The Great Society (part 2?)

[malyla]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

I would like to open up discussion about what initiatives the next administration can implement to improve our society. (Remember, government is suppose to improve people's lives and society as a whole.) Johnson started the Great Society initiatives, some of which Kennedy initiated and Nixon/Ford continued (link above outlines in detail Johnson's Great Society plans). Then the Neo-cons came to power and slowly dismantled these initiatives. Now that the neo-cons are discredited, what can Obama's administration do to start the Great Society part 2. I'm thinking that 'part 2' will resemble Johnson's Great Society as much as Johnson's Great Society resembled the FDR's New Deal – very little.

Energy independence is one I would like to see. Not just buying oil from friendly countries but being oil free (developing alternative energy sources). A government sponsored Manhattan Project for developing alternative energy sources would be my first choice. Hmmm. Is this even possible - or would the oil companies kill it?

The discussion is open.

p.s. If a political forum is indeed started (as Miss Piggy has suggested), this thread should be moved there.

[James48843]

I doubt there will be much opportunity for any great society moves. I really think this first term will be primarily one that attempts to govern from the center, to regulate those items that are most in need of financial regulation, to move back to a science based environmental policy instead of a right-wing business model, and have just basics put in place to shore up the health care issues that are most pressing.

Energy independance is perhaps the one great area that WILL receive a boost here. Yes, there will be advancement of support for sciences to get us moved towards energy independence. I can't see it not being one of the central issues.

But if you are looking for a Great Society answer on par with Lyndon Johnson, or the huge New Deal programs ala FDR, I don't think we'll get anywhere near either one of those things.

Under FDR, the country was in hard fincial times. Johnson's Great Society also suffered from spending on the Vietnam war. Now we have two wars, 10 trillion in debt, and no way out. Even if they wanted to do significant programs, the money simply isn't there.

Moderation- I think that is what you will see. Some spending on the most needed programs and priorities. But no "Great Society" type adventure into new areas. It simply won't happen. But it WILL be a change of priorities, and a focus on fiscal discipline.

Which, after 8 years of radical right, will seem a breath of fresh air.

[Bullitt]

Great idea Malyla and I agree that we need energy independence. Unfortunately, it's a long shot. First, Oil companies and nations need high oil prices to maintain profit margins. While XOM and COP only get about 7 cents per gallon of gasoline at the pump, the US Government and State gets about 37.7 cents per gallon. Yes, XOM made record profits, but how much did Governments rake in?
http://www.atr.org/special/taxbites/gas.html

Second, The Saud's and Kuwaiti's need Oil at ~$75 just to keep up with current spending. Hybrid sales are dropping with the price of Oil as well. Where's the incentive to buy a hybrid when gas prices are below $3 that would take 8+ years to make your money back with? Without high oil prices, nobody is going to have the money to pay for any kind of oil and energy programs. Right now the problem is the debt they are facing due to the pressure to develop alternative energy projects that began about 9 months ago.

This is why commodity bugs are completely out of their minds. They just don't understand that over the long term, the cyclicality in the nature of their business will merely ebb and flow along with inflation as consumption dries up during recessionary times. This is also the reason why Oil Drilling stocks will continue to trade in unison with the price of Oil.

So what do I think we should do?

Bring back the railroads. The reason railroads died was because Americans wanted it right here, right now. Flood the road with 18 wheelers and deliver the product overnight right to their loading dock in the back of the building. Bring back the railroads. I remember reading that a train can carry 1 ton of product for something like 430 miles per gallon.

Of course with railroads, the customer will have to sit on their product a few extra days. Besides the Fuel savings, another benefit of the railroads is less stress on our infrastructure, specifically bridges and roads as less trucks beat on our roads, and pollute our air.

Bringing back the railroad is something I think will be done. I've also thought for a while that Warren Buffet invested in them heavily for this reason 1 year ago. But again, we're so attuned to the short term, most lemmings who followed Mr. Buffet are wondering why they are losing money with his stock picks right here, right now.

Infrastructure is really a no-brainer. It needs to be done, but I have no idea how to finance it without dropping money from the air. FDR's programs were something like 45% of the US GDP at the time. This bailout, even for how big it is, is just another drop in the bucket.

[Steadygain]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

I would like to open up discussion about what initiatives the next administration can implement to improve our society.

Well I am reluctant to even dip my toes in on this one because I DO NOT want any kind of conflict with you - honestly I mean that.

(Remember, government is suppose to improve people's lives and society as a whole.) Johnson started the Great Society initiatives,

Here I think we have a very difficult situation - because Johnson was president at a time when the Goal of being the Greatest President was a lot easier to do - as information was not as rapid and all the facts did not become known to everyone immediately like today. I know for a fact that Johnson lied to the public about things related to Vietnam in order to make them sound like "they were attacking and waging hostile manuvers....ALL TO WAGE HIS OWN WAR - and also had to deal with Blacks becoming recognized as human beings. His upbringing did not equip him to honestly move for the Greater Society initatives - instead the things most signifiicantly done under him largely took this country down - under a mask he created. Malyla, I'm not saying this to argue with you but simply relating how I see things with the most recent disclosures of what really went on during his Term.

some of which Kennedy initiated and Nixon/Ford continued (link above outlines in detail Johnson's Great Society plans).
Kennedy was killed and Nixon was more determined than ever to be "the Greatest ever known" - so he did a thousand times more to fuel the War - and did many other things that would have cost him dearly. FORD - wiped Nixon's slate clean and He is the only one I feel we could honestly say seemed to have the right intentions

Then the Neo-cons came to power and slowly dismantled these initiatives. Now that the neo-cons are discredited, what can Obama's administration do to start the Great Society part 2. I'm thinking that 'part 2' will resemble Johnson's Great Society as much as Johnson's Great Society resembled the FDR's New Deal – very little.

Energy independence is one I would like to see. Not just buying oil from friendly countries but being oil free (developing alternative energy sources). A government sponsored Manhattan Project for developing alternative energy sources would be my first choice. Hmmm. Is this even possible - or would the oil companies kill it?

The discussion is open.

p.s. If a political forum is indeed started (as Miss Piggy has suggested), this thread should be moved there.

I would like to open up discussion about what initiatives the next administration can implement to improve our society.

Can we just start here and forget the rest (of what I dealth with)

1) An initiative by which Obama makes clear that the Dem/Rep seperation and WAR needs to end. The Democrats really need to be open minded and welcome the participation of the REPS and things need to be done more as a whole. THE SPLIT and FRICTION IN CONGRESS is the most prominent weakness the USA has.

2) Real Transparentsy - in Government; Financial Sector; Global Relationships....

3) Issues should be more geared towards the US Population and less towards making a few look good - Make the main issues more open to the public and let everyone see how people voted.

4) Lobbyists - I think we need to move away from the age old bribery system that controls not only our country - but every country around the world.

5) EDUCATION - Would replace "no child left behind" (Bush) with every child should push to their best potient and let the chips fall where they do. Let those who have potiential SOAR

6) ENERGY - Alternative Energy all the way - get our planet fixed

7) TRASH - Get is cleaned up and start getting rid of things that take forever and ever to disolve

8) GLOBAL PEACE AND CO-OPEARATION - to supercede Nuclear Bombs and that across the board. Let other countries make sure the USA is compliant and gets rid of all theirs too.

OK - that's a start.

[Minnow]

So what do I think we should do?

Bring back the railroads. The reason railroads died was because Americans wanted it right here, right now. Flood the road with 18 wheelers and deliver the product overnight right to their loading dock in the back of the building. Bring back the railroads. I remember reading that a train can carry 1 ton of product for something like 430 miles per gallon.

Of course with railroads, the customer will have to sit on their product a few extra days. Besides the Fuel savings, another benefit of the railroads is less stress on our infrastructure, specifically bridges and roads as less trucks beat on our roads, and pollute our air.

Bringing back the railroad is something I think will be done. I've also thought for a while that Warren Buffet invested in them heavily for this reason 1 year ago. But again, we're so attuned to the short term, most lemmings who followed Mr. Buffet are wondering why they are losing money with his stock picks right here, right now.


You almost read my mind. Listening to older rail workers they still wonder why everything and I do mean everything (including stuff that, by the nature of it's consumption, was just gonna sit around in a warehouse) absolutely positively had to be there overnight. Lots of cheap transportation lost in the process.

As for the idea of a political forum, I like the theory. I'm averse to participating when certain buzzwords are used -- (e.g. radical right, neo-cons, liberal hippie douche, etc., etc. -- and please don't take offense James or Mayla at my using a couple of your buzzwords as examples because, I respect both of you in the fact that you really do keep everything extremely civil) because things tend to degenerate fast from there on out.

Even though I might not perfectly align with many of you politically, I do believe energy independence should be the direction this administration should point itself toward. The key, as Bullitt alluded to, is to do this without ticking off the rest of the world and some of the big wallets sitting here in the U.S. In other words, how do you protect the will of the U.S. to get off the oil but at the same time not sound remotely protectionist thus risking backlash from not only the multi-national corporations based here in the U.S. (the big wallets) but also those nations that align with us that simply cannot afford an undertaking of such magnitude?

[malyla]

As for the idea of a political forum, I like the theory. I'm averse to participating when certain buzzwords are used -- (e.g. radical right, neo-cons, liberal hippie douche, etc., etc. -- and please don't take offense James or Mayla at my using a couple of your buzzwords as examples because, I respect both of you in the fact that you really do keep everything extremely civil) because things tend to degenerate fast from there on out.

Even though I might not perfectly align with many of you politically, I do believe energy independence should be the direction this administration should point itself toward. The key, as Bullitt alluded to, is to do this without ticking off the rest of the world and some of the big wallets sitting here in the U.S. In other words, how do you protect the will of the U.S. to get off the oil but at the same time not sound remotely protectionist thus risking backlash from not only the multi-national corporations based here in the U.S. (the big wallets) but also those nations that align with us that simply cannot afford an undertaking of such magnitude?

No worries on the buzzword front. I do not have a problem using words that groups imbrace themselves, as in the case of neoconservatives or neocons for short. But I do understand how this can stifle discussion. I only used neocon because it was in the Great Society article I referenced (from wikipedia article on the Great Society) - Neoconservatives
Irving Kristol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol) and other critics of Great Society programs founded a politics and culture journal The Public Interest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Public_Interest) in 1965. While most of these critics had been anti-communist liberals, their writings were skeptical of the perceived social engineering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(political_science)) of the Great Society. Often termed neoconservatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservativism), they are credited with laying the groundwork for the conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism) movement of the 1980s and 1990s.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society#cite_note-Fukuyama-17)

I do believe we need to be careful about ticking off countries and corporations that control our wallet, but if there is a time to actively move towards energy independance, it is now. Infrastructure is cheap in a recession. We can first work on the trains, however, this would seriously hurt the airline industry. But, getting our transportation infrastructure healthy and efficient would set the groundwork for future growth in the economy. I have heard a bit about the worldwide powergrid on this MB and that improvement would also open up furture growth. Upgrading powerplants and power transmission systems (Alaska could REALLY use this) can go a long way to providing future growth and security. I think roads and transmission lines will always be needed even if we develop a non-oil based energy source and replace all the power plants with this new source (unless we have the Star Trek technology of repricators and transporters:D)

[Minnow]

No, No, that's my bad... I failed to recognize that the terminology came from the wikipedia entry -- I should've known better. Again, my bad.


I do believe there are smart people in our government that have things like we are discussing on their agenda. Too bad they are shouted down by the rhetoric and distraction techniques or their message gets diluted and distorted or, in the worst case, flipped and used against them.

[James48843]

Re: trains---

Bottom money pit.

Trains move freight on rails, but no one wants any new tracks laid in their home area. NIMBY problem. See the Chicago debacle when one train company (Canadian Northern, or CN) wanted to reroute some freight into already exsiting tracks that already exist. See: http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=86667&print=1

There is not enough money to support rebuilding trains. Do you want to nationalize the freight train companies that are left, like we did Amtrack? I don't think that's fiscally viable.

Amtrack is costing an arm and a leg already. Congress already promised them 13 billion over the next five years-
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/topic/la-na-railsafety2-2008oct02,0,5835046.story

That's on top of the 30+ billion already given in subsidies to Amtrack.

We still have crumbling roads and bridges that need repair. Are you willing to let bridges fall in order to support rail?

Those are the hard questions that will have to be asked.

Priorities.

What will the priorities end up being?

[James48843]

Replicators and transporters.

Now there are two inventions that need the highest priority on government funding.

That, and of course- Transparent Aluminum.

[Minnow]

Regarding trains:

I respectfully disagree.

The causes of the roads and bridges crumbling are not commuter cars. It's 18 wheelers in most cases. I know those trucks and companies pay taxes to use the roads but that isn't enough because it gets bled off. Raising their taxes won't work either.

Reading the article you cited, I wondered where the insurance companies were when safety was cited. How many deaths and insurance payouts are doled out each year on train wrecks as compared to 18 wheeler accidents and deaths? A train wrecks and it's all over the news. 18 wheelers kill people every day of every month of every year. I should have an insurance citation here but I don't but could we use common sense and agree on this one?

I believe the working life of an electric diesel turbine engine is around 15 years or so. Yes it is costly but they are extremely efficient at what they do. When you look at the bottom line, you spend less (performance/production-wise) on a diesel train engine.

As for the replicators, transporters and transparent aluminum... Make it happen!!! :D

[Bullitt]

Re: trains---

There is not enough money to support rebuilding trains.

We still have crumbling roads and bridges that need repair. Are you willing to let bridges fall in order to support rail?

Those are the hard questions that will have to be asked.

Priorities.

What will the priorities end up being?

Besides the housing disaster and everybody wanting their own personal slice of Government Cheese, the priority is going to be Oil dependence. Unless we hit the big one in ANWAR, we as Americans will never have energy dependence. Unless the auto companies can figure a way to mass produce vehicles that do not run on gasoline very soon at a reasonable price, forget about it.

Get ready for some major energy policies beyond the conventional thought of 'Drill Baby Drill'. Mexico is running dry, so is Canada. There are going to be some major changes in the lifestyles for Americans going forward. This summer we got a taste of it with $4+ gasoline but like 9/11, it's already a forgotten memory. The days of the lower class leasing a vehicle are gone. There's one group that will need mass transit. The days of the middle class living life like it's Sex and the City are gone. There's another group that needs to batten down the hatches. The rich, the Trumps and Fulds of the world... haha. Were they ever really rich in the first place?

9/11 killed the airlines once and this recession will kill them again. There's just not enough money to go around. We've become a society based on wants and needs. A society with it's hands open waiting for donation like the salvation army guy on the corner. People want to make a phone call, they can do it from a cell phone right here right now. Everything has to be done yesterday but nobody wants to work unless it's a weekdays-only-day-shift with holidays off. When it comes time for them to make the sacrafice of shift work, all of a sudden the job sucks.

This will all change in the years ahead. Get ready for 4 day work weeks and 10 hour work days all in an effort to save energy.

Energy is a top priority, yes, no doubt. Bring back the rail systems, keep rigs off the road, save whatever roads we have, and conserve gas. Who's going to want trains in their neighborhood? Well, who wants an 18 wheeler in their town spewing fumes, downshifting louder than a steam engine at a red light and tearing apart the road on a 90 degree summer day?

Infrastructure is a priority but it's not quite what people want to hear about. Repairing infrastructure without making changes to transportation is like a band aid on a gunshot wound, a fed rate cut in a down market. The move to rails would have a ripple effect of lowering shipping rates, lowering pollution, conserving energy, and saving the roads. Once financing dries up for America, they will have no choice but to get rid of their car and ride mass transit. Independent truck drivers won't be able to afford a brand new 2008 Freightliner while driving empty from Georgia to California to pick up a load. Businesses will use rails as a cheaper means of transportation to hedge their own marginal costs.

[Steadygain]

Regarding trains:

I respectfully disagree.
As for the replicators, transporters and transparent aluminum... Make it happen!!! :D

Minnow, I don't care if you're a man or a woman - BUT

I want you to know 'I love you' :)

The others on this thread already know how I feel about them; but I'm so impressed with your peaceful communication and the respectful manner of your style.

I GUESS - I expected this thread to be a huge bashing back and forth and was afraid to even get on.

Now it's like a game of Ping Pong where everyone is hitting ideas back and forth and it's refreshingly WONDERFUL

THANK YOU EVERYONE

[Minnow]

Minnow, I don't care if you're a man or a woman - BUT

I want you to know 'I love you' :)

The others on this thread already know how I feel about them; but I'm so impressed with your peaceful communication and the respectful manner of your style.

I GUESS - I expected this thread to be a huge bashing back and forth and was afraid to even get on.

Now it's like a game of Ping Pong where everyone is hitting ideas back and forth and it's refreshingly WONDERFUL

THANK YOU EVERYONE

I'm a man Steady... It's ok.. you can man-crush on me anytime.:laugh:

I figured it was lead by example time. Even though I get a kick out of hearing political thoughts bounced back and forth, I usually don't participate. I just figured this was how a political discussion could be had without all the "noise." I suspect this was Mayla's intention as well. You can't get anywhere arguing about your differences. I doubt anyone could figure out my political leanings based on my posts -- those are private and are my own. If I share them, then that's up to me. It doesn't mean I can't partake in political discussions in a respectful manner.

So, you're welcome.

[malyla]

I just figured this was how a political discussion could be had without all the "noise." I suspect this was Mayla's intention as well. You can't get anywhere arguing about your differences.

Yes. This is my intention. No matter who you voted for, we all have the same goals in trying to make this work. I keep hearing that we are in for a very rough couple of years and if we are to make a dent on improving infrastructure and the economy, we, as a society, will need to make some changes. If the Sprints of the telecommunication industry go away, will we have our cell phones. How many people still have land lines in their home? The infrastructure is still there, but it could be upgraded. Should we upgrade landlines or invest in towers and satellites when the business' go bankrupt? Where do we improve our society.

1) Energy infrastructure (lines,powerplants,substations,non-oil energy generation, etc...)
2) Transportation infrastructure (move away from gas guzzlers,replace bridges and roads, improve mass transit, etc...)
3) Fund the arts???? What do we value and want to keep as a society?
4) World economy - Finance and markets (global connectivity vs security). More regulation and transparency.
5) Enviromental policy (actively work to slow climate change, be a world leader in enviromental issues or at worst develop technologies and plans to survive climate change when it disrupts our economy). Should we actively save the polarbears or other creatures being affected by climate change? How far do we take responsibility for the enviroment (overfishing, biodiversity, deforestation, etc...).
6) Healthcare - this has been discussed but maybe the solution is out there already.
7) International affairs (how do we deal with war, terrorism, etc...)
8) Other issues that we as a society should embrace given the will?

