One more thing about #2

Subject:

Comments:
: : : : : : : : 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. : : : : : : well I will say you gave me a lot to respond to. : : : I will do it in the order of your comments. : : : 1. We agree on this. The trust fund should not be spent on other things. : : : 2. I disagree with you here. The private sector, motivated by making money is more efficiant than the government. Our military is the best in the world and the out sourcing of some duties is not a bad thing. I would rather have have a few more apache helicopters or F22 fighters than paying non efficient dollars for delivering the mail, etc. : : : 3. Again I agree with you but it will never happen. There is far too much money spent by the left through the labor unions and others for this to ever change. : : : 4.Free trade is a benefit for all countries. We have been outsourcing jobs from this country for 100 years and that is not going tot change. People love to shop at Walmarts and that is because the prices are cheap and nobody gives a damn where the goods are made from. It is the natural cycle of things. With all the outsourcing you complain about, the USA is still the richest economy in the world and the largest. Capital can not be held captive by governments wishing to have protection. It will go to where it can be used to create the greatest return. I personally have been to China over 16 times and set up a factory in china to manufacture. Why did my company do this? Because my competition is global, not just American and we use that plant to supply the asian market in order to compete with the japanese. We have no chance of doing this out of the states. Free trade will have its shares of winners and losers. Do we really want to get back to making tennis shoes or christmas lights or toys or underware here - no we don't. : : : I have traveled to over 44 countries over the last 15 years and the USA is by far the most dynamic of all those and also the one with the best future. Part of this is due to our capatistic bent . And lastley, no , I do not want to through the handicapped or elderly out in the street. : : : Any more comments , I am all ears. But what stickes me as sad is the fact that most people from the Kittanning area expect the government to be their nanny. Why? : : : I do not understand your comments about the military and governmental jobs being privatized. I am not saying government should handle all jobs like mowing lawns at the Washington Mall. But, you seem to be a conservative, why would we spend more money for such contracts just because they are dealing with the military. Have you ever looked at these contracts? Halliburton was made popular because of Cheney, and I am not even talking about that connection, we are funneling huge amounts of money to private companies that are inefficent and sometimes borderline corrupt. To me these things are perks and porks. : : : : Your description of labor unions being the main culprits in the lobbying arena is somewhat humorous and out-dated. You do not need to look any further than about 4 months ago to see that. The main lobbying entities active in politics today are prive corporations, the pharmaceutical industries were at the top of the list during the last election. I do not think you can using the "blame the unions" theme too much nowadays. That sounds like too much Limbaugh and not enough factual data. : : Not at this rate we have not been out-sourcing. If you go and do a search on your computer for the date of 10FEB05, and use the keywords "trade deficit," you will see that wwe have been building an astonomical trade deficit. Once again, please save me the "blame the unions" speech. These companies went overseas for profit not because they were on the verge bankruptcy. Give me some examples of companies that had to go overseas to remain financially solvent? Now, for another question, "What products or services can we do over here in the U.S. that will alllow us to compete with the overseas market?" Isn't free trade really about lowering the stadard of living of the U.S. while other countries increase their standard of living? India and China for example. The difference is that both the Indian and Chinese governments reap the profits from this free trade, correct? How can you say that we have one of the best economices when most of our debts are loans to foreign countries? I am serious. Do you know or understand that the debt that we are building is funneled through loans that based on foreign countries and their currency? I am waiting for the day when some of these countries begin to cash in on some of these loans. Where are going to ge the money? The global economy is a sham, and it is a nice theory, but somebody has to pay for it. The "somebody" that had to pay for it in this scenario is the U.S. because we were the thriving country with the best standard of living. Let me ask you this...not too many have this asked of them, so I will pose it you, "What is the utlimate goal or purpose of the global economy?" Unless all governments come together to base a sole standard of living for all people, we are never going to be bale to compete, correct? UNLESS, we as a society throw in the towel and admit that we should expect living at a lesser standard with decreased wages. This global economy was based on corporate greed, so that companies can maximize their profits to the biggest degree. Only a few people in this country will be able to turn a profit in the long run. And we are not talking about "toys" and "Christmas lights" (now I know you listen to Limbaugh. Look at the technological jobs that are going overseas. Did you know X-rays are now being sent overseas via e-mail to be diagnosed? It is occurring in Boston as we speak. And let us say we buy into the bag of garbage that we will be the centerpoint for new technology. How many people is that going to employ? People are already seeing what happens with services when you cut down on people paying taxes.....the ones that are working have to pay higher taxes. Or, we could use the old theory of the U.S. becoming a nation of service industry jobs. This one has faded, since it it has lost all credibility with the public. Simple economics.....if you fill this country with low-paying jobs, I am not saying all jobs are low-paying, who is going to hire construction workers to do work on their house? Who is going to buy the Bic Macs from Mickey D's? The whole notion that a job is a job makes no sense, because it will have an effect on other sectors of the society. : : Is this economy better or worse than it was 40-50 years ago? When we had industrial jobs and people making decent wages, I do not remember any headlines about cutting services, instead services were expanded to benefit the society as a whole. : : Hell, we cannot afford to assist our fire companies and local law enforcement, and please spare me the union rhetoric. This whole notion of out-sourcing being good for us has failed the American people miserably. : About #2, I agree with you that private companies are motivated by making money on an even playing field. That much I agree, but the playing field is not even at all. I will use the following example, not to discredit Bush, but because it was in the news. The no-bid contract with Halliburton for the Iraq was wrong. Not because it dealt with Cheney, but because it excluded other companies from prospering or bidding lower and cheaper. Lockheed-Martin did the same thing a few years ago. You cannot call this capitalism. This is "cronyism." And, if you allow government officals to continue taking soft money from these companies and securing jobs for them when they retire, it is only going to get worse. You show me where this fits under capitalism, and I will stand corrected.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: