Halliburton and Bechtel Are Nothing

[ezmoney5150]

AV8,
Getting back to my point, you aked:



I never said you did say that. No one is logging in under your name so calm down. I was having a little fun with your comments.

BUT! you knew that was coming didn't you What I was driving at was some time back there were several news stories being posted that were all bad news about the efforts over there. You and some others objected that the news was skewed and that there were good things going on and weren't being reported as widely as the bad news. Well, you were right and I would agree. I have several friends over there/have been over there and I hear lots of good news all the time and I hear some bad news as well. War is always a mixed bag but war is where Iraq is different. It's not a war anymore, it's an occupation in the truest sense of the word IMO.

Bush declared victory several years ago and some went nuts about it. Now I'm no fan of Bush at all but he was 100% right in saying what he said. The war was over, the goal was to remove Saddam from power and that was completed. Now the mission changed to occupation, pacification and democrazation being the goal. The surge is about pacification in order to move further into the democrazaton plan. But that's another thread.

My real point of my comedic remarks to your's was the fact that you so rabidly objected to news coverage and some of that objection was understandibly justified and also your political side if you will had their own spin machine going that painted a picture in some sense matching what I was making fun of. Need a case in point? How about your commander in chief who on 12/7/05' to a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations (yeah I got the place bugged a funny for alex jones) when he said the following good things about Iraq:

Sustaining electric power remains a major challenge. Construction has begun on three new substations to help boost capacity. Boost capacity? Boosting capacity means to increase what is already there and adding substations means you are expanding the reach of the grid.

Because there's a shortage of clean water, new water treatment and sewage units are now being installed. He didn't say there is no water but there is a shortage of clean water meaning there is some available. Adding treatment and sweage units means more to come in the near future.

Najaf is now in the hands of elected government officials. An elected provincial council is at work drafting plans to bring more tourism and commerce to the city. Political life has returned and campaigns for the upcoming elections have begun with different parties competing for the vote.

One man from Najaf put it this way: "Three years ago we were in ruins. One year ago we were fighting in the streets. Now look at the people shopping and eating and not in fear." Shopping and eating? I would think you'd need power and water to do that.

One of the largest projects was the rebuilding of the Najaf teaching hospital, which had been looted and turned into a military fortress by the militia.
Thanks to the efforts by Iraqi doctors and local leaders, and with the help of American personnel, the hospital is now open and capable of serving hundreds of patients each day.

Here's a transcript of the complete speech itself:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/07/bush.transcript/

OK, I know that was 2005' and much happened over the last 2 years but here's my problem. Things in fact did go bad after this speech and yet when some folks here posted and discussed those facts, you and some others objected and some here may feel my use of the term objected for your reactions is way to nice but I'm cool with it! Plus, even though we disagree on some issues I admire your loyality no matter what.

Now a video emerges concerning the actions of private contractors and you seem to paint a picture that things are so bad over there we need these guys. That may well be true in gaining back what was lost since Bush's speech but I ask why a private contractor who has an adminstrative assistant (new PC name for a secretary) needs a $200k plus luxury SUV (as thisis how the video reported it)and you come back as though I thought armored and military electronic equipped SUV's were unnecessary in that area. Depending on the job, obsolutely but for a secretary for her own personal use? Is that fiscal responsibilty to equip a private secretary with such but then have have our own US military personal shorted of armored equipment? I say our soldiers come first and foremost but maybe you have a different belief there.

Remember these stories: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/041220-armored-vehicles.htm

OK, it's a 2004' story but here's one more current: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/With_shortage_of_armored_humvees_soldiers_0808.html
Granted this story doesn't revolve around an in-theater shortage but the fact remains a shortage of humvees exist and what happens if we have to esculate in Afghanistan, Pakistan or the worse happens with Iran or even Syria? See my point? What happens if we've over spent in-theater with private contractors shorting our own forces for the future?

I have a hard time believing that you watched all 10 parts to this video which totals 76 minutes in lenght. The video never questioned the reason for being in Iraq nor IMO did it question the use of private contractors but rather are we being ripped off in some areas with excess and over charging that in the normal business world would never be tolerated.

AV8, wars of the past were financed by the spoils of victory or some means among the victorious population to pay tribute or taxes to pay for the efforts. WW2 for example was paid in many ways by war bonds and the Victory Tax Act which became the income tax on wages through withholding that we have today. It was codified in the 1954' Tax Act that gave us the Income Tax code of 1954'. Some felt Iraq would pay for itself in oil, yes AV8, read some of the policy wonks and oil was very much in this picture. Not the driving force but it was the "gravy on the biscuit" so to speak. This has never emerged where Iraq oil on the global markets would send downward pressures on pricing plus pay first and foremost for the new Iraq but we still must pay for our efforts over there as it goes right now and the price tag is getting costly in light of other domestic issues.

This war is being paid for with a Uncle Sam "Home Equity" loan and we've maxed out the limit. We keep getting the limit raised but we are beyond the value of our total asset worth and are in real danger of economic meltdown. You and I and the rest here are on the hook to pay the tab and if the majority want to prosecute a military occupation then my point in all of this is to do so with fiscal responsibilty and to make sure all waste is dealt with. You can give nice SUV's to the private contractors and BTW they are described as "Luxury" SUV's and not "Armored" SUV's so I'm questioning the luxury and not the armored type, but at some point when you run out of money and the ability to borrow is gone, what will you buy bullets and bombs with then? If you were Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, would you attack now or would you mouth off to keep the flames up and wait for the foreclosure notice to go up and then do something dramatic?

Warfare is fought as much if not moreso with economics as it is with guns and bombs. Besides, keep going and the Mideast "RICH" radical nutjobs can just buy us for pennies on the dollar and they've got tons of pennies thanks to our oil monopolized economy thanks to gov't policy via healthy tax revenue ie gas tax! Hard to tax solar and wind isn't it? Hint! hint!

And I'll bet you the world if the mideast buys us up there will be a Halliburton, KBR and CACI international headquaters somewhere in the mideast still doing bidness as usual. These guys or rather their ilk have been around as long as there's been warfare and they switch sides at the blink of an eye!


I'm just tring to use the first principle of traditional conservative gov't and that is fiscal responsibilty and you want to question and debate me for doing so. And you wonder why Hillary or Obama may get elected come Novemeber and why Rush Limbaugh sez he may not vote for a Repub. or Demo. come Novemeber. Hey Rush, to quote a fantastic ole' tune, "Welcome to My World" I been living since 2004'. Should have listened to those in the know who in the summer of 2000' sounded the warning bells when Gipper picked Bush 1 as his #2. That ended everything right then but it took me till after the 2002' elections to realize it!

I'm not a lemming liberal. I have a lot of liberal beliefs, like not everything in our economy can be market based without some sort of regulation to keep the snake oil salesmen (mortgage brokers on Wall St.) from screwing the economy up while making themselves rich.

Now I also have some conservative beliefs like guns. In Ohio we have concealed carry which I do support. I also hate illegal immigration.

I might sell you some great property about 2 miles north of Cleveland.

 

[wkmac]

I'm not a lemming liberal. I have a lot of liberal beliefs, like not everything in our economy can be market based without some sort of regulation to keep the snake oil salesmen (mortgage brokers on Wall St.) from screwing the economy up while making themselves rich.

Now I also have some conservative beliefs like guns. In Ohio we have concealed carry which I do support. I also hate illegal immigration.

I might sell you some great property about 2 miles north of Cleveland.

I figured about as much in regards to you being a liberal. Even if you were I'm cool with it. As to regulation, if you've read any of my past posts you will see I'm very anti-state, in some circles even anarchist which I'm sure spins some folks out of control. However I also have a realist POV and know there will be some aspect of gov't regulation no matter what but this is where I see regulation a bit different than yourself and maybe D if he doesn't mind me throwing him in here, gently of course.


You guys see regulation as keeping the snakeoil salesman at bay but do we still from time to time have snake oil salesman? Yeah we do sadly I might add. When they do appear, the hue and cry is for more regulation and maybe for a time all seems well and then they rear up again. In some cases, there are those who claim the regs. were relaxed and thus they came back but if one does some honest research that is not always true. The point is, there are always snakeoil salesman. Why? Because snake oil salesman are dishonest to begin with and profit best in a protected market. They are able to do so because of several factors. One and this is something we see quite often, they prosper because they control the legislative process that sets the regulations via lobbyist and other manipulative means.

I believe you once said something about working or doing something with a PAC which is a lobbying group and I'm not very high on that process but it is what it is IMO. Anyway, as they control the legislative process, they also in turn control the market access and by controlling market access (no free market in that case) they limit competition and they are more prone to take advantage and abuse the customer of their product or service. To make the point about lobbyist even further and how business abuses that process, Star Parker in a recent TownHall piece made the following point concerning the Bush years:

The growth in government during this recent period in which Republicans have been in control is obscene. It is appalling that since 2000 the number of registered lobbyists in Washington has doubled, from about 17,000 to now over 34,000.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/2008/01/14/how_republicans_can_help_elect_a_democrat

When you compare the growth of lobbyist and the growth of gov't and then consider the numbers of events like the Enron's, etc. that you point out and then go through the gov't records that few people do to being with, you will clearly see the connections. I use to have similar beliefs in many ways as folks like Brett, Big Arrow and to some extent a bit like yourself which falls in line with some of the things Newt Gingrich proposes as contary to myth Newt also believes in a regulated market but maybe not like you normally think. He believes in taking markets created by gov't like say social security or even healthcare, privatizing them through gov't contract and then passing legislation that by law all must take part in. In other words, he sets the monopoly for a private concern and then further pushes the monopoly by mandating with law that you must take part of face some form of sanction or penalty. For lack of better words, liberals if you will do the same thing it's just they create the monopoly, mandate the participation and then keep it all for gov't and then further the process by making it a jobs program and hiring people into gov't. Ever heard the old saying "gov't solves nothing!" They can't because the job cuts and layoff would kill the economy. You want to know why gov't is growing even under republicans? Sure they are greedy for power just like the democrats but they can't stop the train because the private job market isn't strong enough to maintain the low level of unemployment that we have. You might say even unemployment is a false created market.

I know you believe the republicans are some aspect of free markets and the truth is they are far from it. All aspects of the economy from how much money is in it (Federal Reserve) how much are interest rates and what is the rate of inflation (Federal Reserve again) how much money stays out moving in the private sector (income taxation) and how far private wealth will build (income tax again) what a person's job is worth (minimum wage and other aspects of job regulation from OSHA to Labor Dept.) and then you have other economic policies that can effect everything from the price of oil to even the price of food as gov't doles out farm subsidies even for that. Even oil get fed. subsidies as this is a tax market for them in the way of fuel and oil excise taxes. Those markets get harmed and Uncle Sam feels it in the wallet! We don't have solar and wind cars because there is no means to drive an excise tax from it. They want a hydrogen economy because they can centralize and regulate the distribution and drive tax revenues from it to replace the ones they now get from oil. Why do you think we still don't have high mileage vehicles in the American market? Lightbulb going off yet anyone?