I believe that all 'sides' have a vested interest in working to fix the problems that loom large now. How do we go about it? No blame, but knowledge of history and ideas for the future. (example: What was good/bad about the last two big societal inititives - New Deal & Great Society?) What do you see we, as a society, should value and work to implement? Can we have another Great Society plan to solve these huge societal problems in the world we live in now? Or are we beyond that type of solution? What would work? etc...

Transportation infrastruction and alternative energy development seem to be foremost so far. Please keep the ideas and discussion flowing.

[JOVARN]

20% gave up their land lines

[The HalfBreed]

As for the replicators, transporters and transparent aluminum... Make it happen!!! :D

I believe Jean Luc Picard said "Make it So" (usually followed by "#1") :D
And James, "The Voyage Home" was a great movie....showing how Scotty gave the secret of Transparent Aluminum to an engineer on earth.
I didn't know you were a Trekkie !!! :laugh:
It was real funny when he tried to actually "TALK" to the computer.:embarrest:

[alevin]

This new thread has the potential to be really excellent for idea-sharing. Thanks Malyla. I got your intention and I approve your message. :D

[malyla]

Then there's Prison reform. As a society, can we afford to continue imprisoning 1 in 5 adult men? Is manditory sentencing in society's best interest? Should our prisons be privatised?

I just watched the Nova ep Space Shuttle Disaster where one of the findings was the mistake NASA made in giving operational control of the shuttle to private industry. Private industry works close to the margin to maximize shareholder profits. Running the shuttle program as if it was a complicated but routine operation contributed to the mindset that caused the disaster as safety took a back seat to controlling costs and schedule.

This mentality seems to apply to privatising our prisons. It contibutes to the mindset that inmates are out of sight, out of mind and that once people are convicted they can be forgotten. Private industry would want to maximize their profits (minimize their costs) which leads to over crowding and substandard care. Many would say "who cares, they gave up their rights as citizens when they committed the crime and were convicted". True, but there is a second component to our system which is rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners back into society after they have done their time. Would private prison facilities facilitate that process? Is how we treat our criminals a reflection of societies values? Should we be putting nonviolent criminals in prison for as long as we are? I am not advocating that criminals who commit violent crimes should be treated lightly (I do think some crimes call for locking them up and throwing away the key), but how can we as a society keep paying to incarcerate so many people for minor crimes?

Then there is the War on Drugs. Do we as a society continue this losing battle? .....

[Mike]

Two of the original great society programs - medicare and medicaid - are costing over $500 billion annually. I don't think we can afford to add another round of similar programs to an already strained federal budget (one that continues to pile on the debt to the next generation).

Here's a novel idea: how about we actually balance the f'ing budget for once?

[Show-me]

Two of the original great society programs - medicare and medicaid - are costing over $500 billion annually. I don't think we can afford to add another round of similar programs to an already strained federal budget (one that continues to pile on the debt to the next generation).

Here's a novel idea: how about we actually balance the f'ing budget for once?

Yep, we talked about this back when Mike and I joined the mb. Remember "resistance is futile"?:nuts:

[CountryBoy]

Yes. This is my intention. No matter who you voted for, we all have the same goals in trying to make this work. I keep hearing that we are in for a very rough couple of years and if we are to make a dent on improving infrastructure and the economy, we, as a society, will need to make some changes. If the Sprints of the telecommunication industry go away, will we have our cell phones. How many people still have land lines in their home? The infrastructure is still there, but it could be upgraded. Should we upgrade landlines or invest in towers and satellites when the business' go bankrupt? Where do we improve our society.

1) Energy infrastructure (lines,powerplants,substations,non-oil energy generation, etc...)
2) Transportation infrastructure (move away from gas guzzlers,replace bridges and roads, improve mass transit, etc...)
3) Fund the arts???? What do we value and want to keep as a society?
4) World economy - Finance and markets (global connectivity vs security). More regulation and transparency.
5) Enviromental policy (actively work to slow climate change, be a world leader in enviromental issues or at worst develop technologies and plans to survive climate change when it disrupts our economy). Should we actively save the polarbears or other creatures being affected by climate change? How far do we take responsibility for the enviroment (overfishing, biodiversity, deforestation, etc...).
6) Healthcare - this has been discussed but maybe the solution is out there already.
7) International affairs (how do we deal with war, terrorism, etc...)
8) Other issues that we as a society should embrace given the will?

I believe that all 'sides' have a vested interest in working to fix the problems that loom large now. How do we go about it? No blame, but knowledge of history and ideas for the future. (example: What was good/bad about the last two big societal inititives - New Deal & Great Society?) What do you see we, as a society, should value and work to implement? Can we have another Great Society plan to solve these huge societal problems in the world we live in now? Or are we beyond that type of solution? What would work? etc...

Transportation infrastruction and alternative energy development seem to be foremost so far. Please keep the ideas and discussion flowing.


Lets not forget our inland navigation waterway system or Great Lakes for moving commodities. It is much more energy efficient and cleaner than any other mode of transportation we currently have. One 15 barge tow can haul the equivalent of 225 railcars or 865 tractor trailers. Granted, this mode of transportation is mainly the Mississippi River and east, except for the waterway system in the Northwest. It lends itself to mainly bulk commodities, but container traffic is beginning to move from News Orleans up to Louisvilee right now.

CB

[Silverbird]

Health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid:
Medicare drug program has gone bezerk and it appears is not a money saver for the reciprients, it's just a deeper hole. I suspect that will be the first program to get a haircut or even a sandwich and a roadmap. Allowing small businesses and groups of people to "pool" their insurance would help as well -- insurance companies are up at arms at the very idea, ironically because they can scalp small businesses and individuals in ways they can't do with large corporations who represent too big of a pie piece for them not to have to bargain. But leaning on the small business and individuals to pay the biggest premiums won't work if they literally can't afford it anymore.

[Minnow]

I'm happy to return to the thread today and see everyone remained in good spirits. I see trekkies invaded the arena.. I'm not a trekkie which is why I messed up a Star Trek quote. Leave it to sci-fi fans to change the world -- wasn't there a program on the Learning Channel called "How Star Trek Changed the World?" Oh well...

Just to keep the discussion going:

energy infrastructure: expensive but well worth it. i believe the financial whales of the world are counting on this... whether it be improving existing infrastructure and/or diversifying our means (i.e. nuclear, cleaner coal production, etc.) Perhaps this is one thing that I agree was mandated by the congressional and presidential election but to do this, you need GDP -- when that arrives, game on.

trans infrastructure: any more ideas pro/con regarding giving a second hard look at railroads could be productive. If I had more time I would post but I believe Bullitt captured many of my thoughts. James has some extremely valid points but I believe the discussion is worthy of more input. I would be interested to hear more regarding rail/freight alternatives and mass transit alternatives.

funding the arts: early school introduction to the arts is a good thing in my opinion. Showing school age children that there is a world outside of the school walls that doesn't involve mundane work and rote memorization is a noble pursuit. Magnet school systems seem to have the right perspective on this. But I draw the line at saying Yes this must be done and be backed by public subsidies and pork barrell appropriations. Private endowments will always keep the arts alive. Rich, cultured people (no this doesn't mean Trump and Wynn who seem to think they have good taste) will always give to the arts. Introduction yes.. subsidized support in very small focused ways okay... unbridled support -- No.

world economy: too little time to flesh out my opinion so... just a statement: a free-market ideally with less regulation but that has supervision and I do mean supervision with an actual backbone, brain power and teeth is the way to go. Getting there? I don't have the time to keep going but I'm sure this issue can be visited again.

environmental policy: this seems to be a "hair on fire" trigger button for many people so I will stay away at this time but if intelligent discourse has already begun and I have something worthy of mentioning, I might join in.

healthcare: I agree with Mike and Show-me. That discussion way back when (before I was even a lurker) had many valid points. Perhaps those could be revisited through the lens of hindsight and things that have taken place since then.

foreign affairs: well that's pretty much up to the new chief executive and his diplomatic and military staff. As a chief executive, in the past 100 years, Eisenhower seemed to have the most intelligent grasp of his role(s) and I would just say that, in my humble opinion, a president couldn't go wrong following that example.

prison reform: not enough time to visit this as a taxpayer. I don't believe privatization should totally be discounted right now. I believe valid points have been raised both pro and con and I shall participate in this discussion just not enough time.

I apologize for the "hit and run" nature of this lengthy post. A co-worker's young son has passed away so, my privileges and duties as a friend and human being call me away today. I look forward to continuing our dialogue, and perhaps being educated on these issues further. So I will wish all of you a very happy weekend.

[Steadygain]

Then there's Prison reform. As a society, can we afford to continue imprisoning 1 in 5 adult men? Is manditory sentencing in society's best interest? Should our prisons be privatised?

Hi Precioius,
I'm not sure why I am so drawn to your comments - maybe we are simply on the same wave lenght; or maybe it's you're bringing out things I've given a lot of reflection on.

As far as the Prison System goes: Many of the Inmates are wired to behave (or function) as they do. Repeat serial rapists; uncontrollable anger....and it just goes on and on. Putting them in Prison does not change their wiring (or the underlying chemistry) responsibil for who and what they are. We are way further advanced than the general population realizes in terms of understanding the brain's wiring and chemistry. If we (as a global society) would permit a RE-WIRING - or CHEMICAL ULTERATIONS - we could essentially guarantee their underlying make up would be not only acceptible - but the underlying offensive nature would be put to rest. So I am talking about engineering damaged brains to be less damaged and freeing people from Prisons by which uncontrolable desires cause them to behave the way they do.

I just watched the Nova ep Space Shuttle Disaster where one of the findings was the mistake NASA made in giving operational control of the shuttle to private industry. Private industry works close to the margin to maximize shareholder profits. Running the shuttle program as if it was a complicated but routine operation contributed to the mindset that caused the disaster as safety took a back seat to controlling costs and schedule.

Here I would not argue with you - especially about an organization to which your life is committed (NASA). I can tell you that the main reason for the Space Shuttle Disaster is the failure of the Federal System - by having to many layers of government that are excessively deep and wide. There are simply to many channels with too many people in charge that information needs to go through to respond to serious issues and correct them. The underlying problem was identified by the people on the lower levels and they did their best to report and prevent the situation from occuring - but it never got anywhere because the structure of the system essentially makes this impossible. So IMHO - we need to reduce and reorganize the Federal System before we do anything else.

It contibutes to the mindset that inmates are out of sight, out of mind and that once people are convicted they can be forgotten.

Are you trying to make me fall in love ?
The other America (or the hidden America) is wholly established with this mentality. When you drive through cities and towns the better areas are on display (they make a point of hiding how incredibly large populations live by hiding their homes in more out of way places) That way we maintain these warm fuzzy feelings as we go from place to place.


Then there is the War on Drugs. Do we as a society continue this losing battle? .....
Wow Malyla - you are something else; gosh!!

The War on Drugs is not a WAR - It is a reflection of our society and how MONEY and POWER dominate everything. Tobacco is trash why do we not elimate this plant from the globe when we can undoubted prove IT IS EXCESSIVELY HARMFUL. Why not legalize Cannibus and do it right. If Society had more of a say - instead of the industries and powers in charge - we could do a whole lot more to turn this stuff around.

[James48843]

...
The War on Drugs is not a WAR - It is a reflection of our society and how MONEY and POWER dominate everything. Tobacco is trash why do we not elimate this plant from the globe when we can undoubted prove IT IS EXCESSIVELY HARMFUL. Why not legalize Cannibus and do it right. ....

Agreed.

We legalize, and that solves several problems at once.

We reduce the prision population considerably, thereby cutting prison spending to levels below what we have now, while still securing away the violent offenders. This should be a no-brainer.

And we tax it exaclty the same rate as tobacco, so that collections on revenue increase considerably. When prices equal a pack of tobacco smokes, that takes the profit levels for illegal activity down and that also reduces smuggling and illegal border violations.

Again, a no brainer.

So now we've solved illegal immigration, prison overcrowding, and the need to privatize prisons (By the way- that is the worst idea of all. If we as a society want to imprison people, we need to do it with state labor, not private labor, to check potential abuses and hold people accountable.)

What else do we need to solve? We're on a roll...

[Frixxxx]

What else do we need to solve? We're on a roll...
Energy....reduce consumption and reliance on it. Takers?

[Mike]

Energy....reduce consumption and reliance on it. Takers?
Raise the CAFE standards and don't give the auto industry loopholes or ridiculously long time horizons to produce the efficient vehicles required. Bump up the tax on vehicles that get under 20 mpg to provide a disincentive to purchase them. If we can get people out of the 17mpg gas hogs and into more reasonable 25mpg cars, that'll have a dramatic impact on gas consumption (and we don't even need to rely on fancy new technology).

Longer term: switch all city buses over to electric within 10 years. That should be enough time for the battery technology to provide sufficient range between recharges. Offer tax deductions/credits to encourage people to purchase fuel efficient vehicles above some threshold (i.e. 40mpg). This will act as a reinforcing push in demand toward the automakers that do the best job of abiding by the fuel efficiency standards.

On the energy production side, offer tax incentives to encourage the development and construction of renewable powerplants (wind farms, solar cells, etc). On the revenue side of this, slap a modest federal tax on utilities to fund the necessary upgrades to the power grid (it's going to cost billions). We could also build more nuclear powerplants, but we need to solve the problem of what happens with the spent fuel rods. Putting them in metal casks and sealing them in concrete in a mountain somewhere doesn't exactly sit well with me.

Another energy possibility in the more distant future is to put up a large solar cell array orbiting around the earth (could capture a LOT more energy there than at the earth's surface) and then have the energy beamed back to the surface (hopefully without lethal accidents that incinerate several city blocks).

Lastly, we could certainly come up with a way to produce synthetic crude oil. There are already efforts to do this involving various micro organisms such as algae. One of them might actually pan out at some point, which would eliminate the need to drill for the stuff.

[Steadygain]

Raise the CAFE standards and don't give the auto industry loopholes or ridiculously long time horizons to produce the efficient vehicles required. Bump up the tax on vehicles that get under 20 mpg to provide a disincentive to purchase them. If we can get people out of the 17mpg gas hogs and into more reasonable 25mpg cars, that'll have a dramatic impact on gas consumption (and we don't even need to rely on fancy new technology).

Longer term: switch all city buses over to electric within 10 years. That should be enough time for the battery technology to provide sufficient range between recharges. Offer tax deductions/credits to encourage people to purchase fuel efficient vehicles above some threshold (i.e. 40mpg). This will act as a reinforcing push in demand toward the automakers that do the best job of abiding by the fuel efficiency standards.

On the energy production side, offer tax incentives to encourage the development and construction of renewable powerplants (wind farms, solar cells, etc). On the revenue side of this, slap a modest federal tax on utilities to fund the necessary upgrades to the power grid (it's going to cost billions). We could also build more nuclear powerplants, but we need to solve the problem of what happens with the spent fuel rods. Putting them in metal casks and sealing them in concrete in a mountain somewhere doesn't exactly sit well with me.

Another energy possibility in the more distant future is to put up a large solar cell array orbiting around the earth (could capture a LOT more energy there than at the earth's surface) and then have the energy beamed back to the surface (hopefully without lethal accidents that incinerate several city blocks).

Lastly, we could certainly come up with a way to produce synthetic crude oil. There are already efforts to do this involving various micro organisms such as algae. One of them might actually pan out at some point, which would eliminate the need to drill for the stuff.

WOW !! RIGHT ON BRO and Very Well Put !!

Your atavar (sp) reminds of me Charlie Wonka and the Chololate Factor - where the squrils get the brat kid; knock on her head, and throw her out :D:D (thanks for that memory):cheesy::nuts:

[malyla]

Just a quick note as I need to finish a project I'm working on. I should be back next week on a more regular basis:D

Legalizing drugs has benefits and pitfalls for society. Unlike nicotine and caffeine, many drugs alter the perception of the user. Nicotine seems to have a calming effect on the user and caffeine increases alertness. THC affects memory and cocaine heightens perception/ego. I'm not comfortable with having my airline pilot under the influence of either of those last two drugs but I also recognize that there is no guarantee that my pilots are clean under the laws we have now. Where legalizing drugs would eliminate drug trafficking (and all the murders and crimes associated with that) it will initiate more intrusive programs to determine if key personnel are using. I think that will have to happen as people will demand it more after legalizing drugs than they do now. This would intrude on people's personal privacy even for those who do not use drugs. Gattica comes to mind.

Anyone think this is too paranoid (just because I think someone is after me, doesn't mean they are not......):D

[Callme_CO]

Plans for a better America:

*cut all benefits to illegals
*end war in iraq (not afghanistan)
*welfare reform (person on welfare will be require to work a job "no-body wants" they will keep the money from that job and from what the government gives them" also two kid maximum. The government will no pay per kid after two.)
*Education Improvement ( take the extra money from my benefits for illegals and welfare reform and move it to the school system. Max that out and undue the no child left behind. Get good qaulity teacher with good pay and good equipment.) Give a child a chance and the equipment needed to do the job and miracles will happen.
* transition to the fair tax plan
* invest in american made products, business's, and infrastructure.

This would be my goal for the first four years of my office if i was president.

[XL-entLady]

Legalizing drugs has benefits and pitfalls for society. Unlike nicotine and caffeine, many drugs alter the perception of the user. Nicotine seems to have a calming effect on the user and caffeine increases alertness. THC affects memory and cocaine heightens perception/ego. I'm not comfortable with having my airline pilot under the influence of either of those last two drugs but I also recognize that there is no guarantee that my pilots are clean under the laws we have now. Where legalizing drugs would eliminate drug trafficking (and all the murders and crimes associated with that) it will initiate more intrusive programs to determine if key personnel are using. I think that will have to happen as people will demand it more after legalizing drugs than they do now. This would intrude on people's personal privacy even for those who do not use drugs. Gattica comes to mind.

Anyone think this is too paranoid (just because I think someone is after me, doesn't mean they are not......):D

Agreed, agreed and agreed!

Legalizing drugs sounds simple but has all kind of complications. And impairment is one of the huge ones.

And you're also right about "just because we're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get us!" :nuts:

Lady

[Steadygain]

Legalizing drugs has benefits and pitfalls for society.

Malyla, please know I am not advocating legalizing Cocaine, Heroin and the other drugs; but simply marijuana.

My thinking is wholly based on the Chief of Police in Baltimore, MD which the Baltimore Sun had published many years prior. He elobated in great detail why this would be the best way to address the 'War on Drugs' and only after digesting all his valid points did I come to agree with him.

A large part of my work is dealing with Substance Abuse so I do not at all encourage the use of illicit drugs but simply see how the present status makes things worse instead of better. Just want you to realize I'm not one that will encourage anyone to use it (legal or not).

[Viva La Migra]

Agreed.

We legalize, and that solves several problems at once.

We reduce the prision population considerably, thereby cutting prison spending to levels below what we have now, while still securing away the violent offenders. This should be a no-brainer.

