|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Announcement :: Civil & Human Rights : Economy : Education : Elections & Legislation : Environment : Gender and Sexuality : Globalization : Health : Housing : International Relations : Iraq : Labor : Political-Economy : Protest Activity |
|
Join The Million Worker March |
Current rating: 0 |
by Deirdre Darnall
Email: deirdredarnall (nospam) hotmail.com (verified) |
03 Aug 2004
Modified: 01:14:51 PM |
|
It's time for working people to march on Washington, and make our own demands. |
This is a very important message regarding the Million Worker March.
Organizing committees have already mobilized support for the march on the west and east coasts. I am a member of the committee responsible for mobilizing folks in the midwest, specifically downstate Illinois. My contact info is: deirdredarnall (at) hotmail.com, (217) 384-2906. You may also find more information about the march on this website: www.millionworkermarch.org.
The march is October 17 so we need to act now in order to make this a successful event.
Below is the list of demands initiated by the Executive Board of International Longshoremen and Warehouse Union.
"The central reason for organizing the march is the systematic outsourcing of our jobs to areas of the world where workers can be exploited even more ruthlessly.
The destruction of labor is the culmination of longstanding policies reflecting decades of actions heightened during the Reagan years and enacted by all administrations.
This is a call to working people to unite and to mobilize around our own agenda. For the past decade we have been subject to an unrestrained corporate assault.
This is the moment, this is the time for us to advance our own demands, our own needs and to proclaim a political agenda in our own vital interests.
We shall hold all elected and other officials accountable to a working people's agenda, no matter what people's expectations may be of our national elections." Clarence Thomas, Executive Board of ILWU, Local 10.
THE LIST OF DEMANDS ON BEHALF OF WORKING PEOPLE
1. Universal single-care health care form cradle to grave that ends the stranglehold of greedy insurance companies and secures health care as a right of all people in America
2. A national living wage that lifts people permanently out of poverty
3. Protection and enhancement of Social Security immune to privatization
4. Guaranteed pensions that sustain a decent life for all working people
5. The Cancellation of all corporate free trade agreements including NAFTA, MAI and FTAA
6. An end to privatization, contracting out, and deregulation and the pitting of workers against each other across national boundaries
7. Amnesty for all undocumented immigrants
8. For workers' right to organize and for a repeal of Taft Hartley and all anti-labor legislation
9. Funding public education in a crash program to restore our decaying and abandoned schools with state of the art facilities in every community.
10. Funding a vast army of teachers to end functional illiteracy in America and unleash the talent and potential of our abandoned children and adults
11. Launching a national training program in skills and capacities that will enlist our people in rebuilding our country and putting an end to both the criminalization of poverty and the prison-industrial complex
12. Rebuilding our inner cities with modern, clean affordable housing and eliminating homelessness in America with guaranteed housing and jobs for all
13. Progressive taxation that increases taxation on corporations and the rich while providing relief for the working class and poor
14. An end to the poisoning of the atmosphere, soil, water, and food supply with a national emergency program to restore the environment, and end global warming and preserve our endangered eco-systems
15. Creating free and efficient modern mass transit for every city and town
16. End the U.S. war in Iraq
17. Bring the troops home now
18. End the U.S. occupation of Iraq now
19. End all additional funding of the war
20. Repeal the Patriot Act, Anti-Terrorism Act and all such regressive legislation
21. Slash the military budget and recover the trillions of dollars stolen from our labor to enrich the corporations that profit from war
22. Open the books on the secret budgets of the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies in the service of corporations and banks and the pursuit of imperial war on the poor everywhere
23. Extend democracy ot our economic structure so that ll decisions affecting the lives of our citizens are make by working people who produce all value through their labor
24. An aggressive enforcement of all civil rights and a nationaL education campaign and mobilization against all racist and discriminatory acts in the workplace and in our communities
25. For a democratic media that allow labor and all voices to be heard and oppose monopolization and union busting of media workers
"ONLY OUR OWN INDEPENDENT MOBILIZATION OF WORKING PEOPLE ACROSS AMERICA CAN OPEN THE WAY TO ADDRESSING OUR NEEDS AND OUR AGENDA.
JOIN US, BROTHERS AND SISTERS, IN AN HISTORIC MOVEMENT TO RESTORE OUR DEMOCRACY, SECURE POWER FOR THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF WORKING PEOPLE AND RESTORE AMERICA." Clarence Thomas
Thank you for taking the time to read this message. I hope these demands have appealed to you enough to take action by joining the Million Worker March. Only in solidarity can we accomplish change. |
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Aug 2004
|
That's quite a list! And after all those demands are enacted, do you really think that America still exists?
1. Universal single-care health care form cradle to grave that ends the stranglehold of greedy insurance companies and secures health care as a right of all people in America
How exactly, without taxing all Americans at over half their entire income, will we pay for cradle to grave unlimited healthcare, and the huge government bueaucracy it would take to try to manage it?
2. A national living wage that lifts people permanently out of poverty
If you institute a minimum wage that truly took everyone out of the "poverty level", the vast majority of businesses that employ people would simply go out of business. Far, far, less available jobs than there are now, and there aren't enough as we speak. So, how does that help the problem?
3. Protection and enhancement of Social Security immune to privatization
Some say that privatization of SS will be the only thing that SAVES it so that it exists at all. Obviously, the government has been running it for some time, and it is in BIG trouble...so, just maybe it is a bad idea to leave it the way it is?
4. Guaranteed pensions that sustain a decent life for all working people
Since you have already put most job supplying companies out of business with a huge minimum wage hikes, where do you expect all the pensions to come from? Show me the money.
5. The Cancellation of all corporate free trade agreements including NAFTA, MAI and FTAA
Turning the United States into a protectionist society then. Ok, and how long do you believe that we can feed off ourselves and sustain an economy like that?
6. An end to privatization, contracting out, and deregulation and the pitting of workers against each other across national boundaries
I don't understand exactly what that means...but it sounds like some form of NAFTA.
7. Amnesty for all undocumented immigrants
There is a plan! We already don't have enough jobs, and after we put most businesses under with the huge minimum wage hike purposed, we will have even less. Who exactly is going to employ all these people?
8. For workers' right to organize and for a repeal of Taft Hartley and all anti-labor legislation
Make unions strong again. Might as well, there won't be any businesses hardly left to employ anyone, but for those fortunate few who have jobs, they will need serious protection from the millions of jobless who would be willing to do their jobs for what the minimun wage is now.
9. Funding public education in a crash program to restore our decaying and abandoned schools with state of the art facilities in every community."
Again, with what money? As it is now, the latest statistics say that we spend, on average, $10,000 per student per year. In the 50's that number was way below $1000 and virtually everyone that graduated could even read. Wonder how they did that?
10. Funding a vast army of teachers to end functional illiteracy in America and unleash the talent and potential of our abandoned children and adults
Ditto.
11. Launching a national training program in skills and capacities that will enlist our people in rebuilding our country and putting an end to both the criminalization of poverty and the prison-industrial complex
What are all these people going to do exactly? What exact "skills" will they need trained for? Where will they work?
12. Rebuilding our inner cities with modern, clean affordable housing and eliminating homelessness in America with guaranteed housing and jobs for all
We have done a part of that already. And in many places, the nice new modern "affordable housing" turns right back into slums again. Not everywhere, but in many places. It may not be the fault of those living there, since without creating jobs for them in some magical fashion, they have little income for maintaining their property. But since you have already destroyed most of their chances at jobs with other demands, how will this work and where will this money come from and who exactly will guarantee the jobs?
13. Progressive taxation that increases taxation on corporations and the rich while providing relief for the working class and poor
Some of that's already happening too. Tax rates in this Nation are already to the point where some businesses are moving away just so they can stay viable. Who ya gonna tax next? Hey, I know, how about we tax the heck out of people who never really earned any of their money, but got it handed to them for nothing by marriage or inheritance...starting with Teresa Kerry and Teddy Kennedy and including most of the liberal democrat elite. That way. people who actually worked for a living and built their fortunes on their own intelligence and hard work could keep theirs. Of course, with far fewer corporations due to previous demands, you are gonna need a LOT of money.
14. An end to the poisoning of the atmosphere, soil, water, and food supply with a national emergency program to restore the environment, and end global warming and preserve our endangered eco-systems
Uh oh, more anti business proposals disguised as "earth love". That will mean even more out of business companies and more unemployed people. Now you have decimated probably 3/4 of American workers existing jobs. Now what?
15. Creating free and efficient modern mass transit for every city and town
Nothing is "free". Who is going to pay for it? And actually, since the vast majority of people no longer have jobs to go to, who needs mass transit?
16. End the U.S. war in Iraq
Abandon the 50 million people that America has liberated and given their only chance in their lifetime for some form of Freedom. That's not very nice. Even if you believe it was a mistake to go there, you surely cannot think that just leaving is any recourse?
