On the people of the United States.


When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another… That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government,… Thomas Jefferson

Before I’m done, I hope in the process of this discourse, many more will want to throw down the chains of this destructive government; ours has become.

If there was ever a moment in history when there is proof that the American Government is controlled by Big Businesses this is it. This should be the rallying cry, we have all been waiting for.

On September 29, 2010 the Senate of the United States voted down a bill to repeal the Offshoring Act. Bill number S:3816 was introduced into the Senate and voted down one day before they were scheduled to leave for the campaign trail. The most important bill thus far in the 21st century was struck down after only one week.

How long are we going to sit by and watch our futures end at the hand of a government that is determined to destroy the American way of life.

Over the course of this thread I hope to show how much “we the people” are being brain washed into acquiescence by the parties that lie, and the media that swears to it.

The Senate had a chance to bring hundreds of thousands of Jobs back to America, and they chose the interest of big Business over that of the people.

So all you republicans that voted for, no gay marriage, no abortion, no tree saving, or any other brain wash issue, I hope you are happy.

And for all you Democrats that sat by and watched as you let the special interest dominate government, I hope you are happy as well. It is time for us to put people in power that are beholden to us, and it’s time we stopped being brainwashed into arguing about the smoke, when the fire is threatening our very livelihood.

Thales...I am not generally a political person, but what I just read I interpreted as this: #!!!@#@!@@###**@@#*@!@#*@!!!!

Is that about right? I think you would benefit by accepting the fact that you can only control your little corner of the world. The government that is in power right is absolutely no different than any other corrupt presidency that has been in power since George Washington's. They all have agendas, and what's sad about this point in time is that government is exactly the same as the private sector. Do you know what fear is running through it? The fear that job security is very weak.

In this man's opinion, Congress people are acting just like the American public in that the TOP priority is to cut other people down to say their own jobs and make themselves look good. That is extremely disappointing, I agree, and the only thing more disappointing than that is listening to someone who thinks they can change it. Anyone who thinks that way is an absolute fool.

Government is government, is doesn't matter what country it is, the entity is always interested in power. That's its nature. The most productive thing to do is to leave the people that run those kind of institutions alone. Personally, I would never make it in the government because I can see through any sort of BS that people throw at me. And one of the scariest things I've ever seen is the dehumanized look I get from government employees when they know they're full of sh** and they know that I know it too.

But I'm smart about it...you don't see me go banging on doors down every street in my town claiming that the government is wrong and I'm right. The only thing I wish I could change in this world is the amount of stupidity. People will listen to anything, I don't care if it's government, if it's Jesus Christ that visited Earth, or if it's Kim Jong IL (whatever his name is) convincing people that blowing up south korean cities is a good idea...people are stupid. There's no way around it.

The smartest thing you can do is to worry about your little corner of the world.

This Bill would have provided Tax incentives for companies to move employment back the US.

How can people engage in arguing about all of the unimportant things government does and ignore the real issues.

By the way, throughout American history our government has been reshaped many times by the will of the people.

Read the entire Declaration of Independence. Look up the progressive movement from a hundred years ago.

Of all of the industrialized world, the United States is losing its middle class the fastest. Arguing about gay marriage won’t have any effect. Trying to convince others that your God is in charge is merely a diversion. It is time for the voice of the people to take control.

The break down in financial demographics show the worst disparity between the haves and have nots, since we have been tracking it. Something like right before WWII, in the Great Depression.

The party system must end; Americans must make use of internet technology to unite against the richest .001% from becoming the Ruling Class we fought our War of Independence to escape from to start with.
After that the Robber Barons, were stripped of power by the unions and the Federal Government.

We can take control of the United States Government and we will not be required to march in protest, we will not bear arms, we will not threaten violence, we will start an internet movement that will hearken the lamentations of those that would deceive us. We will send them back to their law firms where they belong.

Of course they’ll do alright as lawyers, but that's another story altogether.

I completely agree with you. The two party system is ruining our country, as we see the divide widen as time passes. For someone to join a political party, only to be controlled by the corporations that fund their respective parties, it's out of control. We don't own the government anymore, corporations do...

We need more independent and/or other party members in government. These two need to lose their majority before any real change will happen and Americans will once again actually have a vote in our government.

On a side note, I was happy to see my Governor elect to run for Senate independent. He was tired of being forced into voting how his party wanted him to, rather than what the people who put him in office and his own beliefs and morals told him were right. Kudos to him. I know who I will be voting for.

While I share the sentiment that the US is a country of by and for the corporations, the issue of offshore drilling is only one aspect of many incremental assaults on our march down the road to Orwell's 1984.

The Senate had a chance to bring hundreds of thousands of Jobs back to America, and they chose the interest of big Business over that of the people. An unfortunate misconception in the US is the role of government "creating" jobs. Politicians just love to tout how they are promoting economic progress. Unfortunately, this involvement is really quite contrary to the principles of the free market. The Senate cannot bring jobs back to the US, the reason the jobs left is that US, for a variety of reasons, is simply too expensive. The solution to this problem is that the workers in countries such as China and India will need increase their standard of living to the point it matches the US.

Another subtlety to the issue of "jobs". The Obama administration is playing a game of Bread and Circuses to buy votes. Recently, a stimulus plan was put forward to assist business. The problem is that businesses can not expand if they do not have customers. Some economists have pointed out that our economic malaise is the lack of consumption. Furthermore, if a business uses the stimulus money to be more productive, such as buying a new piece of equipment, guess what - you now have another unemployed person! Productivity is great, more products at a cheaper price; but it also means less workers producing the product. In short, giving public tax money to business to foster economic growth is a fools game.

I will even offer a more radical position, that the US is moving towards a Soviet style planned economy. The difference, in the old USSR you had bureaucrats establishing production quotas; here the US Congress establishes production quotas through tax incentive gimmicks. Want more cars produced, cash for clunkers. Want housing, provide a tax deduction for buying a house. You could even say that the US is now a "welfare" society for the benefit of business.

More thoughts here: Demise of the Free-Market? (http://srynas.blogspot.com/2010/09/demise-of-free-market.html)

The two party system is ruining our country, as we see the divide widen as time passes. For someone to join a political party, only to be controlled by the corporations that fund their respective parties, it's out of control.

Vassago,

Are you aware of how politicians think? The more parties that become involved in the government, the more complicated it becomes, and thus the more arguing is done. I think we all know that the government's wheels turn extremely slowly and when people are starving on the street and need economic assistance, they don't turn any faster. It's a machine, not an emotionally-driven person.

There are two types of politicians...those that work for the public interest and those interested in power. Those 'power seekers' are going to do nothing but smile everytime a new party joins the fray because it slows down the process of getting anything productive done even more. And what that means is that they have more time to keep their jobs on a 'coasting' basis before they have to actually make points to prove they are still eligible to keep their seats.

So many people beat themselves up because they simply insist on going 'head to head' with the giant and they get knocked down every time. If you're going to take on a task, at least take on one that you can win!

There are two types of politicians...those that work for the public interest and those interested in power.

I think you've mis-spoken. It's, those who are interested in power and those who are better at lying about being interested in power.

EDIT:

You know who I'm going to vote for? the guy that says he's gonna screw me less, because they're all going to screw me one way or the other.

You know who I'm going to vote for? the guy that says he's gonna screw me less, because they're all going to screw me one way or the other.I'm not sure how old you are james, but I would watch what you say if you're just starting your career.

I remember working with a recruiter a while back and the first thing she told me after finding my credentials was that she looked at how I behaved on fb, linkedin, and any other sites that brought up my full name. :eek:

...and the only thing more disappointing than that is listening to someone who thinks they can change it. Anyone who thinks that way is an absolute fool.
Wow, what a powerful expression of weakness. I'm outraged too and shocked that more people aren't. I'll march with you Thales.
Consider showing up in DC on 10.30.10.
People shouldn't be afraid of governments, governments should be afraid of people.

Wow, what a powerful expression of weakness. I'm outraged too and shocked that more people aren't.

Well I'm not going to take potshots at you lagbolt as we obviously disagree on something here. And it's not a statement of weakness, it's a statement of intelligence coming from someone who has already learned the ropes.

But I will say that the majority of the people out there that insist on influencing government actions go about in an ignorant manner. If you're going up against a giant (especially a corrupt one) and you want to cut his legs off so he can't stand anymore, the one thing that you don't do is get in a pi**ing contest with him. That's like banging your head against the wall until you're dead. Some of the greatest leaders on Earth have known this.

You don't go toe-to-toe, you weave in and out to accomplish small things and eventually the giant falls down. The point of my initial response in this thread was to say that being outraged and simply yelling at the ruler doesn't get you anywhere.

He**, if you live in North Korea, doing that will get you shot!

This is turning out to be a lively discussion. Thus far we are conversing and I believe taking a firm look at the situation. I need to work on a deadline, for tomorrow, for the next few hours.
Thank you all for participating in this discussion.
Joe

we obviously disagree on something here.
To me there's constantly this tidy social rationale for not being angry, and you seem to promote it, and I call bullshit. You come across like you alone know the intelligent way and that great leaders of the world would agree with you. Nothing personal, but OMFG, enough.
In my bones I think the power lies with the people, and if there's going to be a pissing contest with a giant, then the giant is the people, particularly if they're outraged and particularly if they're American.
To me, now, there are not enough angry voices. The status quo has not been kind to the common man, so I assert that the common man should kick the status quo in the balls.
IMO

In order for a business to profit from a tax incentive, the incentive has to be worth more than the cost. If it costs a company more to hire someone in the US, unfortunatly they are going to employ elsewhere. One thing to bring up when talking about how horrible is "Big Business", is to remember that every penny they have to spend more, is passed down to you. Basic economics tells us scarce resources with alternative uses creates an enviroment where we the people get goods as cheap as they come. If the resources a company uses cost more, we pay more. I agree it stinks that we have so many outsourced jobs but there are two choices, we start taking pay cuts, or we start paying more for goods.

In order for a business to profit from a tax incentive, the incentive has to be worth more than the cost.Correct, that is the problem with the "incentives" proposed by the Obama administration.

But there is more serious concern with "incentives" that I need to reiterate. Incentives are a form of subsidy to the business. So they constitute a form of "welfare". If a business cannot compete: so sad too bad, out of business.

Also be aware that if an incentive is provided, someone has to pay for it through additional taxes. (The balanced budget is now a joke) So exactly how does it benefit the widget manufacturer to be given an incentive when the consumer buying his product has less money because he is taxed more to pay for the incentive?

Valid point Steve, just like many others.

That's one thing I dislike about politics...many people have valid points, but just like in a sporting event, someone has to win and someone has to lose. :rolleyes:

The other thing that noone here has yet mentioned yet is the fact that Obama himself has always had serious tunnel vision. I can't believe that man! How can someone who grew up on the streets and literally made a name for himself be that stupid? Perhaps it's a classic example of how power skews your common sense mentality.

I do really like Obama because he's encouraging and inspirational, but it's so unfortunate that the man is like the majority of other people who can't see but 5 seconds into the future. The guy literally thinks that noone else is out there that has different opinions. What's so scary is that dictators are supposed to act like that, NOT presidents of democracies...

Presidents are also supposed to do what's best for the country and what more truly represents what the country stands for, regardless of what the "moral majority" believe. Example, the moral majority may believe that gays should not be allowed to marry, but since the country has incentive geared towards marriage, they cannot restrict them from getting married without taking away principal rights provided for being an American citizen. This is one of the more common battles being fought right now in the US.

This is one of the more common battles being fought right now in the US.
And a seriously unproductive one at that. Have you ever seen the movie 'Philadelphia'? Tom Hanks gave an emotional interview about it a long time ago on the New York actor's studio show. That man is unbelievable...believes in God, loves just about anyone, etc...

People like that should be the president, no question.

Wow, where to start.

Thales, while your intentions may be good, to me, you're coming off as crazy. It sounds like you want to make changes. In order to do so, you have to be able to convince other people that your changes make sense. Rambling or getting incredibly angry is not the way to do it.

Vassago, one take on Crist is what you said, the other is he realized he was not going to be supported by the R's since the Tea party endorsed Rubio, and thus now he's running as an independent. No different than Murkowski in Alaska, or Specter from PA.

the_net_2.0, seriously? You're not going to take pot shots and than you say something like:

...it's a statement of intelligence coming from someone who has already learned the ropes.


I would also highly disagree with you that more political parties is better for the current political parties. That defies all logic. If there are only spoiler contenders, then that's one thing, but if there were 4 or 5 serious parties, they would have to compromise in order to get anything done. Look at Europe.

lagbolt, I wish I was able to go to DC on 10/30, would be very interesting to experience the sanity/fear marches.

Demetious, the reason that business' raise their prices, and pass those raises onto their customers, is that the leaders of those companies have decided they deserve x dollars. If they don't get x dollars, they will cut workers, slash benefits, and raise prices. If there is nothing that the customers can do about this, then we truly are servants of the corporations.

In general, if you really want to make change, you have to be willing to compromise. I saw an article the other day that was saying that most Independents are socially progressive and fiscally conservative. Basically, they don't care what someone does in their own bedroom, and they don't want their tax dollars being used irresponsibly.

Various groups have tried to capture these voters, but it seems to me you could form a viable political party on those exact tenets. You'd get some conservative voters when you try to crack down on welfare and cut government spending. And you'd get liberal voters when you push for equality for all, and no special considerations for religious organizations.

I would also highly disagree with you that more political parties is better for the current political parties. That defies all logic. If there are only spoiler contenders, then that's one thing, but if there were 4 or 5 serious parties, they would have to compromise in order to get anything done. Look at Europe.

Actually not as illogical as you make out. All modern political parties cover a range of different opinions so compromise does occur. The practicalities of the real world do mean that you can't just apply a theoretical solution to real problems and expect them to work. All governments have to adjust their policies in the light of events both at home and abroad.

Actually not as illogical as you make out. All modern political parties cover a range of different opinions so compromise does occur. The practicalities of the real world do mean that you can't just apply a theoretical solution to real problems and expect them to work. All governments have to adjust their policies in the light of events both at home and abroad.

A voice of experience...:)

Correct, that is the problem with the "incentives" proposed by the Obama administration.

But there is more serious concern with "incentives" that I need to reiterate. Incentives are a form of subsidy to the business. So they constitute a form of "welfare". If a business cannot compete: so sad too bad, out of business.

Also be aware that if an incentive is provided, someone has to pay for it through additional taxes. (The balanced budget is now a joke) So exactly how does it benefit the widget manufacturer to be given an incentive when the consumer buying his product has less money because he is taxed more to pay for the incentive?

Steve R,
I couldn't agree with you more. Maybe you took me for the wrong side here, I am a conservative. I was making the case of why I was glad the Offshore Bill died. You are also spot on when you talk about incentives becoming welfare. I think if a business gives incentives to promote, great! They also should not get these back in the form of a tax break because now all Americans paid for it. I don't agree with tax breaks because they only become manipulated by all. I haven't found the Fair Tax to be out of touch. I think this would eliminate the IRS, make taxes 100% legit, and make companies accountable for their own bills, not tax payers. I am all for capitalism but many people know too many ways to screw taxpayers over.

Steve R,
I couldn't agree with you more. Maybe you took me for the wrong side here, I am a conservative. I was making the case of why I was glad the Offshore Bill died. You are also spot on when you talk about incentives becoming welfare. I think if a business gives incentives to promote, great! They also should not get these back in the form of a tax break because now all Americans paid for it. I don't agree with tax breaks because they only become manipulated by all. I haven't found the Fair Tax to be out of touch. I think this would eliminate the IRS, make taxes 100% legit, and make companies accountable for their own bills, not tax payers. I am all for capitalism but many people know too many ways to screw taxpayers over.My apologies. We seem to live in a Mad Hatter's world word where words have only relativistic meaning. Since many people, in the US, seem to have the false belief that "incentives" are free money, my fingers have a spontaneous uncontrollable allergic reaction to the use of that word.

since we're all talking about irresponsibly in this thread, has anyone seen Wall Street 2?

That's a great movie if you want to see a dramatized version of the backstabbing that goes on in NYC. my favorite quote from Gordon from the movie..."It isn't about the money, it's about the game being human beings". Man I love that quote!

Actually not as illogical as you make out.

My statement was that it is illogical to think that if you go from 2 serious political parties to 5 serious political parties, that somehow the 2 original political parties benefited.