So you see it's not about having or not having a free market, it's about who sits in the chair of power to regulate it all and to how far and who on the private side will benefit. Look atthe corp. money that use to go heavily to repubs. now going to democrats. You think that's because their anti-Iraq and anti-Patriot Act? They read tea leaves and they want in position to be able to control the process if the ball goes the other way!

OK, in my utopian world that ain't gonna happen so don't freak out, there is no dept. of commerce, labor, OSHA, EPA, just pick one. All gone. Will it make things worse? My guess is yeah it will, maybe even much worse but then it will get better. Why? Because the monopoly standing that many large corporations have will fail because there is no law prohibiting the little guy from come up. Also the major national and international corp. use a central gov't as a cost effective tool to limit competition and with that gone they would now have to deal with 50 states or better yet, 1000's of local gov't and the cost to trump that market would be enormous. Would there be pockets of it? Sure. Would there be snakeoil salesman? Yeah but we have that now but the net effect would be that people instead of relying on gov't to watch out for them and still get taken would at the least start wiseing up themselves and less and less would get taken over time. Now for the snakeoil man to be legit, all he has to do is get a piece of paper saying US Gov't approved and we lemming fall in line and buy their stuff and never once question or ask to see proof the product works. In my world, people would have to say "Show Me" and most sankeoil men hate those words so much they would seem to be far removed.

Also local business in most respects would return to locals trading with locals and when I know where you live and you know where I live, there seems a lot more civility in those cases. Outsiders or carpetbaggers as we in the south call em' tend to get run out of town on a rail if they come in with snakeoil.

EZ, I think we both want the exact same thing but just see a different route on getting there. For the last 100 plus years the federal gov't has regulated more and more of our lives and what have we got for it? Our lives get worse and worse. We hear the cry that just a bit more gov't will fix the problem but down that road we go only a few years later to see the same results and the same cry of even more gov't. How far it too far? And to borrow a line from the democrats, "and the rich just get richer" in that system and now with gov't sudsidation, they are going global and exporting this crap called market domination! We're to stupid to realize we ain't winning nothing and that the debt having gone from $5 trillion to $9 plus trillion under Bush is a weight about the crush our own head and kill us if we don't wake up. All done via a gov't regulated economy and completely legal. I never said moral however.

We will in all probabilty go down your regulatory road for the coming years as we have been conditioned for such. We are like Pavlov's dogs in that respect and they know it. But a new awaking at least among the youth who are a crossbreed of traditional liberal and conservative alike. They are starting to understand the relationship of big, overbearing and empirical gov't of both parties and want nothing of that from either one. They are forging alliances of small limited federal gov't that is non-interventionalist (not isolationist as there is a big difference) and is also not compulsary or in other words, it's voluntary and moving what was once at the federal level down to the state and local level where they can watch closer and react quicker to make changes when things begin to not work. Even with my avid anti-state beliefs, I could easily and happily live in that world as a local community should have the right to ban abortions or even guns from their mist without any federal say so whatsoever. Can we only survive to get there?

That's where I'm at in all of this!

 

[av8torntn]

So I guess it's a coincidence that Halliburton got the bid and low and behold the Vice president was the CEO and still owns boat loads of stock. And how is it cheaper? Every time these truck convoys of Halliburton goes down the road it has to escorted by US Troops. Imagine how these soldiers feel. They make approximately $30,000. And they have to protect these contractors that make $100,000.

Its called war profiteering. Look it up. When Harry Trumann was a Senator the democrats were in the majority and he held hearings and prosecuted war profiteers. Not this government.

Who only make 30 grand? You are leaving off an awful lot of incentive pay, tax free money, separation pay, hostile fire pay, and imminent danger pay.How did this evil company get the Bosnia log pack contract? Was it because they knew their board member would become a VP? I do not have to imagine how these soldiers feel. Somehow I know how they feel.

 

[av8torntn]

AV8,
Getting back to my point, you aked:



I never said you did say that. No one is logging in under your name so calm down.

Bush declared victory several years ago and some went nuts about it.

OK, it's a 2004' story but here's one more current: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/With_shortage_of_armored_humvees_soldiers_0808.html
Granted this story doesn't revolve around an in-theater shortage but the fact remains a shortage of humvees exist and what happens if we have to esculate in Afghanistan, Pakistan or the worse happens with Iran or even Syria? See my point? What happens if we've over spent in-theater with private contractors shorting our own forces for the future?

1) really?

2)He declared an end to major combat operations for a reason.

3)Keep up man armored humvees are becoming a thing of the past now. They should not be buying any new armored humvees. Look for stories on MRAP's if you want to see what they are going to.

Ok if you want to talk about Najaf now, I can also do that. I spent a little time there also. Not much but I did see the hospital, the water treatment plant, and the new soccer stadium. If you want to talk about the clean water I would say there is no shortage of clean water. The problem is or was the Baath party only ran water lines to party headquarters and military bases and a few prominent people. The power problem is similar in the way they ran the circuits. I spent almost a year at the Iskandariyah power plant. Before the war it provided over 75% of the countries power. It was built by the Soviet Union and not very well maintained. Power first went to the palaces of Saddam then to party headquarters, then to military, then to Baghdad, then to the rest of the country. The power plant produces more power now then it did before the war. A simple fact. The people also use more power now than before the war. Utilities are free. When they were liberated from the Baath party they bought TV's, and air conditioners en mass. The Jap's are building power plants as fast as the Iraq government can pay them from their oil revenues. (Oh yes those horrible oil profits) They were building one next to the main one we were at. It was one third the size and was going to be able to generate four times the power. Ez do not worry Blackwater provided security so no Soldier had to feel bad for not making as much money or whatever it is that you were saying.


