Bailout Alternative???

[Joel Kaye]

Sad, very sad.

I'll just toss out that any of this kind of CRIME is something I'm totally opposed to.

It happens on both sides. Out here, where it's "conservative land" a friend of mine had his tires slashed for having a Kerry bumper sticker. The police told him there had been all kinds of vandalism against vehicles displaying support for Kerry.

I think the media is partially to blame because they think it's good for ratings to have a fight rather than reasonable discourse on policy. And then there's the whole use of fear in the campaigns. It is Sad, very sad.

 

[Joel Kaye]

I call BS on the TV. Only one channel would be even remotely conservative/republican--FoxNews. ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN are all to the left of the middle from my point of view. I also don't know what papers you are talking about. Pretty much every big paper I've read is liberal.

I've got a very good friend in the newsroom at NBC and I can promise you the executives are all General Electric friendly. Major defense contractor. NBC is CORPORATE. They aren't "left" in any way shape or form. Every news channel protects their advertisers. Their advertisers are multinationals. You literally can't watch the TV these days and get the "left".

All politics in America leans to the right of the political spectrum when compared to almost every other nation. There is no socialist TV channel or news. Speeches by Barry Goldwater or Dwight Eisenhower would be considered by many right wingers these days as "lefty".

Republican Ike was a flaming liberal apparently.
http://blueworksbetter.com/EisenhowerFlamingLiberal

If you want a true left wing alternative viewpoint try this:
http://www.motherjones.com/

They are private and do real journalism. Compare what they are talking about vs. what CNN is talking about.

And check out this:
http://www.thenation.com/

At least then you'll have an informed bellwether for the "left" vs. the corportate news. Also, please read "Into the Buzzsaw: The Myth of a Free Press". It shows how both right leaning and left leaning stories are killed if they oppose big corps or big gov't in a way the establishment doesn't like.

We're all better off turning the cable tv off.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Gee... they're nationalizing "bad" banks all over EU.

That should be something temporary, right?

I heard that some Dutch banks are being nationalized and they will be re-privatized when the storm is over.

Hmmm.

 

[Priyesh P.]

It seems the husband was worried about the former brother-in-law, a man who had THREATENED VIOLENCE toward his wife's family. Shame on him for trying to stop something terrible happening. He should have waited until someone was perhaps killed and then called 911.

So much about equality of citizens, or is it different in the U.S? Do politicians have special executive rights now? Sorry to hear.
BTW, she/they fired the trooper`s supervisor because he refused to fire the ex-brother in law as far as it`s reported - what kind of ultimately stupid and insanely childish behaviour is this ought to be? And what is the use of such an action?

 

[Matthew Rogers]

What do you all think about any company that has issued public stock not being allowed to donate money to a campaign or political party? Good idea or bad idea?

Matthew

 

[number6]

So much about equality of citizens, or is it different in the U.S? Do politicians have special executive rights now? Sorry to hear.
BTW, she/they fired the trooper`s supervisor because he refused to fire the ex-brother in law as far as it`s reported - what kind of ultimately stupid and insanely childish behaviour is this ought to be? And what is the use of such an action?

As Governor, she could fire the supervisor for ANY reason. It is within her State's assigned pouers to the Governor. It is the media who are assigning a reason for it. And even if that is correct, it is still her right to do so... she doesn't have to have a reason.

Kalone, do you sometimes choose to not associate with someone? Unless you are under some sort of contract requiring you to do so, do you feel it is o.k. for outsiders to decide if you did so because you could not work with or even stand that person and then condemn you for exercising your freedom of choice?

Over here, even politicians are considered citizens with rights, and human responses are tolerated if they do not involve moral turpitude. (Well, sometimes even that is overlooked )

 

[Joel Kaye]

What do you all think about any company that has issued public stock not being allowed to donate money to a campaign or political party? Good idea or bad idea?

Makes sense to me. I don't think Corporations should have the same rights as an individual voter when it comes to elections. I'm really not sure what they can give right now anyhow. So many loopholes have been set up that they can get around just about anything.

