Posted by Speaking Just For Me on February 09, 2005 at 21:15:07 (PST):
In Reply to: Re: Cuts to local law enfocement and fire companies posted by jim on February 09, 2005 at 20:32:06 (PST):
: : : : So, I would like somebody to explain to me how this good for our country? Maybe these cuts are some of the those things that if you think budget cuts for police and fire protection then you are unpatriotic or an evil-doer.
: : : : Where are all the poems and praises that magnify what these cuts mean? Boy, there were alot of people backing this administation in patriotic fervor just a short time ago. How about those cuts for prescription and medical coverage for the elderly and the disabled. Where are all the poems stating how great this is for us as a country? Benefits are being cut for people in the nursing homes. Let's get those American flags and wave them some more. We are cutting more and more for our own people while we nation-build across the world.
: : : : Look at these depressed areas that we live in and around us. People have been tossed out on their behind from good-paying jobs and left with no healthcare for their families.
: : : : Remember, you got four more years of this stuff. I hope God does bless this country because are going to need it.
: : : Quit crying. What do you want the government to do? Do you want to chip in more taxes , I sure do not, I pay enough. All these wants have a price. And guess what , people are not thrown out as you say. If jobs are lost it is because the rules of capitalism are working well. There will be losers and there will be winners. Its life. Get one and get over it.
: : Well, Jim, the first thing I would want government to do is to take a common sense approach to spending revenue. There is still a lot of pork in the budget going to defense contractors and private utility companies.
: : You call this pure capitalism? I think if you check on the true definition of capitalism that you will find that there is no room for government assistance which means that private contractors who base their suruvival on receiving government money is not found in capitalism.
: : So, we force people to pay astronomical costs for healthcare even if it menas emptying all their savings. we will just label them as the losers. to hell with them, why should we care?
: : How about the elderly and disabled? Let's put them on a chain-gang until they fall over, huh? by doing this, we can turn these "losers" into "winners" in your whacky views of capitalism.
: : I am sorry, Jim, that isn't my vision for the America or the people living in it.
: :
: : Can anybody imagine what the world would be like if we did live in this warped view of a capitalistic society? I told you, I hope we do get some blessings with those types of views out there.
Okay, I will take you up on this, as long as you do the same in responding.
*Make a law that the government cannot and will not spend the revenue generated from the Social Security trust fund, unless it it is a national emergency. No dipping into the pot to balance a budget, etc. it started with George H.W. bush and continued straight through the Clinton years and through George W. Bush's four years. This is all on record. You can never balance the Social Security benefits with the government taking IOUs out of the kitty.
*Restructure the military back to the way it was 20-30 years ago. Stop the private contracts. Privatization has been a failure becuase there are no restraints after the initial contract has been exhausted. For example, XYZ company stated that they could save the military $1.2 million by doing the mail service and the laundry for the military. They sign a contract for 10 years. Yes, the savings were minimal but they were better than when we were paying people in the military to do this. After the 10th year, the XYZ company raises their price. There are not that many other companies in the business to cover the area for the military in regards to the mail service or have the manpower, transporation or equipment to cover the laundy service for the military. The military is unprepared to begin using their own personnel for this contract, so they end up signing a very much increased contract compared to the first contract. Put the control over to the military where the government can control the spending of their own money. This was a simple scenario, but this is going on with military equipments,weapons, etc.
*Limit the lobbying groups of special interest groups. Everybody knows that you need money to campaign, correct? Well, where do you think this money is coming from? Congressmen are thinking, "You scratch my back by putting some money into my campaign fund, then I will use my vote to give you the contract that you want or continue to ease the regulations on your product (i.e. example would be the pharmaceutical companies). It does not make sense why some products are so much more expensive in this country than others.
*Re-examine "all" the free trade agreements that have been enacted that the U.S. has found themselves bound to. Free trade may sound warm and fuzzy, but what they did not tell you is that somebody has to pay the price for free trade, and that "somebody" was the good ol' USA. Look at China and India prospering in the glow of the free trade agreements. Their GDPs have gone through the roof while ours has increased minimally. Now, is the time, Jim, when you want to seperate capitalism from preserving the economic stability of the U.S. If we buy into the one-world capitalism theory that both parties have danced around, then we have sacrificed our own for the benefit of the rest of the world. Many of those companies are based here in the United States. The employment opportunities combined with quality-paying jobs is down considerably....once again, this was apparent through the Clinton and Bush years. The U.S. has to make a stand or there is no way we can compete in any market, unless we forst come to the realization that we are giving in to the declining of the quality of life here in the U.S. You cannot have it both ways. I do not care if there is somebody out there that makes $40,000 a year baling hay. Unless there are enough of the jobs paying similar weight, then we are only fooling ourselves. Our most prosperous years as a nation were during the Industrial Age. Workers fought for their wages and their healthcare. Companies did not move overseas, because they were going bankrupt. They moved overseas to make a bigger profit. Industries employed many people. This gave our country a huge tax basin to pull from. Simple mathematics...the more working and paying taxes; the less amoutn of taxes that need to be paid. If you think companies are all good in packing up and going overseas to make bigger profits while they watch the country that they live in and prosper in goes to hell, then we have have no argument, because it is just a diffrent philosophy. Any product, and I say any product, inlcuding the Electro-Optics up at Northpointe will eventually be shipped overseas due to the cheap labor. Now, do you think we the American worker should just say that is okay, or should they expect more from their leaders? If we do want to keep companies here in the U.S. then we should expect workers to work for less, correct? This is where the qulaity of life comes into play. should we expect the government to protect are quality of life and lead by example as a nation, or should we just say, "You know what? There is a guy working in China for $2.00/hr., so I should just do the same." Does this make sense? You can say that this guy could work himslef up and own his own company in the future, but if you were him, where would you locate your company? U.S. or China? It all depends on the profit you want to make. If you are looking to secure your own wealth and finances, then you go overseas. We are in a catch-22, who is willing to sacrifice what? Are the corporations ready to sacrifice a little of their profit to keep Americans employed or are the Americans willing to take step back and live below standards to satisify the profiteering of the corporations? It is all up to the ideology of whomever reads this.
I can give more later.