And we tax it exaclty the same rate as tobacco, so that collections on revenue increase considerably. When prices equal a pack of tobacco smokes, that takes the profit levels for illegal activity down and that also reduces smuggling and illegal border violations.

Again, a no brainer.

So now we've solved illegal immigration, prison overcrowding, and the need to privatize prisons (By the way- that is the worst idea of all. If we as a society want to imprison people, we need to do it with state labor, not private labor, to check potential abuses and hold people accountable.)

What else do we need to solve? We're on a roll...
I'm against legalizing pot. In fact, I think nicotene should be a controlled substance. This idea of making a substance legal so that the government can impose a tax and generate revenue is wrong! You allow people to become physically and emotionally dependent on the substance, then make them choose between basic necessities and their chemical dependency! That doesn't sound very "progressive" to me...it's more "manipulative" than anything else!

I missed the part of illegal immigration...what was your solution again?

[Viva La Migra]

Energy....reduce consumption and reliance on it. Takers?
You first! Turn off your computer, shut off your lights, turn off the television, throw away your cell phone, and buy a good bicycle! :nuts: We'll be right behind you...laughing!:laugh:

[Viva La Migra]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

I would like to open up discussion about what initiatives the next administration can implement to improve our society. (Remember, government is suppose to improve people's lives and society as a whole.) Johnson started the Great Society initiatives, some of which Kennedy initiated and Nixon/Ford continued (link above outlines in detail Johnson's Great Society plans). Then the Neo-cons came to power and slowly dismantled these initiatives. Now that the neo-cons are discredited, what can Obama's administration do to start the Great Society part 2. I'm thinking that 'part 2' will resemble Johnson's Great Society as much as Johnson's Great Society resembled the FDR's New Deal – very little.

Energy independence is one I would like to see. Not just buying oil from friendly countries but being oil free (developing alternative energy sources). A government sponsored Manhattan Project for developing alternative energy sources would be my first choice. Hmmm. Is this even possible - or would the oil companies kill it?

The discussion is open.

p.s. If a political forum is indeed started (as Miss Piggy has suggested), this thread should be moved there.
Malyla,

I've wanted to respond to this post for a while now, but I haven't had the time.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." -Preamble, US Constitution.

Where does it say that the government's job is to "improve people's lives and society as a whole"? Promote the general welfare does not mean PROVIDE welfare to the people!

Too often people look to government to solve their problems. You don't like drilling for oil? You want to see us go to electric, or biodiesel, or fuel cells? Then design an alternative power vehicle that will be as efficient as gas powered vehicles! Aside from the nuclear bomb, the government hasn't been very good at inventing things. It is up to private individuals or groups to make the great discoveries and sell it to the masses! Until that great day comes, we need oil! We need a lot of it, and we need to get it from either friendly nations, or in our own back yard! When a viable alternative is created and affordable, the masses will flock to it.

Conservatism is not discredited! Perhaps you may have heard about Proposition 8 in California? In this ultra blue state, the people voted yes on the proposition that disallows homosexuals to call their civil unions a marriage. This is the same state that the mainstream media said had voted for Obama before a single vote had been officially counted! I would say that conservatism is down, but not out. Not by a long shot!

If given a chance to pick three things for the next administration to accomplish, here is what I would like to see:

1. Abolish the current tax code and place a flat tax where everyone who earns more than $30,000.00 per year is taxed at 15% for all earnings above $30,000.00. All income is taxed at this rate, whether it is salary, or capital gains. Death taxes would be gone, but the money the deceased earned in the tax year in which he or she died would be taxed at the flat tax rate.

2. Eliminate the illegal immigration problem by fining and imprisoning employers of illegal immigrants. It is already illegal to KNOWINGLY hire illegal immigrants. I say take out the word "knowingly" from the law! People are held responsible for their tax returns, regardless of whether or not they knowingly filled out the forms correctly and paid the taxes they owed. Why is it different for hiring illegals? Most businesses hire accountants to keep their books and do their tax forms, so why not hire an expert in immigration law to review your employee's applications to ensure they can work here legally? Oh, one more thing on this subject...NO AMNESTY!:mad:

3. Eliminate foreign aid to countries that hate us! If you want to go around and spread hate the USA propaganda and burn our flag, go for it, but you don't need any money from our taxpayers! Go f*** yourselves!

Aside from those things, I basically want Obama to stay out of my way and leave my rights alone!

[charmed855]

I missed the part of illegal immigration...what was your solution again?

We'll need someone to grow and harvest the pot, so the illegal aliens can be wrangled up and placed into encampments where they can earn a fair wage, receive health care and education (including "head start"). The electricity needed to cultivate the pot can be produced with clean energy producing technologies such as wind, solar and hydro. We can transport the pot across the country by rail for distribution and export to the rest of the world, thus reducing our trade deficits. The pot byproducts can be used to produce ethanol fuels and hemp clothing, thus reducing our dependence on mid-east oil and Chinese textiles. We may want to consider a similar plan for the popular salvia divinorum herb, opium, oregano, black hashish, etc.

[wv-girl]

We'll need someone to grow and harvest the pot, so the illegal aliens can be wrangled up and placed into encampments where they can earn a fair wage, receive health care and education (including "head start"). The electricity needed to cultivate the pot can be produced with clean energy producing technologies such as wind, solar and hydro. We can transport the pot across the country by rail for distribution and export to the rest of the world, thus reducing our trade deficits. The pot byproducts can be used to produce ethanol fuels and hemp clothing, thus reducing our dependence on mid-east oil and Chinese textiles. We may want to consider a similar plan for the popular salvia divinorum herb, opium, oregano, black hashish, etc.
Sounds like you may have been smokin' too much of your solution. :nuts:

[Silverbird]

Ok...yes, there are alternate fuel vehicles out there. Where do you refuel? Where are the refineries? No infrastructure means nothing is going to happen.

Getting your solar and wind generate power that you don't need (especially for solar if you happen to not be home during the day) to the Grid for peak demand times (funny, right when you aren't at home and are at work....) is a very difficult proposition right now. So solar in particular is wasting power if you have a panel on your house, there is some truth to this with wind power as well because it's dependent on the speed of the breeze.

Inventing alternate fuel vehicles and better collectors of renewable energy don't do much with no infrastructure. Transport of natural gas and methane is still problematic.

It's easy to invent a new product if it runs on batteries or electricity because you can buy the energy sources, and even easier if it doesn't require an energy source. In the case of alternative energy and renewables, however, we ARE talking about the energy source.

[wv-girl]

Getting your solar and wind generate power that you don't need (especially for solar if you happen to not be home during the day) to the Grid for peak demand times (funny, right when you aren't at home and are at work....) is a very difficult proposition right now. So solar in particular is wasting power if you have a panel on your house, there is some truth to this with wind power as well because it's dependent on the speed of the breeze.


I read that there are bi-directional meters that DO revert the power back to the GRID when the input to your home is sufficent. Is it that the power companies are objecting?

[malyla]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." -Preamble, US Constitution.

Where does it say that the government's job is to "improve people's lives and society as a whole"? Promote the general welfare does not mean PROVIDE welfare to the people!

The preamble can be interpreted as I said "improve people's live and society as a whole".
A more perfect union - doesn't this imply an improving process?
1)Establish justice - you can't be locked up at someones whim - this is how we got our court system. But, is it justice to be incarcerated for 5 years because you had a joint in your car? Can this be improved for the betterment of society?
2)Insure domestic Tranquility - required for business and improvement of ones financial wealth. What country has ever allowed the majority of people to improve their lot in live when fighting internally?
3)Provide for the common defense - stops outside forces from disrupting our society. If you read Russian history, societal improvements were always disrupted by invasions (the fudal system didn't help).
4)Promote the general Welfare - healthy citizens are productive and happy citizens(said in the voice of a 1950 classroom film narrator). This is where welfare would mostly fit (tranquility also requires happy citizens).
5)Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity - Pass on our societal values to our children. Liberty has been interpreted quite broadly but does it mean the freedom to live as we choice and the freedom to improve our lives and those of our children?
Who is "ourselves"? The white landowner or the people of this society being established? That is where the bill of rights comes in. Defining who is a citizen.

In my opinion, the preamble does not invalidate my premise that government in designed to improve peoples lives and society as a whole - To make a more perfect union. One of my interpretation of government's role in improving society is in protecting the minority and the people who are unable to protect themselves. If you have ever been marginalized, you will understand that need to feel that someone will help to protect you. Women didn't have the government's help for the vote, but in the end one senator made the difference and government protected a group that have been marginalized for far to long. Also think about the civil rights movement and how government was forced to protect another marginalized group. Both movements disrupted society long before they were movements and government did what it was designed to do as stated in the preamble. I do think that our union (and our society) were improved by government intervention on these and other issues.

Too often people look to government to solve their problems. You don't like drilling for oil? You want to see us go to electric, or biodiesel, or fuel cells?
History has shown that power and wealth can be used to subjegate a majority. Innovation on that scale requires money and if the big oil companies (and the congresspeople/presidents they finance) what to muffle that avenue of innovation, they can and have (What happen to GM's first electric car). Government's role should be to provide the means for innovation as this will led to improvement of society. Does anyone believe we got our current oil dependant economy without government help? (aside - What is Chaney's energy policy? It should be completely transparent - IMO)

Conservatism is not discredited! Perhaps you may have heard about Proposition 8 in California? In this ultra blue state, the people voted yes on the proposition that disallows homosexuals to call their civil unions a marriage. This is the same state that the mainstream media said had voted for Obama before a single vote had been officially counted! I would say that conservatism is down, but not out. Not by a long shot!

I stated neo-conservatism was discredited. Neo-Cons were directly involved in crafting the Bush Doctrine as well as dismantling social programs. Wikipedia is a good source for neo-con philosophy and book references both pro and con.
On the vote, California has just marginalized a minority based on a religious interpretation of what marriage is (a conservative hot button issue). I have always wondered why people get married when there is no intention of producing offspring as that is how the bible defines marriage - to produce offspring. Why do people get married when they are past child bearing age? Marriage is a broadly interpreted institution in this country and at its most human emotional core involves the need for a stated commitment between two adult people and a recognition of that statement by society. I do find it curious that a religion that has been marginalized for having polygamy as one of it's tenets fought so hard to marginalize another group, but when you think about it, having more wives to produces offspring still is within the Bible's tenets and there is no better way to join the 'in' crowd than by picking on someone weaker than the majority (it’s high school all over again – IMO). The only question is, is it in societies best interest to marginalize a group for wanting to express their commitment to each other? (I'm sure the Mormons have said the same thing, but having a 16 year old as your second wife is wrong!)

If given a chance to pick three things for the next administration to accomplish, here is what I would like to see:

1. Abolish the current tax code and place a flat tax where everyone who earns more than $30,000.00 per year is taxed at 15% for all earnings above $30,000.00. All income is taxed at this rate, whether it is salary, or capital gains. Death taxes would be gone, but the money the deceased earned in the tax year in which he or she died would be taxed at the flat tax rate.

Are there figures on whether this will produce enough revenue to run this country allowing for the needed programs that help and improve our society?

2. Eliminate the illegal immigration problem by fining and imprisoning employers of illegal immigrants. It is already illegal to KNOWINGLY hire illegal immigrants. I say take out the word "knowingly" from the law! People are held responsible for their tax returns, regardless of whether or not they knowingly filled out the forms correctly and paid the taxes they owed. Why is it different for hiring illegals? Most businesses hire accountants to keep their books and do their tax forms, so why not hire an expert in immigration law to review your employee's applications to ensure they can work here legally? Oh, one more thing on this subject...NO AMNESTY!

I am conflicted on what is best for society on this issue. I'll revisit this at a later date.

3. Eliminate foreign aid to countries that hate us! If you want to go around and spread hate the USA propaganda and burn our flag, go for it, but you don't need any money from our taxpayers! Go f*** yourselves!

This foreign aid is just an arm of protecting us from invasion. To do what you suggest would lead to isolationism for the USA. This would hurt society IMO.

Aside from those things, I basically want Obama to stay out of my way and leave my rights alone! What do you define as your rights? To vote, free speech, etc...?


Thanks and lets keep the ideas going.

On the legalizing of 'pot', does anyone have any knowledge on how the Netherlands are being affected by their legalization of 'pot'?

[Silverbird]

I read that there are bi-directional meters that DO revert the power back to the GRID when the input to your home is sufficent. Is it that the power companies are objecting? Not too sure about the grid end since I don't track the power industries. But as I understand it, you may not get much (or anything) back from some utils for providing power beyond what you need yourself. Plus not every solar panel connects to the main grid, from what I understand. Unfortunately beyond my expertise, I just know there are problems if you depend only on invention with no backup infrastructure in the case of anything having to do with power.

So my arguement is Government has its place in the infrastructure business, at least to facilitate it. Gas stations followed the highway system, if I remember properly. Something similar to that. Plus a lot of the core inventions were developed in government labs. Universities are also in the game these days. But its rather a blot on the US is we have one of the highest R&D taxes among the industrilized nations (because it hasn't changed, we used to have one of the best tax credits). Good thing our culture encourages innovation or else things would be worse.

[alevin]

Not too sure about the grid end since I don't track the power industries. But as I understand it, you may not get much (or anything) back from some utils for providing power beyond what you need yourself. Plus not every solar panel connects to the main grid, from what I understand. Unfortunately beyond my expertise, I just know there are problems if you depend only on invention with no backup infrastructure in the case of anything having to do with power. Insufficient grid infrastructure to accommodate power additions from alt energy IS already a problem in some areas. I commented on this issue earlier this year.


http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showpost.php?p=175990&postcount=4024


Re: Oil Slick Stuff

I read recently in a NW newspaper that there was so much wind infrastructure added to the west coast part of the grid in the past couple years that the grid couldn't absorb all of the available wind power this year. Ouch! We need infrastructure investment-bad.

__________________

[Viva La Migra]

Malyla,

I respectfully disagree with your analysis of the Prop 8 issue. California voters simply codified the definition of a word, not whether a segment of the population are entitled to enter into loving relationships and obtain the benefits/responsibilities provided to those meeting the definition of the word codified. In other words, gays have civil unions that provide all of the same rights as traditional marriage. Have you read Elton John's opinion of the Prop 8 issue? Read this from yesterday's edition of the USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm

Are there figures on whether this will produce enough revenue to run this country allowing for the needed programs that help and improve our society?

I believe it would, because it would eliminate most, if not all loopholes in the current system. Those mega-corporations that slip through paying little or no taxes would end up paying their fair share. In my concept, I would eliminate the single, head of household, and married distinctions and treat all taxpayers the same. There would be no "marriage penalty." This would also eliminate the class warfare that politicians use to motivate their constituencies.

The only real problem with this plan, is that it might mean that politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle will have to curb their spending habits. Cutting out wasteful pork and foreign aid to countries that hate us are good places to start, but more may need to be done.

This foreign aid is just an arm of protecting us from invasion. To do what you suggest would lead to isolationism for the USA. This would hurt society IMO.


We give plenty of money to friendly nations, we have no need to fear isolationism. Besides, if we don't give them money, they don't have the means to wage war against us! Why give them money that they can use to build up their war machine?

The preamble can be interpreted as I said "improve people's live and society as a whole".
A more perfect union - doesn't this imply an improving process?

Actually no, I don't think so. I think this means a more perfect union than that of colonial Britain. I think we can say "mission accomplished" on that one.

1)Establish justice - you can't be locked up at someones whim - this is how we got our court system. But, is it justice to be incarcerated for 5 years because you had a joint in your car? Can this be improved for the betterment of society?

Agreed. Does your example actually happen? In California, from what I've heard, you may only get booked and released for having the joint. It usually takes a lot more than that to get five years in prison.

2)Insure domestic Tranquility - required for business and improvement of ones financial wealth. What country has ever allowed the majority of people to improve their lot in live when fighting internally?

Debate is actually healthy. Internal violence, however, is not.

3)Provide for the common defense - stops outside forces from disrupting our society. If you read Russian history, societal improvements were always disrupted by invasions (the fudal system didn't help).

I'm a big proponent of this one. "...against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

4)Promote the general Welfare - healthy citizens are productive and happy citizens(said in the voice of a 1950 classroom film narrator). This is where welfare would mostly fit (tranquility also requires happy citizens).

Again, promote does not mean provide. This goes for business as well. I was against the bailouts.

5)Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity - Pass on our societal values to our children. Liberty has been interpreted quite broadly but does it mean the freedom to live as we choice and the freedom to improve our lives and those of our children?

Agreed, and to do so without undue government interference. For example, I believe that life is the right choice, but I don't think it is governments role to force a woman to have a child. I also think that if one citizen murders another, then it is governments job to punish the murderer. Up to and including the death penalty! If it's okay to choose to terminate an innocent child developing in the womb, then it should be okay to light up ole sparky on a convicted murderer!

What do you define as your rights? To vote, free speech, etc...?

No (un)fairness doctrine! Conservative talk radio should not be forced by the government to provide the opinion of the other side, just like liberal media should not be forced by government to provide the conservative opinion. If the public wants to hear a balanced debate, then they should demand it from the media, including talk radio.

I believe the second amendment means I have an individual right to keep and bear arms and should therefore be able to obtain an assault rifle if I so choose. As long as I don't use that weapon for unlawful purposes, government should leave me and my guns alone! If one wants to argue that the second amendment only applies to the types of weapons available at the time the Constitution was written, then freedom of speech is limited to handwritten letters, the hand operated printing press, and the soapbox on the street corner!

I didn't have a problem voting, but I think they should do more to ensure that only citizens vote! I'm not confident in our current system.

Thank you for the healthy debate without personal attacks. We may not convince each other, but I think we understand each other's view much better. Hope you're feeling well and have a great day!

[Steadygain]

Malyla and Viva La Migra,

IF this is a test of my intelligence I think I'll pass with flying colors. In no way, shape, or form would I be qualified to step into the middle of a discussion with 2 ultra 'smart women' having opposing views on any matter - let alone one deeply seated in political doctrines and interpretations.

Should you all want a MAN'S point of view - to facilitate even broader discussions I'd recommend getting Show-me in on this; as he knows this stuff inside out and I'd kind of enjoy seeing someone get caught up in this.

[malyla]

Viva La Migra,

Yes, I like a good debate where ideas are backed up with facts (opinion are also backed up) and there are no personal attacks. It's refreshing

On the California prop 8 and Elton John, 'separate but equal' has never worked (and it is not equal). I saw this on Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union)
and this also on the FMA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment)
which highlights how civil unions and domestic partnerships are different from marriage for many states and the federal government. The UK gives Sir John and his partner equal treatment under all the laws (including tax law). The USA does not as same-sex couples in any type of civil union are not allowed to file joint federal tax returns. That's where the unequal comes from. Good or bad, the responsibilities of a commitment should be equally shared for opposite-sex and same-sex couples. From Wiki civil unions -
Due to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act), same-sex couples in marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships in the U.S. do not have the 1,138 rights that a married couple has under federal law.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#cite_note-23)

Nobody wants to feel like a second class citizen.