17. Bring the troops home now
How about you ask them...by all accounts, most of them feel that they started a job there, and they intend to finish it. And, what do you purpose they do here at home? Jooin the huge unemployment lines that have been created by all the previous demands?
18. End the U.S. occupation of Iraq now
Last I heard, we were there at the bequest of the current governing council.
19. End all additional funding of the war
Same thing...abandoning some 50 million people to the whims of evil terrorists, and forcing untold numbers of women back into Islamic slavery. That's not very feminist of you.
20. Repeal the Patriot Act, Anti-Terrorism Act and all such regressive legislation
Might as well, as America comes to a grinding halt due to the previous demands, the terrorists won't care about destroying America anymore, it will be destroying itself.
21. Slash the military budget and recover the trillions of dollars stolen from our labor to enrich the corporations that profit from war
Good plan...then as we are destroying ourselves, some foreign Country can move in and conquer us and make us all slaves. Actually, they'd have no way to feed most people, so they would just kill off most people here, and make slaves of the rest.
22. Open the books on the secret budgets of the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies in the service of corporations and banks and the pursuit of imperial war on the poor everywhere
If you enact 22, you won't need the Pentagon or Intelligence agencies. They won't need books, just a place to bury bodies.
23. Extend democracy ot our economic structure so that ll decisions affecting the lives of our citizens are make by working people who produce all value through their labor
I don't know what that means either...sounds a Republic where government officials are elected to represent the people...I thought we had that already. Oh well, won't matter, slaves don't need a government.
24. An aggressive enforcement of all civil rights and a nationaL education campaign and mobilization against all racist and discriminatory acts in the workplace and in our communities
There won't be any workplaces, just slave labor camps. And the foreign governments operating them won't care what color the slaves are.
25. For a democratic media that allow labor and all voices to be heard and oppose monopolization and union busting of media workers
No voices will be heard, because America no longer exists. It will be just a place where Chinese or North Koreans have slaves operating factories. They will control the airwaves, and we will be dead, or worse.
Seriously, I cannot believe this is serious, but I cannot wait to see what Democrats align themselves with this agenda. Kerry? He will be nowhere near this even though he probably agrees with most of it, because it would spell certain death at the polls for him. |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by Mark A. Morenz
mmorenz (nospam) ameritech.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
04 Aug 2004
|
OK. Time to shoot some fish in a barrel...
That's quite a list! And after all those demands are enacted, do you really think that America still exists?
(Universal Health Care) How exactly, without taxing all Americans at over half their entire income, will we pay for cradle to grave unlimited healthcare, and the huge government bueaucracy it would take to try to manage it?
Common sense can tell you that there is less bureacracy with a single payer plan than the current system. In '96 Canada's taxes as a % of GDP was 46%. The U.S.'s was 35%. I can live with that for something this fundamental.
(Living Wage) If you institute a minimum wage that truly took everyone out of the "poverty level", the vast majority of businesses that employ people would simply go out of business. Far, far, less available jobs than there are now, and there aren't enough as we speak. So, how does that help the problem?
There's a happy medium here. Index it to inflation. That way at least the number of working poor wouldn't increase every year. If the min. wage had been indexed to inflation since my birth, min. wage would be about $10/hr which is enough to scrape by on. $6/hr isn't.
(Soc. Sec.) Some say that privatization of SS will be the only thing that SAVES it so that it exists at all. Obviously, the government has been running it for some time, and it is in BIG trouble...so, just maybe it is a bad idea to leave it the way it is?
Social Security isn't in trouble. What has happened is that revenues from SS have been used for other things in fed budget over the decades. However you want to make up for this, privatizing isn't the answer. If SS had been privatized from '49 to '64 (when the stock market made no gains) we'd have had another depression by now. SS can't be "secure" if you privatize.
(pensions) Since you have already put most job supplying companies out of business with a huge minimum wage hikes, where do you expect all the pensions to come from? Show me the money.
We could start by taxing corporations for what they make. You and I pay more in income taxes each year than Microsoft. How screwed up is that? When corporations start paying their fair share, then I'll let you pull the "there's no money" nonsense.
(Free Trade) Turning the United States into a protectionist society then. Ok, and how long do you believe that we can feed off ourselves and sustain an economy like that?
We already are a proctectionist society. Go on discuss amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic: "Free Trade" is neither "free" nor "trade". Discuss.
(WTO) I don't understand exactly what that means...but it sounds like some form of NAFTA.
MNC's and international trade governing bodies are exactly the kind of "one world order" super-sovereign, don't have to answer to any nation's laws, types of orgs that right-wing nutjobs have been fearing for years. Instaed of black helicopters, we got free trade agreements.
(Illegal immigrant amnesty) There is a plan! We already don't have enough jobs, and after we put most businesses under with the huge minimum wage hike purposed, we will have even less. Who exactly is going to employ all these people?
Actually, I agree with you on this one. Laws are laws. Change the laws? fine. But amnesty is silly.
(Unions) Make unions strong again. Might as well, there won't be any businesses hardly left to employ anyone, but for those fortunate few who have jobs, they will need serious protection from the millions of jobless who would be willing to do their jobs for what the minimun wage is now.
Unions are an important protection against a return to the robber barron and great depression days of corporate supremacy. Unions aren't perfect, but it's about checks and balances.
(Education) Again, with what money? As it is now, the latest statistics say that we spend, on average, $10,000 per student per year. In the 50's that number was way below $1000 and virtually everyone that graduated could even read. Wonder how they did that?
Again. I'm with you on this one. Not because I think we don't spend enough or because we don't have the money (again. tax the corporations) but because our education system actually does a pretty nice job of balancing things out considering the incredible amount of inequality in society. I just with education was more of a priority in general. Kudos to Blagojevich for forcing the state to not cut education funding.
Launching a national training program in Public Service Works) What are all these people going to do exactly? What exact "skills" will they need trained for? Where will they work?
See New Deal era programs. They worked once. They can work again.
(Urban renewal) We have done a part of that already. And in many places, the nice new modern "affordable housing" turns right back into slums again. Not everywhere, but in many places. It may not be the fault of those living there, since without creating jobs for them in some magical fashion, they have little income for maintaining their property. But since you have already destroyed most of their chances at jobs with other demands, how will this work and where will this money come from and who exactly will guarantee the jobs?
You make a good point in mentioning the interconnectedness of it all. But with a real devotion to education and job creation, you have a more moral program than just blaming the victim and putting them in jail.
(Progressive Taxation) Some of that's already happening too. Tax rates in this Nation are already to the point where some businesses are moving away just so they can stay viable. Who ya gonna tax next? Hey, I know, how about we tax the heck out of people who never really earned any of their money, but got it handed to them for nothing by marriage or inheritance...starting with Teresa Kerry and Teddy Kennedy and including most of the liberal democrat elite. That way. people who actually worked for a living and built their fortunes on their own intelligence and hard work could keep theirs. Of course, with far fewer corporations due to previous demands, you are gonna need a LOT of money.
I'm with you. Inheritance taxes should be the highest rate of all. The only thing is you were being sarcastic. I am not.
(environment) Uh oh, more anti business proposals disguised as "earth love". That will mean even more out of business companies and more unemployed people. Now you have decimated probably 3/4 of American workers existing jobs. Now what?
Environmentalism doesn't necessarily equate to losing jobs. But you have to care to even have a discussion about it and get beyond whining and accusations, don't you?
(mass transit) Nothing is "free". Who is going to pay for it? And actually, since the vast majority of people no longer have jobs to go to, who needs mass transit?
Well, somebody's got to give people a way to get to the latest christian coalition/promise-keeper/nra/moral majority/married cousins get in half-price monster-truck rally, don't they?
(Iraq War) Abandon the 50 million people that America has liberated and given their only chance in their lifetime for some form of Freedom. That's not very nice. Even if you believe it was a mistake to go there, you surely cannot think that just leaving is any recourse?
You're obviously using a different defintion of the word "liberated" than the rest of us use. Support our troops and bring them home. No one should die for Team Chimpy's lies.
(Bring troops home) Last I heard, we were there at the bequest of the current governing council.
Ha Ha Ha! Have I told you about this bridge I have for sale??
(Patriot Act) Might as well, as America comes to a grinding halt due to the previous demands, the terrorists won't care about destroying America anymore, it will be destroying itself.
Some of us like our original constitution and not the gestapo state that Team Chimpy wants to put in place. It's just a matter of opinion I guess.
(Slash military budge) Good plan...then as we are destroying ourselves, some foreign Country can move in and conquer us and make us all slaves. Actually, they'd have no way to feed most people, so they would just kill off most people here, and make slaves of the rest.
You mean, like Grenada???!!! Yee-ipes!
(Open the Black Box budget) If you enact 22, you won't need the Pentagon or Intelligence agencies. They won't need books, just a place to bury bodies.
Would that be one at a time or in mass graves?
(Promote democratic institutions) I don't know what that means either...sounds a Republic where government officials are elected to represent the people...I thought we had that already. Oh well, won't matter, slaves don't need a government.
Yeah, this one was a bit vague.
(Civil rights litigations) There won't be any workplaces, just slave labor camps. And the foreign governments operating them won't care what color the slaves are.
Wow. You're really into the whole slave labor camps idea aren't you? Are you sure you can't stretch your imagination and try to envision something else happening if liberals get their way? The last time liberals got there way, let's see, that would be the American Revolution. Worked out okay at the time...
(Media Reform) No voices will be heard, because America no longer exists. It will be just a place where Chinese or North Koreans have slaves operating factories. They will control the airwaves, and we will be dead, or worse.
By "worse" you mean, that we'd all have only Fox News to watch?
Well, It's been fun. Be well.
:-{)] |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Aug 2004
|
Mark,
>"Common sense can tell you..."
That's the problem with "common sense", it so "common".
>"...that there is less bureacracy with a single payer plan than the current system."
In private industry, you'd have apoint. But when the U.S. government gets involved, it is always overinflated to the point of bursting with red tape and stupidity and worse, usually filled with equal opportunity employees who muck up the whole thing because they have no idea what they are doing and don't give a hoot.
>"In '96 Canada's taxes as a % of GDP was 46%. The U.S.'s was 35%. I can live with that for something this fundamental."
And VERY "fundamental" it would too. If you are looking at the Canadian sytem for ideas for America, you are just pissing in the wind. Americans would NEVER stand for the kind of mess that Canada calls "healthcare", and most American's would not stand for the tax rate necessary to support it. And as the sytem grew and got more and more bloated with bureaucracy, the cost would spiral to the moon. This whole idea was beaten to death way back when Hillarycare was being discussed, and just talking about it was the kiss of death for her being a public "first lady".
>"There's a happy medium here. Index it to inflation. That way at least the number of working poor wouldn't increase every year. If the min. wage had been indexed to inflation since my birth, min. wage would be about $10/hr which is enough to scrape by on. $6/hr isn't."
You think anyone with a family can "live" on $10 an hour??? Get real. But more important would be the number of small business that would go out of business(thus loosing their employment capabilities and their corporate tax input) and the the huge cost increases that other businesses that did survive would have to pass along to the consumer in order to stay in business to pay the higher wages. How much are you willing to pay for a Big Mac?
>"Social Security isn't in trouble...."
Wow, you better tell the Democrats that, they have been scaring old people for years telling them that it is. But, on the other side, the last statistics clearly show the problem...
After 2018, Social Security will start paying out more money in benefits than it takes in in payroll taxes — so the program will have to start cashing in its Treasury bonds to pay full benefits. Those bonds will total $5 trillion. The only way to pay for them will be to raise taxes — right as today's youngsters start hitting their earnings stride.
By 2042, the Social Security trust fund will be completely tapped out, with no bonds left to cash in. Current law bars Social Security benefits from exceeding revenues, so at that point — when this year's college graduates are just entering their 60s — retirement checks would have to be slashed by more than one quarter.
So, you had better hope and pray for a miracle.
>"We could start by taxing corporations for what they make."
If you don't think that most corporations pay serious taxes, then you should work for some of them and find out.
>"You and I pay more in income taxes each year than Microsoft. How screwed up is that?"
Not exactly true. Apparently in 99 they paid little or no federal tax. But corporations generally pay 35% tax on their income...the catch is that money they pay out in salaries to employees is deductible from that "income". And, because giving stock options to employees results in taxable income the government gets to tax from the employees, corporations like MS get to deduct that taxable employee income from their corporate income too. The idea though is that because corporations are who make all the jobs(not the govenrment), we keep them healthy in order to receive taxes from those who work for them. If you tax the heck out of corporations, they will need to find ways to cut costs in order to satisfy their investors, which usually means cutting workers and salaries and pensions. On the other hand, if they don't cut those things, and piss off the investors, then they withdraw their money and the company goes belly up and then there are no jobs for anyone.
>"When corporations start paying their fair share..."
When YOU start employing hundreds and thousands of people, then maybe you will qualify for tax breaks like that also. In the meantime, rest assured that taking money away from corporations WILL result in lost jobs, lower wages, increasingly higher medial coverage payments employees will be forced to pay, and decreasing pensions.
>"We already are a proctectionist society. Go on discuss amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic: "Free Trade" is neither "free" nor "trade". Discuss."
It is a recognized fact by economists that trade protection hurts the economy. But I understand that what you meant by it was the idea to protect American jobs by forcing foreign products to compete in our economy at equal prices. It sounds like a good idea on the surface, but Americans would ultimately revolt as the prices for all consumer goods began rising through the roof.
>"MNC's and international trade governing bodies are exactly the kind of "one world order" super-sovereign, don't have to answer to any nation's laws, types of orgs that right-wing nutjobs have been fearing for years. Instaed of black helicopters, we got free trade agreements.
Sounds like a conspiracy!
>"Actually, I agree with you on this one. Laws are laws. Change the laws? fine. But amnesty is silly."
I guess the problem is, how to have compasion on the families of illegals who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in America and on the wrong end of immigration. And, you can't blame them for coming here...we would probably do the same thing if we were in their place. It's a tough issue, which is probably why virtually none of the elected in this country are really willing to touch it.
>"Unions are an important protection against a return to the robber barron and great depression days of corporate supremacy. Unions aren't perfect, but it's about checks and balances."
A necesary evil in other words. To some extent, I agree.
>"Again. I'm with you on this one. Not because I think we don't spend enough or because we don't have the money (again. tax the corporations) but because our education system actually does a pretty nice job of balancing things out considering the incredible amount of inequality in society. I just with education was more of a priority in general. Kudos to Blagojevich for forcing the state to not cut education funding."
The term "education" is a buzzword for the democrat machine. The problem is, when they say it, they are not usually talking about better schools and equipment for students, they are usually talking about paying off the people that support them and who helped place them in power. The teachers organizations are one powerful bunch of lobbyists, and "education" is about them, not students.
>"See New Deal era programs. They worked once. They can work again."
Those programs worked(to an extent) because they were right for the times. America is still the land of opportunity. There is little excuse for not getting a good education here. But again, the government cannot just create a bunch of jobs for everyone, because all of their money is really our money, and they must take more and more of it in order to "do" anything.
>"You make a good point in mentioning the interconnectedness of it all. But with a real devotion to education and job creation, you have a more moral program than just blaming the victim and putting them in jail."
I didn't realize that you were talking about criminals too. We know some of why the jails are full, it's because a person in those areas can either get a minimum paying job and work and barely live off it, or he can sell drugs and make a weeks worth of pay every day. They get caught, locked up, and someone takes their place, and on and on and on. And raising minimum wage to $10 and hour isn't going to do squat to change it either. But choosing to break the law is really a moral problem, not a economic one, at least for the vast majority of people. But again, you bring up education and job creation. And there is no excuse for not getting a good education, and even if the government created all kinds of jobs, they could not support and sustain them without raising taxes...that are too high already by most peoples opinions...even higher.
>"I'm with you. Inheritance taxes should be the highest rate of all. The only thing is you were being sarcastic. I am not."
I am all for getting away from regressive taxations totally, either let's try a flat tax, or go all out and abolish the IRS totally. What do we have to loose, what we have now suks, we all can probably agree to that, and if it fails miserably, we can always go back to the loser we have now.
>"Environmentalism doesn't necessarily equate to losing jobs. But you have to care to even have a discussion about it and get beyond whining and accusations, don't you?"
Touche' But don't take it as "I don't care". I think the environment is important, and really don't want a bunch of people mucking up the land and the water and the air any more than the next guy. But like any good thing, when you take it to an extreme, it feeds on itself and becomes bad. When it encroaches on peoples liberty, it becomes bad. When it becomes, at its heart, a "control the common people" thing, it is bad.
>"Well, somebody's got to give people a way to get to the latest christian coalition/promise-keeper/nra/moral majority/married cousins get in half-price monster-truck rally, don't they?"
That's what they make taxicabs for!
>"You're obviously using a different defintion of the word "liberated" than the rest of us use. Support our troops and bring them home. No one should die for Team Chimpy's lies."
People who die fighting for their Nation die for their Nation. But I think people are missing the real "big picture" that Bush had in mind when he made the decision. History shows us that power vacuums in the Islamic world always result in repressive Muslim societies where people basically eat dirt, kill others, and spend their entire lives dreaming about the 10 virgins waiting for them. These societies are breading grounds for the kinds of people who will, and make no mistake, they WILL, come here to kill you. The only possibility of taking out Saddam, and Iraq just becoming an extension of Iran, or worse, was to try to do what we are doing now. I don't know if it will succeed, and neither does anyone else, but the alternative gets much, much, worse for our children and their children. Now there was one other alternative, nuke Bagdad and let the chips fall where they may. But to do nothing...like the U.N. was doing...what do you think would have happened then?
>"Ha Ha Ha! Have I told you about this bridge I have for sale??"
Again, if we leave now, Iraq becomes another Iran, and a huge training camp for people who are everntually going to come here and kill anyone they can. And if you don't believe it, you don't know history very well.
>"Some of us like our original constitution and not the gestapo state that Team Chimpy wants to put in place. It's just a matter of opinion I guess."
I LOVE the Constitution! In fact, my idea of real America is where the Constitution is held in the exact same "regard" by government officials as the Bible is to preachers. No legislating from the liberal Bench by judges, that's history. Nothing enacted upon the people until the writings of the founders are studied at length to determine exactly what their ideal for that subject would have been. Of course, liberals would HATE it totally for certain. And that's ok, they could move on to some other Country and muck it up...just more jobs and opportunity for the rest of us that way.
>"You mean, like Grenada???!!! Yee-ipes!"
No, I mean like the people in this world with evil intent. It is true, the ONLY good defense IS a strong offense...stronger than those who would move to take advantage of you and the land you live in. History is clear, the strong survive and the weak don't. We don't want to be a weak America.
>"Would that be one at a time or in mass graves?"
That'd be mass murder...just like what is going on now that the U.N. is impotent to do anything about. Yea, the U.N., THAT's the people that will protect us...
>"Wow. You're really into the whole slave labor camps idea aren't you? Are you sure you can't stretch your imagination and try to envision something else happening if liberals get their way?"
I don't know, I am so confused at this point in time about what liberals "want" or even stand for, I have no idea and I don't think they do either. I think they want POWER, and it seems that when they get it, they really have no idea what to do with it anyway...so, who knows.
>"The last time liberals got there way, let's see, that would be the American Revolution. Worked out okay at the time..."
Frankly, I am afraid that the real liberal minds I know are control freaks. They "think" they know "better" for everyone and place themselves on a pedestal and admire themselves. I think they would have been on the wrong side...as long as they were the people in power and were able to tell everyone else what to do and what to think, life would have been fine with them. At least most radicals are not cowards at heart, and they don't decide to believe in something just because it is what will get them votes, or because it is the latest "thing" to believe in. I don't usually agree with them, but I can respect their style.
>"By "worse" you mean, that we'd all have only Fox News to watch?"
Wouldn't that be a sorry sack of suds for a lot of people. We all know that Fox News is nothing but the flip side of CNN and friends. I think it's a good thing for people to have a choice though, don't you? If someone likes the Networks, then they should watch them, if they like CNN or Fox, more power to them. That's part of what makes America great...liberty. But human nature being what it is, do you see any way that journalists on either side of the political spectrum are going to be able to be totally unbiased? |
|
Whoa, That Was Close |
by not surprised, but still disgusted
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Aug 2004
|
NRA4 wrote:
"...equal opportunity employees who muck up the whole thing because they have no idea what they are doing and don't give a hoot."
Without seeing you donning a white hood before you type, that is about as close to an outright racist statement as I've seen you make. I guess we can pretty much figure out where you're coming from. |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Aug 2004
|
Perhaps I have just run into too many of these people and am jaded by the experience. It wasn't meant as "racist" at all, it was meant to apply to anyone who is "given" a free job based on what they "are" rather than what they are able to do and having no real idea what they are supposed to do or how they are supposed to do it, and who really could not care less one way or the other enough to find out. If you deal much with government agencies, you will eventually understand.
And no, not everyone who gets these jobs doesn't care, many are willing to do their best to learn...many are not.
Otherwise, no offense intended. |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Aug 2004
|
>"...that is about as close to an outright racist statement as I've seen you make."
You know what, on second thought, you may have a point. Even though it was not intended that way, it should not have been said, and maybe a rethinking of attitude is in order.
And although it was "qualified" by adding "people who don't know what they are doing and don't give a hoot", which is what was meant, that is no excuse. I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing it out. |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by Mark A. Morenz
mmorenz (nospam) ameritech.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
05 Aug 2004
|
Your opinions are...interesting, but I’ll leave those alone. I’ll just follow-up where your statements are factually incorrect:
The Social Security system runs with administrative costs around 1-3%. That’s far less than just about any private sector industry that you could name and it’s certainly less than the insurance industry (which is 14%, if you’re curious). If you really wanted to expose waste in government, you could start with the military…
A single-payer system was never discussed as part of Hillary’s healthcare commission. The powers that be are too entrenched to allow it to even be discussed as an option in our media, although the majority of Americans (and Canadians) are for it, when polled.
Despite what politicians on both sides say, there is no Social Security crisis. While it is true that the “trust fund” (which is neither a trust nor a fund, but I’ll let that slide) will be exhausted sometime before 2050, that doesn’t mean there won’t be any income. Over the next 75 years, the expected shortfall can be offset by a 2% increase in taxes. Compare that with the 3% increase that would be needed by a transition to the privatization plan backed by the right-wing of the most recent SS Advisory commission. [All of these stats and analysis are from socsec.org, BTW.] Privatization isn’t about anything except making the rich investment class richer at the expense of the poor and middle-class. Which actually is a pretty good description of the entire Republican platform, actually… :-)
You can bet, NR, that whenever you’re start a sentence “But I understand that what you meant…” you’ve missed my point. In fact, all administrations since Reagan's (but especially his) instituted dramatic protectionist policies (especially in high-tech and key manufacturing sectors) in our country. We did this because the pacific rim was kicking our ass when the playing field was level. GATT secretariat economist Patrick Low, for example, estimated that Reagan’s protectionism was on an order of about 3X greater than any other industrialized country. Dwayne Andreas, former CEO of ADM, said: "There's not one grain of anything in the world that is sold in the free market. The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians."
You say: “But choosing to break the law is really a moral problem, not a economic one, at least for the vast majority of people.” Our founding fathers were law breakers. The men and women who died in order to make sure we had a 40-hour work week were law breakers. I think history disagrees with your statement. To paraphrase my favorite southerner, it’s (always) the economy, s*****d.
And while we’re on the subject of economy—go back and check how much job growth we’ve had in the last eight years of Republican Presidents. Both parties are bought and paid for, but Republicans like to give the money directly back to their wealthy backers as tax breaks, which are irresponsible and invariably tank our economy with regards to most folks—while Democrats tend to try to give it back by creating a better economy, the “rising tide lifts all boats” scenario.
And neither party will allow any real discussion of ideas that would dramatically benefit most folks lives (like reducing the military industrial complex in favor of U.S. infrastructure, universal health care, etc.) because that’s just a little too empowering and upsetting for the status quo. It’s about as simple as that.
Be well.
:-{)] |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Aug 2004
|
Mark,
>"The Social Security system runs with administrative costs around 1-3%. That’s far less than just about any private sector industry that you could name and it’s certainly less than the insurance industry (which is 14%, if you’re curious)."
We can probably both scour the net and find statistical numbers to back up both our points of views, there are plenty of conflicting statistics out there. I agree that SS is probably somewhere between 1.5 and 3 percent or about $10 per person. This is a little deceiving though since the costs of the IRS money collection system used is not figured into the stats. I also don't agree that you can fairly compare privatized SS with standard private insurance company costs though either. But even so, administrative costs are not the end all judge on what would or would not be good for SS anyway. The return on investments in private sector investment and trading far exceeds the returns on standard SS money, especially historically speaking, so even if the costs to administrate it were truly higher, theoretically, the fund would still grow at an increased rate over what projections show for it now.
>"If you really wanted to expose waste in government, you could start with the military…"
You know what, I disregard any and all attacks on the military. The U.S. military is the ONLY thing keeping you from being either dead, or someone elses slave. And it is the ONLY real reason that America even exists as a sovereign Country at this time. Since the military is what it takes for America to be free and Americans to be safe from attack in this world, whatever they need, they get in my book.
>"A single-payer system was never discussed as part of Hillary’s healthcare commission. The powers that be are too entrenched to allow it to even be discussed as an option in our media, although the majority of Americans (and Canadians) are for it, when polled.
Americans are so often so poorly informed about subjects like this, polling them without making certain that they know the facts isa waste of time. Many Americans rely on sound bites they hear from the news media. If they half ass listen to fox, they will think one thing, if they half ass listen to anything else, the will think the opposite. And either way they really don't know the facts they need to really know probbaly.
>"Despite what politicians on both sides say, there is no Social Security crisis. While it is true that the “trust fund” (which is neither a trust nor a fund, but I’ll let that slide) will be exhausted sometime before 2050, that doesn’t mean there won’t be any income. Over the next 75 years, the expected shortfall can be offset by a 2% increase in taxes. Compare that with the 3% increase that would be needed by a transition to the privatization plan backed by the right-wing of the most recent SS Advisory commission. [All of these stats and analysis are from socsec.org, BTW.] Privatization isn’t about anything except making the rich investment class richer at the expense of the poor and middle-class. Which actually is a pretty good description of the entire Republican platform, actually… :-)"
"Lies, damn lies, and then statistics". The fact is, we just don't really know the truth in the end till it happens. But, we know what we have now is a problem, so what is wrong with trying something else...worst case is we revert back to what we have now if it is a loser.
>"You can bet, NR, that whenever you’re start a sentence “But I understand that what you meant…” you’ve missed my point. In fact, all administrations since Reagan's (but especially his) instituted dramatic protectionist policies (especially in high-tech and key manufacturing sectors) in our country. We did this because the pacific rim was kicking our ass when the playing field was level. GATT secretariat economist Patrick Low, for example, estimated that Reagan’s protectionism was on an order of about 3X greater than any other industrialized country. Dwayne Andreas, former CEO of ADM, said: "There's not one grain of anything in the world that is sold in the free market. The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians."
Politics and reason are strange bed fellows. They will never come to an agreement, and politics has lots of people that need paid off, so, the whole discussion is flawed from the start. Many here might argue that protectionists policies, in the short term anyway, helps us at the expense of the rest of the world, and they would be against it for that reason anyway.
">You say: “But choosing to break the law is really a moral problem, not a economic one, at least for the vast majority of people.” Our founding fathers were law breakers. The men and women who died in order to make sure we had a 40-hour work week were law breakers. I think history disagrees with your statement."
No, our founding fathers were not drug dealers and bank robbers. They did not assult and rob people. Your analagy doesn't hold water.
>"To paraphrase my favorite southerner, it’s (always) the economy, s*****d."
When it comes to many voters, you are probably correct.
>"And while we’re on the subject of economy—go back and check how much job growth we’ve had in the last eight years of Republican Presidents. Both parties are bought and paid for..."
I think job numbers are coming out this week, let's wait and see what they say.
>"...but Republicans like to give the money directly back to their wealthy backers as tax breaks, which are irresponsible and invariably tank our economy with regards to most folks"
That's a broad paint brush you are using there. I'd agree that republicans favor business. And that's because they realize that it is only businesses that are able to create the kind of jobs necessary to keep the Country going. If business is strong, there are lots of jobs and lots of workers and lots of taxes being collected from them.
>"—while Democrats tend to try to give it back by creating a better economy, the “rising tide lifts all boats” scenario."
That pure BS. The Democrats, traditionally, are the biggest pay backers to special interests that exist. Democrats don't give a hoot about the economy, they care about taxing anything that moves because spending money is what they believe they are elected to do, so they need lots of it.
>"And neither party will allow any real discussion of ideas that would dramatically benefit most folks lives..."
Some truth to that, but...
>"(like reducing the military industrial complex in favor of U.S. infrastructure, universal health care, etc.)"
Again, decimate the military and we are all dead, period. We won't NEED "infrastructure" and "healthcare".
>"It’s about as simple as that."
That's the real problem NONE of it is "simple"! |
|
Military and Social Security, etc: You're Wrong |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Aug 2004
|
Re the military and should they get everything they ask for, let's just look at the contradiction in definitions:
need: necessity; a condition in which there is a deficiency of something.
waste: to use up or spend without need, profit, or proper return; squander.
It is illogical and contradictory to argue that you're for what the military needs, while at the same time paying no attention to what they waste. You can keep your blinders on, but it only makes you look stupid.
Re Social Security:
How on Earth can you claim there's a problem when it'll be 45 years or more before the problem becomes apparent? Unless you have a crystal ball, come back in 2045 and start wringing your hands.
For those wishing some solid information on Social Security, instead of NRA4's lame rhetoric, try:
http://www.cepr.net/Social_Security/
Besides, NRA4, you yourself said, "politics has lots of people that need paid off..."
And exactly who do you think are pushing the idea of privatizing Social Security? Wall Street financiers and others who will benefit directly and greatly from privatization of Social Security. All the supposed gains that you claim for private investment are likely to be eaten up by commissions. And you avoid mentioning the risks of an increasingly unstable monetary system that will likely see the US fading from its central place in the world economy due to our debtor nation status. Of course, if we let the Bushies occupy most of the world in the meantime, this little fly in the ointment could be solved by wiping out our creditors, even after he's run-up the national credit cards in the name of imperialism.
Finally...
NRA4 wrote: "republicans favor business..." _AND_ "Democrats, traditionally, are the biggest pay backers to special interests..."
Apparently, you don't consider business a "special interest" but I can assure you, the rest of us do.
Most of the rest of your comments are simply not worth the time for any thoughtful person to reply to. You are either ignorant of history or simply ignore its lessons when it is inconvenient to your argument. |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Aug 2004
|
Dose,
>"It is illogical and contradictory to argue that you're for what the military needs, while at the same time paying no attention to what they waste."
All government entities waste. Anything that is run by a government is filled with waste. the question is, who determines what is necessity and what is waste. Unless you can come up with specific examples of military waste to discuss, you are only talking in generalities and it is meaningless. And, the government has been trying to get a handle on the waste for a long time...remember the $200 toilet seat?
>"You can keep your blinders on, but it only makes you look stupid."
That was the real crux of this article, that only someone with blinders on could possibly not realize that to enact even a portion of the proposed demands would bankrupt the nation regardless of how high taxes are. The American people believe they are taxed too highly as it is, without doing any of these things.
>"How on Earth can you claim there's a problem when it'll be 45 years or more before the problem becomes apparent? Unless you have a crystal ball, come back in 2045 and start wringing your hands."
Since I don't count on SS for my future, the whole argument means little to me. The democrats are the people who have been using the argument to scare old folks for decades, maybe you need to talk to them.
>"For those wishing some solid information on Social Security, instead of NRA4's lame rhetoric, try: http://www.cepr.net/Social_Security/
I gave statistics, not "rhetoric". If you truly believe that SS will be there waiting for you when you get to the age to get it, then fine, don't worry about it!
>"Besides, NRA4, you yourself said, "politics has lots of people that need paid off..."
That's a no brainer.
>"And exactly who do you think are pushing the idea of privatizing Social Security? Wall Street financiers and others who will benefit directly and greatly from privatization of Social Security. All the supposed gains that you claim for private investment are likely to be eaten up by commissions. And you avoid mentioning the risks of an increasingly unstable monetary system that will likely see the US fading from its central place in the world economy due to our debtor nation status."
When the U.S. "fades", the end is near. Chaos cannot be far behind. Of course there will be people who will benefit from privatizing SS, that's how business works. It REALLY is all about money you know...you DO realize this, right?
>"Of course, if we let the Bushies occupy most of the world in the meantime, this little fly in the ointment could be solved by wiping out our creditors, even after he's run-up the national credit cards in the name of imperialism.
That's just more crazy talk.
>"Apparently, you don't consider business a "special interest" but I can assure you, the rest of us do."
Take away all business, and what do you have? We go back to trading each other for things we grow and make ourselves. The government comes in a dismal and far away second compared to what business does for America. You may hate it, for whatever weird reason, but without it, America is doomed.
>"Most of the rest of your comments are simply not worth the time for any thoughtful person to reply to. You are either ignorant of history or simply ignore its lessons when it is inconvenient to your argument."
Same old, same old. You people have a real tough time making conversation without calling people names and trying to make yourselves think you are superior intellects some how...are you SURE you are not a closet liberal democrat trying to fool people into thinking you are a green or progressive? |
|
U.S. Employment Growth Surprisingly Weak in July |
by AP
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Aug 2004
|
WASHINGTON (AP) --The nation's payroll growth slowed dramatically in July with a paltry 32,000 jobs being added-- a potentially troubling sign that the rough patch the economy hit in June was no aberration.
The unemployment rate, however, dipped down a notch to 5.5 percent last month, from 5.6 percent in June, the Labor Department reported Friday. The new jobless rate was the lowest since October 2001.
The payrolls figure and the unemployment rate can sometimes go in different directions because they are derived from two separate statistical surveys.
Economists, however, look more closely at the payroll figure as a better barometer of the health of the jobs market. The 32,000 net jobs added in July represented the smallest gain in hiring since December and followed a revised gain of just 78,000 in June, even less than previously reported. May's payrolls also were revised down to show a gain of 208,000.
``Employers got cold feet,'' said economist Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics. ``Employers just don't have the confidence in the economy that we need to sustain the kind of economic growth that we've seen.''
Soaring energy costs, which have hit companies bottom lines', also may have played a factor in businesses being more cautious in their hiring, economists said.
The unemployment rate is calculated based on a survey of around 60,000 households -- a sort of poll -- in which people are asked to state whether they have jobs or are looking for work. The seasonally adjusted civilian unemployment rate thus is the percentage of the labor force represented by those who are either listed as officially unemployed or searching for work.
The survey used to calculate the payroll figure is based on information from about 160,000 businesses and government agencies, covering roughly 400,000 individual worksites.
Analysts were expecting the economy to add anywhere from 215,000 to 247,000 jobs in July. They were predicting the jobless rate to hold steady at 5.6 percent.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, appearing before Congress last month, said that the economy hit a ``soft patch'' in June. But he expressed confidence that it would be short-lived.
President Bush and his Democratic rival, John Kerry, joust frequently over the health of the economy and the availability of jobs -- prominent issues in the presidential campaign. Kerry says Bush's economic policies aren't working and squeeze the middle class. Bush insists his tax cuts have helped the economy rebound and that making those tax cuts permanent will spur more job creation. He's counting on that to help him win another four-year term in November.
Since Bush took office in January 2001, the economy has lost a net 1.1 million jobs.
While the economic recovery is on a solid path, the labor market recovery has been spotty.
Greenspan, in his appearance before Congress last month, noted that businesses have not completely abandoned their cautionary stance toward hiring.
Still, with the job situation uneven, Federal Reserve policy-makers have leeway to raise short-term interest rates gradually to head off any inflation problems, economists said. The Fed meets next week; economists continue to expect policy-makers to boost rates by one-quarter percentage point. On June 30, the Fed increased interest rates for the first time in four years, raising a key rate to 1.25 percent from a 46-year low of 1 percent. |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by me
meme (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
06 Aug 2004
|
|
hey, I'm encouraged by this debate -- it's relatively civil and intelligent. i actually learned a few things. i encourage you not to hide posts unless they are racist or extremely rude |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by JK
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Aug 2004
|
I must say that this is one of the few "debates"/dialogues that I have enjoyed reading, largely because the two opponents actually directly addressed many of the other's main points. Unfortunately, that rarely occurs on this site, for all its merits. I have found that out all too clearly.
I must add simply that anyone who thinks that NRA4Freedom actually "won" this exchange must have his or her head examined, and often. People ought to find it disturbing that NRA4 framed so many of his/her responses with concerns and fears over whether America would still exist if the demands listed above were enacted. Additionally, there was an appalling lack of detail, data, and overall substance in NRA4's answers, leaving NRA4 wide open for Mark's detailed and often accurate points.
KO in 3. Watch for the replay on "Showtime" later this month... |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Aug 2004
|
JK, you may be right. I guess it simply comes from one's political perspective as to who the winner of the debate was. Tell you what, let's see how many of these demands actually get implemented in the next few years and see who wins.
Jack |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by JK
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Aug 2004
|
Ah, Jack Ryan:
Responding to your "challenge" of what the long-term success of this list will be, I think that there is a broader point toward which the ILWU and its supporters is striving. They are pushing the discourse of politics to the left progressive wing, in all likelihood not simply because they want to see these demands enacted but also, and in the short and long-term, to change the style and substance of the debates on these issues; that is, those that have been on the political radar in the last half-century. Perceptive observers will note that this is exactly what the right-wing of the GOP did, in earnest in grass-roots movements from the 1950s onward, but certainly with a good head start from the business community, dominated by large corporations, after WW2. By no means was the radical right wing's agenda part of mainstream national political discourse in the 1950s or 1960s, yet that changed for a myriad of reasons, in my opinion for the worse.
Let's also remember that change takes time, certainly more than a "few years," as the right-wing found out decades ago. That seems to be the overarching purpose of the ILWU demands, so any notion that one can declare victory on the status or progress of these demands simply over "the next few years" is inaccurate at best. Considering the current political climate, one would do well to remember that it is extremely unlikely that these demands will be decided on their merits, as it were. |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by JAL
tootsie1 (nospam) monticello.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
09 Aug 2004
|
I find this entire discussion very interesting. My take on the demand list is not the denigration of America, but the elevation of the workers. We all need some respect and acknowledgement - even NRA4.
I find it extremely interesting that everyone agrees that the government is the center of the issue, while never admiting that in fact, we are the government. (Theoretically) I also think it is fairly useless to try and determine what the founding fathers intended when their ideas and philosophies were shaped by a small, agrarian, slave labor society rather than a miltiary industrial complex economy. Even Jefferson had his doubts about the ability of a laisse faire capitalistic economy to support a democratic political doctrine forever. I'm beginning to think he was well founded in those doubts.
It's also interesting to me that everyone has their own statistics to support their side of the issue and they all think they are right. Who's facts are really facts? Does anybody really know what time it is?
I have always tried to judge the state of the economy by the types of commercials we see on television. Lately I've seen a lot of commercials for bankruptcy lawyers, litigation and personal injury lawyers, credit counseling, magic diets pills and miracle fitness programs. That is of course, in addition to the usual you need to buy this or you might die ads that have always been with us.
But, these ads say to me that Americans are still looking for the quick fix, fast acting plan that will make us all rich and give us everything we want. There are a lot of people out there who are living the large life in big houses with $100,000 landscape jobs and $500,000 cars. Conversely, there are lots of people living on the streets with no food and no place to sleep. The people in the middle (the workers) are rapidly becoming fewer in number, in large part due to loss of jobs, no pay raises, runaway inflation and overpopulation. I am waiting to find out what happens when the Haves who austentaciously flaunt the fact that they can have whatever they WANT come face to face with the have-nots who cannot even get their basic NEEDS met.
I think it will be even more interesting when the Have-Nots realize that their votes count just as much as the Haves and they suddenly become the majority. Does anyone know how to spell Bolshevik, boys and girls?
I just hope they can find a leader who truly wants to serve them and the country and not his or her own selfish interests. I haven't seen one yet.
PS I would like to ask NRA4 if he/she still needs a gun since we have such a strong military looking out for us? |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Aug 2004
|
JAL,
So you are saying, shoot for the moon, and hope for the best.
And no one "needs" a gun unless they want one. It is their right to have it, regardless of who is or who is not "protecting" them, as long as they do not use it for illegal means.
Of course, with the so called "assault weapons ban" in place, your little pea shooter isn't going to be of much use against a Type 81 or even an old AK47, or whatever else the foreign insurgents that attack you are using at the time. But that's a whole other thing. |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Aug 2004
|
Dear JAL,
You said: I find it extremely interesting that everyone agrees that the government is the center of the issue. I must respectively disagree with you here. I believe that your proposed to solutions to the problems that plaque us are, indeed, inflamed by government intervention. Not totally mind you, but where we differ is that you and your brethren think that government is the solution for all of our ills. I, on the otherhand, think that government causes more problems than it solves.
Case in point, The Great Society and all of its' progressive solutions (3 Trillion Dollars with the War on Poverty) not only did not eliminate it, it made it worse.
Social Security stole the purchasing and investment power of all Americans in exchange for a retirement plan that if they are lucky will keep than at the poverty line. That same money invested over a lifetime in the most secure of investments will yield 5 times what they could expect to receive from the benefits. Now I am not for dissolving Social Security. I merely ask that we raise the retirement age to reflect a longer life span and allow people the "right to choose" to invest a small amount of their hard earned dollars in traditionally safe investements. If you believe in freedom and if this program is to remain viable, these solutions can and must be done.
Your demands advocate cutting the military
budget to pay for your demands. Do you realize that we spend more on education than we do to defend our nation? This at a time when, like it or not, we have enemies who would send their children at us with a back pack loaded with bombs. Not to mention that the overwhelming majority of students today could not for the life of them tell you who our first three Presidents were. How about demanding more accountability from our teachers and the parents who send them to these "politically correct institutions.
In any case, the overwhelming majority of Americans would never support your demands as solutions to the problems we face. They know that government only needs to get out of the way and unleash the power of the individual and their drive to succeed.
In short, Government is not the solution to our problems, it is source of our current discomfort.
Respectfully,
Jack |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by Mark A. Morenz
mmorenz (nospam) ameritech.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
10 Aug 2004
|
Again, I will only correct factual errors.
>>>>>Case in point, The Great Society and all of its' progressive solutions (3 Trillion Dollars with the War on Poverty) not only did not eliminate it, it made it worse.
Actually, the poverty rate has remained fairly consistent for the past thirty years. Although it has dropped considerably for minorities. You really need to get your information from something other than the latest episode of 'Cops'...
>>>>>Social Security stole the purchasing and investment power of all Americans in exchange for a retirement plan that if they are lucky will keep than at the poverty line.
Actually, stagnant wages over thirty years and astronomical increases in housing costs stole the purchasing power of most Americans. Housing prices have outpaced inflation by so much that in '84 the federal government changed the way they measure housing costs in the CPI from actual prices to "rental equivalents" in order to hide the fact.