When you say that I did not watch the entire video I will say it has been around for several years. They keep changing it up a little and I have not seen the latest version. I am sure it is generally the same.

Hey I am on board if you want fiscal responsibility. I would rather start with medicare, social security, federal government involvement in education, bridges to nowhere, roads to nowhere, farm subsidies, SCHIP, and well that should be enough to finish the war and end the national debt.

 

[av8torntn]

AV8,
Warfare is fought as much if not moreso with economics as it is with guns and bombs. Besides, keep going and the Mideast "RICH" radical nutjobs can just buy us for pennies on the dollar and they've got tons of pennies thanks to our oil monopolized economy thanks to gov't policy via healthy tax revenue ie gas tax! Hard to tax solar and wind isn't it? Hint! hint!

You underestimate the power of the federal government to tax. I somehow expected more of you.

 

[wkmac]

You underestimate the power of the federal government to tax. I somehow expected more of you.

So by the above are you saying before things get that bad, go nuclear if you will (economically speaks) that our gov't can tax us directly to raise the revenue to keep such from happening? Yeah they could but the democrats have been wanting to raise taxes for years so how is your party in the end so different from them?

As to understanding taxes, the nature and the adminstration, let's just say you have no idea just how well I know about them and I'll leave it at that.

you also said:

Hey I am on board if you want fiscal responsibility. I would rather start with medicare, social security, federal government involvement in education, bridges to nowhere, roads to nowhere, farm subsidies, SCHIP

If you are so on board then let me ask you this. I've heard this same mantra from the repubs. all the way back to 1976' when Reagan first ran against Ford for the nomination. Yet 30 plus years later I hear the same thing and in those 30 years all the above have grown even moreso, although the bridge to nowhere was a republican thing with Ted Stevens. From 8 years of Reagan to the Contract with America and the Republican revolution and through all that, the only thing these programs did was grow and grow and grow. Where is the fiscal responsibilty you champion? I sure don't see it and learned that hard lesson in 1983' after Reagan passed the TEFRA Tax Act of 82'. What did it do?

1)Rescinded the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut from the previous year.
2)Schedule for accelerated appreciation deductions repealed
(This was precursor to the all out assault on middle class tax deductions to be scene in the upcoming new 1986' Tax Code which replaced the 1954' tax code)
3)10% withholding on dividends and interest paid to indivduals
4)Federal Unemployment Tax Act wage base was greatly increased
5)Excise Tax on Telephone service was tripled

Care to continue?

Mark my word, with US total debt public and private at $56 trillion dollars, we have no equity left in our house. If you raise taxes you risk taking the ability to service private debt. Not raise taxes and you risk losing the ability to service public debt. In chess, that's called CHECK and you only have one move to aviod checkmate!

The only way to save the King is by one of 2 methods. You can cut the above mentioned social programs and you'll have riot in the streets. this is also why Ron Paul would never cut them contary to chicken little myth! The other option is to look elsewhere and the most economic drain is the Occupation of Iraq. Notice I didn't say war because it really isn't. Cut that and yes you may have a vaccum where in all probability all out civil war between Sunni and Shia will breakout. This risks having Iran come in on the Shia side and the Sunni's of Saudia Arabia coming in on the Sunni side. Then the war esculates across the rest of the Middle East. What's caught in the middle of all of this? Our life blood, oil.

So, which way do we go? Go ahead, I spilled my guts about where I stand on all things political, economic, social, care to man up and join the fun?

Don't you just love Blowback!

BTW: All of you should watch the TV program on the History channel entitled, "Crude." An excellent program about the history of the oil bidness from it's start up till today. Goes into the geology of why there is such a rich oil field in Saudi (I found that very interesting) and where we even stand today on the amounts of oil going into the future. Worth the 2 hours to watch IMHO.

 

[ezmoney5150]

Who only make 30 grand? You are leaving off an awful lot of incentive pay, tax free money, separation pay, hostile fire pay, and imminent danger pay.How did this evil company get the Bosnia log pack contract? Was it because they knew their board member would become a VP? I do not have to imagine how these soldiers feel. Somehow I know how they feel.

So according to you they're rolling in the dough. My cousins husband left the military and went to a private contractor. Why??? Money. He figured that if I'm going to get shot at I might as well make some good money.

Unless you've been there you have no clue how they feel. I haven't been there and I would never begin to say I know how they feel. I'm just telling you what friends of mine who've come back from Iraq have told me.

 

[wkmac]

You underestimate the power of the federal government to tax. I somehow expected more of you.

BTW: If you think my scenario about foreign nutjobs buying us up is wacky, then why for one are US financial companies getting what is called "Sovereign loans" from foreign govt's and foreign interests to stay afloat because of the current economic crunch?

Why are those same foreign interests in the bond markets buying up our US bonds? Why would we even consider at one point letting China, a foreign sovereign gov't and interest come here and run our ports for us? Remember that?

Let the tipping scale tip far enough and you'll be figthing Al Qaeda with the same weapons as the Palesteinians use to fight the Israeli's in the streets.

Throwing Rocks because there's no money to buy bullets!

 

[ezmoney5150]

I figured about as much in regards to you being a liberal. Even if you were I'm cool with it. As to regulation, if you've read any of my past posts you will see I'm very anti-state, in some circles even anarchist which I'm sure spins some folks out of control. However I also have a realist POV and know there will be some aspect of gov't regulation no matter what but this is where I see regulation a bit different than yourself and maybe D if he doesn't mind me throwing him in here, gently of course.


You guys see regulation as keeping the snakeoil salesman at bay but do we still from time to time have snake oil salesman? Yeah we do sadly I might add. When they do appear, the hue and cry is for more regulation and maybe for a time all seems well and then they rear up again. In some cases, there are those who claim the regs. were relaxed and thus they came back but if one does some honest research that is not always true. The point is, there are always snakeoil salesman. Why? Because snake oil salesman are dishonest to begin with and profit best in a protected market. They are able to do so because of several factors. One and this is something we see quite often, they prosper because they control the legislative process that sets the regulations via lobbyist and other manipulative means.

I believe you once said something about working or doing something with a PAC which is a lobbying group and I'm not very high on that process but it is what it is IMO. Anyway, as they control the legislative process, they also in turn control the market access and by controlling market access (no free market in that case) they limit competition and they are more prone to take advantage and abuse the customer of their product or service. To make the point about lobbyist even further and how business abuses that process, Star Parker in a recent TownHall piece made the following point concerning the Bush years:



http://www.townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/2008/01/14/how_republicans_can_help_elect_a_democrat

When you compare the growth of lobbyist and the growth of gov't and then consider the numbers of events like the Enron's, etc. that you point out and then go through the gov't records that few people do to being with, you will clearly see the connections. I use to have similar beliefs in many ways as folks like Brett, Big Arrow and to some extent a bit like yourself which falls in line with some of the things Newt Gingrich proposes as contary to myth Newt also believes in a regulated market but maybe not like you normally think. He believes in taking markets created by gov't like say social security or even healthcare, privatizing them through gov't contract and then passing legislation that by law all must take part in. In other words, he sets the monopoly for a private concern and then further pushes the monopoly by mandating with law that you must take part of face some form of sanction or penalty. For lack of better words, liberals if you will do the same thing it's just they create the monopoly, mandate the participation and then keep it all for gov't and then further the process by making it a jobs program and hiring people into gov't. Ever heard the old saying "gov't solves nothing!" They can't because the job cuts and layoff would kill the economy. You want to know why gov't is growing even under republicans? Sure they are greedy for power just like the democrats but they can't stop the train because the private job market isn't strong enough to maintain the low level of unemployment that we have. You might say even unemployment is a false created market.

I know you believe the republicans are some aspect of free markets and the truth is they are far from it. All aspects of the economy from how much money is in it (Federal Reserve) how much are interest rates and what is the rate of inflation (Federal Reserve again) how much money stays out moving in the private sector (income taxation) and how far private wealth will build (income tax again) what a person's job is worth (minimum wage and other aspects of job regulation from OSHA to Labor Dept.) and then you have other economic policies that can effect everything from the price of oil to even the price of food as gov't doles out farm subsidies even for that. Even oil get fed. subsidies as this is a tax market for them in the way of fuel and oil excise taxes. Those markets get harmed and Uncle Sam feels it in the wallet! We don't have solar and wind cars because there is no means to drive an excise tax from it. They want a hydrogen economy because they can centralize and regulate the distribution and drive tax revenues from it to replace the ones they now get from oil. Why do you think we still don't have high mileage vehicles in the American market? Lightbulb going off yet anyone?

So you see it's not about having or not having a free market, it's about who sits in the chair of power to regulate it all and to how far and who on the private side will benefit. Look atthe corp. money that use to go heavily to repubs. now going to democrats. You think that's because their anti-Iraq and anti-Patriot Act? They read tea leaves and they want in position to be able to control the process if the ball goes the other way!

OK, in my utopian world that ain't gonna happen so don't freak out, there is no dept. of commerce, labor, OSHA, EPA, just pick one. All gone. Will it make things worse? My guess is yeah it will, maybe even much worse but then it will get better. Why? Because the monopoly standing that many large corporations have will fail because there is no law prohibiting the little guy from come up. Also the major national and international corp. use a central gov't as a cost effective tool to limit competition and with that gone they would now have to deal with 50 states or better yet, 1000's of local gov't and the cost to trump that market would be enormous. Would there be pockets of it? Sure. Would there be snakeoil salesman? Yeah but we have that now but the net effect would be that people instead of relying on gov't to watch out for them and still get taken would at the least start wiseing up themselves and less and less would get taken over time. Now for the snakeoil man to be legit, all he has to do is get a piece of paper saying US Gov't approved and we lemming fall in line and buy their stuff and never once question or ask to see proof the product works. In my world, people would have to say "Show Me" and most sankeoil men hate those words so much they would seem to be far removed.

Also local business in most respects would return to locals trading with locals and when I know where you live and you know where I live, there seems a lot more civility in those cases. Outsiders or carpetbaggers as we in the south call em' tend to get run out of town on a rail if they come in with snakeoil.

EZ, I think we both want the exact same thing but just see a different route on getting there. For the last 100 plus years the federal gov't has regulated more and more of our lives and what have we got for it? Our lives get worse and worse. We hear the cry that just a bit more gov't will fix the problem but down that road we go only a few years later to see the same results and the same cry of even more gov't. How far it too far? And to borrow a line from the democrats, "and the rich just get richer" in that system and now with gov't sudsidation, they are going global and exporting this crap called market domination! We're to stupid to realize we ain't winning nothing and that the debt having gone from $5 trillion to $9 plus trillion under Bush is a weight about the crush our own head and kill us if we don't wake up. All done via a gov't regulated economy and completely legal. I never said moral however.