Since you disagreed with me, I was assuming your post would explain why, but you seem to be just talking about how people have to compromise (which I would think would have to occur even more often when there's 5 v 2, for example).

Could you explain, specifically, how it would be beneficial to the 2 political parties in a 2 party system that suddenly became a 5 party system? How would that put those 2 parties at an advantage?

Thanks.

but you seem to be just talking about how people have to compromise (which I would think would have to occur even more often when there's 5 v 2, for example).


Adam,

you had also misread my post. I agree that 5 is worse than 2, and that is what I was saying. Compromise takes time, and the more compromise that has to be done the more time is wasted getting to the end resolution. The 'independents' that are popping up in the USA specifically are completely shutting down the government wheels and pretty soon they're not going to turn AT ALL.

I'm old enough to know not to beat my head against the wall, but I don't have an alternative solution to simply "getting things done". The best thing that could happen to this country is if there was an overthrow of the government by the people.

The current administration is just so blind that they couldn't even know what to do if a tank busted down the door to the oval office. It's almost like Obama and the gang are walking around the earth and 'smiling' away without acknowledging that any work needs to be done. The ignorance is just so overwhelming it's gross.

But on the flip side of what I just said, if these independent people were not creating arguments and shouting, we may just get to a dictatorship faster than normal. I hope to God that doesn't happen, because if it does I think we just might find out who the individual is that is described in the bible has bearing the number '666'.

My statement was that it is illogical to think that if you go from 2 serious political parties to 5 serious political parties, that somehow the 2 original political parties benefited.

Since you disagreed with me, I was assuming your post would explain why, but you seem to be just talking about how people have to compromise (which I would think would have to occur even more often when there's 5 v 2, for example).

Could you explain, specifically, how it would be beneficial to the 2 political parties in a 2 party system that suddenly became a 5 party system? How would that put those 2 parties at an advantage?

Thanks.
Using Great Britain as an example where there is a two party system with now three parties of a reasonable size. The coalition has clearly benefitted the Conservative Party because they can now have a majority government in coalition rather than a minority government. This has meant that the mainstream of the party can implement its policies and not be at the mercy of the more extreme elements in the party.

As nearly everyone I know does not agree 100% with any party I can see nothing wrong with compromise. Especially if you want a government that is representative of the electorate.

Well, Rabbie, I'm definitely not knowledgeable enough about Great Britain politics to disagree with you, but that seems quite odd to me. And I suppose it all depends on what you consider a benefit to the party.

Right now in USA we have the Democrats and Republicans, essentially liberals and conservatives. There's a movement called the Tea Party, which is for all intents and purposes an extreme wing of the Republican party.

If the Tea Party were to become a viable 3rd party, thus we'd have Democrat v Republican v Tea Party, I would think that it would increase the likelihood that a Democrat would be elected, but I guess we can wait a little while and see how these Tea Party candidates fair in general elections.

instead of 'democrat v republican v tea party', why not 'noone v noone'?

putting a 'versus' in there implies that they're fighting their war and we the little people don't even exist. Which in essence, is basically true.

Thanks for your reply Adam. The benefit to a party as I see it is that by doing a deal with another party to their left they can reduce the influence of their right wing and of course vice versa. However what to me is really important is not how it benefits a party but how it benefits the ordinary people.

Demetious, the reason that business' raise their prices, and pass those raises onto their customers, is that the leaders of those companies have decided they deserve x dollars. If they don't get x dollars, they will cut workers, slash benefits, and raise prices. If there is nothing that the customers can do about this, then we truly are servants of the corporations.

Adam, I couldn't agree more. I said this so many times...what would happen if you could convince ALL the consumers in the United States to not buy gasoline for three days? Or a new car, or a tv. This country runs off buying. The consumers have a lot more control than they realize. The smart politicians know this, and keep the consumers fighting each other over religious beliefs, social reforms, etc...divide and conquer.

Adam, I couldn't agree more. I said this so many times...what would happen if you could convince ALL the consumers in the United States to not buy gasoline for three days? Or a new car, or a tv. This country runs off buying. The consumers have a lot more control than they realize. The smart politicians know this, and keep the consumers fighting each other over religious beliefs, social reforms, etc...divide and conquer.

Actually it would do little to refrain from buying something for three days if it was eventually purchased. The economy would quickly recover when the purchases were finally made. Now, if you could convince Americans not to drive at all for three days, THAT would make a significant difference.

Actually it would do little to refrain from buying something for three days if it was eventually purchased. The economy would quickly recover when the purchases were finally made. Now, if you could convince Americans not to drive at all for three days, THAT would make a significant difference.

Exactly! I kept arguing with people who wanted to do those stupid "Don't buy gas for a day!" rallies when the gas prices were higher. If you'll eventually buy it, then one day is not going to hurt anyone! You'd actually have to refrain from driving or using any form of transportation that uses gasoline for that one day, which is VERY far fetched.

The same goes for any other purchase. If you'll eventually buy it, then holding out will not have any impact for that one day, or even a week. How many people want to go without gasoline powered transportation for a month? If you live in a city like mine, it'd be impossible.

This country runs off buying.Correct. In fact some economists are even acknowledging that our economic recovery is stagnating because people are not buying. Giving business the so-called stimulus money is a wasted effort, as are tax credits, since many businesses have minimal interest in expanding production do to the lack of buying.

The consumers have a lot more control than they realize. While conceptually true, the reality is that the consumer has virtually no power since there is no "unifying voice". Not only that, but consumer protection in the US seems to have become a toothless tiger.

Just to keep this interesting, I will even hypothesize that the current Obama administrations efforts to manage the US economy through stimulus packages and tax incentives is equivalent to the planned economy of the old USSR. I bet there are some old Russians having a last laugh over our current economic situation and the war in Afghanistan.:D

Bush started the stimulus packages and the bank/auto relief efforts. I love how everyone blames the Obama administration.

Bush started the stimulus packages and the bank/auto relief efforts. Valid point, it just that Bush Jr. -the wannabe- is so so forgettable. Actually, I would like to nominate Regan (actually Nancy, our first female President) as the "first" for implementing "Voodoo Economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodo_economics)" aptly popularized by Bush Senior.

Let us not also forget that Clinton took away the tax cuts to control the deficit and balance the books while he was in office, much to unpopular opinion, yet the economy was flourishing at the end of his stay in office and national debt was, all things considered, low. If a good plan was made on where the money would go, I would not be opposed to the end of stimulus packages. I'm just afraid this two party system we have today is too split. The extremists on both ends are doing more damage to this country than good. They would rather attack each other than propose a compromise with each other. I urge everyone to vote outside the GOP and Liberal ideas in upcoming elections. Other parties pop up all the time, that are not controlled by corporations. At the very least, go independent.

I have been in the midst of a big project so missed out on the start of this one.

A question was asked in passing about shipping jobs overseas. The reason comes in two parts (a) technology and (b) globalization of trade.

Jobs go overseas when their industry brushes up against an industry in another country where the cost of living is cheaper by enough to offset the cost of doing business remotely. Let's focus on Help Desks. The odds are that if you call AT&T or HP, you will not get a USA representative because phone calls and network links cost less than the difference in salaries of US workers vs. foreign workers. It will stay like that for a long time until the playing field levels.

One of my cousins used to work for U.S. Steel in the Birmingham Alabama area. He lost his job because it was cheaper to send scrap metal to Japan and have it recycled there and then shipped back into the USA than it was to just process it in the USA. That is because they had the technology of recycling and shipping and the cheap labor that is most often the biggest cost driver in any complex product or service.

Using incentives and tax breaks etc. does no good because if you tried it, you would probably be hit with penalties by the World Trade Organization. That would be a form of protectionism.

Another comment about government and 2 parties or 5 ... as a matter of fact, the whole structure of the US Government originally was designed to force compromises on the theory that the haggling and squabbling were good. It prevented rash action. Where that fell down is that eventually folks learned how to "play" the system. The number of parties isn't the problem. The coalitions they form isn't the problem. The problem is that circumstances now can arise where the checks and balances can be bypassed when the House, Senate, and White House are in the same party. If you really wanted to do some good for federal legislation, pass term-limits bills for the US House and Senate. Give them 12 years and kick them out on their kiesters. That would break up the power concentration held by folks like the late Sen. Byrd of W. Virginia or the late Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.