Personally, I'd take it a step further. No U.S. tax dollars should be spent on any company where less than 80% of the workforce are U.S. citizens (including the subcontractor's employees). Additionally, no executive of those companies can make make more than 30 times the wage of the average worker in total compensation. That's plenty of money. IE - no golden parachutes. I don't imagine there wouldn't be plenty of competition for big Gov't contracts with those rules in place because a lot of Americans will make a good wage. You could even add a total jobs created requirement. The U.S. Gov't should not be making billionaires. Leave that for the private free enterprise system.

These no bid contracts for friends of the current administration is a nightmare.

I'm all for reducing Gov't and taxes, but if we can't do that right away at least keep the money IN THE COUNTRY so it helps OUR economy.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Over here, even politicians are considered citizens with rights

They also have ethics codes which limit them further than you or I. They typically seek to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Unelected citizens have no such ethical code to consider.

The fact that it is not against the law for a politician to lie to the American public does not make it something we should encourage them to do (unless national security truly is being protected as a result).

Can Sarah go to jail? No. (not yet... apparently there could be criminal implications)
Can she be sued in civil court? Sure. The guy probably has a case now.
Can she be censured? Yes.
Will she be? Probably not, but it was a bunch of Republicans who brought this forward in the first place so ya never know.

 

[R Fogg]

Hey Number6 you gotta lay off what ever moonshine they drink down in west texas - I suppose if Palin asked the supervisor to stick a block of ice in his ass and light himself on fire and he refused that it would be within her powers as governor to fire the supervisor. And I suppose that any subsequent accusations of wrongdoing by the fired supervisor and the state government would merely be convenient cover for some sort of spiteful plot by the far left media.

Do I understand correctly?

Wow!

As Governor, she could fire the supervisor for ANY reason. It is within her State's assigned pouers to the Governor. It is the media who are assigning a reason for it. And even if that is correct, it is still her right to do so... she doesn't have to have a reason.

Kalone, do you sometimes choose to not associate with someone? Unless you are under some sort of contract requiring you to do so, do you feel it is o.k. for outsiders to decide if you did so because you could not work with or even stand that person and then condemn you for exercising your freedom of choice?

Over here, even politicians are considered citizens with rights, and human responses are tolerated if they do not involve moral turpitude. (Well, sometimes even that is overlooked )

 

[number6]

Hey Number6 you gotta lay off what ever moonshine they drink down in west texas - I suppose if Palin asked the supervisor to stick a block of ice in his ass and light himself on fire and he refused that it would be within her powers as governor to fire the supervisor. And I suppose that any subsequent accusations of wrongdoing by the fired supervisor and the state government would be convenient cover for some sort of spiteful plot by the far left media.

Do I understand correctly?

Wow!

The man serves at the pleasure of the Governor. If it please the Governor that he not serve, then he not serve. Let's not make a simple rule of government complicated.

Now, if she were a University president and a tenured professor ran naked through the campus, then no, she could not fire him or her.

 

[Matthew Rogers]

Makes sense to me. I don't think Corporations should have the same rights as an individual voter when it comes to elections. I'm really not sure what they can give right now anyhow. So many loopholes have been set up that they can get around just about anything.

However, I said companies that issue public stock. So you would say that no "company" (corporation, sub-s corp, llc, sole-proprietorship, and any others I missed) period should be able to donate money? I could agree on that.

Personally, I'd take it a step further. No U.S. tax dollars should be spent on any company where less than 80% of the workforce are U.S. citizens (including the subcontractor's employees).

You mean the government can't hire any company to do work for them? To be honest, I don't think it's the government's business on who I hire to make my product--as long as if it's here in the US that the workers can legally work here. I'm sure you are talking more about jobs that are being sent overseas than anything else. Why don't we make a better tax code that encourages companies to make stuff here than get it from overseas. But I don't think it's the government's job to tell me how to run my business. If they make it more attractive for me to hire workers here in the US than overseas, then I'd get workers here.

Additionally, no executive of those companies can make make more than 30 times the wage of the average worker in total compensation. That's plenty of money. IE - no golden parachutes. I don't imagine there wouldn't be plenty of competition for big Gov't contracts with those rules in place because a lot of Americans will make a good wage. You could even add a total jobs created requirement. The U.S. Gov't should not be making billionaires. Leave that for the private free enterprise system.

These no bid contracts for friends of the current administration is a nightmare.

I'm all for reducing Gov't and taxes, but if we can't do that right away at least keep the money IN THE COUNTRY so it helps OUR economy.

I really don't agree that we should tell companies the max that they can pay someone. However, I do believe that if you do go public, there should be more accountability to the stockholder than there currently is. The stockholders should have something to say about contracts given to these fraud committing CEO's. Let's remember that as much as they have run these companies into the ground, there were a group of people at the company to begin with that wrote the contract that gave them a "golden parachute." I would imagine that there will be more contracts written in the future that are "no performance=no pay."


The quickest way to get the economy moving is to reduce government spending and lower taxes (really, if you do the first the second should come naturally.) The other thing that will help is lower gas prices. Things around here have already started to pick up a little more now that gas is going under $3 a gallon.

 

[Joel Kaye]

You mean the government can't hire any company to do work for them? To be honest, I don't think it's the government's business on who I hire to make my product--as long as if it's here in the US that the workers can legally work here.

All I'm saying is I'd like to see our tax dollars end up in the hands of Americans. For instance, I've heard our Army boots are made in China. That's ludicrous to me.

However, I said companies that issue public stock. So you would say that no "company" (corporation, sub-s corp, llc, sole-proprietorship, and any others I missed) period should be able to donate money? I could agree on that.

Once a company is private I don't think it matters as much - though I do support the idea that money should not equal influence.

I really don't agree that we should tell companies the max that they can pay someone.

I'm not saying that. They can pay all the money in the world to one guy BUT don't expect a Gov't contract. What I totally oppose is the Gov't doling out billion dollar no bid contracts to companies run by their friends... and their friends take the lion's share of the loot and then hire Chinese workers for pennies to do the work. That can happen right now. Billions and Billions are missing in Iraq. Where did the money go?

Gas prices are impacted by market speculation and the value of the dollar mostly. Global demand has maybe a 20% impact.

I do agree lower taxes on most folks is good. Letting very wealthy people move all their money offshore has not helped. That's why trickle down economics never worked. That's why GPD and Productivity can go way up while at the exact same time the number of jobs lost goes up and the wages being earned by those left working goes down.

More jobs were outsourced this year than ever. It's a trend that will continue until the rules of business are changed.

To me the logical answer is a massive drive to create alternative energy. The money we spent on the Iraq war or this crazy bailout could have done that. Let's put Americans to work with the goal of reducing transportation expenses (which impacts everything) as well as reduce imports from countries that aren't our friends. It took the Gov't to get us into Space. It's going to take something like that for energy.

 

[Matthew Rogers]

To me the logical answer is a massive drive to create alternative energy. The money we spent on the Iraq war or this crazy bailout could have done that. Let's put Americans to work with the goal of reducing transportation expenses (which impacts everything) as well as reduce imports from countries that aren't our friends. It took the Gov't to get us into Space. It's going to take something like that for energy.

I'd like to know how much money we've spent on the war actually has stayed in the US through wages paid and items bought that were made in the US.

Matthew

 

[Joel Kaye]

I'd like to know how much money we've spent on the war actually has stayed in the US through wages paid and items bought that were made in the US.

Me too. That giant credit card charge SHOULD have boosted our economy. But I don't see much evidence it did.

That's what irks me. You know when you go out and buy a bunch of stuff on a credit card? You feel rich because you've got all this stuff. Well under Bush we've been credit card spending like crazy... we should feel rich as a nation right now. But instead we've got a 700 billion bailout on TOP of the fortune we already borrowed from China to attack Iraq? That money goes somewhere. Where the hell is it? Did the oil companies sell us the gas for the tanks? They've got giant profits. And a few defense contractors. And almost no one else.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

All I'm saying is I'd like to see our tax dollars end up in the hands of Americans. For instance, I've heard our Army boots are made in China. That's ludicrous to me.

I have a pair of tactical SWAT boots -- designed and sold by an American compnay, but actually made in China. They're a common brand that is approved for use both by the US Army and by many police forces around the nation. I also have some desert combat style paratrooper boots, approved for use by the Marines and Air Force and are actually quite common issue. They're made in Mexico.

We could go on and on... There are many standardized pieces of gear in use by our armed forces that come from all over the world. Not a new deal here.

What I totally oppose is the Gov't doling out billion dollar no bid contracts to companies run by their friends... and their friends take the lion's share of the loot and then hire Chinese workers for pennies to do the work. That can happen right now. Billions and Billions are missing in Iraq. Where did the money go?

Yep. Shouldn't even be legal. Haliburton, and the various ties there, are often the most criticized these days for such contractual arrangements. But they're not the only ones taking place on the federal level, let alone everything that goes on in more localized governments.

Gas prices are impacted by market speculation and the value of the dollar mostly. Global demand has maybe a 20% impact.

Yep again. Oil is a commodity, traded just as any other commodity. OPEC and a few other smaller agencies have a say in production volumes to some extent, but prices are pretty well set by commodity brokers and speculation on an open exchange. If perceived demand and supply ratios don't look favorable, prices go up. The massive growth in China, India and elsewhere, combined with continued war and unrest in the middle east as well as concerns over what supply actually remains has driven oil prices to insane new heights. Recent announcements of new drilling possibilities and statements to ease concerns over current supplies have helped over the past several weeks, but I think fluctuating prices between $3~$5 on a gallon of gas will be the norm for the next few years. After that, it's anyones' guess as to what will happen.

I do agree lower taxes on most folks is good. Letting very wealthy people move all their money offshore has not helped. That's why trickle down economics never worked. That's why GPD and Productivity can go way up while at the exact same time the number of jobs lost goes up and the wages being earned by those left working goes down.

Yep. However, we have to consider why money gets moved out of the country -- because of lower tax implications and alternative or more attractive investment products. This is the problem with "taxing the rich". The wealthiest 10% in this country already pay nearly 90% of the collected tax basis. In addition to the ever increasing taxes on the high end, there also needs to be alternatives and new ways to invest in the form of guaranteed products -- T-bills, bonds, tax free products, etc.. There has to be better incentives to keep the money here in this country.

More jobs were outsourced this year than ever. It's a trend that will continue until the rules of business are changed.

To some extent, sure. But I think that there will always be outsourcing of some nature. We live in a global economy with a global market for all goods and services. If a company is multi-national in nature, at what point do we consider any of their operations to be out-sourcing? Even if all out-sourcing were completely abolished by law, there will always be those who find a way to do it, or will simply set up new companies in foreign countries to do the work and then simply import what they need. I don't think that out-sourcing can be stopped, nor do I think it should be. What I think we need is real incentives to keep and create jobs here. And they need to be good incentives, not just measily little tax breaks that sound good to the general public, while not meaning much to a large company. Tax breaks can be part of this solution, but not the only part. It's also time to accept that certain jobs are just not going to be practical within our borders anymore... And as the rest of the world catches up in terms of labor costs and living standards, outsourcing will slow down. But technology also advances and at some point soon we are going to start seeing more professions replaced once again by machines or robots -- just as assembly line work forces have downsized in favor of machines over the past 30 years. Current technology should permit the production of robots that are far more advanced than what we see demonstrated today. Leaders on the forefront of robotics development, such as Honda, are actually quite conservative and even afraid to move beyond current designs. They are unsure of what impact it could have on our global labor forces.

To me the logical answer is a massive drive to create alternative energy. The money we spent on the Iraq war or this crazy bailout could have done that. Let's put Americans to work with the goal of reducing transportation expenses (which impacts everything) as well as reduce imports from countries that aren't our friends. It took the Gov't to get us into Space. It's going to take something like that for energy.

Exactly. I agree with all that, but I also feel that much of our current alternative energy plans are very misguided. Wind power is a pipe dream and should just be forgotten, it's erratic in nature and cannot be depended upon. Nuclear power could very well be the type of power that saves the world, but not in its current form. We need smaller, safer, cleaner nuclear facilities that don't present themselves as terrorist targets or environmental concerns. This is a huge area, ripe for the creation of new jobs and technological R&D. Geothermal power is a good source to tap, but is very geographically isolated to specific regions. We need to harness that energy in places where it's available. Natural gas is one we don't take near enough advantage of, even though it's pretty much standard fare to have gas or LP at any residence these days. Some of our biggest and most renewable gas sources remain untapped, including many landfills and flood basins. Fossil fuels will still play a role for the foreseeable future... There currently is no answer for replacing diesel and jet fuels for large trucks, heavy equipment and aircraft. Jet fuels can be replaced with liquid oxygen and methane or various forms of peroxide fuels. Essentially the trendy new fuels for spacecraft. But these are inefficient to produce and offer little gain over high grade diesel (jet fuel). Further drilling for oil or mining of coal would just be stop-gap measures. Eventually the world will run out, no matter what. But unfortunately, we can't quit cold-turkey with these operations. Tangible alternatives must be put into action first. There has been promising developments just recently with genetically modified bacteria, similar to E-Coli, that actually produce forms of ethanol as a digestive byproduct. This could be a real promising area of research and if properly harnessed, could provide a way to meet the nation's gasoline needs without pumping a drop of oil out of the ground. Imagine if every waste-treatment plant produced 1 gallon of ethanol fuel for every 500 gallons of sewer water cycled through the system. Holy schnikies, can you say mucho gasoline surplus? Keep in mind that actual ethanal or gasoline yield from a 55-gallon barrel of oil is approximately 3.1 gallons.