We will in all probabilty go down your regulatory road for the coming years as we have been conditioned for such. We are like Pavlov's dogs in that respect and they know it. But a new awaking at least among the youth who are a crossbreed of traditional liberal and conservative alike. They are starting to understand the relationship of big, overbearing and empirical gov't of both parties and want nothing of that from either one. They are forging alliances of small limited federal gov't that is non-interventionalist (not isolationist as there is a big difference) and is also not compulsary or in other words, it's voluntary and moving what was once at the federal level down to the state and local level where they can watch closer and react quicker to make changes when things begin to not work. Even with my avid anti-state beliefs, I could easily and happily live in that world as a local community should have the right to ban abortions or even guns from their mist without any federal say so whatsoever. Can we only survive to get there?

That's where I'm at in all of this!

You're right I'm part of the IBT PAC. Its called D.R.I.V.E. I supporte it because corporate america spends millions of dollars to get people elected that don't believe in a middle class. I don't like how we (America) fund elections and have had differences with the IBT on candidates, but corporations will eliminate us if they can. You don't go to a gun fight with a knife.

 

[wkmac]

You're right I'm part of the IBT PAC. Its called D.R.I.V.E. I supporte it because corporate america spends millions of dollars to get people elected that don't believe in a middle class. I don't like how we (America) fund elections and have had differences with the IBT on candidates, but corporations will eliminate us if they can. You don't go to a gun fight with a knife.

I'm an anarchist, I go with a bomb!



OK! OK! Calm down folks, just having a bit of fun on myself.

Hey EZ,

more on the CEO pay than our discussion but while I got ya. Interesting Op-ed from a different perspective on the Countrywide Mortgage meltdown.

http://www.hyperinflation.net/essays/englund48.html

You know, when someone has a bad pest infestation, you can spray and spray and spray and you may kill em back but they still in time come back. The most sure way to avoid a repeat pest infestation is to remove the food source for the pest entirely! That's nature and dealing with people is no different IMO. But you have your way and I have mine and so far it's all your way so it's on you dude!

Get Er' Done and you know I'll be in the back waiting to say I told you so!


If you can make it happen more power to you, but historically speaking, not a lot of evidence on your side to prove it works. But Black Holes were once myth too!


c ya as I gotta go to work and repair those convey.....uh I mean write legal briefs to kill the union! Ignore that earlier part there EZ!

 

[av8torntn]

So according to you they're rolling in the dough. My cousins husband left the military and went to a private contractor. Why??? Money. He figured that if I'm going to get shot at I might as well make some good money.

Unless you've been there you have no clue how they feel. I haven't been there and I would never begin to say I know how they feel. I'm just telling you what friends of mine who've come back from Iraq have told me.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[av8torntn]

As to understanding taxes, the nature and the adminstration, let's just say you have no idea just how well I know about them and I'll leave it at that.


So, which way do we go? Go ahead, I spilled my guts about where I stand on all things political, economic, social, care to man up and join the fun?

Ok since you know them so well you know they will tax anything so no reason to play like they would not tax solar or wind energy.


Uh I unlike you have been clear where I stand.

 

[brett636]

I'm not a lemming liberal. I have a lot of liberal beliefs, like not everything in our economy can be market based without some sort of regulation to keep the snake oil salesmen (mortgage brokers on Wall St.) from screwing the economy up while making themselves rich.

Now I also have some conservative beliefs like guns. In Ohio we have concealed carry which I do support. I also hate illegal immigration.

I might sell you some great property about 2 miles north of Cleveland.

I hope you understand that those same democrats that you wish to regulate big business are just as willing to regulate you and your gun rights. Gun rights are a big issue for me as well, and that is probably the main reason why my conscience does not allow me to vote for most democrats.

 

[wkmac]

Ok since you know them so well you know they will tax anything so no reason to play like they would not tax solar or wind energy.

Well the gov't is more perplexed by this than you think. Since I was talking about oil and most of that at least in the minds of the masses goes to cars let's consider that for a moment. But one interesting point I learned wathing the program on History channel entitled Crude before going forward. According to the experts on this program, the average person uses 3 gallons of oil per day. 1 gal. if for transportation alone, 1 gal. is for transport of goods, foods, etc. and the last gal. is for products like plastic containers and related items like oil in fertilizers to grow food and to my surprise, oil in some foods themselves altough the chemistry is highly altered of course. But let's consider the first gallon alone.

There is already a tax crisis so to speak as it relates to fuel excise taxes and it's because of hybrids. Here is just one example from 2 years ago.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/eveningnews/main674120.shtml
The problem is the present system taxes per gallon used but obviously hybrids get better mileage so pay less tax per mile. In other posts I've suggested the reason we don't have encouragement from the gov't for super high mileage vehicles is the revenue consequences to them. After the bridge collaspe on Minn. (was it last year?) there were some hues and cries about money being diverted from the Highway Trust Fund to other gov't expenditures because of the massive red ink so this on top of a growing problem just makes worse.

Oregon looked at along with Cal-lee-forn-ya (Arnold's 51st state )
using as the article said on-board GPS which most vehicles now to a certain extent have. UPS' telematics program that you drivers will see more and more of over the never few years taps into this system that exists basically on all newer vehicles. Using RFID and other related technologies, you can see from the article what they are thinking. I know the civil libertarians will be concerned about the tracking aspect of the system but to the surprise of some, I like the system.

I like it because it would open the door for high mileage vehicles and there would no longer be the gov't sitting in the way to protect a revenue stream. It's a trade off obviously but that's how I see it any way. Now how does this relate to wind and solar?

Well directly it doesn't but the point is that it's not always as easy to tax as you may think. Sure they can tax anything, anytime but it also most be cost effective. UPS can deliever a package to the moon, sure we can but what would it cost to do so and what would be the return on investment? And thus it is with solar and wind.

