilized society.

From what I read the welfare state started in Rome. Wealthy Roman citizens would give out free grain allotments to people in their districts in exchange for their votes to keep them in the senate. At least then the welfare came from the pockets of the actual senators. From what I read at the peak of Roman power the majority of citizens in Rome received free grain for their vote. Today our senators steal the money from those that don't vote for them and give it to those that do. The Romans were also pretty good about exploiting non-Roman populations. They simply sacked their cities and expropiated all their gold and prescious metals. To a large extent Rome's decline can be traced to four things: they no longer had non-Roman societies they could pillage, the cost of their grain allotments overran their ability to have money left over to maintain their commercial infrastructure, Romans were no longer willing to serve in the military to the point that their defense began to fall increasingly on the shoulders of non-citizens, they lost control of their borders. All these issues can be found in modern Western Europe.

America is following a similiar path but since Europe is far more advanced on all these issues hopefully we will learn something from watching what happens in Europe over the next few decades.

The massive debts incurred by the Latin American states were all to finance various social welfare reforms. Since their per capita income is lower than European countries to start it takes a lot less social spending to ruin them.

Was it, or were it to finance military spending? Of these countries, only Uruguay ever had a serious welfare state. Most of these countries have been right wing dictatorships for most of their recent history. What countries are you referring to? Actually, Chile is the only country were the military actually got the economy in order. In coutries like Brazil, Argentina and all the other countries, the rightwing military made an even greater mess of it all than the previous civilian governments had made! And in the one success story, Chile, you have one of the highest measures crime rates in the world. There are a whole lot of other factors which can explain the problems in these countries, lack of education, corruption and too much power to the old landed semi-aristocracy.

You may get free health care but to a person in a smaller economy getting free rice, beans, corn or an unproductive government job has the same effect.

Well, free food and "government jobs" have been around since the end of the stone age. Even the romans handed out free food since the early republic, and Great Britain had government programs in place all along since Elisabeth 1. And what is wrong with that? I guess that you want to use the poor as slave labourers in state prisons or maybee just mow them down like they do in Brazil?

The per capita debts of most EU countries are worse than the U.S. situation.

Actually, this is quite common for countries who are in a situation where they compete with up and coming economies. The same thing happens to both Europe, the US and Europa. To some degree, this is actually desirable to some degree, as it gives the poor countries a chance to catch up.

Most EU countries have been slowly moving the same direction which is stagnate economic gains and high debt loads. 40 years is a blink of an eye to history.

As I stated, the international constraint have certainly been altered over that time. If you see it that way, capitalism in itself also just becomes a little blink.

You also had a culture of hard work, education, and family in many European countries. The welfare state is increasingly destroying this culture. Over time it will create a situation where more of your people are on the government dole and less paying to support them.

This is not correct. If you look at the european countries, there are no correlation between the generoustiy of welfare benefits and work participation rates. Actually, the nordic countries have some of the absolute highest work participation rates in the industrialised world, Norway even slightly higher than the US. Also, the growth in people on welfare did not come with the introduction of the welfare state, but with the introduction of globalization, automation and women getting into the workforce. It is the lack of class hate in most european countries, that have lead the state to attempt to soften the blow of these circumstances. These countries also have a much smaller prison population than the US, the US have the same share of their population in prison as the Soviet Unionen had in the late seventies! Here communists and libertarians agree, those who does not fit the system shall be used as cheap prison labour.

I`ll take the rest another day, when I have time. I`m not used to write in english.

The democracies in Latin America have never been overthrown in times of good economies just look at your economic data.

Yes, but apart from Chile, democratization has also been a result of economic stagnation. Apart from that, those countries haven`t really been democratic that often either, and when they are democratized, leftovers from the dictatorship still remains. Actually, these countries have for most of their history been rightwing dictatorships, without them, with the notable exception of Chile, producing much either.

Watch Argentina, since returning to democracy they have again went down a path of financial disaster.

