Re: Samuelson on OIl Drilling

On Fri, 02 May 2008 13:03:26 +0800, John Galt wrote:

> 
> "The Trucker" <mikcob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:pan.2008.05.02.04.30.49.9073@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Thu, 01 May 2008 04:50:17 +0530, John Galt wrote:
>>
>>>

>>> I'll have to disagree. The core of the problem, and well do***ented,
is 
>>> that
>>> US students choose MBA's (higher wage, less effort) instead of 
>>> engineering
>>> (lower wage, difficult curriculum).
>>
>> Not until H1B's were used to destroyed the wages and wage prospects of
the
>> engineers.  The Republicans will always be self fulfilling.  By
refusing
>> to pay the wages demanded by technological innovation, by increasing
H1B
>> quotas to address the shortage of skilled engineers the Republicans
>> CREATED the shortage and an ACTUAL need for even MORE H1B's.  Then when
>> low wages would no longer sup****t the economy we had a bust and even
more
>> demand by the Republicans for even more H1B's.
>>
>>> Thus, you need HIB's, which were
>>> increased multiple times during the Clinton years
>>
>> Show me.  The Clinton years were 2.  As far as any progressive change,
>> the "Clinton years" ended in 1995,  Thereafter he had to play defense
with
>> the veto pen and was unable to do much of that even.  All of the good
>> economic performance was created by the tax legislation in 1991 and
1993.
>>
>>> and were a necessary
>>> facilitator to the dot-com bubble,
>>
>> Yes!!!!!  The Dot com bubble was caused by H1B and capital gains tax
>> cuts and deregulation.
>>
>>> which HIT in March of 2000, clearly in
>>> the Clinton years.
>>
>> The "Clinton Years" ended in 1995 when The Gingrich Republicans took
>> control of Congress with the "Contract on America".
> 
> So the "Bush Years" ended in 2006, and we can now blame the Democrats? 
:-) 
> (I doubt you'll agree)

I will agree to a certain extent.  A major change can only occur when
there is a TRUE and significant Congressional majority AND, in most cases,
a non opposing veto pen.  In some cases it is possible for major
change to occur in spite of the veto pen but it requires a
significant majority in the Congress.  Clinton attempted a veto of the
Gingrich legislation that made it almost impossible for shareholders to
sue cor****ate management for malfeasance.  He got overridden.  And due to
the political influence and rightarded propaganda concerning the
Democratic tax increase on the rich, Clinton lost the Congress in 1994.
The lock step Republicans then controlled both Houses of Congress.  The
Congress makes the laws and the tax code.  Not the (P)resident.  It is
interesting to note that cutting taxes is very easy while increasing taxes
is very very difficult and as can be seen with the Gingrich takeover it is
often political suicide.  Even though the economy did very, very well
after the tax adjustment (as any economist worth spit could have
projected), the single minded bleating of the Republicans concerning
taxation won the day in 1994 and the Congress was lost.

> I'm getting your position here. The only time it's the Democrats fault
is if 
> they have both Houses and the Presidency.

No.  My position is that large changes can only take place when one party
controls the whole thing. Otherwise, you have a standoff in most cases. 
That means that large changes are accountable to the political party only
during such periods. These large changes have long term effects.  There
is no way in hell that Clinton could have vetoed the capital gains tax
cuts of 1997 and had ANY PRAYER AT ALL of a Democratic gain in the
Congress in 1998 or the (P)residency or the Congress in 2000.  This is an
example of a true Congressional majority in both Houses creating a major
change in spite of the veto pen. There is no way in hell that you can
equate the very weak Democratic House majority and the non existent Senate
majority of the current Democrats with the "tax cut propaganda" and the
Republican majority in 1997 (26 seat majority for the Republicans in the
Senate in 1997). 

> Otherwise, the nefarious influence 
> of the GOP causes the problem. (And, I suspect if the Democrats have a 
> three-fer, and things don't improve, the cor****ate lobbyists will be at 
> fault.)
> 
> I have little patience for this level of partisan****p, so I'll just
leave it 
> there.

My position is clear and born out by the historical data and the facts.  I
am partisan as hell and I will admit it.  But the history and the data
show a good bit of WHY I am partisan as hell.  I am NOT an uber-Democrat.
But I am certainly anti-Republican.  My country is bleeding because the
damned Republicans.

>  In 1997 Bill Clinton
>> was NOT damned fool enough to attempt a veto of the Capital Gains tax
>> cuts, nor the H1B increases.  He had already had his Veto on
deregulation
>> overridden.  He was politically weakened by the constant attacks of the
>> Republicans even though he was NEVER as loathsome to the majority as
Bush.
>>
>>> These are all excellent datapoints to my ongoing contention that we
are
>>> being governed by what is essentially one party,
>>
>> I do not disagree that we are being governed by an unelected cartel of
>> lobbyists and rich people.

The only real answer to the problem is to increase the representation of
the people in their government.  I think I know how that can best be done
and it is most certainly in keeping with the Constitution and what the
people were convinced they were getting when they ratified the
Constitution. 

http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

>>> consisting of a bipartisan
>>> den of theives, who pass the baton back and forth every few years to
give
>>> the sheeple a change to release their emotions in an election process 
>>> under
>>> the mythology that something will really "change."
>>>
>>> I mean, for crying out loud. Take a look at the positions of any of
the
>>> candidates. Does anybody really believe that bouncing a tax rate up
3.3% 
>>> on
>>> rich people is "CHANGE"?
>>
>> Our problem does not lie in the (P)residency.  It lies in the Congress
>> and most im****tantly in the NON representative nature of OUR House of
>> Representatives.  Thwarted telco immunity may well be the first baby
steps
>> of reclaiming some semblance of popular representation and control in
our
>> government.  Let us hope.
>>

-- 
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend