"The Trucker" <mikcob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.05.02.16.44.35.422774@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
Then with split houses, nobody's ever accountable. Nice.
I see it differently. Legislators ought to do the right thing and hang
the
consequences. For example (to choose the most charged issue on the
political
table right now) if the Democrats have actionable evidence of Bush's
constitutional malfeasance, then they should bring articles of impeachment
immediately and screw the consequences -- or else they're as guilty as
they
think he is. In fact, they are in violation of their own oaths of office
if
they do not.
But will they? Noooooo.
>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.
Others have different interpretations of the events of 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.
You can't be partisan and then assume you are accurate. Everyone has
facts;
hell, facts are cheapest commodity in politics. It's how they're balanced
against the whole that matters, and if you have a preference for one party
over the other, the facts will (quite interestingly) always seem to fall
to
one side.
For example, here's a couple of facts: My first house was purchased in
1980
on a 15.25% interest ARM. I purchased another house in 1988 on a 7.5% arm.
Those two facts, if taken alone, would lead me to conclude what, about the
efficacy of President Reagan? (Probably something very different than your
conclusion about the man.)
> 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.
Come over to India. You;ll get a sense on what trivia we argue about in
the
States. You'll realize that the term "bleeding" is hyperbole.
>
>> 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.
Quite.
>
> 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
I agree with the problem, but tend to agree with Madison vis a vis
"multitude". My solution would be to recognize that we've reached an
unwieldy and ungovernable size, and move into a Federalist direction. The
best goverment is the one closest to the people.
>
>>>> 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.
Nothing that a little political courage wouldn't solve. Perhaps we should
make the job a bit less enjoyable. Then, perhaps the representatives would
vote their minds as opposed to pander for votes.
Here's an idea: In the interests of a Green goverment, remove the air
conditioners from the Capitol and the House and Senate office buildings.
:-)
JG
>>>
>
> --
> "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
>
|
