On Sat, 03 May 2008 01:20:44 +0800, John Galt wrote:
>
> "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 documented,
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.
With regard to major changes that is a political reality caused by the two
party system and the lack of control by real people in the society.
And no, it isn't "nice". It just is.
> 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.
You will get no argument from me. Bush should have been impeached in
January of last year. Perhaps more im****tantly, the House should not have
done anything with Bush's veto of their original war funds bill but to
change some words that didn't matter very much and sent it right back.
> But will they? Noooooo.
I'm on your side on this one.
>>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.
They are probably creditable also, but my interpretation is not really
refutable. There was also the "gays in the military" crap which is an
absolute political loser and will remain so. There was the cave in to
NAFTA and some other ancillary stuff. But the main thrust was the tax
adjustments as totally mischaracterized.
>> 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).
The left wing nut cases blast Clinton for a tax cut for the rich in
1997 and totally distort that legislative act even worse than the
righties. They are a sick bunch on the far left. Just as bad as the far
right with their "my way or the highway" crap.
>>> 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.
Bull****. I hate Republicans. That does not change the historical facts
or the data. And YES I do have the ALL the data and I use ALL the data.
I do not cherry pick.
> 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 that would be because you fail to account for the actions of Paul
Volcker and the Federal Reserve. Note that such HUGE deviations in
interest rates are not part of the 90's. Only the 80's. Reagan had
_NOTHING_ to do with interest rates reaching close to 20% and essentially
destroying the US economy. And he had nothing to do with these rates
declining. The Republicans love to cherry pick the economic data and claim
efficacy of their absurd fiscal policies. The reason for the growing and
recovering economy in the "Reagan years" was the free ride Reagan got on
monetary policy. Carter takes the hit for appointing Volcker, not
Reagan. But the Republicans even try to claim that Reagan stopped
the inflation monster. Total religion and nothing to do with reality.
Mine are the real facts as opposed to Republican rhetoric.
>> 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.
Mine is a compromise between splitting up the USA and providing true
representation for the common people in the current full sized USA. It
seems to me that we would probably get a lot less "top down" government
with my solution, and a lot more local control.
>>
>>>>> 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.
Pandering for votes is fine. Pandering for campaign contributions isn't.
> 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
|