>>>Do you realize that we spend more on education than we do to defend our nation?
Nonsense. The total cumulative education expenditures for all 50 states and the federal govt in 2003 was 490 billion.
On the other hand, The DOD budget alone (not black box ops, not homeland security, not corporate welfare for contractors) for that year was 397 billion. Veteran's benefits were 50 billion. And don't forget to count 80% of interest on the national debt for that year as past military spending, which adds another 145 billion, for a total of 592 billion.
A realistic analysis shows that more than half of our total federal expenditures for any given year is for military purposes. Which you may be able to begin to justify when our military does something other than make the world safe for MNCs and their pipelines (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan) or for promoting the drug trade (e.g. Columbia, and again Afghanistan).
I happen to agree with Chomsky that the military indsutrial complex serves a valuable purpose-- namely promoting high tech research and priming the economy with an infusion of public sector money. But I have a problem when our military gets used as a press gang for the Oil companies and their corrupt puppets, the Neocons (a.k.a. "Team Chimpy"). I love this country and we should always endeavor to be on the right side of any conflict. But in Iraq we are just being racist imperialists. The same as Great Britain a hundred years ago. Sad Sad Sad.
Bye for now.
:-{)] |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Aug 2004
|
Mark,
>"But in Iraq we are just being racist imperialists"
I guess it is all in ones perspective? I believe that we are fighting a war against people who, through their apparently false religious beliefs, want to kill us. It doesn't matter whether it is in Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, or wherever else. I cannot myself, off hand, think of any peoples in the entire world that I would like to go and murder for any reason, let alone in the name of some religion. Can you? Yet, these people want the entire United States and Israel to die, period. Do they believe that the world will magically turn into some sort of utopia if they can accomplish this? Will their lot in life suddenly change for the better if they accomplish this? And what is your plan to make these people NOT want you dead? |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by Mark A. Morenz
mmorenz (nospam) ameritech.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
10 Aug 2004
|
Mark,
>>>>Yet, these people want the entire United States and Israel to die, period. Do they believe that the world will magically turn into some sort of utopia if they can accomplish this? Will their lot in life suddenly change for the better if they accomplish this? And what is your plan to make these people NOT want you dead?
This is a fair question. And I don't deny that there are Islam extremists (just as there are Christian ones). The problem as I see it, and this is just my opionion, is that capiltalist war-profiteers are manipulating the situation and using our military to egg them on.
Most analysis that I've read (before, during, and after the Iraq invasion/occupation) said that we were just doing Al Qaeda's recruitment work for them by going into Iraq. If you want to fight extremist Islam, you've got to make *this world* more appealing for islamists. More than half of all young men in the middle east are in poverty and are either not educated or are educated by religious schools who promote salvation in the afterlife. Where is the hope for them in this life?
We've spent about $126 billion on the iraq invasion/occupation. For that, we can do the following:
Educate every third wold child on the planet through 5th grade.
AND
Immunize every third world child on the planet for 17 years
AND
Fully fund all global anti-hunger efforts for 2 years.
Plus we would make friends that will help us root out the nut jobs that are still out there.
Instead we murder a bunch more of them so that they have more reasons to hate us. Is Afghanistan liberated? No. Is Iraq? Please. Not if you really read the news reports that the rest of the world reads (remember, our major media are owned by the same companies that are profitting by this "war")
It hasn't been about Saddam or terrorism or 9/11 or promoting democracy. It's always been about profits.
I wish I was wrong. But I don't think so.
:-{)] |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Aug 2004
|
Mark,
>"This is a fair question. And I don't deny that there are Islam extremists (just as there are Christian ones)"
Please name the "christian" extremists who want to murder mass numbers of people, blow up innocent civilians, hijack planes and ram them into buildings, kill their own if they appear to not agree with their "extremist" views. And while you are at it, as far as humanity is concerned, please name one single thing Islam has done for humanity, ever. Now compare the nothing you can name, with America.
>"The problem as I see it, and this is just my opionion, is that capiltalist war-profiteers are manipulating the situation and using our military to egg them on."
I'd have to have some sort of proof that there is a conspiracy to go to war for profit in America. Like, do you think we engineered the attack on the Cole, and the various other atrocities that led up to our going after these kinds of people?
Certainly, some corporations will ultimatly benefit from war. Those that manufacture war materials will make money selling their products, etc. That's what business do, they are in business to make money. The alternative is for them to be out of business. Then what? How good are you at reloading ammo?
>"Most analysis that I've read (before, during, and after the Iraq invasion/occupation) said that we were just doing Al Qaeda's recruitment work for them by going into Iraq."
They can say whatever they like I guess. By us not actually attacking Israel, the same argument would be stated by those same people, no? If America had done nothing, what would you have to say when the first U.S. city went up in a mushroom cloud and/or millions were killed by some WMD that Saddam bought and gave to other terrorists? Do you really think we should sit back and wait for them to strike us, again, before we try to do anything about it? Maybe we should ask the UN what to do? Seriously though, IF we were talking just conventional arms, I would agree with you that a much more "anti war" effort might be more effective. But when we are talking an enemies ability to mass murder thousands or millions at a time, can we really take a wait and see attitude do you think?
>"If you want to fight extremist Islam, you've got to make *this world* more appealing for islamists."
I TOTALLY disagree! I don't have to "make this world" anything at all. This world exists, and we all exist within it. We are totally UNABLE to "make the world" into anything we please, let alone something that would "appeal" to Islamic fundamentalists! Hey, seriously, IRAN appeals to Islamic fundamentalists...how does it appeal to you??? Heck, just the way women are viewed within the framework of Islam makes the statement you made so terribly sad, it is laughable. Would you REALLY, in the interest of appeasing Islamic fundamentalists, place the women you personally know in a bag to be hidden forever? Get real!
>"More than half of all young men in the middle east are in poverty and are either not educated or are educated by religious schools who promote salvation in the afterlife. Where is the hope for them in this life?"
Think about it. The poor of this earth FAR outnumber the rest of the population. Most poor people are NOT murderers and terrorists, but are instead just plain old folks who are looking to somehow make a better place in their world for their children. IF poverty turns people into terrorists(which history certainly does not show to be true), then the world is doomed, because the poor have always been in the world, and always will be.
>"We've spent about $126 billion on the iraq invasion/occupation. For that, we can do the following: Educate every third wold child on the planet through 5th grade.
AND Immunize every third world child on the planet for 17 years AND Fully fund all global anti-hunger efforts for 2 years.
I agree in part. More CAN be done. But, NO ONE ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH has EVER done more for the poor of this world throughout its history than the United States of America. No one. You act as if America does nothing, when the fact is, America does everything. It is most of the rest of the world, and especially the people who criticize the United States, who in reality do little or nothing to help those in the world who are in need. You need a Dose of Reality to at least give you some perspective there.
>"Plus we would make friends that will help us root out the nut jobs that are still out there."
Have you ever actually read the Koran? Why is it, do you suppose, that so many of the "preachers" of the Koran support Islamic fundamentalism? Can you answer that simple question?
>"Instead we murder a bunch more of them so that they have more reasons to hate us."
Is it the news media telling you this? Because I happen to know someone who just came back here, and you know what almost 100% of the reaction of women in Bagdad is to America's action in Iraq is? Do they "hate us"? No, they say "what took you so long?".
>"Is Afghanistan liberated? No."
"Liberated" how exactly? What do you believe Afghanistan needs "liberated" from? We went there to kill terrorists, and, have done a darned decent job of it so far by all accounts.
>"Is Iraq?"
They are free of Saddam's murderous rule, that's for sure. But since you have never lived in a Nation ruled by an evil tyrant dictator, you probably have no idea what that really means. So, you sluff it off as if it were nothing. It is really something, we just cannot comprehend it.
>"Please. Not if you really read the news reports that the rest of the world reads (remember, our major media are owned by the same companies that are profitting by this "war")"
The "world" was against America doing anything. As far as the"world" is concerned, America should just sit back and hope the terrorists don't kill off too many of us. And then, if enough innocent Americans die, the "world" would probably like us to run crying to the UN to help us, and they would, just ike they are helping in the Sudan right now. No, I do not trust most of the biased news reports of our own media, but I do trust eyewitness accounts of non military people coming back here, and if what they say is any indicator, despite what the news media tries to tell people, and despite what the "world" says, most of the normal average people in Iraq are thrilled, and thankful.
>"It hasn't been about Saddam or terrorism or 9/11 or promoting democracy. It's always been about profits."
Or else it has been about living up to what the government officials swore to under oath, to protect the American people from all threats. Perhaps you need to get out and see the world, do a little traveling abroad and see just what the "world" really has to offer up to you. Maybe then you could thank God for America.
>"I wish I was wrong. But I don't think so."
I wish the world was a perfect place, where the evil that exists in peoples hearts was little more than a desire to smoke cigarettes or something. But it isn't that at all, and it never will be if history is an indicator. It is instead a place filled with incredible danger, terrible heartache, and unimaginable abuse at the hands and wills of incredibly evil people. America, even for all our faults, truly is the only shining light on the horizon for a weary world on its way towards ultimate destruction. I can understand, somewhat, your frustrations with the politics of this Country. But where is your disdain and hatred for the other Nations of the world that sit by and do nothing, and offer nothing, while people much nearer to them than we are starve or die at the hands of evil people? Where is your disdain and hatred for the Muslim Nations that do nothing, and offer nothing, to the Palestinian people to ease their plight? Where is your disdain and hatred for the UN, that's sits idly by and argues whether enough people are really dying and by what timetable they should perhaps stop dying, at the hands of ethnic murderers rather than moving in to stop the bloodshed? Is it only because we live here that America is so easy to hate? |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Aug 2004
|
Mark and JAL,
People could actually argue the things being argued here forever without ever coming to a consensus. It's a waste of bandwidth. What is really needed is solutions. But the solutions cannot bankrupt America, and they cannot leave America vulnerable to foreign invaders and terrorists. I cannot see where we have made significant strides to alleviate poverty in America, even though we(as a govenrment) have been half heartedly trying to do that for awhile now. And now, without accomplishing that, you want America to solve the worlds problems also? Ok, so could you please simply outline your plan of action. Like, exactly what would you do and in what order would you do it to begin? |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by Deirdre Darnall
deirdredarnall (nospam) hotmail.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Aug 2004
|
My purpose in posting this information was originally intended to garner support for the march and to enlist participants. I am suprised and pleased by the level of discussion that it has engendered.
I want to acknowledge something JK said; you are absolutely right, the overarching purpose of the march is to broach the issues that have been prevented from being part of political dialogue. While I do not support all of these demands, I agree with enough of them to feel strongly about the importance of the Million Worker March. Consequently, I am doing everything I can to get the word out.
One other thing I want to mention, NRA4, I was amused by your detailed conterpoints to each of the demands and I enjoyed reading them for the most part. However, I was deeply offended when you made the assumption that I do not support feminist causes in response to the demand to end funding of the war in Iraq. You made a huge leap considering you do not know me or my reasons for posting the announcement. I am disgusted by your gauche comment. I hardly think that kind of jejune behavior is appropriate. |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Aug 2004
|
>"NRA4, I was amused by your detailed conterpoints to each of the demands and I enjoyed reading them for the most part. However, I was deeply offended when you made the assumption that I do not support feminist causes in response to the demand to end funding of the war in Iraq. You made a huge leap considering you do not know me or my reasons for posting the announcement. I am disgusted by your gauche comment. I hardly think that kind of jejune behavior is appropriate."
Sorry if you took offense, none was actually intended. The point I was trying to make is this...
It just seemed a little odd to me that as much as we have heard about the rights of women in the world for years, from people who loudly proclaim to support the cause of women everywhere, that those who one would think would be first in line supporters of women rights would consider the women in Iraq's right to live a half way normal life now of the utmost importance. In fact, even if someone totally disagrees with the war in Iraq, if they truly cared about the plight of women at all, they could hardly keep from being filled with joy at the prospect of removing millions of women from the grip of Saddams rule as a first step. So where are the feminists? Why are they not on TV all over the Country thanking the United States, and the Bush Administration in particular, for helping the cause of millions of Iraqi women? Nothing wrong with them saying something like "I hate the war in Iraq, but I love the new chances at life that millions of women there may now have thanks to our taking action against Saddam"...even if it is just a by product of the war, it is still a wonderful thing...right? But no, they are nowhere to be found. I can only surmise that the truth then is, that feminists and liberals who pretend to support women don't really give a rats ass about the women in Iraq at all, and that goes a long way in showing them for what they really are, don't you think? Because we all know that had liberal Democrats gotten their way, or if they were the administration, we would still be trying to get the UN to do something about Saddam, and they would be doing their usual nothing at all, and women there would never have a ghost of a chance at a half way decent life there. |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by Deirdre Darnall
deirdredarnall (nospam) hotmail.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
12 Aug 2004
|
|
Let me get this straight, you think that since you are not seeing feminists in the media supporting the war then, liberals, Democrats,and feminists are frauds, who don't really care about women's rights? Did it ever occur to you that the media does not give everyone the opportunity to voice their opinions? You seem to have a disturbing amount of faith in the media. Also, while I think it is a good thing that women in Afghanistan and Iraq have the right to go to school and to vote, these "by-products" of the war on terrorism do not change my mind about the reasons we actually did go to war. I do not support the U.S. government sending poor and working class American citizens overseas to die while protecting the interests of oil corporations. Which is in fact what is going on there. If you sincerely believe that the U.S. government went to Iraq because they wanted to liberate the people, then I am sorry to say that you have been hoodwinked. Do you even listen to any media sources, other than Fox News? Did you know that there are thousands of people from the U.S. and elsehwere that are in Iraq and Afghanistan helping to promote equality for women, many of whom were there before we bombed the shit out or them? You should really try to examine your media sources with critical eyes and ears, and perhaps if you don't already, consult multiple media sources in order to get a more well-rounded interpretation of current events. I suggest you check out any sources that air BBC news or NPR, and you should really check out www.fair.org. FAIR stands for fairness and accuracy in reporting; they publish articles on the biased media and correct other new sources when they broadcast false information. I am sure that some of the other nice people you have been chatting with here could suggest more. |
|
NRA4Freedom and Feminism |
by JK
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Aug 2004
|
NRA4 et al:
NRA4's implication is that people who either characterize themselves as feminists, or whom others would call feminists, ought to be all feminists, all the time. NRA4's so-called argument assumes that feminists believe that bolstering the rights of women should be more than centralized, but rather should be the exclusive focus of feminists.
Of course, this is on its face ridiculous. NRA4 fails to recognize that people who believe in promoting the rights of women may, God forbid, also believe in promoting the rights of all people to live without repression. NRA4's so-called position smacks of a sad attempt to distract readers from the original post, and also to deflect attention away from the miserable failures of Bush's so-called policies in Iraq. Not surprisingly, NRA4 conveniently ignores the fact that the US government has been complicit in any repression of women under Saddam Hussein, since as most people by know know the US had supported Hussein and his Ba'ath party for at least two decades with arms, money, $1.4 bllion in chemical and biological weapons that "he used against his own people" as Bush would remind us (although all the Kurds may not consider themselves Iraqis...), military intelligence and counterintelligence, and morale boosts from reprobates such as Donald Rumsfeld who was photographed glad-handing the now-deposed dictator in December 1983. But I digress...
Perhaps NRA4 can hold some consciousness-raising sessions about feminism and the war in Iraq at a local cafe. Let us know when you're holding office hours, NRA4. |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Aug 2004
|
>"Let me get this straight, you think that since you are not seeing feminists in the media supporting the war..."
Not what I said at all. "Supporting the war" and being thankful for the opportunities that women in Iraq now have which they never had a chance of having before are two different things.
>"Did it ever occur to you that the media does not give everyone the opportunity to voice their opinions?"
Sure, it occurs all the time. Right now the news media is in cover up mode for John Kerry. Traditionally though, feminists get all the airtime they want, all they need do is hold a press conference and the media lines up for miles to plaster what they want to say all over the news. Obviously, they don't give a hoot about Iraqi women.
>"...women in Afghanistan and Iraq have the right to go to school and to vote, these "by-products" of the war on terrorism do not change my mind about the reasons we actually did go to war."
Again, if you read what I said and comprehend the meaning, you will see that I specifically did not assume that it would.
>"I do not support the U.S. government sending poor and working class American citizens overseas to die while protecting the interests of oil corporations. Which is in fact what is going on there."
In your mind perhaps. In my mind, we are over there killing hoards of muslim fanatics who want you and I dead, period.
>"If you sincerely believe that the U.S. government went to Iraq because they wanted to liberate the people, then I am sorry to say that you have been hoodwinked."
I "sincerely believe" that America went to Iraq in order to take the war on terrorists to their soil in the interest of protecting America, and Americans. It's sort of like saying, here we are, you want to try to kill Americans, then pick on some of them that are not helpless innocent civilians you cowards, and we will kick your ass. |
|
Re: Join The Million Worker March |
by NRA4
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Aug 2004
|
>"NRA4 fails to recognize that people who believe in promoting the rights of women may, God forbid, also believe in promoting the rights of all people to live without repression."
And women were not being "repressed" in Iraq before we took Saddam out...ok, whatever.
>"...the US government has been complicit in any repression of women under Saddam Hussein"
Ok, the "sins of the past" matter more than the realities of now... |
|