Gas and even Hydrogen are mass produced products on large scale and thus their distribution would also be centralized and large scale. It's easy to piggyback those models with an excise tax to derive revenue. But solar and wind can be produced easily at the individual level, a car charged with the electricty generated and then discharged as you drive about. In that mix, where does the car plug into a centralized system to be taxed? That is the problem facing public policy wonks and thus the reason you see no large scale gov't backing of that kind of individual transportation model. I love internal combustion engines, in the 70's owned a Hertz Olds, a 68' Shelby GT500KR (I paid $2500 for that car) so I love big ripping engines but electric is the way to go IMO.

In principle, you are correct that the gov't can tax anything and I think we will both agree that they do a much better job than we would like for them too! However, in our Keynesian gov't planned economic model, the gov't looks hard at what are the economic advantages to tax policy and regulatory cost to them before they get behind an industry. For years they stood tooth and nail behind tobacco including mass subsidies to growers until those investments and returns got weighed against the cost to the gov't in healthcare and other losses across the economic stradum and then the tide turned. Cost drove this.

Same is true with greenhouse gases and it doesn't matter if you believe in global warming or not. So far the cost to change far outweigh the economic returns so until this model shifts, the gov't must protect it's revenue stream in order to provide for it's own survival. In the deep wonk circles the desire is to leave carbon based fuels behind unrelated to global warming but still on the burner. Another related to this desire is the amount of monies flowing to the Mideast and to fellas like Chavez to our south.

The problem is maintaining a centralized energy grid and there the easiest means of maintaining the revenue stream to the gov't as they just piggyback to revenue model. Want something or idea to take effect? Show the gov't they can tax it easier than the current model and drive as much if not more revenue from it and you'll spend a week in the Lincoln bedroom and the President himself or maybe herself after Nov. will even serve you breakfast in bed!
That's the key to any new idea. It's also the roadblock IMO to human innovations that make life better for all. When you have big gov't it must be paid for and thus it requires at some point for the gov't to regulate how things move and work within the economy to protect the gov't means of supporting itself. Small gov't which costs much less is less impacted by these evolutionary shifts in man's knowledge and technolgy and tends to stand less in the way of it's learning and progress forward IMO. Another major reason I'm for small gov't and rather anti-state.

BTW: You think those handout checks we'll all get later this year, whole and completely endorsed by both parties united, is about easing our pain? Nope! It's to ensure you don't go running away from their 2 parties and into the arms of a 3rd party or the even worse scenario of 80 to 90% of the voters stay home in the general election. Our electorial process is a peaceful revolution process and once that is gone or the people believe it so, there is only one option left to change gov't! That is the nightmare scenario they so fear!

Also, they didn't cut spending to pay for the handout but rather borrowed the money so enjoy those checks for the short time you have them because you'll pay it all back 3 to 4 times their face value in taxes to paydown the debt. Are we stupid or what!

The bottomline is companies like Halliburton, KBR and even companies unrelated to the war in Iraq understand how the system works and works it to it's bottomline. People get upset when some comment that companies like Halliburton, KBR, CACI or even Blackwater profit from war and conflict. Some scream, "oh you're just a liberal!" or some other nonsense. Well be an economist and investor for once and look at the financials of these companies and look at the trendlines for revenue and profit and when did they take marked upturn on the profit side? It's not liberal to point that out although some do so for political motive but the reality is, it's a cold hard cash fact!

Where I differ with them, say Deisel and EZ, although I think they have good hearted motives, large gov't attracts snakes because they see the ability to manipulate for easy profit. The funny part to me is folks like D and EZ unknowingly throw out the very seeds that attract the prey that the snakes feed off of and the more seed thrown down, the more prey come and the fatter the snakes get. Folks like you see the prey as pests and the snakes as a good thing. A cleanser it you will as to you the seed cost you money. No more prey and no more need to throw out seed. It's the perfect Hegelian dialectic and the synthesis is the gov't itself who grow fatter at the expense of both sides. Besides, once the little mice and birds are gone, the snake will need to eat something so why not it's master!

 

[wkmac]

I hope you understand that those same democrats that you wish to regulate big business are just as willing to regulate you and your gun rights. Gun rights are a big issue for me as well, and that is probably the main reason why my conscience does not allow me to vote for most democrats.

Hey Brett,

Look at legislation over the last 30 years relating to guns and it's obvious that more restrictions have taken place. In that timeframe also look at who was running Congress and who was in the WH. I'm no democrat party lover either but the Congressional record and the Federal Register point to a glaring fact that the democrats had lots of help and in many cases the democrats instead of being leaders were in fact followers!

It's real easy to blame the democrats as they publically say what they believe but don't for a minute take your eyes off the other party as then tend to keep there lips still while their actions are another matter!

Besides, did you ever once consider the fact that the NRA of which I was a life member until I resigned in the early 80's during the Neil Knox revolt wants some threat of gun control in order to maintain it's mission? (BTW I resigned because NRA refused to fight the regulation on what was called assault weapons and in fact their position was they should be regulated so before you demogog the democrats and this all during the Reagan years! Imagine that!)

The worse thing in the world for NRA for example would be a herd of libertarians gaining office and a Supreme court packed with them and the 2nd amendment becomes a non issue as gun pocession is completely seen as a right beyond the pale of gov't! What would the need be for NRA then? Interesting thought isn't it?

BTW: The 2nd amendment was really a States right issue and never really about the individual because under the organic constitution, the federal document didn't concern itself with the indiviudual state citizen as the federal govt's jurisdiction over that citizen was almost nile. It even had to go through the State itself to tax as there was no direct taxation until the 16th amendment which came after the 14th which established a federal citizenship. NRA knows this and are to chicken to dare argue the point in public! Also they won't attact the feds for over reaching under the commerce clause either which is the other way they regulate guns on the production, distribution and sale side. But this is another thread obviously.