Yes, but during the nineties, Argentina did quite a lot of liberalizing of their economy. Both Indonesia and Argentina were praised by both the IMF, world bank and lots of rightwing pundits, before they collapsed. Also, the east asian financial crisis hit after widespread liberalization, while Taiwan which did not liberalize actually escaped the crisis.

The freely elected leftist President of Venezuela has also destroyed their economy with leftist policies.

Well, he certainly is NOT a favourite amongst the mainstream left. The country were in a mess before he took over, and he got power exactly because the country was in a mess.

The very countries you call semi-fascist are supposed to import your products while you exclude them from your markets.

Well, most of these countries preffered to have some tariff barrieres! Most of their marked were almost litteraly forced open by the IMF, world bank and WTO. Anyhow, there actually were international trade in that period. I guessed you would understand that since I spesifically mentioned that period. The difference were that we still retained some control, but we still imported some goods from those countries, and I think that we still should, just in a more limited fashion. Also, some poor countries were actually better off with barriers! The removal of the barriers destroyed the Zambian textile industry for example. Also, I didn`t say anything about expecting them to import our product either.

If every foreign country acted like what you want for yourself we would all be poor together just like the Great Depression.

Yes, people got poorer during the depression, but the economies recovered. You will always get an economic mess when changing economic system, you really had a mess in the US, Chile and the UK for quite some years after the Reagen/Thatcher/Pinochet revolution. The same thing happened in the thirties, and they recovered then, just like they did in the nineties. One difference is that in that growth, everyone benefitted, not just the middle and upper classes. But thay may really have been the problem?

As a result of the early industrialization of Europe relative to the rest of the world the liberal in Europe now wants to lock the newly industrialized countries out of his market.

No, they don`t. The swedish social democrats are actually pro globalization. I just stated my own view, but for libertarians and objectivists, it may be a scaring new thought that people with the same basic view of the world actually disagree about something that important. You don`t have to either say yes to all trade or no to all trade. There is a middle ground, even if such a concept is unkown for libertarians.

Europeans talk a good story but truth be told the mentality hasn't changed since the colonial days. You want to buy cheap raw materials from the third world, curtail third world industrialization, and then sell them back the value added finished products at a profit.

Now, you are attacking a straw man. I wrote nothing about dominating the economies of those countries. Actually, it`s hyou who want to dominate them, because their growth are fuelled by european and american capital, and they therefore own much of these growing economies.

If America wasn't shouldering the burden of 90% of the free worlds defense we could probably reduce our federal budget by about 25%.

Well, not all countries were defenceless. Sweden for example, had a potent military for it`s size. Also, the soviet menace was a joke. The barely dared giving weapons to their sattelites, fearing for their loyalty. And the can`t even conquer a nation of 150.000 people!

more later

Originally Posted by Norwegian

Was it, or were it to finance military spending? Of these countries, only Uruguay ever had a serious welfare state. Most of these countries have been right wing dictatorships for most of their recent history. What countries are you referring to? Actually, Chile is the only country were the military actually got the economy in order. In coutries like Brazil, Argentina and all the other countries, the rightwing military made an even greater mess of it all than the previous civilian governments had made! And in the one success story, Chile, you have one of the highest measures crime rates in the world. There are a whole lot of other factors which can explain the problems in these countries, lack of education, corruption and too much power to the old landed semi-aristocracy.

This pattern of democracy followed by dictatorship followed by democracy is a pattern that has been going on for over 100 years now. Don't just start in the 1980's during the last dictatorial phase. Although I believe all Latin American countries spend too much on military spending the huge debt they incurred is primarily the cost of giant government payrolls and product subsidies to the poorer elements in society. Whether you give everyone benefits or just a large segment of the population non-productive government jobs it is still a government funded welfare state. In the cases of Brazil, Argentina, and Chile the financial condition of the country was marketly improved under military rule compared to the situation they took over from. By world standards both Chile and Argentina have fairly educated populations. Brazil is further behind but still well ahead of world averages. Education is not the issue. Corruption is endemic throughout the world including Europe (look at France and Germany with the Iraq oil scandal). It is blamed for all the problems people don't understand. When the old landed semi-aristocracy of Argentina actually controlled the country back in 1900 Argentina had the 4th highest per capita GNP in the world and was a mecca for Spanish and Italian European immigrants.