On the foreign aid subject, Saudi Arabia is a known supporter of unfriendly countries. Believe it or not, money has the power to cool or heat hot heads. If giving a hot head money to not bomb us stops us from being bombed, I'm all for it. We have been giving the Saudi's a lot of money to fight the extremists in and around the middle east - sometimes it works, sometimes not. I saw a Michael Moore movie about how the secret service is going beyond their mandate of protecting the president to also protect the Saudi's in DC. Money at best stops problems. At worst it can buy us time. Too complicated to solve here

"Actually no, I don't think so. I think this means a more perfect union than that of colonial Britain. I think we can say "mission accomplished" on that one." If this is true, then the bill of rights should not be included. It never stated the distinction of 'better than Britain'. The interpretation I have been taught in school was that our founding fathers knew that our union was an evolving process of governance. A Grand Experiment if you wish. One that can always be improved upon if it is to meet and overcome challenges to it's existence. Never will it be "mission accomplished".

I'm trying to remember the case I heard of and Wiki isn't helping. From a vague memory it took place in the South. I'll get back to you on the specific example. Generally though, our society is not best served by mandatory sentencing and the three strikes rule. 1 in 5 adult males in jail (I'll find this citation as well) is crazy and not in society's best interest.

Promote general welfare may require providing the basic needs of the poor and helpless. Every government and organized religion has recognized this need for promoting the general welfare by helping the less fortunate. It's a bargain when we look at what happens when welfare is not available. No safety net, more crime and people dying when a little help could get them on their feet. There is always be the poor, but how we treat them says a lot about our society. Britain had the poor houses and the indentured servant system. How to we improve our system?

Lastly, I thought only citizens could vote. Who can vote without being a citizen?


Balls in your court;)

[malyla]

Insufficient grid infrastructure to accommodate power additions from alt energy IS already a problem in some areas. I commented on this issue earlier this year.


http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showpost.php?p=175990&postcount=4024


__________________

And then you have mother nature throwing a wrench into the works.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90060569&ft=1&f=1006
After Avalanche, Juneau Races to Conserve Power

April 30, 2008 · During the past two weeks, people in Juneau, Alaska, have cut their power use by 20 percent. They've been turning down thermostats, unplugging appliances and switching to fluorescent bulbs. The local Juneau Empire (http://juneauempire.com/powerline) reports that so many people have started hanging out their laundry that it's impossible to find a clothespin in town.

What's afoot in Juneau isn't a sudden urge to go green and save the planet. Rather, people in Juneau are trying to save money after an unusually large avalanche knocked out their relatively cheap hydroelectric power. A snowslide on April 16 wiped out a 1.5-mile stretch of transmission lines. ....

Locally generated power would be best (solar, wind, etc...) but until then lets bury those transmission lines:D

[Viva La Migra]

Malyla and Viva La Migra,

IF this is a test of my intelligence I think I'll pass with flying colors. In no way, shape, or form would I be qualified to step into the middle of a discussion with 2 ultra 'smart women' having opposing views on any matter - let alone one deeply seated in political doctrines and interpretations.

Should you all want a MAN'S point of view - to facilitate even broader discussions I'd recommend getting Show-me in on this; as he knows this stuff inside out and I'd kind of enjoy seeing someone get caught up in this.
Steady, I am a man!:D La migra is Spanish slang for the Border Patrol or immigration officers. Viva La Migra is my way of saying long live immigration law enforcement.

[Steadygain]

Steady, I am a man!:D La migra is Spanish slang for the Border Patrol or immigration officers. Viva La Migra is my way of saying long live immigration law enforcement.


Well BUST MY BUTTONS - why didn't you say so. :o

Now that makes a lot more since...:cheesy: Man your story about taking the family to dinner had me picturing a woman doing all that stuff and I had a hard time wiring that all together.

Well hell my friend - you're just being a natural man and taking advantage of the moment. Boy I'm so relieved to hear you're one of us. NOT that - THAT - makes it right mind you - but hey we're guys and we do guy things.

PEACE MAN - Welcome to the MB

[malyla]

On the incarceration rate I found this http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/03/07/prison_nation_over_one_in_one_hundred_am

1 in 100 americans in prison. This is not my original source and I'm still looking for where I heard the 1 in 5 figure (Texas has 1 in 3 black males in prison), but I will keep looking. It's an interesting article but slanted and there is no citations, just quotes from sources. I'm pretty sure I heard my original figure on the radio (not NPR), but my memory in foggy. Stay tuned.

[Steadygain]

Viva La Migra,

Yes, I like a good debate where ideas are backed up with facts (opinion are also backed up) and there are no personal attacks. It's refreshing ;)

It's also WONDERFUL seeing you come to life. You are one charged up beauty with lightening fast wiring and I do enjoy seeing the incredible wealth of knowledge springing out. :D:cool:

[Viva La Migra]

Well BUST MY BUTTONS - why didn't you say so.

Now that makes a lot more since...:cheesy: Man you're story about taking the family to dinner had me picturing a woman doing all that stuff and I had a hard time wiring that all together.

Well hell my friend - you're just being a natural man and taking advantage of the moment. Boy I'm so relieved to hear you're one of us. NOT that - THAT - makes it right mind you - but hey we're guys and we do guy things.

PEACE MAN - Welcome to the MB
I honestly thought a MB full of feds would know what La Migra is!:laugh: It didn't occur to me that folks might think I was a woman until Miss Piggy sent me a PM a few weeks ago. I thought about asking Tom to let me change my name to Blackhorse, since I served in the 11th Cavalry in Desert Storm, but decided against it.

No worries. I can see how someone could make that assumption. I'm just glad no one asked me out on a date!:nuts::embarrest:

[James48843]

Thanks and lets keep the ideas going.

On the legalizing of 'pot', does anyone have any knowledge on how the Netherlands are being affected by their legalization of 'pot'?

Netherlands Quality of life:

"AMSTERDAM — The Netherlands is the second best country in the EU for quality of life, according to new United Nations figures.

The UN's Human Development Report 2004, which was released on Friday, also ranks the Netherlands fifth in the world in terms of health and life expectancy, education and earnings. It is placed second in the EU behind Sweden.

The report said the Netherlands had an average life expectancy of 78.3 years and an average Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of USD 29,100 (EUR 23,420).

Sweden was second overall with a GDP per capita of USD 26,050 and an average life expectancy of 80, the highest in the world.

The Belgians came in sixth overall, with an average life expectancy of 78.7 years and an average GDP per person of USD 27,570. This places the Belgians in third place only to Sweden and the Netherlands within the European Union.


For the fourth year running, Norway comes out on top of the human development index, with a life expectancy of 78.9 years, 98 percent of its population enrolled in education and GDP at USD 36,600 per inhabitant.

It is closely followed by Sweden, Australia and Canada. Five of the top six countries had an educational index of 99, with Canada one point lower.
The educational index is determined by a nation's adult literacy rate and gross school enrolment ratio.


The US came eight on the index, although the GDP per capita at USD 35,750 was second only to Norway. Average life expectancy in the US was 77 years and the educational index was 97."
I'd say the Netherlands are doing quite nicely, thank you...

[XL-entLady]

I honestly thought a MB full of feds would know what La Migra is!:laugh:
Some of us DO know what La Migra is. :) A very tough job with all the risks of every law enforcement job and lots of serious decisions to make as well.

Viva La Migra (and vamonos)!

Lady

[PessOptimist]

Getting your solar and wind generate power that you don't need (especially for solar if you happen to not be home during the day) to the Grid for peak demand times (funny, right when you aren't at home and are at work....) is a very difficult proposition right now. So solar in particular is wasting power if you have a panel on your house, there is some truth to this with wind power as well because it's dependent on the speed of the breeze.

Not necessarily so everywhere. Don't know the status on a fed law about the "reversible" meters but most utilities allow you to put power in to the grid for a credit.

There is also a fed tax credit for installing residential rooftop PV systems (PV=photovoltaic or solar panels). This tax year it is capped a $2k but next year it is supposed to be 30% of the consumer cost.

There are state tax credits in some states and in some cases power utility credits because of renewable generation mandates.

State tax credit info: http://www.dsireusa.org/

These things only generate electricity when the sun shines and are not cheap. A rough guesstimate here in AZ is a for a 5kW system you need $20k up front of which you will get about half back in tax credits. If your utility doesn't give you an incentive, you are looking at $40k up front and a $12k tax credit.

Depending on who's figures you use, payback time is 8-25 years. Around here I figure about 10 years due to the average house using a high of 4000kWh and a low of 1000kWh per month.

I am still thinking about doing it.

[PessOptimist]

I honestly thought a MB full of feds would know what La Migra is!:laugh:

Just goes to prove, outta sight, outta mind. Keep up the good work!:cheesy:

I got some stories about being a fed in the southwest who is not La Migra that I am thinkin about posting under another thread.:confused:

[PessOptimist]

Locally generated power would be best (solar, wind, etc...) but until then lets bury those transmission lines:D

Locally generated power for all! Except of course Cal-i-for-ni-a. They don't want no stinkin power plants violating their pristine state. See this for one argument about transmission lines.
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/2008/11/09/20081109biz-powerline1109-CP.html

One side says CA should build there own stinkin power plant. The other side says NIMBY cause AZ is a wasteland. Either way, more transmission is needed through/out of this area as it is prime solar/wind generation country.

Burying xmission lines is a future option. Very high cost and disrupts the entire right of way instead of towers every 8 to 900 feet and a two track access road. Everyone is up in arms about the disruption of towers every 800 feet, what about digging a wide trench along the whole right of way? What about the culteral/environmental/esthetic/quality of life issues?

We got a lot of hard decisions to make.

[Viva La Migra]

Viva La Migra,

Yes, I like a good debate where ideas are backed up with facts (opinion are also backed up) and there are no personal attacks. It's refreshing

On the California prop 8 and Elton John, 'separate but equal' has never worked (and it is not equal). I saw this on Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union)
and this also on the FMA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment)
which highlights how civil unions and domestic partnerships are different from marriage for many states and the federal government. The UK gives Sir John and his partner equal treatment under all the laws (including tax law). The USA does not as same-sex couples in any type of civil union are not allowed to file joint federal tax returns. That's where the unequal comes from. Good or bad, the responsibilities of a commitment should be equally shared for opposite-sex and same-sex couples. From Wiki civil unions -
Due to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act), same-sex couples in marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships in the U.S. do not have the 1,138 rights that a married couple has under federal law.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#cite_note-23)

Nobody wants to feel like a second class citizen.

California civil unions have the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. The examples you provided show the problem lies with the federal government, not with the state of California. Get your Senator to amend the federal tax code to grant same sex couples the same tax benefits as married couples.

On the foreign aid subject, Saudi Arabia is a known supporter of unfriendly countries. Believe it or not, money has the power to cool or heat hot heads. If giving a hot head money to not bomb us stops us from being bombed, I'm all for it. We have been giving the Saudi's a lot of money to fight the extremists in and around the middle east - sometimes it works, sometimes not. I saw a Michael Moore movie about how the secret service is going beyond their mandate of protecting the president to also protect the Saudi's in DC. Money at best stops problems. At worst it can buy us time. Too complicated to solve here

We don't need to pay "protection" money to countries that hate us! We give a lot of money to Mexico for combating the drug trade and immigration problem, but look where that has gotten us! I say start deducting from the "Aid" the amount we spend on Mexico's citizens illegally in the US!

"Actually no, I don't think so. I think this means a more perfect union than that of colonial Britain. I think we can say "mission accomplished" on that one." If this is true, then the bill of rights should not be included. It never stated the distinction of 'better than Britain'. The interpretation I have been taught in school was that our founding fathers knew that our union was an evolving process of governance. A Grand Experiment if you wish. One that can always be improved upon if it is to meet and overcome challenges to it's existence. Never will it be "mission accomplished".

What can I say, I was taught that the phrase referred to a more perfect union than England. In this respect, I think we have a more perfect union than colonial Britain.

I took a look at Wikipedia for another opinion, and found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Looks like I was partially right.


I'm trying to remember the case I heard of and Wiki isn't helping. From a vague memory it took place in the South. I'll get back to you on the specific example. Generally though, our society is not best served by mandatory sentencing and the three strikes rule. 1 in 5 adult males in jail (I'll find this citation as well) is crazy and not in society's best interest.

Our society is not served by allowing death row inmates numerous appeals either. In cases where DNA evidence concluded definitively that the defendant is guilty, he or she should get the next appointment with Dr. Kevorkian! JMHO.

Promote general welfare may require providing the basic needs of the poor and helpless. Every government and organized religion has recognized this need for promoting the general welfare by helping the less fortunate. It's a bargain when we look at what happens when welfare is not available. No safety net, more crime and people dying when a little help could get them on their feet. There is always be the poor, but how we treat them says a lot about our society. Britain had the poor houses and the indentured servant system. How to we improve our system?

I don't have a problem with helping someone get back on their feet, that is why I give to various charitable organizations, but people who are capable of working should not look to government to provide for them. Generations of welfare recipients from the same family is not what I would call a hand up!

Lastly, I thought only citizens could vote. Who can vote without being a citizen?

How did your voting precinct verify your citizenship? Chances are they didn't even ask for identification. Therein lies the problem. If illegal aliens can get a hold of a drivers license and social security card, they can vote illegally in elections! AND I'D BE WILLING TO BET A FAIR AMOUNT OF MONEY SOME DID!

Balls in your court;)

This is like wrestling pigs in mud. Sooner or later you'll realize this pig is having fun!:blink:

[Viva La Migra]

Some of us DO know what La Migra is. :) A very tough job with all the risks of every law enforcement job and lots of serious decisions to make as well.

Viva La Migra (and vamonos)!

Lady
Thank you! I'm a little worried about what the President-Elect is going to do once he gets into office. With all the rhetoric about splitting up families, I have a feeling we aren't going to be able to go after fugitives anymore...though Elian Gonzalez was snatched up and deported during the Clinton administration!:suspicious:

[malyla]

Raise the CAFE standards and don't give the auto industry loopholes or ridiculously long time horizons to produce the efficient vehicles required. Bump up the tax on vehicles that get under 20 mpg to provide a disincentive to purchase them. If we can get people out of the 17mpg gas hogs and into more reasonable 25mpg cars, that'll have a dramatic impact on gas consumption (and we don't even need to rely on fancy new technology).

Agreed. This seems like an easy solution. Just need to convince congress.

Longer term: switch all city buses over to electric within 10 years. That should be enough time for the battery technology to provide sufficient range between recharges. Offer tax deductions/credits to encourage people to purchase fuel efficient vehicles above some threshold (i.e. 40mpg). This will act as a reinforcing push in demand toward the automakers that do the best job of abiding by the fuel efficiency standards.

Agreed. There needs to be a tax incentive to get cities to scape their current fleets and buy electric. I would love to own the stock on the supplier of the electric buses (aren't they all european?)

On the energy production side, offer tax incentives to encourage the development and construction of renewable powerplants (wind farms, solar cells, etc). On the revenue side of this, slap a modest federal tax on utilities to fund the necessary upgrades to the power grid (it's going to cost billions). We could also build more nuclear powerplants, but we need to solve the problem of what happens with the spent fuel rods. Putting them in metal casks and sealing them in concrete in a mountain somewhere doesn't exactly sit well with me.

Agreed. However, could be a nasty fight in congress to pass the federal tax on older plants.

Another energy possibility in the more distant future is to put up a large solar cell array orbiting around the earth (could capture a LOT more energy there than at the earth's surface) and then have the energy beamed back to the surface (hopefully without lethal accidents that incinerate several city blocks).

Love this - really. I would also love the elevator to space to get supplies 'cheaply' up to a dock where they could be ferryed to the orbital power station. I think that baring a catastrophy that wipes our our society, we could have this in 100 years. It would be great to spend our money on this instead of going to Mars - IMO. I know that alternative energy sources will be developed in the process of our attempting to get Man on Mars, but it would be more efficient to spend that money for goals closer to home.

Lastly, we could certainly come up with a way to produce synthetic crude oil. There are already efforts to do this involving various micro organisms such as algae. One of them might actually pan out at some point, which would eliminate the need to drill for the stuff. Agreed as long as this process of making synthetic oil is cheaper than the power supplied from the synthetic oil. Right now fuel cells take more energy (derived from oil products) to make than they supply in their lifetime. IMO - we really need a national program to look at the alternative energy question beyond oil. We are looking for a safe, reliable, clean source of energy that will not blow up the Earth if handled wrong. Or we can just build a Dyson sphere (tongue in cheek)

Thanks to everyone for your great ideas on where this administration could take us in the next 4 years. The intention of this tread is to throw ideas around on what inititives the incoming administration could impliment to improve our society and we have a great start so far. Equal rights was apart of Johnson's Great Society and economics was apart of the New Deal. Will immigration be on this administration desk when looking at bold, societial inititives? Maybe or will the administration be so busy trying to stablize our economy that nothing gets done (as suggested in post 2-3)?

I think universal health care trumps all but the economy right now for this incoming administration. But if this new administration can build a concensus in congress, maybe taxes, infrastructure upgrades, immigration, alternative power, prison/sentencing reforms etc.. will make some progress forward instead of being kicked down the road to the next administration. This is the time now for bold steps, some of which will pass (hopefully).

On the immigration issue, I am conflicted because I can not understand where the harm is. This is a country of immigrates (apologies to any native americans on the MB). I understand they are not paying taxes, so put laws in place where taxes are collected by the employers. Just how critical is this as a national 'problem'? -I said I haven't had time to study this issue and the words on both sides thrown around over the last four years has been too heated and hateful for me to touch it with a 20 foot laser pointer, but maybe now is a good time to address it in this country - just please be nice:D-

[CountryBoy]

Thanks to everyone for your great ideas on where this administration could take us in the next 4 years. The intention of this tread is to throw ideas around on what inititives the incoming administration could impliment to improve our society and we have a great start so far. Equal rights was apart of Johnson's Great Society and economics was apart of the New Deal. Will immigration be on this administration desk when looking at bold, societial inititives? Maybe or will the administration be so busy trying to stablize our economy that nothing gets done (as suggested in post 2-3)?

I think universal health care trumps all but the economy right now for this incoming administration. But if this new administration can build a concensus in congress, maybe taxes, infrastructure upgrades, immigration, alternative power, prison/sentencing reforms etc.. will make some progress forward instead of being kicked down the road to the next administration. This is the time now for bold steps, some of which will pass (hopefully).

On the immigration issue, I am conflicted because I can not understand where the harm is. This is a country of immigrates (apologies to any native americans on the MB). I understand they are not paying taxes, so put laws in place where taxes are collected by the employers. Just how critical is this as a national 'problem'? -I said I haven't had time to study this issue and the words on both sides thrown around over the last four years has been too heated and hateful for me to touch it with a 20 foot laser pointer, but maybe now is a good time to address it in this country - just please be nice:D-

Being a strong law and order believer, my feelings on immigration are you obey the laws of the land and if you feel they are wrong, then the correct thing is to change them and not continue to break them. Yeah I know we have 20m, depending on who you ask, but we haved to start somewhere. I have no problems with immigrants, I just believe we have laws to follow and if we aren't going to follow them, get rid of them. We can't pick and choose what laws to follow or we'll just have anarchy. But the illegal alien problem has been overtaken by other more pressing needs right now. So the law will continue to be broken as we try to fix our economy.

CB

[alevin]

Some of us DO know what La Migra is. :) A very tough job with all the risks of every law enforcement job and lots of serious decisions to make as well.

Viva La Migra (and vamonos)!

Lady

Indeed some of us DO know! Tough job indeed. Vaya con Dios and may He give you wisdom as you go. I recently told our patrol captain about new neighbors of a rural friend of mine in our area-guards at the gate with auto weapons, buildings hidden from the road, from south of the border. The patrol captain had just had a meeting with county LE and either they didn't know about the situation or neglected to share intel with him. Close enough to our agency's landbase that it could end up becoming our LEs' business at some point.

[malyla]

Thanks to everyone for your great ideas on where this administration could take us in the next 4 years. The intention of this tread is to throw ideas around on what inititives the incoming administration could impliment to improve our society and we have a great start so far. Equal rights was apart of Johnson's Great Society and economics was apart of the New Deal. Will immigration be on this administration desk when looking at bold, societial inititives? Maybe or will the administration be so busy trying to stablize our economy that nothing gets done (as suggested in post 2-3)?

I think universal health care trumps all but the economy right now for this incoming administration. But if this new administration can build a concensus in congress, maybe taxes, infrastructure upgrades, immigration, alternative power, prison/sentencing reforms etc.. will make some progress forward instead of being kicked down the road to the next administration. This is the time now for bold steps, some of which will pass (hopefully).

Did anyone watch the 60 minutes interview of President elect Obama? He made a very interesting comment about America's addition to oil. I paraphase here as I need to watch TIVO again to get the accurate quote - He said that it was a true addition as we go into panic frenzy mode when prices go up or when supply disappears, but when gas is cheap we just forget about the hard times and fill up our SUVs again. This is the first time I can remember where a president (elect) put our addiction to oil so blantantly. Maybe we will get the help we need to kick this addiction within the next 4 years. Maybe Mike's ideas will be implemented.

I can only hope.:D:rolleyes:

[Viva La Migra]

...On the immigration issue, I am conflicted because I can not understand where the harm is. This is a country of immigrates (apologies to any native americans on the MB). I understand they are not paying taxes, so put laws in place where taxes are collected by the employers. Just how critical is this as a national 'problem'? -I said I haven't had time to study this issue and the words on both sides thrown around over the last four years has been too heated and hateful for me to touch it with a 20 foot laser pointer, but maybe now is a good time to address it in this country - just please be nice:D-
I disagree with the assertion that we are a nation of immigrants. This land was conquered and a new nation was created! Ellis Island was not an immigration point run by Native Americans! Ask the tribes on reservations if controlling immigration is important. I think they would say yes!

If anything, we are a nation of laws. Those laws need to be respected and enforced. There are visas available for "guest workers" in the farming industry and other industries to do those jobs that americans won't do. We can't deport all illegal immigrants, because we haven't tried and the illegal immigrant rights groups cry when we do street sweeps. Too bad! If you are afraid to leave your house because you are here illegally, GOOD! GO BACK TO YOUR HOME COUNTRY and you would not need to be afraid of La Migra!

We don't go after corporations, because they donate too much money to the politicians. It is currently illegal to knowingly hire illegal immigrants. I think they should take out the word "knowingly" from the law and have the law say that it is illegal to hire illegal immigrants. Businesses are held responsible for paying their taxes, though most business owners do not prepare their own tax returns. They hire an expert to do that. Why should this be any different? They should hire an expert in immigration law to conduct background investigations of potential employees for legal immigrant status. Business owners and corporations should be held accountable for hiring illegals!

[The HalfBreed]

How about a car that runs on AIR ?


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ztFDqcu8oJ4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ztFDqcu8oJ4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[jon]

Malyla,
Sorry for not responding earlier to your informing me of your site about a week ago. We recently had to start watching our 3yr old grandson, because our daughter could no longer afford daycare for him. Under these circumstances it is hard to have a coherent thought, much less sitting down and trying to compose comments or even look at TSP talk.

Congrats on being a catalyst for innovative ideas on improving govt and America. But a note of caution re long term thinking (ltt).

Ltt maybe irrelevant unless we fix our Fed budget revenue/expenditure ratio in 2-3 yrs. See below this benign sounding report, Citizens Guide to Fed. Budget 2007 (14 pages) by GAO. I scanned it in 20+ minutes. Wait till we see the 2008 version with world financial crisis. Pay particular attention to the % of corp.taxes paid of all Fed income. Unfortunately, GAO did not include charts of gross and net US corp income with actual % of income taxes paid.
http://www.gao.gov/financial/citizensguide2008.pdf
I say the following in a joking manner, are we ready for class warfare? Silly me. America is just having a little bump in the road. We'll survive and prosper like we always do. Just be positive, patriotic, normal and don't forget Bush, Cheney and Rove were true patriots, keeping America strong and secure.:suspicious:

[Show-me]

How about removing current tax code and simplifying it. It is a testament to the corruption in our government that we can not keep our fingers off of Social Security funds or simplify the tax code. Give me either of the two, flat tax or FairTax and it would show me that they are working for the people instead of the corporations and their own political campaign contributions.

Throw the current tax code out the window. Embedded taxes, tax accountant cost, and lobbyist cost are in every product we buy. Who benefits? No one but the accountant and lobbyist. I prefer the Fair Tax (consumption) because it would tax the current underground non-taxpayers. From criminals to ebayers. I also believe it would focus peoples attention on being savers more.

[Silverbird]

The current lack of a system to deal with immigrants has only led to people sneaking in, and organized crime getting involved.

If we had a policy that worked to allow easy documentation of immigrants coming into the country, including employers taking responsiblity for them (whatever happened to green cards???) it would make things work a lot better.

If we need to have a system to document day laborers, so be it. Let's be realistic - the security problem is there's no knowing who or where the illeagals are.

Social security number fraud should lead to the user of the improper number being deported if illegal (and a record), and a penal record if they are legal.

Companies should be punished for hiring illegals. I prefer something that kicks them in the pocketbook and definately should debar them from Government contracts. They should have to add the information on any illegal hiring conviction to their Annual Reports. :toung:

Also, I don't blame most accountants, what you have is Tax regulation by Commitee, which means the rules make absolutely NO sense from a calculation standpoint. Tax accounting is a business only because the laws are so...nonsensical. It's not balance sheet accounting, it's "What's the deduction percentage for medical expenses - no I don't know how or care they came up with 7.5% rather than 8 or 7."

[Show-me]

As someone who has to keep track of medical expenses, I wondered how they came up with the over 7.5% and why not all of legitimate medical expenses. Come on they are suppose to be looking out for us not taking advantage of the taxes on the first 7.5%.

[jon]

Show-me,

Replying to your post 66 and my post 65 about the GAO Citizen's Guide 2007 and Social Security, again we must thank the Bush PR team for brainwashing the country into believing that Social Security would not be available for gen X,Y,Z and thereafter. Which campaign contributors and members of the investment bankers helped the B team with the campaign to destroy SS and substitute private retirement accounts? Damn fine job - now almost everybody in America repeats that SS will not be available for people under 30. But with investment bankers and markets falling like cards, what will happen to everybody's retirement?

The Fair Tax proposal of a national sales tax as a substitute for the existing tax code sounds simpler and more efficient, but they only propose that the revenue generated would be revenue neutral or about the same as is collected by IRS now. Fair tax punts on SS, saying it needs to be reformed. Why aren't Americans telling Congress the bailout money should bailout SS? Or why not funnel the bailout funds through SS but let Treasury administer the program, especially given how much the government has previously borrowed e.g. stolen from SS?

Wouldn't it be neat, if some country or state were presently running a Fairtax program so we could see how it actually worked?

[alevin]

Show-me,

The Fair Tax proposal of a national sales tax as a substitute for the existing tax code sounds simpler and more efficient, but they only propose that the revenue generated would be revenue neutral or about the same as is collected by IRS now.


Wouldn't it be neat, if some country or state were presently running a Fairtax program so we could see how it actually worked?

I'd love to see this concept tried on for size at some scale too. It's been a couple years since I read the FairTax book by the proponents, but I seem to recall them saying it would generate MORE revenue, due to capture of underground economy and potential to bring real jobs back to this country increasing the overall tax base by reducing the tax advantage people/corporations with money gain from outsourcing and etc. in other countries. Or is my memory faulty? :embarrest: I gave the book away to a friend with large family trust fund responsibilities, (another fed, not rolling in personal dough), to see what he thought of it. Need to ask him if he ever got around to reading it, his father was dying of Alzheimers in nursing home around the time I gave it to him.

[Show-me]

jon,

They will not funnel it through SS because it would be laughable. Neil Boortz, syndicated radio guy from Atlanta, Libertarian, and FairTax supporter, says "the US government owes SS more than $41 TRILLION. A drop in the bucket!

Most Americans are oblivious or don't care what the details are as long as they are told they will get something. When you turn the tap off that is the only time they will notice. Turn off all the entitlement taps and then you will see revolt. This is the citizens "golden parachute" so to say.

People are sheep and will believe what they see in the media. Look at the tabloid magazines, Jerry Springer show, all of the ignorant reality TV shows. People believe that crap and they will believe what ever is told to them in mass. There is a core that question everything. Go to Fabio's thread and look at the video about growth hormones in milk cattle. The media tells us what they want us to believe.

http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/4589/sheeple29gx.jpg

The core actions that takes place when ever a country is taken over by a dictatorship, tyrant, or what ever is 1. take guns away for citizens, 2. CONTROL THE MEDIA. Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Chavez, Hussein, Kim Jung Il, Mussolini, Qaddafi, Syria, Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.

My fear is that now that the election is over and President Elect Obama starts to get a real feel for how bad things are he will, no must make tough unpopular choices that will anger his core constituents. Cutting entitlement, letting the B3A fail, letting the Union of the B3A fail. This will really anger many.

My favorite quote from Ben Franklin makes the most sense during election year. "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Did that not happen? IMO, it did. It has been happening more and more since the beginning of the Lobbyist, and it has taken many years to finally show what the true result would be.

IMO, the real problem with Democracy is that at the very core of our being we must make decisions that are for the greater good of the people and the Country and not for the good of our contributers. It is a formula for political failure but the only formula that will ensure they kind of Democracy our founding fathers sought out. One against the rule of the Royal family only now we have two Royal families that share power and take turns being King. Public service is more about ensuring their political careers or just a stepping stone for something bigger.

OK, I'm rambling on. For all the reasons above you will never see a real, honest, incorruptible person in office that can make a real difference until, thing get so bad...................... I believe Ross Perot was one of those people that truly wanted to be a servant of the people and was double teamed into submission. Just the opinion of a madman.:D

By the way good morning.

[fabijo]

Wouldn't it be neat, if some country or state were presently running a Fairtax program so we could see how it actually worked?

Does it count that these states have no personal income tax?


Alaska – has a state corporate income tax
Florida – has a state corporate income tax. Once had tax on "intangible personal property" held on the first day of the year (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, money market funds, etc.) but was abolished at the start of 2007. The Florida Constitution explicitly prohibits a personal income tax.
Nevada has no personal or corporate income tax. Nevada gets most of its revenue from gambling taxes.
New Hampshire – has an Interest and Dividends Tax of 5%, and a Business Profits Tax of 8.5%.[4]
South Dakota – has a state corporate income tax on financial institutions.
Tennessee – does have tax on income (at a 6% rate) received from stocks and bonds not taxed ad valorem (Tenn Const Art II, §28). The Tennessee Supreme Court has held that a personal income tax is unconstitutional. [Evans v. McCabe]
Texas – in May 2006, passed a franchise tax on businesses (sole proprietorships and some partnerships are exempt). The Texas Constitution places severe restrictions on passage of a personal income tax and use of its proceeds.
Washington – has a Business and Occupation Tax (B&O) on gross receipts, applied to "almost all businesses located or doing business in Washington." It varies from 0.138% for splitting dried peas to 1.6% for bigtime gambling.[5][6]
Wyoming


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_income_tax

[jon]

Fabijo and Show-me,

Fabijo, thanks for pointing out states w/o income taxes which also illustrates my not thinking through using states as an example. Beyond no state taxes, I suspect those states still have multiple other taxes, like property taxes, occupational taxes and all kinds of taxes by other names like permit fees, registration fees and in the small surburb where I live, a garage sale permit! So, until some state or political entities are willing to experiment with the Ftx model (or any other proposal)to document actual results, surely no one would seriously consider adopting such a system nationwide. It would seem that a small entity would be an easier test platform, like Washington DC! Alternatively, rather than repeating the brainwashing mantra that Europe is socialistic, we need to study each European country's political and economic strenghts and weaknesses. Sites that provide this info are US State Dept and BBC news (see left sidebar). Is it humanly possible that any other country could be making more long term beneficial improvements to its political and economic system than the US?

Show me,

Again you provide a spot on critique. Maybe rather than studying other countries we should just study sheep and shepard behavior. Could some of our religious right leaning adherants have confused the metaphor of the shepard and the sheep?

The sophistication of using and consolidating the media and repeating unified messages is making it unnecessary to take control of citizens arms since the government, big business and their handlers methodically control more of our brains/minds every year.

The claim of Fairtax(Ftx) proponents that the Ftx system would capture all or most underground transactions completely escapes me. Are folks selling illegal drugs, stolen property, sex and other transactions with cash going to pay the Ftx? I'm also surprised at the timerity of the Ftx therioticians (sp?) who seem to just write off the possibility of collecting any corporate taxes, unless corporations would pay sales taxes also. Otherwise, that's a huge hunk of change to leave on the table. Basic accounting principals suggest numerous ways to monitor manufacturing activity. Service sector entities sales/income might be more difficult to monitor but seriously, this ain't rocket science.

For what its worth (probably nothing), I submitted 2 suggestions to some part of the several contact Obama websites. It seems like it should be fairly easy using the internet to move closer to direct democracy by allowing citizens to vote on all substantive Congressional bills before the House or Senate votes. Those votes would simply be advisory, but a matter of public record and instantly available from the voting server. 2. As we reap the harvest of a reckless, dogmatic, highly disciplined administration, it is essential to have a serious national discussion on broadening and simplifying our impeachment laws not only at the federal level but also at the state and local levels. More and more elected officials in this country are endangering the county by using gimmicks or administrative fiat to bypass existing laws and regulations.

[fabijo]

jon -

Good reply and I understand wanting to see if something works before actually buying into it, but that's not how many bold and daring endeavors happen. I don't know if I'd like to hope another country tries something first to see if it works. If everybody did that, nothing would get done. It kind of reminds me of Alice in Wonderland, where she was told that nobody talks unless spoken to. The federal income tax only came about in 1917, so the country existed prior to that with a military, railroads, roads, and communications lines. Sure, it was much less in scale than today.

The idea of getting rid of corporate taxes is to encourage corporations to stay in the United States to help Americans have jobs. Right now, many corporations can choose between a number of countries that have low or no corporate taxes.

The idea that the rogues will pay federal taxes through a fair tax relies on the fact that no matter what transactions happen outside the system, there will be a point where they need to purchase within the system. A transaction for drugs will not be registered in the system, but the cash from that transaction is going to be used for buying something at some point in time.

The Fair Tax plan was not devised by a bunch of regular Joes nor a bunch of politicians. It was created by top economists from top universities across the country. They crunched numbers and basically "tested" the system with theory and scenarios. It was also mathematicians and theoretical physicists who were able to launch rockets and create nuclear bombs by first testing their theories on paper. I bet creating the current tax system didn't go through any kind of rigorous test.

[Frixxxx]

....

The Fair Tax plan was not devised by a bunch of regular Joes nor a bunch of politicians. It was created by top economists from top universities across the country. They crunched numbers and basically "tested" the system with theory and scenarios. It was also mathematicians and theoretical physicists who were able to launch rockets and create nuclear bombs by first testing their theories on paper. I bet creating the current tax system didn't go through any kind of rigorous test.
Kinda like the B-1 Bomber testing....make a few see why they crash and try and fix it in the later models.

Unfortunately, it seems that in the tax code they never "TAKE OUT" the bad parts.

[Show-me]

Good discussion.

The claim of Fairtax(Ftx) proponents that the Ftx system would capture all or most underground transactions completely escapes me. Are folks selling illegal drugs, stolen property, sex and other transactions with cash going to pay the Ftx?

Jon,

If they buy new good in the USA the answer is absolutely yes. The Ftx is basically a consumption tax and the infrastructure is in place at the cash register of every business in the country. The retail business collects the tax and electronically sends it to the Treasury. Voilà.

Criminals that make money illegally still like to buy things and that is when they get taxed, otherwise they will never file a income tax return and are on a free ride.

[jon]

To show you guys how seriously I take all this, I am delaying getting a haircut this afternoon to respond to you. If you must resort to using logical or reasonable arguments, who knows what you might do if you ever try to communicate with sheep. I’m talking about our sheep-people not sheep sheep. So I must resort to feeling and emotional positions.
As for thugs being taxed when buying goods in the open market, that’s reasonable.
Asking was our 1917 tax code tested before implementation, I don’t know, but is there any evidence that tax law caused the robber barons or others to jump ship and move factories to other countries? As for jobs being moved overseas, is the deciding factor whether to keep, move or start a plant off shore based just on corp and other taxes or on a matrix of factors? If you are a world business don’t you need to have operations around the world especially where labor is cheap, regulations few and the rulers easily influenced not to mention a firm’s establishing its lobbying influence, spreading its risks and access to possibly closed markets?
While it hurts anyone to lose their jobs and among those older workers, most will never get another decent paying job. But if the plant or operations are extremely inefficient, then some of the benefits from moving offshore should be required to be shared with the displaced workers, like relocation expenses, re-training and limited severance pay.
So rocket scientists help design the FrTx. Well if they can do that, then maybe they can start designing components launched into space that are reuseable/ recycled. Satellites could be designed to be easily disassembled. All space countries could agree to only launch standard sized satellites using only metric standards and when a satellite stopped working then provide its plans to the ISS for recovery and recycling especially things like bays and trays, structures, still working solar arrays, etc. Then recycled launch vehicles, satellites, whatever could be launched from the space station. So instead of all these exotic experiments in space, lets get down to nuts and bolts and launch and build a recycling space fab/manufacturing plant in orbit that could later be disassembled for relocation to the moon for a more permanent fab operation. Come on you long haired hippie scientists, make it so.

[Show-me]

To add to the discussion. Have you ever heard the statement that "corporations do not pay taxes they just pass them on to the consumer in the product they produce."

Embedded tax, get some now.

[Show-me]

Here is my take on everything government. Keep It Simple Stupid. It works from the top down. I'm not say the President should sign with a crayon and NASA should use a rubber band. When it comes to the citizens use systems that can not be corrupted or skewed to advantage one class of citizens or another. Subprime mortgages were complicated now we are trying to simplify them.

S.S., Medicare, taxes, laws, health care, everything. Keep it simple because the common citizen can not understand or will not take the time to understand. I know it sound lazy but it should be for the benefit of the people and simple is cheaper to manage.

[wv-girl]

Here is my take on everything government. Keep It Simple Stupid. It works from the top down. I'm not say the President should sign with a crayon and NASA should use a rubber band. When it comes to the citizens use systems that can not be corrupted or skewed to advantage one class of citizens or another. Subprime mortgages were complicated now we are trying to simplify them.

S.S., Medicare, taxes, laws, health care, everything. Keep it simple because the common citizen can not understand or will not take the time to understand. I know it sound lazy but it should be for the benefit of the people and simple is cheaper to manage.
" Keep it simple because the common citizen can not understand or will not take the time to understand. "

That is exactly why the system is designed the way it is. To keep us from understanding it so they can manipulate us. A very good example is when Greg Long swayed the majority of TSPers to his side by telling them how we(the few traders) were costing them $. They bought it hook, line and sinker.

[Birchtree]

If you want some revenge simply buy some BCS (Barclays) stock so when they write for a vote you can tell them to KMA. It's gotten real cheap and getting cheaper - I'll get some more for myself.

[KevinD]

I would like to see spending kept separate from revenue collection.

What does retirement savings have to do with tax collection? What does medical expenses have to do with tax collection? What does education or child care have to do with tax collection? What the heck do moving expenses have to do with tax collection? Why is there a penalty for early withdrawal of savings and what does it have to do with tax collection? Student loan interest deduction? Tuition and fees deduction? Adjustments? Exemptions? Then there are itemized deductions...why are they not in the adjustments section with Domestic production activities, Student loan interest, and Tuition and fees deduction? :suspicious:

And what the heck is the Domestic production activities deduction? :blink:

And what about credits? Foreign tax credit. Credit for child and dependent care expenses. Credit for the elderly or the disabled. Education credits. Retirement savings contributions credit. Child tax credit. :confused:

And why is the Earned income credit, the Additional Child tax credit and the First-time homebuyer credit in the PAYMENTS section? :mad:

I get fired up about this...sorry.

Just tell be how much I owe in taxes and show me where it gets spent. I need transparency.

[Show-me]

Yep, how many lawyer make a living just to interpret corporate related laws or contracts.

[Frixxxx]

Yep, how many lawyer make a living just to interpret corporate related laws or contracts.
Too many, ok I got one, what do you call 1,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean..........:suspicious:

Wait this isn't the lawyer joke thread?:embarrest::laugh:

[Gumby]

Too many, ok I got one, what do you call 1,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean..........:suspicious:

Wait this isn't the lawyer joke thread?:embarrest::laugh:

I sure wouldn't call it a catastrophe.:D

[Frixxxx]

I sure wouldn't call it a catastrophe.:D
LOL...

From one of my favorite movies 'Wall Street'.

The answer is....A good start!

[RunningFool]

I would like to see spending kept separate from revenue collection.

What does retirement savings have to do with tax collection? What does medical expenses have to do with tax collection? What does education or child care have to do with tax collection? What the heck do moving expenses have to do with tax collection? Why is there a penalty for early withdrawal of savings and what does it have to do with tax collection? Student loan interest deduction? Tuition and fees deduction? Adjustments? Exemptions? Then there are itemized deductions...why are they not in the adjustments section with Domestic production activities, Student loan interest, and Tuition and fees deduction?

And what the heck is the Domestic production activities deduction? :blink:

And what about credits? Foreign tax credit. Credit for child and dependent care expenses. Credit for the elderly or the disabled. Education credits. Retirement savings contributions credit. Child tax credit. :confused:

And why is the Earned income credit, the Additional Child tax credit and the First-time homebuyer credit in the PAYMENTS section? :mad:

I get fired up about this...sorry.

Just tell be how much I owe in taxes and show me where it gets spent. I need transparency.

It just goes to show you that our tax code has nothing to do with collecting taxes. It has everything to do with social engineering. That is why we will never have a simplified tax code.:notrust:

[malyla]

It just goes to show you that our tax code has nothing to do with collecting taxes. It has everything to do with social engineering. That is why we will never have a simplified tax code.:notrust:

But is social engineering a bad thing? Is it bad to give people a break on their taxes when they start the next generation of citizens? Is it bad to encourage home ownership (through tax breaks) which makes proud (and productive) citizens? Is it bad for society to give someone a tax break on their student expenses considering that this encourages people to raise themselves into a higher income bracket? Shouldn't society encourage some social engineering through tax cuts? I think the benefits to society as a whole for the slight loss in income through taxes is well worth it. The hard part is drawing the line. How did it help society to give corporations such huge tax cuts? (Don't even get me started on the oil companies and their tax breaks).

Is there another way to fund social engineering programs? Not through tax breaks, but through government programs? This does add a layer of redtape where tax breaks are individual driven (just you and the IRS). If you have to apply to the Education fund for some financial relief, the door is open for mismanagement and corruption - IMO. Anyone have an alternative approach?

BTW - I have never really thought about social engineering and how society benefits or is harmed from this method of tax breaks to perform the objective. Really got me thinking - Thanks :D

[Show-me]

Don't like the sound of social engineering. Did not our government encourage home ownership through Freddy and Fannie? They leaned on the banks to lend to low income folk and provided the lenders with a door to dump these loan into. Some how I don't think it's working.

Lowering the bar does not make more cream rise to the top.

[RunningFool]

It all depends on how you view social engineering. Is it the job of government, via bureaucratic agencies, to say what behavior they want to encourage or discourage? Who are they to decide? Beyond criminal offenses, I don't think it is the governments business to do any social engineering. People should be left to themselves, to sink or swim as they may. If your neighbor needs help, you and your fellow neighbors help him. Don't sit around waiting for the government to do it (Katrina). All this social engineering has created a nanny state mentality which encourages people to look to the government for more and more of what they need and increasingly what they want. It also puts the government in the position of forcing people to make wrong decisions in order to get their benefits. (Don't work so you can get a check. Don't get married so you can get a bigger check. Buy a house you can't afford so you can get a tax write off.... etc) Sure there are some positive things done by the government but it eventually gets twisted around to the point of abuse, all for political or personal gain. It all started out with good intentions but as we as a people have lost our moral compass so these good intentions have gone astray. It all goes back to what you expect from government. Is it just an umbrella that protects us from foreign armies and regulates interstate and international business and leaves you to fend for yourself OR is it your nanny. Most folks will say something in between. Unfortunately once you go down the nanny path it is very hard to reverse course no matter what kind of mess the nanny gets you into, after all the nanny has a vested interest in you being in their charge. The more dependent you are on the nanny the more secure the nanny's job is. Thus we are constantly being groomed to need more services from our nanny via social engineering programs.:suspicious:

[Bullitt]

France makes moves to invest in infrastructure as an economic stimulus. Look at that- Railroad Infrastructure.

Facing a drastic slowdown, France announced a $33 billion economic stimulus plan Thursday, including cash payments to the poor, a bigger rebate on new-car purchases and a speedup in high-cost public works projects. About a third of the stimulus package was earmarked for public works, including railroad infrastructure and low-cost housing projects.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/04/AR2008120402436.html

[malyla]

France makes moves to invest in infrastructure as an economic stimulus. Look at that- Railroad Infrastructure.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/04/AR2008120402436.html

Someone in another thread mentioned putting a national public transportation system together in this country just like Europe has at this time. I would love to see this. We have a mini one between NY city, Baltimore and DC (add Philly and shake). It may be that the US is too big to financially support a complete system (Japan is a good example of public transport in a small area), but a system down both coasts with a few feeders inland would be a wonderful start.

Does anyone remember that last time that there was an Office of the President Elect. I was a little surprised when I first saw that sign of the podium where Obama announced his cabinet choices. I don't think I have ever seen that before.

[malyla]

So, the infastructure repairs will put a lot of people to work. My worry is that there is no new technology that requires extensive infastructure build-up. All we will be doing is fixing and upgrading the existing system. Maybe, developement of new energy sources should be the priority.

Bidding the time until Obama releases his full plan.

[Viva La Migra]

Bidding the time until Obama releases his full plan.
So far, all he's done is back off some of his campaign promises...and he's not even in office yet!:laugh: I'm also not impressed with his cabinet appointees...to many from the Clinton administration. I thought he was going to make changes, not go back to the Clinton era! I'm not seeing any changes I can believe in...yet. It'll be interesting to see what he actually does when he sits in the big chair and reality hits him in the face.

[Bullitt]

My worry is that there is no new technology that requires extensive infastructure build-up. All we will be doing is fixing and upgrading the existing system.

Other ideas could be linking up the power grid, cleaning up our broadband/cable, phone and communications systems. That would require people with technical experience though. You can't just grab a shovel and decide to work on fiber optics.

[Frixxxx]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/16/firearms-associations-claim-obama-drove-surge-gun-sales/

Seems the gun makers like Obama!!!!!Or they could be stocking up on inventory in case he starts trying to take them away.

[2EASY]

So far, all he's done is back off some of his campaign promises...and he's not even in office yet!:laugh: I'm also not impressed with his cabinet appointees...to many from the Clinton administration. I thought he was going to make changes, not go back to the Clinton era! I'm not seeing any changes I can believe in...yet. It'll be interesting to see what he actually does when he sits in the big chair and reality hits him in the face.

Bush did the same...got all of his daddy's people on his team when he took office. I guess Clinton is Obama's daddy.

[Birchtree]

My great white hope is that Obama does not turn out to be the PIG Clinton was. I seriously couldn't handle another nightmare like the Clinton years.

[Silverbird]

We would have known by now, there were indications that Clinton had more than a roving eye for a loonnnngggg time.

[Birchtree]

I saw the movie "Primary Colors" staring John Travolta as Clinton many yeas ago - and what I remember most about that experience was the wife and I were the only ones in the theater that were laughing. It was then I realized we were truly in a southern liberal mecca of Gainesville, Florida. It was still a great movie true to the Clinton colors. I still hate Jimmy more though.

[malyla]

So, the infastructure repairs will put a lot of people to work. My worry is that there is no new technology that requires extensive infastructure build-up. All we will be doing is fixing and upgrading the existing system. Maybe, developement of new energy sources should be the priority.

Bidding the time until Obama releases his full plan.

I watched a guest on Bloomberg talk about the problem I have been seeing with infrastructure buildup. He used the analogy that if I pay my neighbor $100 to dig a hole and then he pays me $100 to fill it up, we have increased the GDP by $200 but have done no productive work towards substaining the economic picture. In reference to the infrastructure build up, we need to do more than putting people to work repairing existing systems. We need to develop the new technologies that will substain our economy into the next decade or more. Funding research and researchers, even those in their garage, will pay in the long run. We need more Steve Jobs and Gordon Moore. The integrated chip and computers have largely fueled our economy for the last 40 years, what will fuel it for the next 40 years?

[Bullitt]

Alternative energy seems to be the main topic, which means it's surely destined to fail or disappoint. How about biotechnology?

[alevin]

Biotech will be like the shark in shallow water, going to come up from nowhere. Imagine. I wandered down the hall in my office one day this winter after having read about lab growing new piece of vertebra that morning or the day before on Yahoo news. Several people were standing in the hall visiting-talking about that very thing. It's out there in people's minds, but the $5 gallon gas really made an impression last summer and hasn't faded yet, not really.

[malyla]

Alternative energy seems to be the main topic, which means it's surely destined to fail or disappoint. How about biotechnology?

Yes biotech could be the next economic driver, but I have some misgiving about this new technology. With computers and the integrated chip all we had to fear was the development of an intelligent computer that logically decided that humans needed to be exterminated or that an unfriendly country or group would get ahold of our smart technology to use against us. Whereas the Terminator senario has not played out yet and unfriendly groups are amazingly nontechnological when they attack us, biotech offers dangers that can shake the strongest. Imagine someone in their garage developing virus' that target one genetic group (The White Plague by Frank Herbert is an amazing read) or creates a new animal species (flying dragons) or ressurrects an old species (mammoths and velociraptors). Where I do agree that amazing drugs and medical technology to extend life and wellbeing would make America's economy strong well into the next century, how do we regulate people and companies from developing a virus that ultimately causes great harm or a square tomato that tastes like strawberries (whats the point really). Maybe people will eventually get used to having biotech inserted in their body or using products that are part living tissues/cells, but at this time I wonder how this technology will affect our world.
Don't get me wrong, I know we can not put this genie back in the bottle (Bush's ban on stem cell research was an attempt but it just had the scientist/biotechnologist getting smarter on how to get stem cells), but this country needs to seriouly think about the harmful (and good) effects of this new technology and how to regulate this technology across all industries. For me, I worry first about my food, water, and air, then medicines, then virus' that are ment to help but do harm (I Am Legend), then virus' that are designed by unstable or evil minds for mass destruction (12 Monkeys). Personally, I would like a robot helper like that in I, Robot before I have a sabortooth tiger as a pet - Does this make me an old foggie:D

How about a new power source that uses biotech to generate power instead of fossil fuel. That would be cool.

[nnuut]

Beam me to Chicago Scotty!:D 5467

[KevinD]

Heres an overview of Obama's plan. (Wasn't sure where to put this...)

http://finance.yahoo.com:80/banking-budgeting/article/106461/How-Stimulus-Affects-You

[malyla]

It all depends on how you view social engineering. Is it the job of government, via bureaucratic agencies, to say what behavior they want to encourage or discourage? Who are they to decide? Beyond criminal offenses, I don't think it is the governments business to do any social engineering. People should be left to themselves, to sink or swim as they may. If your neighbor needs help, you and your fellow neighbors help him. Don't sit around waiting for the government to do it (Katrina). All this social engineering has created a nanny state mentality which encourages people to look to the government for more and more of what they need and increasingly what they want. It also puts the government in the position of forcing people to make wrong decisions in order to get their benefits. (Don't work so you can get a check. Don't get married so you can get a bigger check. Buy a house you can't afford so you can get a tax write off.... etc) Sure there are some positive things done by the government but it eventually gets twisted around to the point of abuse, all for political or personal gain. It all started out with good intentions but as we as a people have lost our moral compass so these good intentions have gone astray. It all goes back to what you expect from government. Is it just an umbrella that protects us from foreign armies and regulates interstate and international business and leaves you to fend for yourself OR is it your nanny. Most folks will say something in between. Unfortunately once you go down the nanny path it is very hard to reverse course no matter what kind of mess the nanny gets you into, after all the nanny has a vested interest in you being in their charge. The more dependent you are on the nanny the more secure the nanny's job is. Thus we are constantly being groomed to need more services from our nanny via social engineering programs.:suspicious:

I do think that individual responsibilty is very important, but punishing people for events beyond their control does not make a functioning society. Social engineering is just another name for government - very necessary.
On the flip side we have social engineering were the government creates or uses a crisis to perform a change in the way government operates society. I truely believe that government was created to protect the people not only from themselves, outside enemies, but also from their own government. In Thunderhourse's thread, he posted a link to a great video that talked about forms of goverment. http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment shows that this country is a republic designed to protect the people under the rule of law. An unregulated society is an anarchy and will lead to crisis and chaos which only helps the few gain power at the expense of the many. Having an unregulated free market is anarchy and as we can see has led to crisis, chaos and the betterment of a few at the expense of the many. If you want to call regulations and the rule of law social engineering then ok, I would contend that we have social engineering all the time though as taking away laws and regulation is also a form of social engineering (as having any working government is a form of social engineering). Anytime you get more than two groups together (family, tribe, towns, etc...), you will have social engineering, especially in a republic, as laws will have to be in place to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Finally, Milton Friedman scares the hell out of me. He advocates Free Market Anarchy. Just the removal of a few regulations led to the mess we are in now (Lets not forget the unregulated markets of the Pre-depression era or the Dutch tulip market). Anyone who is curious about Milton Friedman check out a video on the Shock Doctrine http://www.wimp.com/controlbehavior/ (http://www.wimp.com/controlbehavior/) . Laws also protect citizens from criminals. I like the idea of a citizen bank, but it to must be regulated (have safeguards) to protect thoses who are risking their money in this kind of bank. http://www.wimp.com/freehelp/ Social Engineering allows for a working, thriving society, but it is a two edge sword that could cut you as well - SHOCKing! I wonder what the founding fathers would say about social engineering?

[malyla]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(political_science)

Social engineering is a concept in political science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science) that refers to efforts to influence popular attitudes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude) and social behavior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_behavior) on a large scale, whether by governments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government) or private groups. In the political arena the counterpart of social engineering is political engineering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_engineering).
For various reasons, the term has been imbued with negative connotations. However, virtually all law and governance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance) has the effect of changing behavior and can be considered "social engineering" to some extent. Prohibitions on murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder), rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape), suicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide) and littering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littering) are all policies aimed at discouraging undesirable behaviors. In British and Canadian jurisprudence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisprudence), changing public attitudes about a behaviour is accepted as one of the key functions of laws prohibiting it. Governments also influence behavior more subtly through incentives and disincentives built into economic policy and tax policy, for instance, and have done so for centuries.
In practice, whether any specific policy is labeled as "social engineering" is often a question of intent. The term is most often employed by the political right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics) as an accusation against anyone who proposes to use law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law), tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax) policy, or other kinds of state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State) influence to change existing power relationships: for instance, between men and women, or between different ethnic groups. Political conservatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_conservatism) in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) have accused their opponents of social engineering through the promotion of political correctness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness), insofar as it may change social attitudes by defining "acceptable" and "unacceptable" language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language) or acts. The right has itself been accused of social engineering due to its promotion of Abstinence-only sex education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only_sex_education), Sodomy laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law), and state sponsored school prayer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer).
History
Before one can engage in social engineering, one must have reliable information about the society that is to be engineered, and one must have effective tools to carry out the engineering. Both of these only became available relatively recently - roughly within the past one hundred years. The development of social science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science) made it possible to gather and analyze information about social attitudes and trends, which is necessary in order to judge the initial state of society before an engineering attempt and the success or failure of that attempt after it has been implemented. At the same time, the development of modern communications technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunication) and the media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media) provided the tools through which social engineering could be carried out.
While social engineering can be carried out by any organization - whether large or small, public or private - the most comprehensive (and often the most effective) campaigns of social engineering are those initiated by powerful central governments.
Extremely intensive social engineering campaigns occurred in countries with authoritarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism) governments. In the 1920s, the government of the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) embarked on a campaign to fundamentally alter the behavior and ideals of Soviet citizens, to replace the old social frameworks of Tsarist Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsarist_Russia) with a new Soviet culture, to create the New Soviet man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man). The Soviets used newspapers, books, film, mass relocations, and even architectural design tactics to serve as "social condenser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_condenser)" and change personal values and private relationships. Similar examples are the Chinese "Great Leap Forward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward)" and "Cultural Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution)" program and the Khmer Rouge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge)'s plan of deurbanization of Cambodia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodia). In Singapore, the government's housing policies attempt to promote a mix of all races within each subsidized housing district in order to foster social cohesion and national loyalty while providing the citizens with affordable housing.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
Non-authoritarian regimes tend to rely on more sustained social engineering campaigns that create more gradual, but ultimately as far-reaching, change. Examples include the "War on Drugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs)" in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), the increasing reach of intellectual property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property) rights and copyright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law), and the promotion of elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections) as a political tool. The campaign for promoting elections, which is by far the most successful of the three examples, has been in place for over two centuries. Social theorists of the Frankfurt School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School) in Weimar Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Germany) like Theodor Adorno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Adorno) had also observed the new phenomenon of mass culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_culture) and commented on its new manipulative power, when the rise of the Nazis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism) drove them out of the country around 1930 (many of them became connected with the Institute for Social Research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Social_Research) in the United States). The Nazis themselves were no strangers to the idea of influencing political attitudes and re-defining personal relationships. The Nazi propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda) machine under Joseph Goebbels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels) was a synchronized, sophisticated and effective tool for creating public opinion.
In a similar vein the Greek military junta of 1967-1974 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_military_junta_of_1967-1974) attempted to steer Greek public opinion not only by propaganda but also by inventing new words and slogans such as: palaiokommatismos (translated as old-partyism), Ellas Ellinon Christianon translated as: Greece of Christian Greeks, Ethnosotirios Epanastasis translated as Nation-saving Revolution meaning coup d'état (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) etc.

[Viva La Migra]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(political_science)

Social engineering is a concept in political science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science) that refers to efforts to influence popular attitudes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude) and social behavior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_behavior) on a large scale, whether by governments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government) or private groups. In the political arena the counterpart of social engineering is political engineering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_engineering).
For various reasons, the term has been imbued with negative connotations. However, virtually all law and governance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance) has the effect of changing behavior and can be considered "social engineering" to some extent. Prohibitions on murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder), rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape), suicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide) and littering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littering) are all policies aimed at discouraging undesirable behaviors. In British and Canadian jurisprudence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisprudence), changing public attitudes about a behaviour is accepted as one of the key functions of laws prohibiting it. Governments also influence behavior more subtly through incentives and disincentives built into economic policy and tax policy, for instance, and have done so for centuries.
In practice, whether any specific policy is labeled as "social engineering" is often a question of intent. The term is most often employed by the political right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics) as an accusation against anyone who proposes to use law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law), tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax) policy, or other kinds of state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State) influence to change existing power relationships: for instance, between men and women, or between different ethnic groups. Political conservatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_conservatism) in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) have accused their opponents of social engineering through the promotion of political correctness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness), insofar as it may change social attitudes by defining "acceptable" and "unacceptable" language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language) or acts. The right has itself been accused of social engineering due to its promotion of Abstinence-only sex education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only_sex_education), Sodomy laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law), and state sponsored school prayer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer).
History
Before one can engage in social engineering, one must have reliable information about the society that is to be engineered, and one must have effective tools to carry out the engineering. Both of these only became available relatively recently - roughly within the past one hundred years. The development of social science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science) made it possible to gather and analyze information about social attitudes and trends, which is necessary in order to judge the initial state of society before an engineering attempt and the success or failure of that attempt after it has been implemented. At the same time, the development of modern communications technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunication) and the media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media) provided the tools through which social engineering could be carried out.
While social engineering can be carried out by any organization - whether large or small, public or private - the most comprehensive (and often the most effective) campaigns of social engineering are those initiated by powerful central governments.
Extremely intensive social engineering campaigns occurred in countries with authoritarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism) governments. In the 1920s, the government of the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) embarked on a campaign to fundamentally alter the behavior and ideals of Soviet citizens, to replace the old social frameworks of Tsarist Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsarist_Russia) with a new Soviet culture, to create the New Soviet man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man). The Soviets used newspapers, books, film, mass relocations, and even architectural design tactics to serve as "social condenser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_condenser)" and change personal values and private relationships. Similar examples are the Chinese "Great Leap Forward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward)" and "Cultural Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution)" program and the Khmer Rouge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge)'s plan of deurbanization of Cambodia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodia). In Singapore, the government's housing policies attempt to promote a mix of all races within each subsidized housing district in order to foster social cohesion and national loyalty while providing the citizens with affordable housing.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
Non-authoritarian regimes tend to rely on more sustained social engineering campaigns that create more gradual, but ultimately as far-reaching, change. Examples include the "War on Drugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs)" in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), the increasing reach of intellectual property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property) rights and copyright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law), and the promotion of elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections) as a political tool. The campaign for promoting elections, which is by far the most successful of the three examples, has been in place for over two centuries. Social theorists of the Frankfurt School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School) in Weimar Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Germany) like Theodor Adorno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Adorno) had also observed the new phenomenon of mass culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_culture) and commented on its new manipulative power, when the rise of the Nazis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism) drove them out of the country around 1930 (many of them became connected with the Institute for Social Research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Social_Research) in the United States). The Nazis themselves were no strangers to the idea of influencing political attitudes and re-defining personal relationships. The Nazi propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda) machine under Joseph Goebbels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels) was a synchronized, sophisticated and effective tool for creating public opinion.
In a similar vein the Greek military junta of 1967-1974 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_military_junta_of_1967-1974) attempted to steer Greek public opinion not only by propaganda but also by inventing new words and slogans such as: palaiokommatismos (translated as old-partyism), Ellas Ellinon Christianon translated as: Greece of Christian Greeks, Ethnosotirios Epanastasis translated as Nation-saving Revolution meaning coup d'état (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) etc.
Sooo...the stimuli bills are a social engineering tool being used to create the new nanny state, right?:notrust:

[CountryBoy]

Sooo...the stimuli bills are a social engineering tool being used to create the new nanny state, right?:notrust:

Sure smells like it to me. They are re-educating the American people that if they fail or not even attempt to succeed, that Uncle will be there to bail them out. It's just the beginning.

CB

[malyla]

Sooo...the stimuli bills are a social engineering tool being used to create the new nanny state, right?:notrust:

LOL:laugh:

No, the stimuli bills are a shock doctrine inititive to keep us scared out of our wits over a longer time period so that Congress has time to work to completely change our financial system. In the end we will end up with a system that has no middle class and no money to help the deserving. Not that I want a sudden complete collapse of the world markets as that will lead to a third world war, but, I have little faith in the altruism of our elected officials at this time.

Frontline perfectly highlighted the moral delemma that our officials faced. All their principles were thrown out the door when their idealogy of a free market crashed around their heads due to the greed inherent in the human species.

[malyla]

LOL:laugh:

No, the stimuli bills are a shock doctrine inititive to keep us scared out of our wits over a longer time period so that Congress has time to work to completely change our financial system. In the end we will end up with a system that has no middle class and no money to help the deserving. Not that I want a sudden complete collapse of the world markets as that will lead to a third world war, but, I have little faith in the altruism of our elected officials at this time.

Frontline perfectly highlighted the moral delemma that our officials faced. All their principles were thrown out the door when their idealogy of a free market crashed around their heads due to the greed inherent in the human species.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

Safety nets have been systematically removed over the last 30 years for the middle class. I have lived this and have seen this first hand in my family. When new families start, they usually have 30+K in school loan debt, both parents working, child care cost that are enormous, and the need for two cars. Add in the american dream of a mortgage and we see the beginning of the end of a middle class. Did we have a nanny state in the 1930-1960s? Or did we have a thrieving middle class with safety nets. Putting some equitity into our system to help the middle class does not a Nanny state make. The video, although long winded, has some great info on the declining middle class. I wish us all good luck....

[Viva La Migra]

LOL:laugh:

No, the stimuli bills are a shock doctrine inititive to keep us scared out of our wits over a longer time period so that Congress has time to work to completely change our financial system. In the end we will end up with a system that has no middle class and no money to help the deserving. Not that I want a sudden complete collapse of the world markets as that will lead to a third world war, but, I have little faith in the altruism of our elected officials at this time.

Frontline perfectly highlighted the moral delemma that our officials faced. All their principles were thrown out the door when their idealogy of a free market crashed around their heads due to the greed inherent in the human species.
Are you ready to say "If I knew this before the election, I wouldn't have voted for Obama?" If I remember correctly, you predicted this would be said by folks around March. We're getting close to March now.:laugh:

[CountryBoy]

Are you ready to say "If I knew this before the election, I wouldn't have voted for Obama?" If I remember correctly, you predicted this would be said by folks around March. We're getting close to March now.:laugh:

I think Lady made that prediction if I'm not mistaken.

CB

[malyla]

I think Lady made that prediction if I'm not mistaken.

CB

I'm not sure who said this, but I'm not dishing on the present administration, but on congress.
I think this administration understands the 'War on the middle class' dynamic as evident in Obama's plan to cut taxes on the middle class at the expense of the riches 1%. I also think Obama understands the healthcare, childcare, education, and mortgage issues that the middleclass face and are drowning in. My disappointment is reserved for the Congress who had a chance to follow Obama's lead in helping the struggling middleclass, but instead fund their pet projects and even give the riches citizens a tax cut at the expense of the middleclass. The mortgage help will stop alot of middleclass bankruptcies, but it will not be enouph. The middleclass is just stretched too thin and with their mortgages increasing due to interest rate resets, some will reach a breaking point. Now, I do not think everyone should be bailed out, but a family with kids is less likely to walk away from a house and schools and therefore will file for bankruptcy destroying the middleclass dreams for a decade at the least. Obama has said that this bailout is not intended for the speculators or for those that have already abandoned their mortgages. It will be for the overstretched but responsible families in distress. And for those that say that most people bought more than they could afford, I would refer you to the video in the previous post. It appears that those McMansions were geared for the top 20% of home buyers. The rest of the middle class bought for the schools. Can we really blame the middleclass for the housing bubble???? Lets help the deserving and get back on track with the american dream of a thrieving, productive, and contributing middleclass.

[CountryBoy]

I'm not sure who said this, but I'm not dishing on the present administration, but on congress.
I think this administration understands the 'War on the middle class' dynamic as evident in Obama's plan to cut taxes on the middle class at the expense of the riches 1%. I also think Obama understands the healthcare, childcare, education, and mortgage issues that the middleclass face and are drowning in. My disappointment is reserved for the Congress who had a chance to follow Obama's lead in helping the struggling middleclass, but instead fund their pet projects and even give the riches citizens a tax cut at the expense of the middleclass. The mortgage help will stop alot of middleclass bankruptcies, but it will not be enouph. The middleclass is just stretched too thin and with their mortgages increasing due to interest rate resets, some will reach a breaking point. Now, I do not think everyone should be bailed out, but a family with kids is less likely to walk away from a house and schools and therefore will file for bankruptcy destroying the middleclass dreams for a decade at the least. Obama has said that this bailout is not intended for the speculators or for those that have already abandoned their mortgages. It will be for the overstretched but responsible families in distress. And for those that say that most people bought more than they could afford, I would refer you to the video in the previous post. It appears that those McMansions were geared for the top 20% of home buyers. The rest of the middle class bought for the schools. Can we really blame the middleclass for the housing bubble???? Lets help the deserving and get back on track with the american dream of a thrieving, productive, and contributing middleclass.

Regardless of who said it, Congress did drop the ball on the Stimulus package and BHO should've vetoed it and told them to do it right. It appears that Pelosi and Reid have him buffaloed. A simple veto and a good butt chewing of Congress would have done wonders for the psyche of the American people, but unfortunately we just got a dose of politics as usual from the House of Lords and Commons. :(

Theres plenty of blame to go around on the housing bubble and if we, as individuals, don't exhibit some personal responsibility, the next shiny object will get these peoples attention amd we'll be in trouble again, so yeah, I do blame those people that bought beyond there means, along with the other usual suspects. The deserving should be helped, but lessons need to be learned from this and I have serious misgivings that a lot of thos folks won't learn this lesson.

CB

[malyla]

Theres plenty of blame to go around on the housing bubble and if we, as individuals, don't exhibit some personal responsibility, the next shiny object will get these peoples attention amd we'll be in trouble again, so yeah, I do blame those people that bought beyond there means, along with the other usual suspects. The deserving should be helped, but lessons need to be learned from this and I have serious misgivings that a lot of thos folks won't learn this lesson.

CB

This I can agree with. The ultimate question is "what is the percentage of 'deserving of help' citizens vs the 'fraudster' who should not get a penny? Those that did everything they thought was right, but ended up in an upsidedown mortgage due to falling prices should be helped if they ask for it. People who took ARMs are a gray area for me as I had a 3 year ARM KNOWING I was going to sell in two years (temporary TDY). But if something unforeseen had happened requiring me to stay longer than 3 years, I was going to be in a world of hurt (OK, but hurting until I could refinance) even after being told that the rates would 'likely' be lower than at the time I purchased. I took the risk and I'm sure others had a simular risk assessment to consider when they took an ARM (on a primary residence - no flippers please), so I would consider a case by case review of people with resetting ARMs. However, I would like to follow Denninger for the rest of the 'losers' in this mortgage game.

<From marketticker - http://market-ticker.org/archives/809-On-Our-Fraudulent-Economy.html (http://market-ticker.org/archives/809-On-Our-Fraudulent-Economy.html) >
This morning Rick Santelli went nuclear on the entire "fraudulent mortgage" game - the culmination of a series of rants that he has (correctly) launched over the last year.
(As an aside, great minds must think alike, as we both had the "extra bathroom" thing in our morning rants!)
You can view it here (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853) (can't embed as its a CNBS video clip)


Here's the point folks, when you get down to it:

The entire last two decades of so-called "Economic Growth" has been fueled by one fraud after another, starting with the Internet Bubble.
This fraud has been systematic and the mainstream media has been both an implicit and explicit enabler of these frauds, instead of doing its job, which is to root them out. The looks on the faces of the other CNBC "anchors" was one of abject fear - perhaps parts of "The Fourth Estate" is coming to realize that when the pitchforks and torches come out - and they certainly will if we hold the course we're on - they might have some trouble explaining why they shouldn't be near the head of the list of those being "sought"?
The conflicts of interest in the media, where their advertising dollars come from those who are promulgating and profiting from these frauds means that they must choose between their job of protecting the public (their essential purpose under The First Amendment) and being a willing accomplice in the theft being performed by the prime actors in these frauds.
With the exception of a few months around 1995 (which roughly coincided with Microsoft's release of Win/95, the first "consumer" system of wide acceptance that had a dialer built in along with a web browser) the Internet NEVER doubled in size every three months. Yet this was paraded as the statistic to justify all the bubble companies up until the bubble burst in the spring of 2000. I was one of hundreds if not thousands of people with access to the core of the network and KNEW this was a lie. Nobody would report the truth. Proof? Read all about it (http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/soa/Meet-the-Internet-s-nouveau-e-riche-/0,139023165,120104461,00.htm): <removed for space by malyla>
When the Internet bubble collapsed it was decided to intentionally pump liquidity into the system and ignore both banking regulations and the law, making possible the housing bubble.
When the leverage ran out Henry Paulson, who was then with Goldman Sachs, came to Congress and the SEC and asked for the ability to run what would turn into effective infinite leverage. The request was granted.
The very same Henry Paulson, having done this, then bailed off and became The Secretary of the Treasury. He was fully aware of what was going on when the bubble started to come apart in 2007 because he personally lobbied for the changes in law that made the terminal blow off possible!
Every single one of the firms that has blown up has had leverage far higher than the former 14:1 legal limit. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman - all had leverage at least twice the former legal limit when they blew up. After the first blowup Treasury and the SEC could have slammed the door on this and forced leverage to be taken back down - in August of 2007. Government intentionally refused to take that action despite myself and others screaming about it.
Hundreds of billions of dollars were siphoned off by the banksters and common Americans as a consequence of willfully-blind and even fraudulent "lending."
If you measure "prosperity" by stock prices we're somewhere back in 1997 or 1998. But if the entirety of these two bubbles were fraud-driven (and they were) then a realistic expectation is that we will not only return to 1995 stock prices (about ~450 on the S&P 500) but we will over-correct significantly because the debt that this fraud created still remains in the economy!
That could easily cut the S&P in half again, which puts my 210 "oh God" print on the table, no?
Let's be clear here: There is no way out of this box, and the corruption and fraud have permeated every corner of our financial, media and governmental systems.
We give "free" education and health care to illegal aliens, paid for out of citizen tax dollars. Our government supports this.
We propose to give "foreclosure relief" to people who lied on their mortgage applications; how many of the so-called "rescue" programs would have ANY uptake among the public if as part of the refinance or assistance process the original paperwork was re-underwritten to discover if you lied, and if you did, you were prosecuted instead of being helped?
We have done exactly nothing to indict and prosecute the banking executives, the housing industry executives and others in the business world who contributed to these lies and frauds, in some cases explicitly.
The Congresspeople who got "special deals" from Countrywide Financial (and others) on their mortgages remain in office and are not being charged and tried for what, in my opinion, amounts to public corruption. The amounts involved here are not small - the "savings" in many cases ran into the tens of thousands of dollars.
It has been disclosed that several sitting Congressmen (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-stanford-obama_webfeb19,0,3862446.story) received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Stanford Financial (now under investigation on suspicion of not only bilking investors but also money laundering!); the firm also allegedly gave eight hundred thousand dollars to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee during a year that Congress was debating a bill that would have tightened anti-fraud provisions against the securities industry. The bill was killed in a Senate committee.

<there's more>

[CountryBoy]

This I can agree with. The ultimate question is "what is the percentage of 'deserving of help' citizens vs the 'fraudster' who should not get a penny? Those that did everything they thought was right, but ended up in an upsidedown mortgage due to falling prices should be helped if they ask for it. People who took ARMs are a gray area for me as I had a 3 year ARM KNOWING I was going to sell in two years (temporary TDY). But if something unforeseen had happened requiring me to stay longer than 3 years, I was going to be in a world of hurt (OK, but hurting until I could refinance) even after being told that the rates would 'likely' be lower than at the time I purchased. I took the risk and I'm sure others had a simular risk assessment to consider when they took an ARM (on a primary residence - no flippers please), so I would consider a case by case review of people with resetting ARMs. However, I would like to follow Denninger for the rest of the 'losers' in this mortgage game.

<From marketticker - http://market-ticker.org/archives/809-On-Our-Fraudulent-Economy.html (http://market-ticker.org/archives/809-On-Our-Fraudulent-Economy.html) >
This morning Rick Santelli went nuclear on the entire "fraudulent mortgage" game - the culmination of a series of rants that he has (correctly) launched over the last year.
(As an aside, great minds must think alike, as we both had the "extra bathroom" thing in our morning rants!)
You can view it here (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853) (can't embed as its a CNBS video clip)


Here's the point folks, when you get down to it:

The entire last two decades of so-called "Economic Growth" has been fueled by one fraud after another, starting with the Internet Bubble.
This fraud has been systematic and the mainstream media has been both an implicit and explicit enabler of these frauds, instead of doing its job, which is to root them out. The looks on the faces of the other CNBC "anchors" was one of abject fear - perhaps parts of "The Fourth Estate" is coming to realize that when the pitchforks and torches come out - and they certainly will if we hold the course we're on - they might have some trouble explaining why they shouldn't be near the head of the list of those being "sought"?
The conflicts of interest in the media, where their advertising dollars come from those who are promulgating and profiting from these frauds means that they must choose between their job of protecting the public (their essential purpose under The First Amendment) and being a willing accomplice in the theft being performed by the prime actors in these frauds.
With the exception of a few months around 1995 (which roughly coincided with Microsoft's release of Win/95, the first "consumer" system of wide acceptance that had a dialer built in along with a web browser) the Internet NEVER doubled in size every three months. Yet this was paraded as the statistic to justify all the bubble companies up until the bubble burst in the spring of 2000. I was one of hundreds if not thousands of people with access to the core of the network and KNEW this was a lie. Nobody would report the truth. Proof? Read all about it (http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/soa/Meet-the-Internet-s-nouveau-e-riche-/0,139023165,120104461,00.htm): <removed for space by malyla>
When the Internet bubble collapsed it was decided to intentionally pump liquidity into the system and ignore both banking regulations and the law, making possible the housing bubble.
When the leverage ran out Henry Paulson, who was then with Goldman Sachs, came to Congress and the SEC and asked for the ability to run what would turn into effective infinite leverage. The request was granted.
The very same Henry Paulson, having done this, then bailed off and became The Secretary of the Treasury. He was fully aware of what was going on when the bubble started to come apart in 2007 because he personally lobbied for the changes in law that made the terminal blow off possible!
Every single one of the firms that has blown up has had leverage far higher than the former 14:1 legal limit. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman - all had leverage at least twice the former legal limit when they blew up. After the first blowup Treasury and the SEC could have slammed the door on this and forced leverage to be taken back down - in August of 2007. Government intentionally refused to take that action despite myself and others screaming about it.
Hundreds of billions of dollars were siphoned off by the banksters and common Americans as a consequence of willfully-blind and even fraudulent "lending."
If you measure "prosperity" by stock prices we're somewhere back in 1997 or 1998. But if the entirety of these two bubbles were fraud-driven (and they were) then a realistic expectation is that we will not only return to 1995 stock prices (about ~450 on the S&P 500) but we will over-correct significantly because the debt that this fraud created still remains in the economy!
That could easily cut the S&P in half again, which puts my 210 "oh God" print on the table, no?
Let's be clear here: There is no way out of this box, and the corruption and fraud have permeated every corner of our financial, media and governmental systems.
We give "free" education and health care to illegal aliens, paid for out of citizen tax dollars. Our government supports this.
We propose to give "foreclosure relief" to people who lied on their mortgage applications; how many of the so-called "rescue" programs would have ANY uptake among the public if as part of the refinance or assistance process the original paperwork was re-underwritten to discover if you lied, and if you did, you were prosecuted instead of being helped?
We have done exactly nothing to indict and prosecute the banking executives, the housing industry executives and others in the business world who contributed to these lies and frauds, in some cases explicitly.
The Congresspeople who got "special deals" from Countrywide Financial (and others) on their mortgages remain in office and are not being charged and tried for what, in my opinion, amounts to public corruption. The amounts involved here are not small - the "savings" in many cases ran into the tens of thousands of dollars.
It has been disclosed that several sitting Congressmen (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-stanford-obama_webfeb19,0,3862446.story) received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Stanford Financial (now under investigation on suspicion of not only bilking investors but also money laundering!); the firm also allegedly gave eight hundred thousand dollars to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee during a year that Congress was debating a bill that would have tightened anti-fraud provisions against the securities industry. The bill was killed in a Senate committee.

<there's more>

I didn't get this until I was at home and didn't want to just dash off a half a$$ed answer, since I tend to tune out the world when I get back on the farm. It's my sanctuary from the worries of the world or I try to make it that way. :D

Let me say from the start, I was against the first bailout and am still against them. I'm one of that crowd who believe that we should've taken our medicine/pain at the beginning so our kids and grandkids wouldn't have to and that the longer the Gov't interferes, will just prolong the agony and worsen whatever the final outcome would've been.

That said, depending on what pundit you listen to approximately 90% of the folks with outstanding loans are paying them without any problem, leaving roughly 10% falling into the 'deserving of help' citizens and the 'fraudster' who should not get a penny”.

For primary homes only! I believe if we should just utilize the rules of the game the way they used to be, like having a real job, house payment roughly 25% to 30% of your outstanding debt and have the banks actually verify that those facts, plus your mortgage application is not an work of fiction, we could weed out the NINJA or Liars Loans. It will be a laborious process, but we won’t be forfeiting the quality of life of future generations if we take the time and do it right.

The markets are obviously worried about the amount of money that we are throwing at this and the market is beginning to realize that this is nothing more than a welfare growth package and will do little to produce productive, long lasting, well paying jobs. Plus they are also worried about all the rules and regulations that Congress is going to attach to this money, not that some are definately needed, but the market is beginning to understand that capitalism as we know it is morphing into socialism and with that comes the lack of desire to be productive, if all the Feds are going to do is give that money to those that aren't.



Cont.

CB

[CountryBoy]

Cont.

Dang we got wordy. :laugh:

Here's the rest of my tome in response to your post.

My wife and I talked last night about what stock to add to next week for our ROTH. We're concerned about what limitations Congress will put on any money they loan out and how it will affect the Divvies and operation of companies. We don't even own any bank stocks either. Congress is stifling the growth of the economy, because of the unknows of what direction they will go in.

Home ownership is not an entitlement, at least I couldn’t find it in the Constitution, but is a privilege for those that work for it. Yeah, it may be harder for some than others, but I’ve seen it happen. Until ACORN/Congress came along and began coercing banks to give out these questionable sub-prime loans, we wouldn’t be in this mess and this has been going on for years if not a couple of decades and plenty of blame to go around.

I know how the 'deserving of help' citizens’ feel. I got caught up in the late 70’s and early 80’s recession and lost not only my job for 6 months, but also lost almost 30% of my home value and sold it at a big loss. I made it, but I had to use my savings and sell some items to make ends meet until I could sell the house and find another job. And I wasn’t the only one that went thru that and we got no help/bailout from the government at all. We just started over. We followed the rules and still got burned, so those folks that lied about their financial situation, will not get any sympathy from me.

Santelli hit the nail on the head, there is going to be more class warfare/envy or whatever term you want to use, between those of us that played by the rules and acted responsibly and those that are going to lay around and let BHO bail them out. The middle class is not going to take having their money taken away and given to people by the likes of Barney Frank (My boyfriend ran a male pros ring from my house) and Chris Dodd ( he of VIP loans from CountryWide) and given to the unproductive. Mosy middle class folks are waking up to the fact that Congress (both sides) have lost touch with reality and for the most part have never had a productive job either. They got us into this mess by making money easy to get and dad burnit they are doing it again, with Gaithner moving from the co-pilot seat to the pilots seat. I for one have no respect or confidence in our elected officials and I think that it is being reflected in the market. And I’m really worried as more of the details of the Welfare Package become known, things are going to get worse all around us.

As for the points/bullets in your post, well said and I couldn’t agree with you more. I also agree with your last few paragraphs, that there are a lot of people that need to be perp walked, including quite a few of our pols and until this is done, confidence will not be restored to the middle class.

But what can you say, we know who these crooked pols are and the people they represent, keep voting them back in, so I have to go with actions speak louder than words and their Constituents must approve of their very questionable actions and less than stellar morals and character.

Things may not flow as smoothly now, but hopefully you get the gist and that as far as I can tell we agree on just about all points regarding this subject. :)

That's enough heavy thinking for a Friday. Have a good weekend. :D

CB

[malyla]

As for the points/bullets in your post, well said and I couldn’t agree with you more. I also agree with your last few paragraphs, that there are a lot of people that need to be perp walked, including quite a few of our pols and until this is done, confidence will not be restored to the middle class.

But what can you say, we know who these crooked pols are and the people they represent, keep voting them back in, so I have to go with actions speak louder than words and their Constituents must approve of their very questionable actions and less than stellar morals and character.

Things may not flow as smoothly now, but hopefully you get the gist and that as far as I can tell we agree on just about all points regarding this subject. :)

That's enough heavy thinking for a Friday. Have a good weekend. :D

CB

Thanks CB. I really enjoy these discussions and your sharing of your views and ideas. Just a quick clarification. The bullets and last paragraphs of my post are from Denninger's post in the Market Ticker and although I do agree with his post (this is rare, as he tends to move into rant territory with extreme conclusions), I do not want to represent his work as my own;)

All that we are seeing and all that is occuring belongs in a bigger historic view. I watched CSPAN's coverage of the inauguration on Jan 20th (what!...CSPAN didn't have talking heads who were afraid of silence - refreshing to say the least) and during the Inaugural Balls coverage, CSPAN had two historians to put that day into perpective. They all talked about issues that were alot bigger than our current worries. One thing I found to be profound was the discussion of the change in the era of political ideologies. They actually brought up the Great Society of Johnson's presidency and how that was the end of the New Deal era that FDR and the depression had started. Nixon, who was a conservative, unfortunately for him was in power during this era of less conservative values and had to continue with the momentum of Johnson's Great Society inititives. But there was a small group of neo-conservatives that began to have greater influence in the government. The neo-cons or conservative movement was at it's height with the election of Reagan and many of the New Deal and Great Society inititives (safety nets) were modified or eliminated. Clinton, who would have liked to have been more progressive, was left with a conservative legacy/current during his administration which hampered what he would have liked to accomplish (universal health care for one). The CSPAN historians remarked that with the 'discrediting' (my word as I can't remember their words) of the conservative movement shown in the election of the democrats in both the executive and legistative branches, that the Reagon era of conservatism (neo-cons at their most powerful) is at an end and that what Obama does just may signal the next era (30+ years) of direction for this country. It was interesting perpective, not all positive, but longer than a sound bite (the discussion was from 10-20 minutes on each topic). Really got me thinking about timing in societial changes. The build up of the middle class happened during the New Deal/Great Society era and the erosion of the middle class happened during the NeoCon/Reagan era. We are now at the beginning of a new era - Will the rebuilding of the middleclass be high on the societal agenda? Safety nets such as universal health care? Regulations on lending for mortgages? And many others. Stay tuned - Same BAT channel, Same BAT time......

[CountryBoy]

You’re welcome Malyla. I enjoy the discussions also and trading POV’s. I probably just missed the Denninger mention, but thanks for the clarification, though since you agreed with this part of his post, I wouldn’t have noticed the difference. :D

I’ve never really followed politics that closely, until the last 20 years or so. Until then I just probably blissfully went thru life and as long as I wasn’t impacted, I didn’t really care. I was raised with certain morals and ethics and they’ve always been my guide. I guess having a kid definitely changes your perspective, especially regarding the future. I know about LBJ’s Great Society from being raised in Appalachia and what a joke it really turned into. It was a lot of unfunded mandates, that poorer states like WV couldn’t fund and still really can’t fund.

For a person seeing it from ground level it was just alot of political BS. I still remember taking food to my Dad’s side of the family, due to poverty and to this day the area is still pretty poor and uneducated, so it was pretty much a failure from my POV. A lot of blow and no show. But to this day they always vote Democrat, although they don’t believe in the beliefs of the party anymore, but what welfare they received has conditioned them to think that the Gov’t will take care of them. Even my Mom’s side of the family, which also grew up in the area, but were a little better off are all Dems. I’m the black sheep in the clan and we all live in the area, so we see each other about 5 or 6 times as family reunions and are always visited and running into each other. Our type of family is a dying breed. It makes for very lively family reunions. Out of about 50 of us, there are about 5 conservatives.

I personally believe in Work fare, but that has been gutted with this last giveaway. I don’t think the conservative movement is dead, but Bush sure wounded it severely and I may not be alive to see it come back and if it doesn’t, then I don’t really care whether I’m here or not.

I really hate the direction the country is going. Personal responsibility is being thrown out the window and being bred out of the American people. The message I’m hearing from BHO and Congress is: Work hard, pay your bills on time, and you will be penalized by having your hard-earned money reward those who wallow in irresponsibility and have a total disdain for those who play by the rules. I believe in helping those that can no longer help themselves. For example, every year, I buck and split a couple of extra cords of firewood, for those folks in my area that are to old to do it anymore and I deliver it to them in my gas guzzling 4X4 PU and that’s not to pat myself on the back, but to give an example of what I believe in and there are about 5 of us with farms, that the Church lets us know who needs help of some kind and these folks don’t except charity either, it would be an insult to them.

We’ve never had universal health care, so it wasn’t there as a safety net to be eliminated. People want the best health care and want everyone to have access to it. That is an impossibility financially. It’s one or the other. Countries that have that type of health care are having to triage it out because they are crumbling under the financial burden. This country can’t afford that and from what I’ve seen the country can’t afford BHO either.

From my POV, I hope he’s pretty much impotent come 2010 and from the way the markets are acting, that’s the way we’re heading, maybe even another depression. I’m preparing for such an event and have instilled the importance of independence in my daughter, because either the Gov’t won’t be in position to help her or they’ll take what she has to give to those that don’t. Actually, I’m already planning on working another 2 years, just to make up for the greed and stupidity that got us in this mess and the hyper inflation, that is to come that will make our retirement that much less. :(

Some things do need to change, I’m not denying that, but we are swinging way back in the other direction, due to the hatred this country had for Bush. And a vote of hatred never results in anything good. I’m not a Bush follower, though I did vote for him both times, but he and the Republican party lost me about the first year into his 2nd term. I’m almost a Libertarian now or just a plain old conservative. You get what you work for and if you don't work you don't get it and if you are unable to work, then that's when we the public or government needs to help. Plain and simple. And I've been called that before. :laugh: I also believe we are going way to fast with these changes and printing way too much money and before we realize the entire country will be underwater.

The way I see it is the very people who never seem to do the right things or even try to do what’s right are being rewarded with our tax dollars. This country has come to the point where there is no incentive to do what's right. Because, if you’re successful the government is portraying us out to be the villains and confiscating our tax dollars, to redistribute it to the people living above their means. I’m constantly hearing the term class warfare or envy and that doesn’t do anyone any good. Just the response Santelli got from the floor yesterday, should’ve have woke the BHO admin up, to feelings that are starting to permeate throughout this country.

So I guess I think the current administration will do their best to dismantled the middle class as we know it and morph into some type of serf class, where everyone has the same thing and innovation and motivation will either slowly die from lack of desire or reward. I'm normally an optimistic person, but I don't see much to be optimistic about for the future.

I don’t consider these ideas conservative but more old fashion and I know I’m just an old dinosaur.

Well enough for now, so I can squeeze this end without deleting words or making it a 2 part post again.

Have a good weekend and take care, :D

CB

[steveg]

CountryBoy --

I have not read any of this thread with the exception of this last post you made. As a new board member, I would like to say that this is one of the most well-written commentaries I've seen in a long time. I couldn't agree with you more -- you echo my sentiments exactly! Great Job!!

Steve

[CountryBoy]

CountryBoy --

I have not read any of this thread with the exception of this last post you made. As a new board member, I would like to say that this is one of the most well-written commentaries I've seen in a long time. I couldn't agree with you more -- you echo my sentiments exactly! Great Job!!

Steve


Thanks Steve,

I appreciate your comments. You'll find alot of fine members here that also write good commentaries. Welcome to the board. :D

CB

[malyla]

I want this guy on my society building team!

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/463

I still can't believe those idiots in the pool with an electrical outlet. That is the banks.

also at http://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriquez_shares_mindboggling_new_science.html
http://utube.smashits.com/video/JNcLKbJs3xk/Juan-Enriquez-Tech-evolution-will-eclipse-the-financial-crisis.html

He's got a sense of humor about what the banks are doing to us.
Bioenergy seminar.
http://utube.smashits.com/video/aSyAwuQPMRo/Juan-Enriquez-Why-can-t-we-grow-new-energy-.html

[malyla]

I want this guy on my society building team!

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/463

I still can't believe those idiots in the pool with an electrical outlet. That is the banks.

also at http://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriquez_shares_mindboggling_new_science.html
http://utube.smashits.com/video/JNcLKbJs3xk/Juan-Enriquez-Tech-evolution-will-eclipse-the-financial-crisis.html

He's got a sense of humor about what the banks are doing to us.
Bioenergy seminar.
http://utube.smashits.com/video/aSyAwuQPMRo/Juan-Enriquez-Why-can-t-we-grow-new-energy-.html

How does religion fit into this new society with homo-evolutis. Wow - this is going to be a very interesting 20-60 years.

[malyla]

A take on the electric car. You do not own the battery. The battery is part of the infastructure.

http://www.clipsyndicate.com/publish/video/873472

It was on bloomberg tv.

I'm not sure if I like the idea of not fully having control of my car. I'm just transfering the gas station control with the battery station control. I may just use my own two feet instead.

[wv-girl]

Thanks Malyla for introducing ted to us. Here is another one that allow us to look in the not so distant future.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/pattie_maes_demos_the_sixth_sense.html

[malyla]

Thanks Malyla for introducing ted to us. Here is another one that allow us to look in the not so distant future.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/pattie_maes_demos_the_sixth_sense.html

Wow...

What would you think the cutoff age will be for embracing this new technology in our rapidily changing society?

The telephone on the hand is just on step away from just pointing in the air with a heads ups display that connects a call. Lying will become an artform (do you trust Wikipedia?) as there will need to be a central resource to tap into for info on products (is your TP a green product? Is stealing a springs water resource and shipping it in plastic containers to other parts of the planet for profit greener than the deionied water for sale next to it? So many more choices to make. :-O). If it's connected to facebook, there is no privacy.
Wow, times are a changing.

Thanks WV-girl, but Thunderhorse is the reason I found TED. He introduced me to wimp.com (thegovernment) and from there I found ted and fell in love. We have been happy so far......:laugh: Ted is in my favorites!

Thanks for sharing. That was great.