 

[av8torntn]

Ok Wkmac since you did not like my proposed cuts from the republican budget let's try these from the democratic budget.

100 million for security at the political party convention.
600 million for drought relief for farmers.
1 billion in total drought relief
1.95 million for the Charles Rangle monument
1 million for a river walk in MA
200,000 for fruit fly research in France
20 million increase for NEA
3.7 million for AFL-CIO

Most of that was emergency spending to get around the pay go rules.

Also since the average civilian federal government employee made a little over 106,00 last year maybe we could freeze their salaries for a couple of years.

 

[wkmac]

Ok Wkmac since you did not like my proposed cuts from the republican budget let's try these from the democratic budget.

100 million for security at the political party convention.
600 million for drought relief for farmers.
1 billion in total drought relief
1.95 million for the Charles Rangle monument
1 million for a river walk in MA
200,000 for fruit fly research in France
20 million increase for NEA
3.7 million for AFL-CIO

Most of that was emergency spending to get around the pay go rules.

Also since the average civilian federal government employee made a little over 106,00 last year maybe we could freeze their salaries for a couple of years.

OK AV, I'm sorry but refresh me on your suggested cuts. I don't remember seeing them and maybe I'm a bit slow today but I can't find them in any of your post in this thread. Again, I'm in my 50's and do suffer from "sometimers" disease!


As for the democrat cuts, I'm good with that but why stop there as there is much more that could be done. As for the conventions, both parties should foot that bill all on their own and no via the taxpayer.

As for freezing gov't salaries, I like Ron Paul's idea of just cutting gov't back to it's size in 2000'. By doing this, the savings would be enough to end the income tax all together. No FairTax, No nothing. As for Social Security, Medicare and other welfare liabilites, Ron wants to obviously end the Iraq situation but also pullout all US troops in South Korea, Japan and Europe and also divest all related real estate holdings. Since we can't just end all these welfare plans, Ron would use the money and savings from these moves to fully fund all current commitments of these programs ie Social Security, Medicare, etc. and what they would get in the future which would then open the door to end the social security and medicare tax at the payroll level. All those who had been promised would get what they were suppose to and now allow the younger generation to move towards individual alternatives in the market itself.

Go to Youtube and watch Ron on Glenn Beck's show on CNN where he talked about such things. I know you will freak at the thought of bringing all the legions back home to the garrison in Rome but I think it's an outstanding idea and a great way to meet the needs of the promises made but end the programs tax mechanism in order to move towards a free market. And then that will freak others out as well but at least Ron is making way to actually fully fund and pay for these plans unlike the 2 sides now who have it on a wing and a prayer!

Sorry, but I gotta go. Gotta get back up at sunrise to head back to work. After the Preload goes down we gotta change out a conveyor belt. Oh boy and it's exciting too!

 

[wkmac]

Hey Brett,

And before I go hug a pillow, here's some more on Gun Control Republican style you might like. Then again, because it's your buddies maybe you won't!


A bit dated but still of interest

https://web.archive.org/web/2008020...ics/right_to_keep_and_bear_arms/ronshelp.html

Is it fair to say as a republican, "he who lives in glass house should never throw rocks!"

Don't ya hate it when that happens! Me too!

 

[wkmac]

SWEET DREAMS EVERYONE!

 

[brett636]

Hey Brett,

And before I go hug a pillow, here's some more on Gun Control Republican style you might like. Then again, because it's your buddies maybe you won't!


A bit dated but still of interest
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020...ics/right_to_keep_and_bear_arms/ronshelp.html

Is it fair to say as a republican, "he who lives in glass house should never throw rocks!"

Don't ya hate it when that happens! Me too!

There always have been, and always will be a few RINOS in the republican party. The major trend, especially on a national scale, has been democrats writing and supporting gun control legislation. The 1994 assault weapons ban was supported by a democratic congress, and signed into law by a democratic president. A lot of the most recent pushes in the federal government to enact stricter gun control has been by democrats, such as HR 1022. It was the democrats who were crying in Sept. 2004 when the original assault weapons ban expired. Sure President Bush said he would sign another if it were put before him, but the republican congress never put one forth. Case in point, look at the democratic presidential hopefuls, and you will find almost all of them support stricter gun control laws. Barak Obama supports a one gun a month limit, a ban on all assault rifles, and gun registration. Hitlary supports the same. Just because a republican happened to be in office when a gun control law passed does not mean the republicans are as anti-gun as their democratic rivals.

I live in a mostly conservative state which has been enjoying increasingly more leniant gun control laws. A bill to go before our legislation this year will allow concealed carry weapons on college campuses. Just last year Indiana passed a castle doctine bill allowing people to shoot first when they are threatened in their homes. Finally two years ago we were blessed with the lifetime concealed carry permit.

Historically its your more liberal states that enact stricter gun control measures such as Illinois, New York, and California. Its really not a matter of republican or democrat, but conservative and liberal ideals that best discerns which party is more anti-gun. It does not take a rocket sciencist to understand you have far more liberals in the democrat party than the republican party.

As far as your notion that the NRA manufactures opposition its actually quite ludicrous. The NRA is a non-profit organization so it has no real desire to secretly support gun legislation to oppose. Secondly, there are many more organizations that are anti gun, like gun control, inc., or the Brady campaign to prevent gun violence. Lets not get into international pressures to curb gun rights such as the works of IANSA or the UN in general for that matter. There is plenty of opposition to what the NRA strives for. No manufacturing opposition required.