 

[Steven M. Bailey]

Keep in mind that actual ethanal or gasoline yield from a 55-gallon barrel of oil is approximately 3.1 gallons.

Actually a barrel of oil is about 42 gallons and produces about 19.5 gallons of gas

 

[Joel Kaye]

There currently is no answer for replacing diesel

Pretty sure the first diesel engines were designed to run off of hemp oil. We could make growing that legal. People could turn their backyards into hemp oil gardens and generate their own fuel.

We need a full frontal attack on energy. I don't think we know fully what will and won't work because the big breakthroughs are still out in front of us. Solar actually does work now. Where I live every house should have solar panels. Wind is working in Holland. It provides 20% of the nations power. Geothermal, tides, nuclear etc.

We should become an energy nation.

As to robotics... 30 years ago writers were imagining a future world where there would be a 20 hour work week and far more leisure time for all citizens. Instead what we've seen is more people out of work and the wealthiest people owning a much larger percentage of the wealth. They have benefited massively from higher productivity. It didn't trickle down to 20 hour work weeks but it COULD have. We could be living in that world. But instead we've got this meme going on that a world like that would be a world of lazy people on the dole.

It's time to reimagine our entire way of life and make it better.

 

[Priyesh P.]

All I'm saying is I'd like to see our tax dollars end up in the hands of Americans. For instance, I've heard our Army boots are made in China. That's ludicrous to me.

You`ll keep to this thinking as long as it doesn`t turn into reality. As soon as it does prices are likely to shoot upwards and then you`ll start protesting about exploding taxes.

 

[Joel Kaye]

You`ll keep to this thinking as long as it doesn`t turn into reality. As soon as it does prices are likely to shoot upwards and then you`ll start protesting about exploding taxes.

Right now too many people don't have jobs. Keeping American tax dollars inside America puts workers back to work. Without a strong labor market everything else fails.

Doesn't matter if shoes are $2 a pair from China if too many people here are bankrupt with no hope for good work. We're heading there because we aren't creating jobs. That has to be "job one".

I'm convinced people have been living on credit and the income from refinanced homes for the past 6 years because the labor market has been weak for years. It's finally caught up with us.

 

[Priyesh P.]

As Governor, she could fire the supervisor for ANY reason. It is within her State's assigned pouers to the Governor. It is the media who are assigning a reason for it. And even if that is correct, it is still her right to do so... she doesn't have to have a reason.

Kalone, do you sometimes choose to not associate with someone? Unless you are under some sort of contract requiring you to do so, do you feel it is o.k. for outsiders to decide if you did so because you could not work with or even stand that person and then condemn you for exercising your freedom of choice?

You`re drifting off-topic - in the beginning it was about protecting the familiy from the brother in law, which, in my definition is duty of the police (or you`re just opening the gates for all types of self justice - politicians are role models and should act accordingly, otherwise people will ask themselves how they can bend reality in order to justify wrong behaviour, too).

But now you`re justifying a useless action.

To answer your question. Of course I would not like to work with someone I don`t want to associate with, but I did and still do if he or she has great skills - and I always try to stay objective and challenge my own decisions - but there`s a difference - I`m not in service of the public. If I was, I have to put my personal views aside regardless of personal issues, I`m serving the country, in a wider sense. Let`s for example say I`m racist and fire the brilliant afro-american or indian or corean supervisor and instead choose a white person who is less skilled or less experienced. This action may be legally right, but does it serve the community better which elected me? I bet it does, as long as he is republican...or Sarah Palin :spidy: