I hope everybody here is planning to vote in their respective primaries when the time comes.
even if you are voting for the wrong person? we need to show ALL the politicians that we expect them to work for their voters. why should they bother if nobody shows up to vote?
Posted by bdgee on :
That's particularly important, glass..., when you realize that, in the last couple of presidential elections, a major effort of the Party was to suppress the vote of their opposition (not necessarily of the OTHER party) rather than increase those of their own kind.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Honestly I've never done a primary before.
As a registered independent I have usually waited until the playing field narrows before I start paying attention.
Can independents even vote in primaries? Or do you have to be party affiliated?
Posted by glassman on :
it depends on your state...
in my state i can vote in one, but only one... so i have to pick which party i want to vote in
Posted by bdgee on :
There are a lot of people virgin to primary voting planning to participate this time. people that have never voted or had stopped voting, primary or general election, are planning to get involved. That is good, provided they follow through. Many because of weather or whatever, will continue their procrastinating ways, though.
The arguments that it doesn't make any difference, the parties are the same, and one vote doesn't matter seem shallow in view of what this Administration has fouled up and the close questionable past two elections.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Well,
They are open primaries up here but I still have to choose one party to vote for.
As an independent I'd really rather be able to vote in both primaries rather than having to choose one party over the other.
Posted by glassman on :
just vote for somebody.
the more votes? the more the politicians will ALL pay attention to the people.
even if you vote in the primary for one that doesn't win? the others will be looking at numbers trying to determine how to get you to come out again...
once they are in office? it's a different story (till the next election anyway), but if 70%+ of registered voters were to show up and vote ALL THE TIME? the politicians would take the voters much more seriously...
Posted by glassman on :
Posted by glassman on :
we're not just last in health care among the industrialised world...
Posted by glassman on :
Huckabee is running away with it...
and i believe he spent the least money too...
listening to him on Sunday? i heard him taking alot of Ron Pauls talking points, but presenting them a little less "forcefully"....
Posted by glassman on :
Hillary is trailing Barrak and Edwards...
if she loses at third? her BEST bet is to bow out early and support either Obamma or Edwards to get the Veep..
first woman veep is better than losing and creating even more friction in the Dem party
Posted by Propertymanager on :
Huckabee vs. Obama - I Like It!
Mike
Posted by bdgee on :
Not a chance she will drop out. Remember, Billy lost Iowa pretty bad in 92. And this new order od primaries means she gets to some places where she should have strong support soon.
More important to note, particularly for those that are dumb enough to think Hillary is a liberal, her votes in Iowa all came from staunchly conservative counties. That may not be a good sign for her in places like California.
Obama's biggest block of supporters seem to be the young and the normally non-voting. It's hard to kep those people on track, so he may not be so strong later when in the primaries and in a general election.
The other great signal of Iowa this time is that the turn out in the Democratic caucuses was huge and included most of the independent and a considerable number of people that had always voted republican. THAT is NOT good for the republicans.
Posted by glassman on :
i don't think Hillary will pick up from here...
she worked hard to get third... she doesn't have the "charm" of either Bill, Barrrack or Huckabee...
Barrak vs Huckabee? things will get downright wierd...
it is really hard for me to look (into my crystal ball) at how the southern vote will go if that's the race.. the southern vote has been the "decider" for the last several elections.. the African Americans will come to support Barrack instead of Clinton (IMO) once they realise that alot of white folks are ready to vote for him.. and that's what they did in Iowa...
the south could get split in half over that combination...
and yes, the GOP is currently in disarray and demoralised
i like Huckabee as a person. will he, can he, be a good president? idunno yet, we'll be hearing MUCH more about him now...
Posted by T e x on :
let's not overlook the "youth vote."
That could snowball...
Posted by osubucks30 on :
The best bet for Dems is Edwards IMO.
Posted by osubucks30 on :
After tonights results I think McCain will win the Republican nomination and if Obama is the Democrat nominee I say McCain wins (another war hawk at the helm).
Posted by *Mag* on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Hillary is trailing Barrak and Edwards...
if she loses at third? her BEST bet is to bow out early and support either Obamma or Edwards to get the Veep..
first woman veep is better than losing and creating even more friction in the Dem party
I would have liked to hear Purls reaction... oh well.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
You can't hardly help but to like Huckabee, and between the two, they are both the youngest gents running.
But I like the youthfully message of change Obama is speaking of. A change would be very welcome from what all the crap the last 3 presidents put on us. They say Barack doesn't have the experience, but hell, how many advisers does a president have anyway?
I like his point on tax cuts for the middle class, insted of Bushys cuts for mostly the rich.
That, and his point on reducing dependency on oil.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by *Mag*:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Hillary is trailing Barrak and Edwards...
if she loses at third? her BEST bet is to bow out early and support either Obamma or Edwards to get the Veep..
first woman veep is better than losing and creating even more friction in the Dem party
I would have liked to hear Purls reaction... oh well.
roger, that...
Posted by T e x on :
If I hadda guess? I think she'd be drawing parallels between this caucus and the change from GOP to Kennedy...
Posted by Highwaychild on :
...So that's how he beat Shrilly Hilliry
Posted by glassman on :
i think the Iowa voters just took the media to school...
the media has been supporting Hilly and telling everybody how she is inevitable, and billary told 'em to say that...
da media war wrong... not unusual...
Posted by Hannibull on :
That Huckabee guy scares me endlessly
How could such a nazi ever consider becoming president? Really! He says women shouldn't be allowed in the combat forces of the army, that gays are diseased (opposes ALL gay rights, unbelievable in 2008), he wants to "isolate" AIDS patients, and supports creationism?! How is it even possible that this man can run for president?! If America wants to be a truly free country then another fundamentalist christian is not what America needs! What this lunatic needs to do is go back to his cave and live in his own version of the middle ages while praying to his imaginary jesus friend, but he should stay out of the real RATIONAL thinking world and not try to run it with his dangerous (!) christian thinking
It's funny how christians always say they don't want other people's beliefs/values forced down their throats, but a fundamentalist leader forcing HIS beliefs onto the entire country is a real possibility. Talk about freedom
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Hannibull: That Huckabee guy scares me endlessly
How could such a nazi ever consider becoming president? Really! He says women shouldn't be allowed in the combat forces of the army, that gays are diseased (opposes ALL gay rights, unbelievable in 2008), he wants to "isolate" AIDS patients, and supports creationism?! How is it even possible that this man can run for president?! If America wants to be a truly free country then another fundamentalist christian is not what America needs! What this lunatic needs to do is go back to his cave and live in his own version of the middle ages while praying to his imaginary jesus friend, but he should stay out of the real RATIONAL thinking world and not try to run it with his dangerous (!) christian thinking
It's funny how christians always say they don't want other people's beliefs/values forced down their throats, but a fundamentalist leader forcing HIS beliefs onto the entire country is a real possibility. Talk about freedom
You are questioning the Republican Party and it's most fundamental beliefs. In the SE U.S. they now have usurped the KKK's message.
Posted by glassman on :
hannibull, you got any sources?
i pay pretty close attention to the process, and i don't hear him saying what you say he said....
he sounds i repeat SOUNDS more presidential than any other GOP cndidte out there.
he's actually saying some very critical and true things about the current GOP status quo...
what a politician does, and what they say can be very different, but what i have been hearing him say is very different from other GOP's.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
Rush and Hannity don't like him, that's kinda do like him.
But I hope Barack brings it home, and puts the "us" back in the U.S.
Posted by Hannibull on :
How women should graciously submit to their husbands and should not be sent to combat:
http://politicalticker.b l o g s.cnn.com/2007/12/13/huckabees-record-on-womens-rights-faces-increased-scrutiny/ (without spaces)
"homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk".
I didn't add that this was an old quote, but I don't care that it is and that he speaks differently now (of course he'll speak differently, he's campaigning) it's an incredibly DUMB thing to say. When you say something like that it shows your true hateful self
Posted by glassman on :
"homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk".
he also went on to say that we are all sinners, and he wasn't trying to say that he is better than anybody (in trms of being a sinner)else...
it's a fairly common belief, and i don't agree with his usage of terms either....
as for graciuosly submitting? that's funny it sounds good on paper, but it never happens...
i don't think women should be sent into combat either. they get killed and maimed there. the source for that idea is very old, and has biological roots, it's a numbers game....
Posted by bdgee on :
Personally, I'd rather no one of any gender (and I'll include those that may be of both or mixed or no gender) be sent into combat and not just because "they get killed and maimed there".
Posted by glassman on :
well, when i was 18? i believed i was indestructable...
i was ready to go...
i know some women that have that fire too, but not many, most of 'em think i'm crazy, i was fortunate enough to find one that accepted my "insanity" even tho she isn't interested herself... if a woman really wants to go to war? i won't stop her.
IMO? politicians start wars, and warriors END them.
Posted by cottonjim on :
better throw my two cents in here Here goes that vicious cycle thing again. I feel that, women want (and deserve) equal rights, therefore they should share the burden that assures that those rights are available. i.e.: war, military servitude (and not just nurses and secretaries) I’m talking hands on fighting. BUT, and this is a big BUTT I do not support a draft of any kind men or women, but I do not think that all women should ever be included in a draft, voluntary service only. Call me old fashioned Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
I do not think that woman in general could handle the physical part of some of the different jobs of war. Some could but many could not, so equal in that sense is out.
Besides some guys would get sidetracked and they might make love and not war.
Posted by bdgee on :
"i know some women that have that fire too, but not many, most of 'em think i'm crazy"
So?
Ain'tcha, after all?
Posted by Highwaychild on :
Why would you WANT to send in a women to do a man's job?
It's just like Mike Tyson said "Every body's got a plan, until they get hit."
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Afraid she'd do it better Highway?
I agree no draft period. But if she wants it and can prove ability than gender doesn't matter. She's the one taking the risk of rape or whatever mental hangup has you thinking of her as a woman rather than a person.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
War is hell. Jessica Lynch can be one example. I never was in a war and wouldn't wish it on anyone. ...But they're going to happen and I've known many that have.
I served, and in basic training at Ft. Jackson SC, about 25% of our platoon was female.
During just that short time alone I remember a lady in the middle of a hill on a long run... the poor girl couldn't go so I had to carry her weight, and mine, up the rest of that evil hill.
Also saw them Drill sergeants take our phone calls, rec. time. etc. because a female was to meat up with this guy at about 3 a.m., well he brought one of his buddies with him, and yes there was a rape situation.
One good thing about it was when 4th platoon got our mail, we got to go to the women's bay for mail call... used to see a lot of America's fittest coming and going during their showers as their latrine doors opened and closed.
I saw a lot of other things wrong with it really, during the time I served anyway. Plus, you have their monthly problem...
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: "i know some women that have that fire too, but not many, most of 'em think i'm crazy"
So?
Ain'tcha, after all?
yeah, but the crazy ones think i'm sane Posted by thinkmoney on :
I think those that start the wars shouldfight them, then their wivesand kids....
Obama in Iowa got the young vote, the woman vote and the white vote...
I think he is a strong contender and definitely brings emotion into the election ...He is not my choice because he is a racist and exclusive....He belongs to the First Trinity Church....If a caucasian had same beleifs as he but substituted caucasian for balck, it would be racist...and riots...
Posted by glassman on :
i don't understand why you call him racist or elitist. is there something wrong with the First Trinity Church?
Southern Baptists shouldn't be elitists either but they are (Bill Clinton is one)
i wonder if Hucakabee can read? My friends all tell me that if you learn to read? Then you have to go to the Methodist Church....
Posted by Highwaychild on :
Well, his mom is white... It'll be nice when get past the race issue one of these days.
Posted by thinkmoney on :
We are past the race issue in alot of segments of american society..he won iowa which was 96 % white turnout....soth maybe diff..
it is not race of obama but his exclsivity that bothers me...
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
The Bigfoot, i have nothing against women in combat if that's where they want to be. But i do have a problem if they are jeopardizing other lives by being there.
Getting through training classes at basic and beyond does not really mean that they could handle combat. Again i am talking about the physical part. Each war is different and each job different. I just do not see the average woman carrying 30-50 lbs. packs day in day out if it comes to moving through hard terrain. Some could but many could not and just because their willing does not make them able.
I guess they could take steriods if needed maybe that would help, i doubt it. Why would anyone want to jump into war unless there is a clear cut reason?
I am not sure what doing better in war means? Coming home in one piece with all your senses the way they were before you left is about as good as anyone can ask for. I do not think there is anything better than that. Some military people might dissagree with me on that subject.
Posted by jordanreed on :
if i were a woman?...I'd play it to the hilt! Posted by glassman on :
listen to/watch this interview.
Ron Paul is the real deal. He should be getting more air time... i don't agree with everything he wants to do, but he's not BS'ing.
No, you don't have to.....don't have to even if you are a good Methodist, particularly if you give generously to the home church. How-some-ever, IF you can read and specially IF you can also write, you MAY go to the Methodist Church. (Ignurant und unedified lesser trash is sent on to the Babdist and Kathalicks.)
I agree that Paul is genuinely what he claims to be. He can't win, but he is good for America anyway.
Posted by cottonjim on :
quote:Originally posted by Highwaychild: Plus, you have their monthly problem...
exactly why they might make better soldiers, get 'em all in sync and have 10,000 pissed off women charging up a hill Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by cottonjim:
quote:Originally posted by Highwaychild: Plus, you have their monthly problem...
exactly why they might make better soldiers, get 'em all in sync and have 10,000 pissed off women charging up a hill ;)
A terrible terrible idea!
Do you want a torture scandal that dwarfs Abu Ghraib and makes it look like innocent fun?
Posted by cottonjim on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee:
quote:Originally posted by cottonjim:
quote:Originally posted by Highwaychild: Plus, you have their monthly problem...
exactly why they might make better soldiers, get 'em all in sync and have 10,000 pissed off women charging up a hill
A terrible terrible idea!
Do you want a torture scandal that dwarfs Abu Ghraib and makes it look like innocent fun?
It wasn't?
Posted by bdgee on :
No, it wasn't.
It was a creature of a state of mind that should never have been allowed. We failed our young men and women by creating the idea that such activity would and could be praised.
Posted by glassman on :
Bill Clinton Boosts Wife's Bid Bill Clinton threw himself into the task of spearheading his wife Hillary's presidential campaign recovery effort across New Hampshire today, praising her as a practical political problem-solver who can get things done and borrowing a phrase from Tony Blair to dub her as "the best change maker" in American politics.
change maker? is that like: here's a hundred, and you get back a five and two tens? Posted by glassman on :
i caught an interview roundtable session on sunday. it was Tim Russert interviewing two professional politcal "advisors" (one retired to hollywood)...
the retired guy said Huckabee hasn't hired ANY media type political advisors...
that explains why he isn't a media favorite, but still won in Iowa...
i have to say i like the guy, but i doubt i'll vote for him...
Posted by retiredat49 on :
I like Huckabee, he appears to be sincere and I like a lot of what he has to say about how our tax system needs to be revamped... he is for the "fair tax" system, in which we would be taxed on what we consume, NOT what we earn...
Ron Paul is my hands down favorite though...
Posted by Persia on :
Obama is my favourite.
Huckabee? An ex-priest, evangelist pscyho as the president? Come on.
Posted by glassman on :
LOL persia, preists are catholic. evangels are protestant. i don't see anything psycho about him.
if you actaully listen to what he has to say? you'll find he's a very down to earth person..
i'm more interested in what they'll do after they get elected than what they say.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Persia: Obama is my favourite.
Huckabee? An ex-priest, evangelist pscyho as the president? Come on.
I don't think they call 'em priest in the Baptist Church, but other than that, how does he differ from dubya. He's even preaching that he's a "compassionate conservative", just like the Great Prevaricator did.
I think I'd like most of these wanna-bes sitting along a river bank dangling a line and swappin tales and lies, but I don't need a fishing partner or a drinking buddy or some guy to share rides to work.
Though I love being afield, I would have had a hard time putting up with the bravado of T. Roosevelt or the questionable ties to machine politics that followed H.Truman, but that sure as hell didn't keep them from being brilliant presidents.
On the other hand, the squeeky clean image of Ford didn't stop him from going pardon crazy, thus clearing the images and arrest records of the same bunch crooks that The Great Decider decided to put in place to undermine the Constitution and start a smoke screen war to hide their fascist efforts and a stolen election.
I wonder if we didn't have a bunch better chance of getting qualified party nominees for president in the old smoke filled back room style party conventions before the idea of locking the nomination via primaries came into vogue.
Posted by glassman on :
he differs from BUsh in some very important ways.
his dada wasn't the president that launched the Gulf War (which i support) and his dada didn't lose to Clinton...
he was not born privileged. I would prefer Ron Paul too. I will vote for Ron in my primary.
BUT?
as a second choice for republicans? Hucakabee is the best they have to offer..
Huckabee says he will increase funding to public schools and support more arts programs...
that is not bad at all IMO...
Posted by bdgee on :
"Huckabee says he will increase funding to public schools and support more arts programs..."
Yep, dubya did that TOO.
And we get "NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND" which seems intent on leaving all the children together in order to achieve that goal, so that, with no child advancing, they are all together and none are left behind.
Art? dubya seems to think drilling in Alaska is the only viable art and clearly it must be what he meant in the campaigning days when he said he would support art (or maybe he meant support Art Buckwald by having wife see that school libraries buy more of Art's books).
But maybe you are right and Huckaby is the best the republicans have to offer, leading me to strengthen my consideration that, once upona time we had "a bunch better chance of getting qualified party nominees for president in the old smoke filled back room style party conventions before the idea of locking the nomination via primaries came into vogue."
Posted by glassman on :
But maybe you are right and Huckaby is the best the republicans have to offer,
thats exactly what i'm saying..
i prefer Ron Paul, but the media spends all it's energy trying to make fun of him.. the media was wrong about Hillary too tho...
and they are even trying to make fun of Huckabee, but if you actually watch him speak? he is very compelling and well spoken. he speaks in complete essays.. Dubya can barely read what his speech-writers put in front of him, and when he goes off on his own? he can't even construct a sentence properly, and the only politician i've ever heard with worse word usage than dubya is The Right Reverand Jesse Jackson.
Posted by bdgee on :
That's my point though. Huckaby "looks" good and polished, but inside he's a bible thumper, like dubya, who claims to have direct conversations with god, who apparantly told him to invade Iraq, to threaten to invade Iran, to ignore Afghanistan and Katrina and on and on and on...... Thus, extrapolating from there, should that continue, this country is headed for hell.
Posted by glassman on :
inside? i can't see inside him.
i agree that most (99.9%) politicians speak one thing and do another...
Posted by glassman on :
also? as far as i can see? Dubya abused the evangels, he rode them hard and put them away wet.. a few will even admit that...
he only joined up with them cuz he needed the extra 4-5 % of the vote they actually represent...
Rove broke the numbers down perfectly and pulled the rabbit outa the hat.
Huckabee appears to be the genuine article...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Gov. Huckleberry is what the right is looking for...he will win the nomination. A good conservative with no odd angles like pro-life or Mormonism that has a fresh face and message that seems to be able to reach the whole congregation.
You guys see Ron Paul on Leno last night? I didn't watch it but I heard Leno called him in after Fox dropped him from the New Hampshire debates. Think some of the muckety mucks are trying to send a message??? (Don't be a Spoiler!!!) LOL
The more Bill does for Hillary the worse she is going to do. She is campaigning on her experience, not his. Every time the media says the words "Bill Clinton" it subconsciously suggests she can't handle it on her own. If she wants to win the Democratic ticket the very best thing she could do is send Bill home.
Edwards is campaigning to be Obama's Vice President. It's the same thing he did with Kerry. You hear how he defended Obama against a Hillary attack last week? Battle lines are being drawn in the sand and it ain't looking good for the Clinton clan.
Posted by glassman on :
i kinda wish Edwards would be the prez and obama would be the veep.
but?
i don't think it'll come out that way...
the GOP is a completely deflated organisation..
that's what you get from running years of negative politics, namecalling, and empty rhetoric, while supporting the fleecing of the middle class..
the middle class is the backbone of our nation.
Posted by bdgee on :
It's still too early to be predicting who will and won't win.
Only a month ago, we were being told that Hillary and Rudy had too much money and momentum for anyone to catch up.
Maybe not the backbone, but the haunches, the part that puts the push and the push back in everything American.
We need to do something about the condition of very poor that cannot help themselves. (Notice how that "we" is automatically translated inside your brain to "middle class", because we understand what is at stake, who will benefit, and who has to shoulder the load.) We know the filthy rich don't want to help those people. They need them to keep on buying the over priced fat butt producing food they supply marked up several times over cost but won't serve themselves.
Posted by glassman on :
i have no idea what you mean about me translating the very poor to the middle class..
i am firmly middle middle class and have never been motivated to become rich at any cost.
i know what poor means, i've been in a few third world countries, and i can drive a few blocks to find real shotguns shacks with families living in them...
Posted by glassman on :
oh, i see i misunderstood, you were not saying the middle class is poor, altho we are becoming poorer if you consider that the "spread" between the rich and the middle class is widening at a surprising rate...
and yes, i do agree that for the most part the middle class is what you have left when you remove the people without conscience..
Posted by Highwaychild on :
Kind of like when they wanted to give(sell) over our port security to UAE, but not hire good hard working AMERICAN people? Would that be called in-sourcing?
Posted by Propertymanager on :
We need to do something about the condition of very poor that cannot help themselves. (Notice how that "we" is automatically translated inside your brain to "middle class", because we understand what is at stake, who will benefit, and who has to shoulder the load.) We know the filthy rich don't want to help those people. They need them to keep on buying the over priced fat butt producing food they supply marked up several times over cost but won't serve themselves.
What would you do about the very poor? Also, if you think the RICH are exploiting the poor by overpricing their "fat butt producing food they supply marked up several times over cost", why don't you get some of your buddies together and start producing and selling food at lower prices? The grocery and farming businesses are very low margin businesses. If I thought I could do it cheaper and make a reasonable profit, I would do it!
Mike
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
You want to know something really sad? in 2004 or early 2005 we had some elections in Iraq. I was in Ramadi at the time and it was a hell hole. Threats of death, torture, and kidnappings were made to anyone going outside on voting day and going to vote.
And you know what? more people turned out to vote that those who turn out to vote in america.
there is a per capita thing of course but the percentage of eligible voters was way higher than what you see in the states.
its sad....people are lazy and getting worse.
Posted by glassman on :
low margin compared to what? manufacturing TV's in Taiwan and mainland china?...
Wal-Mart is one of the largest businesses in the world... adn ADM is one of the ag leaders. ADM:
Cost of products sold increased 21% to $40.8 billion primarily due to higher average prices of agricultural commodities and increased sales volumes. Manufacturing costs for 2007 and 2006 include a $21 million and $62 million charge, respectively, for abandonment and write-down of long-lived assets. In addition, cost of products sold increased $874 million, or 3%, due to currency exchange rate fluctuations.
Item 7.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (Continued)
Selling, general, and administrative expenses of $1.2 billion were comparable to 2006 and include $25 million of currency exchange rate increases. Excluding the impact of currency exchange rate increases, selling, general and administrative expenses decreased $23 million principally due to 2006 selling, general and administrative expenses including $20 million of severance costs associated with the closure of a citric acid plant.
Earnings Before Income Taxes '07 $ 3,154,000,000
'06 $ 1,855,000,000
Item 7.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (Continued)
Other operating profits increased $99 million to $409 million. Other – Food, Feed, and Industrial operating profits increased $55 million and include a $53 million gain on the sale of the Company’s Arkady food ingredient business and a $15 million charge for abandonment and write-down of long-lived assets. Other – Food, Feed, and Industrial operating results for 2006 include a $51 million charge for abandonment and write-down of long-lived assets, a $2 million charge related to the adoption of FIN 47, a $9 million charge representing the Company’s share of a charge for abandonment and write-down of long-lived assets reported by an unconsolidated affiliate of the Company, a $17 million gain from the sale of long-lived assets, and a $16 million charge related to exiting the European animal feed business. Excluding the effect of these 2007 and 2006 items, Other – Food, Feed, and Industrial operating profits declined $44 million due primarily to cocoa processing operating results declining from prior year levels and costs related to the start-up of the Company’s natural plastics production operations. Cocoa processing operating results declined primarily due to increased industry production capacity which caused downward pressure on cocoa processing margins. These increases were partially offset by improved operating results of the Company’s wheat flour processing and protein specialty operations. Other – Financial operating profits increased $44 million principally due to increased valuations of the Company’s private equity fund investments and higher operating results of the Company’s futures commission merchant business, partially offset by lower operating results of the Company’s captive insurance operations. The results of the Company’s captive insurance operations for 2007 include a $12 million charge related to a Hurricane Katrina trade disruption insurance settlement.
Corporate expense decreased $199 million to $7 million principally due to a $345 million increase in realized securities gains principally resulting from sales of the Company’s equity securities of Tyson Foods, Inc. and Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. and a $103 million reduction in unallocated interest expense due principally to higher levels of invested funds and higher interest rates. These decreases were partially offset by a $206 million charge, compared to a $12 million credit in the prior year, related to the effect of changing commodity prices on LIFO inventory valuations and a $46 million charge related to the repurchase of $400 million of the Company’s outstanding debentures.
Income taxes increased due principally to higher pretax earnings and the absence of last year’s $36 million income tax credit related to the recognition of federal and state income tax credits and adjustments resulting from the reconciliation of filed tax returns to the previously estimated tax provision. The Company’s effective tax rate during 2007 was 31.5% and, after excluding the effect of last year’s $36 million tax credit, was 31.2% for the prior year. The increase in the Company’s effective tax rate is primarily due to changes in the geographic mix of pretax earnings.
farming isn't too bad if you know WTF you are doing, and have a congressman or two in your hip pocket..
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: You want to know something really sad? in 2004 or early 2005 we had some elections in Iraq. I was in Ramadi at the time and it was a hell hole. Threats of death, torture, and kidnappings were made to anyone going outside on voting day and going to vote.
And you know what? more people turned out to vote that those who turn out to vote in america.
there is a per capita thing of course but the percentage of eligible voters was way higher than what you see in the states.
its sad....people are lazy and getting worse.
something about Bush has people more fired up and ready to vote than they have been in years tho CCM...
and it's not his good side that did it ...
how's life stateside?
glad you are back home... you are back now right?
do you ever hear from dardadog anymore? i haven't seen hide nor hair o' that houndog inawhile...
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
yep I am back and ready to get out in just a few months. I am flying back home this weekend for 30 days of leave. Got a lot of interviews lined up, and will be looking at homes.
Speaking of homes im trying to figure out if the VA home loan is best or if there is a better program out there for me purchasing my first house.
I am going to be so glad Bush is out soon. Many guys in my unit feel he is the worst president ever. We cant really be vocal about it though because first off he is our commander & chief and under military law we cant slander. That really doesnt matter though its all the bush lovers in the military. In fact it seems like that the only ones left who do like him. If I walked into my area at work and said out loud how much of a pathetic loser bush is many people would be furious, and you know thats pretty sad that they dont see it.
I have always voted and been a republican type, but you know something is telling me maybe we need some change...who can do it? not hillary she is too corrupt by washington already and we have seen her dark side. obama? i dunno....i would accept him as president but would be VERY cautious.
just dont take away my guns, raise taxes, and for crying out loud someone PLEASE organize washington and stop the wild goosechase spending. get everyone out of iraq, and halt the amero and the flood of illegals. bush has expanded our government wayyy too much. why do we need homeland security? what is that? dont we have enough of that from all the other agencies and law enforcement? are we just making stuff up so we can spend more money? i dont get it...why are grown ups acting like kids.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: We need to do something about the condition of very poor that cannot help themselves. (Notice how that "we" is automatically translated inside your brain to "middle class", because we understand what is at stake, who will benefit, and who has to shoulder the load.) We know the filthy rich don't want to help those people. They need them to keep on buying the over priced fat butt producing food they supply marked up several times over cost but won't serve themselves.
What would you do about the very poor? Also, if you think the RICH are exploiting the poor by overpricing their "fat butt producing food they supply marked up several times over cost", why don't you get some of your buddies together and start producing and selling food at lower prices? The grocery and farming businesses are very low margin businesses. If I thought I could do it cheaper and make a reasonable profit, I would do it!
Mike
You have proved once again that you don't know what you are talking about and when you do talk, it is through your hat,
The supermarket retail grocery business works at about an average 3/4th of one percent markup with a planned average turn over of approximately 1.3 days. Sit down and work out 0.75% compounded about 280 times and get an idea what the annual profit actually is. I'll take it and I'll bet you will too.
The grocery business is only one that is a necessity for the very poor, taking a huge percentage of their budget and it isn't the oddball in it's profiteering.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
Glassman,
So again my question. If you guys believe that the food producers and the grocery stores are making a killing at the expense of the poor, why not put some people together and start a chain of farms and grocery stores and sell your products for less. You could make a "reasonable profit" and benefit mankind. What would be wrong with that?
My other question is what does bdgee think we should do about the very poor? Does he have an idea of something that would help?
Posted by bdgee on :
CashCowMoo,
We appreciate your service....
THANKS!
And the very best in the future.
Posted by glassman on :
cuz i am not a grocer.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: yep I am back and ready to get out in just a few months. I am flying back home this weekend for 30 days of leave. Got a lot of interviews lined up, and will be looking at homes.
Speaking of homes im trying to figure out if the VA home loan is best or if there is a better program out there for me purchasing my first house.
I am going to be so glad Bush is out soon. Many guys in my unit feel he is the worst president ever. We cant really be vocal about it though because first off he is our commander & chief and under military law we cant slander. That really doesnt matter though its all the bush lovers in the military. In fact it seems like that the only ones left who do like him. If I walked into my area at work and said out loud how much of a pathetic loser bush is many people would be furious, and you know thats pretty sad that they dont see it.
I have always voted and been a republican type, but you know something is telling me maybe we need some change...who can do it? not hillary she is too corrupt by washington already and we have seen her dark side. obama? i dunno....i would accept him as president but would be VERY cautious.
just dont take away my guns, raise taxes, and for crying out loud someone PLEASE organize washington and stop the wild goosechase spending. get everyone out of iraq, and halt the amero and the flood of illegals. bush has expanded our government wayyy too much. why do we need homeland security? what is that? dont we have enough of that from all the other agencies and law enforcement? are we just making stuff up so we can spend more money? i dont get it...why are grown ups acting like kids.
have you thought about running for congress?
it's a real good time for Vets to be meeting and greeting.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
lol i wish glass
i have thought about getting into local politics though. not sure if I would want to claim any party though with all the mess that each one carries with it.
Posted by glassman on :
have to start somewhere, and you have to pick a party.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
If they just quit I.R.Sing everybody to death... and with all the loop holes for the rich and all. The rich get richer. Instead of income tax, a what you buy tax would kick a$$!
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
isnt there a candidate running who wants to get rid of the IRS?
Posted by glassman on :
huckabee and ron paul have both said that...
whether thye could actually get'er done? i dunno..
it would "naturally" create incentive to save money...
we are now (probably) in our third year of a negative savings rate in the US that's somehting that hasn't happened since the depression hit... Posted by cottonjim on :
The funny thing about this election is, it is not about Dem. or Rep. or Ind. or issues ironicaly enough............. It is all about getting rid of Bush and the war scandle. It was the same in 2000 when we elected Bush "who had no position on any issue BTW, just a famous last name" but we still elected him.. WHY, to get rid of Clinton and to have a president that didn't have "those kind" of scandals in the White house.
Let's reflect now on the pro's and cons, LMAO. I will take president B.J. over President Blow **** up any day. BUT, he was elected for the wrong reasons, and the American people are probably going to make the same mistake in this election.
FOCUS ON THE ISSUES.
OH, BTW, hi from Missippi this evening and Memphis, TN Tomm. Bdg, I am dying to hear it....................................................................
Posted by glassman on :
how'd you like our storms tonight?
Posted by Highwaychild on :
cottonjim wrote, "Let's reflect now on the pro's and cons, LMAO. I will take president B.J. over President Blow **** up any day. BUT, he was elected for the wrong reasons, and the American people are probably going to make the same mistake in this election."
yeah, it's like they tell us they're cooking dinner, but all we have to choose from is crap and puke... and that will be $400 please.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
For the love of God, In this whole country, WHY can't we find a a$$hole that's not such a freekin' a$$hole? Is it that hard to run the free world?
Posted by glassman on :
it seems to me that anybody with enough ego problems to actually want the job, has, well, has EGO problems Posted by cottonjim on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: how'd you like our storms tonight?
It was light sprinkles by the time the plane landed. The temp. at home was nice when I left, a balmy 34 degrees but I like this 67 degrees in January.
Posted by cottonjim on :
quote:Originally posted by Highwaychild: cottonjim wrote, "Let's reflect now on the pro's and cons, LMAO. I will take president B.J. over President Blow **** up any day. BUT, he was elected for the wrong reasons, and the American people are probably going to make the same mistake in this election."
yeah, it's like they tell us they're cooking dinner, but all we have to choose from is crap and puke... and that will be $400 please.
the lesser of two evils does not even begin to describe the choice, does it.
Posted by cottonjim on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: it seems to me that anybody with enough ego problems to actually want the job, has, well, has EGO problems
The presidancy has become more about the "POWER" and less about leading our great nation into the future since the '96 election. That us when the attitude changed and the tactics changed.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: huckabee and ron paul have both said that...
whether thye could actually get'er done? i dunno..
it would "naturally" create incentive to save money...
we are now (probably) in our third year of a negative savings rate in the US that's somehting that hasn't happened since the depression hit...
Not only would the "fair tax" create an incentive for people to save money...it would also force the underground (drug dealers, pimps, prostitutes, etc.), and the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes...
Ron Paul also wants to dismantle the Federal Reserve...another damn good idea!
Posted by T e x on :
We should also be elegible for rebate/credit (some kind of reward) based on our individual carbon-footprint: for example, someone who drives a 4-cylinder, high-mileage vehicle, whose home uses little electricity, gas and water vs another who drives a Hummer and lights up the neighborhood with a gluttonous, energy-drain of a house.
If private corporations doing government business are a good idea, they at least need to be accountable to public procedure and FOI. The DTC comes to mind...
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Glassman,
So again my question. If you guys believe that the food producers and the grocery stores are making a killing at the expense of the poor, why not put some people together and start a chain of farms and grocery stores and sell your products for less. You could make a "reasonable profit" and benefit mankind. What would be wrong with that?
My other question is what does bdgee think we should do about the very poor? Does he have an idea of something that would help?
The idea that there is one simple answer to the problem of helping the very poor assumes that there is one simple answer (or just a few) to the question of why people are among the very poor. It just isn't true that there is a "reason" or even a handleable list of reasons that put people among the very poor (we are just beginning to admit that battle fatigue can be one reason and we too often choose not to see that physical handicap is another) and to assert that anyone should provide or be able to provide an answer before seriously attacking the problem is simple minded (or maybe dishonest).
It is much like suggesting that someone provide "A WAY" to cure sickness, which, of course, assumes the simple minded (an incorrect) assumption that all illnesses are the same or can be successfully treated with the same method. (Unless, of course, you follow the lead of Tom Cruise, to the Church of Scientology.) You can't rationally treat cancer with penicillin and you can't expect to cure polio with a liver transplant.
And when is it objective to declare that since there is no simple answer, the problem shouldn't be attacked? Many cancers are successfully treated via surgery, others succumb to radiology and others to chemotherapy.......some kinds, that now look to be hopelessly untreatable will, with time and serious research, be found to be treatable with some methods we cannot now understand.
However, I do have suggestions for how to approach the problem. Begin, first, with getting over the idea that is insurmountable, so not worth the effort. Second forget the idea that any one is guilty or anyone is innocent.....it is a problem that plagues us and warrants serious attention. (Blaming the poor fool that has AIDS hasn't helped one iota.) Third, discard the notion that anyone or any group or all of us are not responsible. WE licked polio and smallpox and how many other sicknesses, because WE, COLLECTIVELY, set about to do so.
Understand that "The Free Market" has no interest in or ability to consider "the general welfare", but that hunger and sickness and poverty do indeed lower it.
In that document that begins with the statement that "We the People of the United States ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America", there is no requirement that WE provide for profit of any magnitude for the wealthy (or anyone) nor any hint that "The Free Market" is a desired goal, mechanism, or even a preferred direction or consequence for "We the people".
Posted by Propertymanager on :
there is no requirement that WE provide for profit of any magnitude for the wealthy (or anyone) nor any hint that "The Free Market" is a desired goal, mechanism, or even a preferred direction or consequence for "We the people".
So, if not the free market - what?
So, you don't have any solutions to the problem of the very poor even though you're the one promoting doing something about it. Surely, you have some ideas.
Mike
Posted by Propertymanager on :
Not only would the "fair tax" create an incentive for people to save money...it would also force the underground (drug dealers, pimps, prostitutes, etc.), and the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes...
That's why it will never work. We certainly can't have everyone sharing in the tax burden. The poor will be exempt and everyone else will want an exemption. Tex is already wanting his reward for living without using that evil energy.
I think the fair tax is a GREAT idea, but it will never happen.
Mike
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Not only would the "fair tax" create an incentive for people to save money...it would also force the underground (drug dealers, pimps, prostitutes, etc.), and the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes...
That's why it will never work. We certainly can't have everyone sharing in the tax burden. The poor will be exempt and everyone else will want an exemption. Tex is already wanting his reward for living without using that evil energy.
I think the fair tax is a GREAT idea, but it will never happen.
Mike
prop man, are you an entrepreneur or not? no entrepreneur ever said what you just said. they see problems as opportunities.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
I'd prefer giving Tex an exemption for clean livin rather than Exxon Mobile for some loophole exploitation.
Will there be corruption of a new tax system? Yeah, human nature to try and find out how. But I think it'd be better than the status quo personally.
Oh, and as to the grocer dealy. They are called CSA's (Community Supported Agriculture) and provide locally produced agricultural products to a certain amount of members depending on the size of the land. You get more for your money from a CSA than you could from the grocery store, remove the transportation economics out of the equation and many are organic or semi-organic in nature.
I could also introduce you to a guy who is doing some crazy things with eggs by creating special feed for his chickens. It's organic (of course) and the eggs look a little green when cooking but the eggs are jam packed with nutritional value.
BF
Posted by glassman on :
by a severe twist of fate, i happen to know an awful lot about the USDA... Abraham Lincoln founded the USDA BTW.
in the last year we have seen a big decrease in the amount of food purchased for food banks at the same time that needs have increased. Food banks are seeing more and more failing/recently failed homeowners. Many people who were just getting by as renters tried to grab the brass ring when given the chance, and are now in worse shape than they were before they bought the houses they couldn't afford. Is it their fault? sure, but lenders are EQUALLY responsible for not doing their own due dilligence too.
here's some research to evaluate if you want:
Program Data
Introduction
The Program Data site provides selected statistical information on activity in all major Food and Nutrition Service Programs (FNS). These include the Food Stamp Program; the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC); Child Nutrition Programs (National School Lunch, School Breakfast, Child and Adult Care, Summer Food Service and Special Milk); and Food Distribution Programs (Schools, Emergency Food Assistance, Indian Reservations, Commodity Supplemental, Nutrition for the Elderly, and Charitable Institutions).
Four types of tables are provided: historical summaries, annual state level data for selected elements, monthly national level data for major programs, and the latest available month for state-level participation in major programs. The summaries begin with 1969, the year that FNS was established to administer the Department of Agriculture's nutrition assistance programs.
my better half is one of those people working to make sure that there is affordable, healthy food for everybody today and for generations to come.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: there is no requirement that WE provide for profit of any magnitude for the wealthy (or anyone) nor any hint that "The Free Market" is a desired goal, mechanism, or even a preferred direction or consequence for "We the people".
So, if not the free market - what?
So, you don't have any solutions to the problem of the very poor even though you're the one promoting doing something about it. Surely, you have some ideas.
Mike
You just don't seem to be able to understand.
You have repeatedly proposed a faulty reasoning by blaming those among the very poor, which not only doesn't even suggest there is a problem to solve, it declares that the problem is the fault of those people in order to absolve you of any responsibility.
Then, in order to hide from the fact that you want an excuse to refuse to participate and to prevent others from participating in solving the problem, you want to disguise that fact by saying others have no solution and therefore there is no problem that can be or should be attacked.
There is no simple single reason or billing of reasons that put the very poor in that category and, as such, there is noone simple and final flu vaccine simple way or billing of ways to end the problem.
Even were it possible to propose one, it would be like attempting to discover that one simple and final flu vaccine that will eliminate flu forever. Were it possible to create such a vaccine, then we would see the viruses that cause influenzas to mutate to become immune to that one simple and final flu vaccine.
Do you want to go on record as opposed to the study of developing flu vaccines, because no one of them will solve the problem forever? It's the same approach you suggest to poverty (and just about anything that isn't financial and stemming from free market theory)!
The route to solving a problem is not in refusing to acknowledge it is a problem or in decrying the lack if simple bumper-sticker-able solutions, but that is the sum and total of your contribution.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
So, you want to complain about the problem, but you don't have a single idea of any way to improve things.
Well, then here's my idea. My idea is to incentivize able-bodied people to work. President Clinton did this in the 90s when he reformed the welfare system. What he did was quite successful for a short time, until the idiots in the government found ways of giving out welfare while calling it something else.
My idea is to reform the system again. Cut off benefits (over a 1 year period) for those that are able to work. Stop paying people on government assistance to have more children. People on social security and other programs should be allowed to work if they like, with no limit on the amount of money they can make. They paid into social security, so why should they not receive benefits if they want to work?
Assistance to drug addicts should be stopped, while money for treatment and job placement should be increased.
The mentally ill should be properly cared for, including re-institutionalizing those that are severly ill.
That's my plan. What do you think?
Posted by glassman on :
They paid into social security, so why should they not receive benefits if they want to work?
because it is social security...
not a pension plan.
Social Security pays a very low rate of return for two-income households with children. Social Security's inflation-adjusted rate of return is only 1.23 percent for an average household of two 30-year-old earners with children in which each parent made just under $26,000 in 1996.1 Such couples will pay a total of about $320,000 in Social Security taxes over their lifetime (including employer payments) and can expect to receive benefits of about $450,000 (in 1997 dollars, before applicable taxes) after retiring at age 67, the retirement age when they are eligible for full Social Security Old-Age benefits.2 Had they placed that same amount of lifetime employee and employer tax contributions into conservative tax-deferred IRA-type investments-such as a mutual fund composed of 50 percent U.S. government Treasury bills and 50 percent equities-they could expect a real rate of return of over 5 percent per year prior to the payment of taxes after retirement. In this latter case, the total amount of income accumulated by retirement would equal approximately $975,000 (in 1997 dollars, before applicable taxes).
it was never intended to be a pension plan, but it has gotten outa crontol...
i do not beleive that we should allow the SS program to "invest" in the market at all, because the market is not safe.
i recently heard Cramer say that there are about 100 hedge funds that completely dominate/dictate how/when the market will go bull or bear.
they have the cash power to basically skim all of the cream off the top and maybe even make skim milk out of the market if they get that crazy, d'oh, maybe they alreadsy have?
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: So, you want to complain about the problem, but you don't have a single idea of any way to improve things.
Well, then here's my idea. My idea is to incentivize able-bodied people to work. President Clinton did this in the 90s when he reformed the welfare system. What he did was quite successful for a short time, until the idiots in the government found ways of giving out welfare while calling it something else.
My idea is to reform the system again. Cut off benefits (over a 1 year period) for those that are able to work. Stop paying people on government assistance to have more children. People on social security and other programs should be allowed to work if they like, with no limit on the amount of money they can make. They paid into social security, so why should they not receive benefits if they want to work?
Assistance to drug addicts should be stopped, while money for treatment and job placement should be increased.
The mentally ill should be properly cared for, including re-institutionalizing those that are severly ill.
That's my plan. What do you think?
It is simply a simple minded abuse of the governmental power based on a strictly political position that seeks to blame those not among the wealthy rather than provide for the general welfare. It is not a solution of any kind. It is an excuse to avoid responsibility by blaming things on someone or something else, so that you are neither burdened nor responsible for the situation or the results.
Clinton's effort that you point out did not work, even for a short time, other than spending monies that otherwise would have gone toward assisting those people, on a "police force" to try and make them do what they already have proved they cannot.
Until the economy can and will (for the last few yours it could have but, for the most part, sent those jobs offshore) provide means for those people to participate, of their own free will (yeah, I think they, too, have a right to the "American Dream"...you cannot, via political expediency or via edict, make them enjoy whatever job you assign them) in the society in a meaningful way (meaningful to them, not to you or me or the republican party ot the catholic church) and without stigma, they will not be able to and your program fails before it begins. Call them names or call them lazy and you produce bitterness and resentment, not enthusiasm. Call on them to perform to suit your needs or wishes and you have slavery. Neither gets us productive members of society that contribute.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
I agree with many of your points PM.
I think that those on SS should be able to make up to 100 grand in family income (adjusted for inflation) before penalties on draw come into play (at least until they have reached the full value of what they paid in to the program).
I don't like that widows only receive 50% of a partners benefit after death either.
Caring for the mentally ill would be a HUGE step in the right direction regarding poverty and homelessness. That would be a good chunk of change though...you ready for that?
I think that there shouldn't be limits to how much you can make in a year to be on welfare. That defeats the idea of getting people back on their feet.
Here is my idea on how welfare should work. If you are accepted on to welfare you are no longer eligible for any type of credit until you have completed the program (Car Loan, Home Loan, Paycheck Advance...anything) You must meet with a Financial Councilor once a quarter while on welfare. You can make as much as you are able to under the welfare system until you feel you can continue on without it. There will be two ceilings based on net worth rather than savings or earnings. Basing the ceilings on net worth would prevent abuse without penalizing productive workers. The first ceiling would be an automatic 40% decrease in welfare benefit once reached to help ween those without the inner fortitude to embrace being on their own off of the system. The second ceiling when reached will require completion of the program.
I agree the system needs to be tweaked so that having more children isn't a benefit but I don't know how to do that.
Drug addiction........tough issue. Best thing we could do is close the gaps in the Mexican border.
BF
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Not only would the "fair tax" create an incentive for people to save money...it would also force the underground (drug dealers, pimps, prostitutes, etc.), and the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes...
That's why it will never work. We certainly can't have everyone sharing in the tax burden. The poor will be exempt and everyone else will want an exemption. Tex is already wanting his reward for living without using that evil energy.
I think the fair tax is a GREAT idea, but it will never happen.
Mike
PM WHY wouldn't it work...you would pay taxes on what you buy (sales tax)...not on what you earn (income tax). Consumers are not going to stop consuming...there is a solution for everything.
Posted by glassman on :
I don't like that widows only receive 50% of a partners benefit after death either.
or widowers. it's a rip-off.. it was set up at time when women were seen as property (it wasn't that long in our country either)
furthermore? the whole SS cash fund is spent already and then some to pay as we go..
if you are under 50? you will not likely get any unless we somehow pay off the 30,000$ (give or take) worth of govt debt per PERSON that we have right now.
the Iraq war was presented as costing maybe 200 billion, and the ally they "would become" would be generous to US with their oil.. what a joke. it's going to cost at minimum one trillion$ before the end of the next presidency and all of that is borrowed from foreigners, and we don't even know where half the money spent on the war is going...
one trillion represents about 1/8th of our total public debt...
that does not even include the cost to consumers it has created by the tripling in the price of oil. Iraq still does not produce as much oil as it did under Sadam... ado you, or does anybody really think supporting the war is patriotic? it's destroyig our economy
Posted by cottonjim on :
Mission accomplished in Mississipi, now back in Memphis for the night. Doesn't look like I missed anything to exciting around the allstocks world today....am I right?
Posted by glassman on :
Dixie Chicken by Lowell George
I’ve seen the bright lights of Memphis And the Commodore Hotel And underneath a streetlamp I met a southern belle
Well, she took me to the river Where she cast her spell And in that southern moonlight She sang this song so well
If you’ll be my Dixie Chicken I’ll be your Tennessee Lamb And we can walk together Down in Dixieland Down in Dixieland
Well we made all the hot spots My money flowed like wine And that low-down southern whiskey Began to fog my mind
And I don’t remember churchbells Or the money I put down On the white picket fence and boardwalk Of the house at the edge of town
Oh, but boy do I remember The strain of her refrain And the nights we spent together And the way she called my name
If you’ll be my Dixie Chicken I’ll be your Tennessee Lamb And we can walk together Down in Dixieland Down in Dixieland
Oh, well it’s been a year since she run away Guess that guitar player sure could play She always liked to sing along She’s always handy with a song Then one night in the lobby Of the Commodore Hotel I chanced to meet a bartender Who said he knew her well
And as we handed me a drink He began to hum a song And all the boys at the bar began to sing a long
If you’ll be my Dixie Chicken I’ll be your Tennessee Lamb And we can walk together Down in Dixieland Down in Dixieland
if Hillary wins again? i'll have to start posting all the reasons not to vote for her...
did you know her daughter worked or still does for a hedge fund? that's not somebody that's looking out for the "peasants" ...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
You know...the more I think about it the more I think that Edwards has the right strategy. (If my opinion of what he is trying to do is correct, that is...)
He's a young man who is popular with those who know him but doesn't have the name value buzz like some of the others.
So, he's going after certain sectors and laying a strong foundation while the big kids bash it out for the popular vote. Whoever ends up winning the nomination Edwards becomes the most viable candidate for V.P. and gets 4-8 years in the White House with free publicity. Then in 2016 he gets another shot to run for Pres. this time as the automatic #1 seed for the Dem party.
It's a long view approach but it could potentially give him 16 years in the White House and make him one of the most notable names in early 21st century politics.
(The above is all dependent on the republican party failing to overhaul their image i.e. remembering their roots)
Posted by bdgee on :
"(The above is all dependent on the republican party failing to overhaul their image i.e. remembering their roots)"
It looks like they aren't, as you suggest, thus putting a democrat in the White House and that person chooses the VP.
But what about other persons he (or she) will select ....... AG, Sec. of State, head of CIA, etc? I have been thinking and have a few suggestions:
head of CIA: Joe Wilson has ambassadorial experience in both Africa and the Arab nations, lots of experience dealing with Islamic governments and is familiar with the CIA operations.
AG: Elikot Spitzer wouldn't hesitate in investigating anyone.
Sec. of State: Richardson has dropped his presidential candidacy. I thought he had the best experience and qualification of any presidential candidate in decades. Why not put that to use?
Sec. of Defense: Wesley Clark has vast qualifications.
And maybe Howard Dean might be a good Surgeon General.
Posted by glassman on :
Joe Biden should be in there..
Head of homeland security should be Clarks job with Biden as Sec Def.?????
IF it's Hillary? she is going to have to go way out of her way to try to make nice with the Def Dept. they hated Billy boy, i know, i was working with them as a cicvie when he got elected, and alotof 'em were foaming at the mouth... civvies and mil types both...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Clark as homeland security...I like that.
What do you guys think...Did Bush ruin Powell?
Posted by bdgee on :
Powell ruined Powell with that speach to the UN "proving" that Saddam had all those WMDs. The whole world remembers his "guarantee" that war in Iraq was Saddam's decision and Bush and crew had no option.
If the next VP should be allowed to have even a hint of the power dickie boy has had, I like Biden there....or maybe Dodd.
There are a number of possibilities among the democrats for any of the positions. But, should some magic event put a republican in, which republicans are free enough of the taint of the culture of corruption of dubya and Abranov and DeLay and this generation of republicans that they might have a real chance of honorable leadership in any of the positions.? The world wants to see us beyond what we are now and I don't think ignoring them would be wise. Our credibility is long ago used up and we have been on the dole for years in that consideration.
Posted by glassman on :
if the next VP has the power that dubya bestowed up dick then it's time to start looking at migrating IMO... as it is? i will be very unhappy if Hillary is ur next president simply because this is becoming aristocratic.. like royalty... totally UNamerican IMO...
i think Hillary is the one Dem. of the top three that can actually lose against the top four GOP's..
i also noticed that the exit polls were wrong again...
in Iowa? the vote had to be honest.. you take it by standing up.. in NH? they have diebolds.. they are programmed by LHS...
if we keep getting bad exit polls? the country is doomed.
exit polling has been used in many other countries to determine voting irregualarities, but here, nobody seems to mind other than to say the stupid media got it wrong...
Posted by Lockman on :
Ban exit polls until all the voting is done.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: Ban exit polls until all the voting is done.
why?
i can show you a half dozen examples where we have accused other countries of running "crooked" elections based on them...
do you like the idea that your vote MAY NOT matter?
in Afghanistan and Iraq? our military ran good (no they were GREAT) elections. we used paper ballots with pictures on them, but here? we settle for touching a screen and not even getting a printed receipt? remember the purple thumbs to prevent double votes?
at minimum we should get two receipts.
on to be deposited for posterity and one to keep.
the receipts could even be color coded and bar coded for quick counting by human or machine..
walmart can process some billions of transactions daily this way...
is it so important to know who won before we go to bed on election day that we are willing to allow some programmers somewhere (hackers or "legit" employees) dictate the winners?
i want to vote with a SHARPIE marker.
Posted by Lockman on :
I'm not suggesting a complete ban. I just think sometimes when exit polls are used to projects winners and losers some voters stay home feeling what's the use. Use them as a tool to insure honesty no problem.
Purple finger ok. I'd draw the line at pink.lol
Posted by Propertymanager on :
walmart can process some billions of transactions daily this way...
Now you've done it Glassman. You mentioned that most evil of capitalist enterprises - Walm-rt. You certainly don't want to use Walma-t as an example of anything done right. What's next? Free Enterprise? Bdgee is going to go crazy!
This would be a good time to repent (before bdgee wakes up).
Repeat after me.
"I believe in socialism" "I believe in socialism" "I believe in socialism"
Now, don't you feel better?
Posted by Lockman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: walmart can process some billions of transactions daily this way...
Now you've done it Glassman. You mentioned that most evil of capitalist enterprises - Walm-rt. You certainly don't want to use Walma-t as an example of anything done right. What's next? Free Enterprise? Bdgee is going to go crazy!
This would be a good time to repent (before bdgee wakes up).
Repeat after me.
"I believe in socialism" "I believe in socialism" "I believe in socialism"
Now, don't you feel better?
lol
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: I'm not suggesting a complete ban. I just think sometimes when exit polls are used to projects winners and losers some voters stay home feeling what's the use. Use them as a tool to insure honesty no problem.
Purple finger ok. I'd draw the line at pink.lol
OK, i get you, you don't want to hear the numbers...
i agree..
but i think the GAO should be conducting studies.
i know some people don't like big govt, but i have grown up and lived around civil servants (state and fed) all of my life.
most of 'em grumble alot, and they do be a little lazier than entrepeneurs, but they also (generally) have a certain moralistic attitude about fairness that isn't seen in the "free market"... mostly cuz they can afford to be fair and they rarely have to worry about the same kinda stuff that small biz people do...
it really is pretty stupid to expect your vote to be counted when it just disappears into a "black box"
Posted by Bob Frey on :
Interesting mission statement. Do they consider themselves American's or African's? How close is Obamas ties to this church? I can't see this helping him.
Posted by Lockman on :
It does seem we have to have faith in our election process. I'm sure there are all kinds of tricks that can be played. In CT we just switched to a ballot similar to an sat test. Fill in the blank dots. They screwed up the first one in a recent Mayor election an gave some people a card from another district. Most people don't even know who their Rep. is so they vote party lines.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: Interesting mission statement. Do they consider themselves American's or African's? How close is Obamas ties to this church? I can't see this helping him.
back in the early 90's i asked one my African American friends why suddenly he and alot of others decided to begin calling themselves African Americans.
i explained to him that it concerned me that they seemed to be putting Africa first.
his response was short and on point.
Africa is not a nation. It is a continent with many nations. there's no patriotism involved.
Posted by Lockman on :
I didn't see any mention of America in that mission statement. Just an observation. Opponents of Bama could and probably will spin this in a negative direction.
Posted by glassman on :
i agree, anything can be spun...
last night i saw Huckabee being commented on by two coonservative think tank stuffed shirts on hardball..
they hate Huckabee, they called him a liberal Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: walmart can process some billions of transactions daily this way...
Now you've done it Glassman. You mentioned that most evil of capitalist enterprises - Walm-rt. You certainly don't want to use Walma-t as an example of anything done right. What's next? Free Enterprise? Bdgee is going to go crazy!
This would be a good time to repent (before bdgee wakes up).
Repeat after me.
"I believe in socialism" "I believe in socialism" "I believe in socialism"
Now, don't you feel better?
Ok, so you say, but I don't doubt that you believe in anything other than the almighty dollar and then only as you are permitted to accumulate them, whether legally, morally, or otherwise.
And I am certain you have no idea what socialism actually is. Or at least what you imagine socialism to be, which, with your constant fallacious postings, you have proved to be a collection of misunderstanding of fact.
Let me correct a only few of your misunderstandings:
Socialism is not communism.
Communism is a political not an economic system.
Capitalism is a financial not a political system.
The Constitution does not outlaw socialism or require capitalism or provide any support for or restrictions on the form of our economy, however, it does define itself to be primarily concerned with promoting "general welfare".
Fascism thrived in Italy and Germany and Japan during the 1920s and 1930s and early 1940s in an essentially free market economy, where government was essentially controlled by the vastly wealthy corporations. That is the essential and defining principal of fascism, as it can only exist via governmental subjugation to the interests of vast wealth and financial interest. Fascism in Germany and Italy, was brought to bear on those nations through democratic process (Japan at that time was a semi-religious dictatorship).
I am not a socialist or anything close thereto and I am fed up with you saying, implying, hinting, or suggesting otherwise....display your ignorance of and confusion about political and economic systems in some other way, please.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i agree, anything can be spun...
last night i saw Huckabee being commented on by two coonservative think tank stuffed shirts on hardball..
they hate Huckabee, they called him a liberal :eek:
I saw that program too. They certainly were against Huckaby, but they expressed near hate toward Guilani. We should be careful, though, in trying to extrapolate from that, as they expressed nothing very positive about any candidate and quite clearly were praying for the discovery of some mythical perfect evangelical far right-wing republican free market anti-communist Mr. Clean to appear like a bolt of lightening to capture the heart and sole of all Americans, whisk out the dirt and grime of politics from my ladies conservative kitchen, and save the day for all that is right and good.
Posted by glassman on :
the far right is isolationist by it's very nature.
they don't seem to realise that without 9-11 Dubya never would have been re-elected, and barely was.
as for his election in '00? we all know that was a mere technicality.
the fact is that without the "middle" no candidate can be elected...
and the middle is pretty riled up over Dubya, and was also riled up over Clinton. that was why Gore lost to Bush ...
the middle is bigger than either the far left or the far right... much bigger.
Posted by bdgee on :
"the middle is bigger than either the far left or the far right... much bigger."
YES!
Which makes me wonder about who Romney gets his advice from. He has a natural constituency far bigger than the evangelical right by claiming to be his father. So, why on Earth is he switching his long time positions to try become like them?
Posted by cottonjim on :
quote:Originally posted by cottonjim: The funny thing about this election is, it is not about Dem. or Rep. or Ind. or issues ironicaly enough............. It is all about getting rid of Bush and the war scandle. It was the same in 2000 when we elected Bush "who had no position on any issue BTW, just a famous last name" but we still elected him.. WHY, to get rid of Clinton and to have a president that didn't have "those kind" of scandals in the White house.
Let's reflect now on the pro's and cons, LMAO. I will take president B.J. over President Blow **** up any day. BUT, he was elected for the wrong reasons, and the American people are probably going to make the same mistake in this election.
FOCUS ON THE ISSUES.
Glass, I think you just echoed my thoughts from a few pages ago. The Presidental position has been filled for the wrong reasons for the past few elections.
Posted by glassman on :
sad isn't it?
in '00 i was for McCain, i was living in SoCali, and lemme tell you, i took some serious grief for being a redneck conservative...
how Bush beat him is anybodies guess, Dubya stumbled all over himself in every debate, and i couldn't believe people thought the smirk on his face was a smile...
Now? McCain seems to have sold out to the Bush doctrine, i won't vote for him unless it's achoice between him and Hillary..
i don't agree with him on immigration and i still don't understand what he means when he says win the war in Iraq..
i am not for pulling out immeditaley, but i am for repositioning ourselves there, and i am definitely for a full accounting of all the g-damn money..
every penny.
whistle blowers should be given rewards and promoted to top level positions because they are showing intestinal fortitude and doing the right thing, not put in front of a firing squad. esp. when you consider these whistle blowers are civil servants making 90 grand a years or less and responsible for literally 100's of BILLIONS of our tax dollars.
the GOP was once about fiscal repsonsibity...
Posted by Propertymanager on :
bdgee,
Here's a very good definition of socialism:
An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.
When people show a disdain for the free market, private enterprise, big companies, and anyone making a dollar, that sounds like socialism to me. Let's face it, the left wing of the democrat party is certainly squarely in the socialist camp. Our country is on the fast track toward socialism while the socialistic countries of the world are on the fast track toward democracy and free enterprise!
Posted by glassman on :
and anyone making a dollar
heh, there's a difference between earning a dollar and making one..
the treasury MAKES dollars...
if our country is on the fast track towards socialism it's because we are losing the global economic war to the damn socialistas...
China, Russia, the whole mideast
name me one other economic powerhouse that is not socialist, and don't point to Japan, they have a very unique stratified power structure there that you can spend your whole life studying, and never understand some of the finer points... we do not want their economic system..
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
These economic systems seem to differ between nations even if they are seem on the surface to be the same.
But the bottom line here is how does our system and the majority of people survive?
I see three major problems that have to change:
1.Imports have to be slowed up.(import taxes) 2.The war has to end.(not 5 years from now) 3.Corporate goals have to change among many of the larger companies.(they need long term goals for the benefit of the companies and majority of the workers)
The first two "Should" be pretty easy the last much harder.
Where is our society headed in the next 10-20 years if we do not make changes in the direction we have been headed for the last 20+ years?
Posted by bond006 on :
Iwish If we would bring back the use of the tariff like we use to. not only would we control imports but we would increase much needed tax revenue. We are the biggest consumers on the face of the earth the other countries would pay it.
Those that invested over seas tough to them tratiors.
If you were to look up the history of the tariff you would see that our forefathers ran the entire government on them and thought it was the American thing to do.
Just another thank you to that criminal Ronald Reagon for starting the process of free tarde.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: bdgee,
Here's a very good definition of socialism:
An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.
When people show a disdain for the free market, private enterprise, big companies, and anyone making a dollar, that sounds like socialism to me. Let's face it, the left wing of the democrat party is certainly squarely in the socialist camp. Our country is on the fast track toward socialism while the socialistic countries of the world are on the fast track toward democracy and free enterprise!
No, it may be something that suits you, but that is NOT a good definition of socialism. It is a biased misstatement of the purpose and the process to make it look to be something "controlling and unfair". That is not part of what socialism is about and does not define socialism any more than do the dictatorial practices of the fascist governments of the first half of the twentieth century defined capitalism Those horrid systems were, in case you didn't know, or, in case you choose to ignore the fact, purely capitalistic). There are socialistic societies that are essentially democratic and others that are not. There are capitalistic societies that are essentially democratic and others that are not.The claim that in socialism, "the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy" is false as is also the claim that "the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government".
"When people show a disdain for the free market, private enterprise, big companies, and anyone making a dollar, that sounds like socialism to me."
No, what sounds to you like socialism is anything other than what you want to be. No matter what it may sound like to you, it is not socialism to find fault with "free market, private enterprise, big companies, and anyone making a dollar".
"Let's face it, the left wing of the democrat party is certainly squarely in the socialist camp."
That one is simply a lie.
"Our country is on the fast track toward socialism while the socialistic countries of the world are on the fast track toward democracy and free enterprise!"
And that one is foolish nonsense and about as significant as passing wind in a hurricane.
The human race adjust itself and the systems it manages for its well being to circumstances as circumstances change, according to necessity and expediency; thus, there is change, even in economic practices. Fail to adjust, and you die out.
You show disdain for everyone not like you and any system that places any restriction on your financial wishes. Government sets restrictions in order to prevent what it decides is counter productive and to provide the most for the most people over which it holds sway (such decision may be due to the will of the people or not). Governments that fail in that task, or confuse it with being there to the protect the financial or social standing of the privileged don't survive, quite commonly, via violent revolt, whether or not they are socialistic. (See for example England just before the Magna Carta or France just before the revolution or The U.S.S.R. more recently.)
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Have not seen you post for awhile Bond006, maybe i did not see them. Hope everything is good.
Posted by glassman on :
i think he's correct about US being on the fast track to socialism in a way...
i don't know his reason for saying it, but my reason for saying it is what bond006 said...
bond is correct IMO, the founding fathers did in fact expect to run the country on import tarrifs..
since the "free trade" deals have been made? we have shifted to a service economy. IMO? a service economy means we are becoming a country of servants...
sooner or later our economy will eat itself
because basic econ tells us that we cannot continue to import products at a net loss indefinitely. as that happens? socialism will be the only answer..
we already hear about how Ford and GM can't afford to compete with Nissan Honda and Toyota in this country because they have health care costs that are too high..
somehow? those costs have to be absorbed. socialised medicine is one answer to making the US MORE competitive int eh world market..
am i a proponent? no, i'm simply being a realist..
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
One area that is overlooked in general is the changing of corporate goals.
Most of the corporate goals of these large companies are focused on short term profit. The bonus structues are such that they want short term profit at all cost.
Over time the results of the goals put in place during the last 10+ years is starting to destroy companies. Long term company health is continually sacrificed for the short term goal that will generate bonuses!
The quickest way to meet the short term gaols is to cut down overhead which includes many employess that are keys to the companies success.
Employees are expected to have a new job every five+ years or he is thought to be lazy. What does that do for these companies that want to succeed in finding employees who really care or go that extra mile for the benefit of the company.
One of the targeted age groups for overhead cuts would be the over 40 age group. Although there is always some dead weight in any group this group is hit the hardest in cutbacks. This is not only because of their higher salaries. In some cases their history with the company makes them a threat to the revolving door of upper management.
Those who have been with a company the longest often have the greastest amount of knowledge as a group on what has worked in the past and what hasn't. Don't get me wrong, new blood is vital. But companies also need to value those who have established themselves and their knowledge.
Corprate America does not want to talk much about how they have messed up in their plans to grow their business. They will blame everything else instead of the changes they have implemented. Part of this might be because many stockholders are only concerned about today... until tomorrow. I think we are seeing a little of the "tomorrow" in today's stock market.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
When you are talking about corporate America you must also talk about executive compensations.
Executive compensation has been appreciating at an average of 10% or more per year for the last two decades.
Just take the S&P 500 for instance...in 2006 the average compensation for a CEO of one of these companies was 15.6 Million.
Does this sound like sustainable economics to you?
And PM, you are still making the mistake of believing that cheap = good. That position is going to take a beating over the next decade as folks continue to start realizing exactly what else "cheap" equals.
Posted by T e x on :
hence, Glassy-eyed's post re: the snake eating its tail...
my question is...as traders, as thinkers, what are we gonna do to leverage our dissatisfaction?
Posted by glassman on :
so a guy makes 15.6 million while the median household income is: In 2006, the median annual household income according to the US Census Bureau was determined to be $48,201.00.[3] The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) in the year 2006 was $26,036.
that guy is making more in one day than the median household makes in year.( based on working 300 days, or 6 days a week )
and more in one day than for 2 years per household member based on the same number of days(including all working and non-working members above the age of 14)
socialism is inevitable in this scenario because the simple fact is that none of us peasants can afford to pay all the bills... the wealthy drive the prices beyond our means constantly. Look at what happened thru deregulation of nat gas and electricity pricing. it did not increase competition as advertised, the exact opposite happened.
i don't know how anybody can actually run a 4 person household on 48,000 per year. i feel wealthy when i read these numbers, and i am not wealthy by any common measure of the term.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
The problem is not with the corporations, but rather with the fact that we are now in a global economy. Now that the cork is out of the bottle, it will be very difficult to get it back in, but the global economy is the big problem.
How are American Corporations going to compete with Chinese companies that are paying their workers just a few dollars per day? They can't. Therefore, our products are no longer competitive. How are we going to change that short of isolationism? We aren't. In addition, the wacko left has pushed so many regulations and taxes, that these adverse factors are also pushing American manufacturing overseas.
Socialism does not work. It hasn't worked in the past and it won't work now. If you take away the incentive to work hard and innovate, people won't do it. I know I wouldn't.
Posted by jordanreed on :
"wacko left"...good god!!..get off it..you lose all cred. you'd do better without the derogatory bias and just present your arguement.
Posted by bdgee on :
"How are American Corporations going to compete with Chinese companies that are paying their workers just a few dollars per day?"
The answer is quite simple. First, stop emptying the corporate treasury to the uppermost level paychecks and second get some new thinking to replace the 19th century stagnation that is there now making millions a year and get over the idea that we can still out produce the rest of the world in industries we forced them to learn and modernize in order to get out from under our economic thumb. There is industry that is not mining coal, drilling for oil, building automobiles, or smelting iron and they are NOT "service industries".
Put a couple of billion into research and development of hydrogen power, making certain none of it goes to huge corporations that only send what is left of it, after they pay their officers some sinful amount, offshore and is put in the hands of thinkers rather than business minds. Then put another couple of billion into building an infrastructure (not by corporations, they only will design it to feather their own nest) to provide it. Do that now, not later and wew can spend the following century supplying the fruits of that investment to the rest of the world and training them how to use it. wait and someone else will do it and they will be selling it to us.
There is no future for the U.S. in maintaining a 19th century industrial philosophy and economic structure. In order to stay on top, we have to get over corporate control of industry of all kinds and operate our economy so as to provide the best benefits for all of our people, not the rich. Money invested MUST NOT be doled out in irrational sums to the "captains of industry" any more, because they no longer think of themselves as operating in an American economy , but in a global one and their monies are no longer here to benefit our population.. They have their money offshore, so they don't even pay taxes on vast portions of their income now.....income that comes from being American and being given protections by our Government. They are not sharing the load and will not if not forced to!
Posted by bdgee on :
"Socialism does not work. It hasn't worked in the past and it won't work now. "
That's BS. I suppose you are going to cite examples to try and make that argument. For every failed socialistic system, there must be hundreds or thousands of failed non-socialist systems. I point out that MOST capitalistic governments have failed throughout history and a far greater rate of percentage than socialistic governments.
Then there is this nonsense:
"If you take away the incentive to work hard and innovate, people won't do it. I know I wouldn't."
Extrapolating from your selfish and arrogant attitude and definition of "incentive to work" to the general population is cheap and simple minded. Do you really believe Albert Einstein or Harry Truman worked with any intent toward becoming financially wealthy? How very stupid! And anyone with even the least grain of intellect knows without measuring them that the amount and difficulty of the work those men had the incentive to do in a year makes the total of any effort you will have put out in your entire lifetime look like a joke.
Actually, when everything is considered, you saying " I know I wouldn't" have any "incentive" to work doesn't mean so much as a hill of beans in this world's benefits, as you won't add much if anything of value and you will hoard all of it you could amass. The "wackos" you detest so much don't much need you or your backward ideas and certainly aren't hampered by your loss or the loss of your ideas. They've been getting along without you for a century or more.
Truthfully, when it comes to "incentive to work" you haven't got a clue, let alone any answer.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
In order to stay on top, we have to get over corporate control of industry of all kinds and operate our economy so as to provide the best benefits for all of our people, not the rich.
Tell me how that is not socialism. You say you're not a socialist, but then do everything to promote it. Why can't the left just say what they believe? Instead of all the 3rd grade insults and bullying, why not just tell us what YOU believe and how YOU think we should solve these problems. You don't like my ideas, but at least I will say what I believe. You, on the other hand, either don't have an idea or won't say what it is. Why?
Posted by Highwaychild on :
I recently heard somewhere, Bush proposed to Iraq's government that they break down the Iraqi oil profits, and distribute them to each Iraqi. They rejected the idea, but does that make Bush a socialist Prop?
Posted by bdgee on :
No one can tell you anything, I've noticed, particularly about social and economic and governmental concerns, as you are stuck deeply about 2/3rds of the way through the 19th century.
You clearly have no idea what capitalism or socialism or communism or democracy or fascism or mysticism or hedonism is or that each is independent of each of the others.
I am no more required to provide a solution to such problems, in order for those problems to exist, than you are for finding a solution to the problem of which non-separating planer continua have the fixed point property, in order that that be a problem.
So get over the notion that you may require me to provide you with a solution at all, and certainly get over the idea that I can provide you with a solution your 19th century mentality can fathom or accept.
I grant that you are not prone to "3rd grade insults and bullying". No, yours are a couple of grades below that......first grade or maybe kindergarten insulting and bullying is the tool you resort to when trying to justify your meanness and bigotry.