Well, free food and "government jobs" have been around since the end of the stone age. Even the romans handed out free food since the early republic, and Great Britain had government programs in place all along since Elisabeth 1. And what is wrong with that? I guess that you want to use the poor as slave labourers in state prisons or maybee just mow them down like they do in Brazil?

Actually what I would like is that the government not confiscate the income of everyone who doesn't vote for them so that they can open businesses and employ those without jobs in the productive private sector. In both Brazil and Argentina democracy resulted in high taxation on the middle and upper classes. Both classes dramatically reduced purchasing. With reduced sales the business sector reduced employment starting a downward spiral. When the democracy couldn't pay off their voters with taxation they started borrowing. I wonder what mowing down you are referring to in Brazil. Although people were killed when Brazil and Argentina fought communist insurgents the actual numbers of people killed are relatively small.

This is not correct. If you look at the european countries, there are no correlation between the generoustiy of welfare benefits and work participation rates. Actually, the nordic countries have some of the absolute highest work participation rates in the industrialised world, Norway even slightly higher than the US. Also, the growth in people on welfare did not come with the introduction of the welfare state, but with the introduction of globalization, automation and women getting into the workforce. It is the lack of class hate in most european countries, that have lead the state to attempt to soften the blow of these circumstances. These countries also have a much smaller prison population than the US, the US have the same share of their population in prison as the Soviet Unionen had in the late seventies! Here communists and libertarians agree, those who does not fit the system shall be used as cheap prison labour.

Actually the growth in the EU unemployment rate corresponds directly to the increase in unemployment benefits and government forced employee cost shouldered by the private sector. The introduction of automation and women in the work place occurred simultaneous with the growth of the welfare state. They however do not have a cost and effect relationship with unemployment. We have had a global economy for nearly 300 years. Unfortunately the Europeans rigged the system through colonialism for the world outside Europe. Now that Europe is forced to play on an equal playing field they want to change the rules of free trade. I actually wish we had a German style police and prison system here in America. Our country breeds crime because we fail to harshly treat criminals. The crime rate in America has actually been falling since the mid to late 1970's as harsher mandatory sentencing has become law. Europes crime rate continues to rise during the same period as Europeans loosen police powers and prison sentences. Welfare in both societies breeds an idle class with time on their hands to commit crime. As the Earth's third largest country all things being equal we should have the world's third largest prison population. The fact that we tolerate crime and do not execute these people in mass is a sign that affluence weakens ones ability to enforce law and morality.

I`ll take the rest another day, when I have time. I`m not used to write in english.

Even if we disagree I appreciate your thoughts and time. Your written English is very good.

The welfare state is fine when everyone uses it as a step up or a helping hand in times of trouble. The problem is that over time it becomes a way of life.

When I pick up my daughter from school I sometimes take her to get a treat. After a while she came to expect it. She started asking if I would take her to get a treat every time I picked her up. Eventually she would whine if we didn't go. I had to get a bit mean with her to break her of the demanding habit. Unfortunately welfare is the same thing. Over time the helping hand becomes a right people demand whether they need it or not.

When you throw bird seed on your yard everyday eventually the local birds hang out by your house waiting for the handout and quit hunting for bugs and seeds on their own. If you do this long enough some birds will forget how to hunt for food and would starve to death if you ever moved. I would like to help a starving bird not help a bird to starve.

Norwegian:
Actually a lot of what you say is said here also. A lot of people complain about globalization. The big issue here in that arena here now is the outsourcing of software and customer service jobs to India. Personally it always seems to me that government attempts to protect domestic industry only leads to them becoming uncompetitive. Your example of the Zambian textiles is a perfect example. Some industries I believe a country needs to protect for reasons of national defense. I think tariffs on food stuff helps ensure countries have a domestic farming industry. That's not an issue here but I actually agreed with the food stuff tarrifs in Europe and Japan. In times of famine no one is going to sell you food they need themselves. A country like America that faces foreign conflicts on a regular basis needs to ensure that all weapons and weapon components are manufactured domestically. Since we need a large potential air cargo capacity in time of war we need to continue to restrict foreign airlines from doing domestic city to city flights simply so the American airline industry has a large number of available aircraft in time of conflict not maintained at government expense at peacetime.

Actually I think Switzerland is a great model for military defense and foreign policy on the part of a non-super power.

I think the Soviet Union was a paper tiger in the sense that if America withdrew from Europe once the UK and France had nuclear weapons the Soviets wouldn't have been able to invade Western Europe anyway without being destroyed a s a power.

My frustration with European defense is that when the whole Bosnia situation raged the European foreign ministers raged for America to do something. The area has no strategic interest to America. If Britain, France, and or Germany wanted they could have taken care of the situation themselves. Even in their own back yard they had to strong arm us into helping them. When we did again the U.S. had to do 90% of the fighting. I figure if it isn't important enough for Europe to handle it it isn't important to us. We don't ask Europe to help us fix problems in the Western hemisphere.

Down the road China may end up as the number one power and influence on the world. They are becoming a capitalist economy without a welfare statem and a potential huge consumer base. It will be interesting to see what if anything the people demand in the future and how the country handles it. You don't hear a lot of complaining after Tianamen.

I think Europeans needs to focus on keeping themselves highly educated as a society. When you compete on a global platform you will not be able to keep a high standard of living and benefits unless you are producing high end products. Last I heard Scandanavia and the German speaking countries still had a great education system. I understand Britains education system continues to deterriorate.

Unfortunately here in America our public school system is horrible and we have a lot of vested interest in the education system that fights any change. Luckily we have a great university system, good private schools for the select that are motivated and willing to pay and an immigration system that allows us to reap the benefits of other nations best and brightest.

[warhammerdriver]

Originally Posted by jewels

Pledging to vote in November (regardless of who for) can win you some free iTunes, an iPod or a trip to Ben&Jerry's in Vermont.
http://vote.benjerry.com/

Win a trip to the Ben & Jerry's plant in Waterbury. Hmmmmm. No thanks. I've lived on the other side of the lake from Vermont for almost 20 years and haven't driven over there to see it yet.

I am gonna vote, tho. And I encourage everyone out there who can to do so.

Norwegian: I'm paraphrasing, but you asked why vote if it doesn't affect you. Live in a town with about 5000 residents where only 10-20% bother to vote and you'll see. I've seen elections won and lost by as few as 10 votes in my town.

Moral of this story--Every vote DOES count!

[Darth Marley]

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.

Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.

Enlighten him a little further, and he owns a chain of seafood restaurants.

[bsg1fan1975]

Outsourcing technology jobs to other countries for cheaper labor isn't good for the economy. My fiancee is in the computer industry and can only get contract jobs as the big heads of industry only see the bottom line and do not want to have honest hardworking people working for them to make productivity. So are we to settle for a Wal Mart minded economy or are we to have a better chance to make a decent start to try to raise a family?

I'll take the good chance and vote my conscience. Remember this, if you don't like the way things are going do something about otherwise don't sit there and whine.

[Darth Marley]

Originally Posted by Norwegian

Why should anyone care about politics, when it doesn`t affect their lives anyhow?

One answer to this would be called "altruism."

Any notion of morals and ideals that is not totally selfish interest.

[jewels]

Originally Posted by bsg1fan1975

Outsourcing technology jobs to other countries for cheaper labor isn't good for the economy. My fiancee is in the computer industry and can only get contract jobs as the big heads of industry only see the bottom line and do not want to have honest hardworking people working for them to make productivity. So are we to settle for a Wal Mart minded economy or are we to have a better chance to make a decent start to try to raise a family?.

Agreed. And another economically stupid thing is a lot of that outsourcing will end up needing to be redone by people that can speak English and are honest about what their computer programing work did and didn't do. India must teach that you always say yes and hide problems if some of the situations my husband's seen are normal. The people are no less hardworking, but they'd do better if they could say "I don't understand" or "I need help". Culturally, I don't know if that's possible and in the end that alone will kill those bottom dollar savings.

Originally Posted by bsg1fan1975

Outsourcing technology jobs to other countries for cheaper labor isn't good for the economy. My fiancee is in the computer industry and can only get contract jobs as the big heads of industry only see the bottom line and do not want to have honest hardworking people working for them to make productivity. So are we to settle for a Wal Mart minded economy or are we to have a better chance to make a decent start to try to raise a family?

Unless we cut ourselves off from the rest of the world you can't expect the U.S. or any other country to pick and choose what industries we discrimate against in foreign countries.

These big computer firms do want honest hardworking productive people working for them. Unfortunately if they can pay the same quality person $11,000 a year in India to do what your husband does here they go with India if the infrastructure is there and transport cost are not a factor. I highly doubt we will have a telecommunications customer service industry or low level computer code writing industry in our country in a few years.

Over time however as these foreign countries develop their wages will go up and jobs won't move there. When all things are equal jobs move to where the consumers are as the cost of transport becomes the deciding factor.

My seven year old daughter is quick to tell me how things are not fair whenever she perceives an inequity. Sometimes you just need to accept that the world is never going to be designed for us and do the best with the situation.

One thing that I see in the computer industry out here, we have a big Intel plant in town and an HP plant that just left to go to Texas, is that computer firms are under constant competition and go through rapid boom and bust cycles. As a result they seem to want to make most people they employ "contracters" so they can avoid paying them benefits and so they can lay off many people quickly while claiming they are "taking care" of their small actual "employees". In reality only a small fraction of the people they employee are officially employees. It's a sad part of the nature of their industry. Like everything else in life however noone forces you to work there or anywhere else.

I think I tend to be harsh on government employees (with the exception of the military) that whine because in reality the government employees are consistently over paid for what they do, tend to work less hours, have the best job security, and the best benefits. As the post I quoted shows and as a high level former manager in a very large corporation I can tell you the employees in private sector America at most levels never have this, but they pay the taxes that support everyone else.

Good luck to you and your husband. My father used to manage a major contract at multiple Intel sites. They did a great job for Intel. Everytime you turned around however Intel wanted to renegotiate the contract. After years of great service they went with a new contracter that undercut my Dad's company. Needless to say Intel is now unhappy with the new contracter because amazingly the service level declined when Intel decided to pay less. Sometimes cheaper means lower quality and inferior service not less expensive.

[bsg1fan1975]

Originally Posted by jewels

Agreed. And another economically stupid thing is a lot of that outsourcing will end up needing to be redone by people that can speak English and are honest about what their computer programing work did and didn't do. India must teach that you always say yes and hide problems if some of the situations my husband's seen are normal. The people are no less hardworking, but they'd do better if they could say "I don't understand" or "I need help". Culturally, I don't know if that's possible and in the end that alone will kill those bottom dollar savings.

thanks jewels for understanding my viewpoint. We do have to stop shipping good paying jobs overseas or it will be our downfall economically! Cheaper labor is not always the answer!


Antelope, my step dad is a federal employee and doesn't whine about his wages and he does work hard. The perception of the federal employees whining is a bit skewed. Many of them work very hard and get no thanks for their efforts.