Calling people and their ideas "wacko" and "leftest" and "socialist" and so on isn't an argument or a justification of your views, it is simply vulgar and childish.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
Six paragraphs to say absolutely nothing. Again, I challenge you to tell us what YOU believe.
In order to stay on top, we have to get over corporate control of industry of all kinds and operate our economy so as to provide the best benefits for all of our people, not the rich.
Again, that is socialism. Plain and simple.
Posted by glassman on :
"wacko" left again?
that's a clear sign you have no thoughts of your own, you are simply parroting what you hear from the radio.
PS the Chinese and the Russkies are both running socialist systems. the Chinese haven't failed yet.
the Russkies failed under their commie system, but in order to beat hem? we ran our deficit so high that we are not likely to bring it down ever...
so? in essence? capitalism has failed too, because capitalism isn't about borrowing money from your grandchildren it's about leaving them money.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
PM
True socialism means everyone gets an equal share. Everyone in the community has an equal voice on what the community invests in.
This is not possible in the real world.
Realistic socialism is having one group at the top dolling out all goods. There is no oversight and it sets up an elite that has no rules. It is this class of people that undermined the democratic effort in Russia by believing they were above the rules and turning into an expansive mafia type organization. Putin is not far removed from this type of person. Russia is growing strong now due to the fact that he has taken over the energy sector to support government spending and economic growth. It isn't sustainable though. One big disruption to oil production in Russia will have a resounding effect to their entire economy. Just watch. It'll happen eventually.
I don't think anyone here is arguing that we should be moving towards a true socialistic economy. Indeed I think the majority of us "leftist wackos" are against any elite class from gaining too much power. Special skills should be rewarded. Innovation should be rewarded. Advancement should be the goal of our government and our economic leaders.
We aren't seeing that in our current economy. We are seeing titles being rewarded regardless of production. We are seeing innovation being stifled and actively fought against in the political arena to maintain the status quo. In short, short term interests are derailing long term growth.
As our economy grows so to should the base of what the 'everyman' should be able to expect from living in the richest nation in the world. That isn't happening.
We aren't saying be socialist (I and the others here aren't naive enough to believe that the true form of socialism is possible) but we are saying 'grow sustainably'. Invest in the base of the economy and the whole of the pyramid gets a boost. Invest only on the top and you create a elite class that will make our democracy nothing more than a puppet show.
BF
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: The problem is not with the corporations, but rather with the fact that we are now in a global economy. Now that the cork is out of the bottle, it will be very difficult to get it back in, but the global economy is the big problem.
How are American Corporations going to compete with Chinese companies that are paying their workers just a few dollars per day? They can't. Therefore, our products are no longer competitive. How are we going to change that short of isolationism? We aren't. In addition, the wacko left has pushed so many regulations and taxes, that these adverse factors are also pushing American manufacturing overseas.
Socialism does not work. It hasn't worked in the past and it won't work now. If you take away the incentive to work hard and innovate, people won't do it. I know I wouldn't.
the global economy is to blame now?
LOL...
there's these things we call import tarrifs. they work, and they are not isolationism.
this is a "buzzword" that is being heavily misused in order to promote the destruction of our economy for the benefit of the upper 1/2 of 1%.
the Chinese people are not who we US citizens are competing against..
in almost every single instance? we individuals are competing directly against a foreign government.
yet you blame OUR government for being too strict? what a paradox.
we are now seeing foreign state owned companies buying into american business, and our politicians are encouraging it for their personal profit.
you call that Capitalism?
that is socialism and it's being perpetrated on US.
Posted by T e x on :
ya...
outsource the gov't.
Problems with Social Security? Dial the New Delhi call center...
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
There is one way to look at it Propertymanager, if the economy keeps going the way it is, you will have a lot more families to rent your apartments to.
Most of our countries middle class.
Posted by bdgee on :
"True socialism means everyone gets an equal share. Everyone in the community has an equal voice on what the community invests in."
Yes, and that last part guarantees that it would be a pure democracy (not a republic, which does not guarantee pure democracy), a fact that seems to escape the minds of the right.
Anyone that has ever actually read Marx learns first and foremost, he never envisioned such a system actually being put in place, because it can't work in a real world. He called it a utopia, not a goal.
Those that blame Marx for communism and socialism are really fools that don't bother to look beyond the surface and see that Marx was not suggesting, he was trying to teach man the lessons of refusing get along and work together. That some simple minded misunderstood and tried to make the impossible come to pass only points out the danger of accepting things that seem to offer easy solutions. (Stated in another way, why spend wasteful energy in competition if it can be saved by cooperation, i.e, work together....)
Posted by glassman on :
In addition, the wacko left has pushed so many regulations
this part really is propaganda too..
here's where i see all the really problematic regualtions coming from:
big business out to stunt the growth of small business.
what's the MOST "regulated" and "left leaning" state in the Union?
California... California is by itself the 7th largest economy in the world...
most of the regualations out there that i "ran into" were about meeting earthquake codes and other environmental quality standards..
do you know who was going to get all of my money if i started up my studio out there?
Engineering firms. engineers tend to be pretty "right minded" people in my experience...
in the end? most of our regulations are designed to SAVE us all money in the long run, but most of the regualtions that end up being passed into law FAVOR big businesses..
not only are the engineering firms raking it in over regulations? the other glass blowers would lobby their town councils to ban any more studios in several of the communities where they already were. and they succeeded in several towns...
i hate not being able to eat the fish caught locally. they are all poisoned because of lack of proper regulations in farming practices...
Posted by Propertymanager on :
there's these things we call import tarrifs. they work, and they are not isolationism.
this is a "buzzword" that is being heavily misused in order to promote the destruction of our economy for the benefit of the upper 1/2 of 1%. the Chinese people are not who we US citizens are competing against..in almost every single instance? we individuals are competing directly against a foreign government. yet you blame OUR government for being too strict? what a paradox. we are now seeing foreign state owned companies buying into american business, and our politicians are encouraging it for their personal profit.
I agree with that. It is a paradox. Our corporations and people are competing in large part with foreign state owned companies (socialist and communist) who are virtually paying their people slave wages. In addition, our companies are subject to all kinds of laws (environmental, safety, tax, etc) that the state owned companies are not subject to. We are at a HUGE competitive disadvantage.
Of course, they are buying up American businesses (key businesses). They're awash in US Dollars that are increasingly worth less and less. Something has got to change.
Tariffs are fine with me, but I believe that will just start a trade war that we can't win. We're the ones that need their products, not vice versa.
Could we go back to being economically isolationist? I doubt it. That would probably be best for our jobs but it would be extremely difficult.
It's either that or we get lean and mean and compete with their low wages and lack of regulation.
It's not going to end well.
Posted by glassman on :
We're the ones that need their products, not vice versa.
i disagree.
we can produce everything we need right here, even the power we need, all we need to do is roll up our sleeves and sharpen our pencils.
Posted by glassman on :
China is quickly becoming a toxic waste dump..
their lack of regulation will cost them for generations to come..
PETS, FOOD SAFETY, CHINA, THE FDA, AND YOUR HEALTH
By Byron J. Richards, CCN
April 5, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
Americans are up in arms that our pets are being injured and killed by a toxin sent to America by a Chinese company. Melamine, a toxic fertilizer used in China, is the suspected culprit behind the deaths and injuries to potentially hundreds of thousands of our pets. The FDA assures us that this toxin has not entered the human food supply – does anyone believe in the competence of the FDA? It is only a matter of time before this type of problem happens to humans, as the inept FDA has no control over imported food intended for humans, let alone pets.
Melamine was used to help grow wheat, a practice that is legal in China and illegal in the U.S. This poison ended up in wheat gluten used as a protein source and thickening agent in pet food. Why were all these pet food companies, many claiming to be producers of fine quality pet food, buying wheat gluten from China when the U.S. is one of the top producers of wheat in the world? These companies sacrificed the health of your pet to make a profit, buying the cheapest source of wheat gluten they could find. This is the new way of the global economy, find the cheapest price and forget about health implications.
all that lead in their paint will insure that they have long term health problems too...
this is merely the tip of the iceberg...
they had a sulfuric acid spill in the Imperial Grand Canal a couple years back that was equivalent to the Exxon Valdez in stupidity and breathtaking eco-damage...
Posted by glassman on :
OK, back to the election.
I have never cared for the Clintons. I have never been foaming at the mouth about them like Newt Gringrich wanted us GOP's to be, but i disagree fundamentally with most of their policy making decisions. I do respect their ability to hire the best and the brightest people tho (specifically in contrast to Dubya)..
this weekend/past week? the Clinton's have unveiled a very bad strategy of attacking Obamma. I see them twisting/spinnning the truth so bad that they deserve to be called to the mat by their own party. it isn't that they shouldn't attack him, it's how they are doing it. they are endangering their own party. why am i not surprised.
Hillary refused to answer Tim Russerts questions directly on Sunday. He tried to pin her down on her votes FOR the Iraq war, but she just kept spinning her excuses.
keep in mind that Billary moved to NY only because they could put Hillary on the ticket to run for Senate there because NY has the only residency law in the US that would allow her to do it...
i assume she was still an Arkansas resident when they left the White House, but NY had changed their law years ago to allow somebody else to "carpetbag" into their state...
Posted by glassman on :
my already high respect for Tim Russert went up immensely from this interview.
can you imagine having a former President mad at you?
you dems need to consider very carefully how much pressure an ex-President can bring to bear on individual journalists and their editors. IMO? you dems are making a suicidal decision putting her in the race. Obamma and Edwards can beat anybody in the race except maybe Huckabee. i think he could possibly beat everybody if he gets the nod. simply because he'll take the middle with pure charm. Hillary IMO, will not get more than 49% of the US vote, too many already dissatisfied GOPs will make a point of coming out to vote against her. The middle will split apart again. just like Rove did it in the last two elections? she will do it, and she is doing it to your party right now.
Posted by bond006 on :
Iwish, evrything is fine just don' have a lot of time budget cuts at the state hope McCain leaves AZ don't like his ugly face
Posted by bond006 on :
IMHO I just would like to see somebody eles besides a Clinton or a Bush this time if Hillary wins it will be at least 24 years between the two families
Posted by retiredat49 on :
I agree with Glass...I don't believe Billary can win. The conservatives despise the Clintons and there are a lot of dems that won't for her either. I too believe that Obama/Edwards have the best chance to beat the GOP...but Huckabee could pull it off because he will get the majority of the middle.
I still like Ron Paul the most...It's funny though, I took a drive up north last week and counted 7 yard signs for Ron Paul and not one for any of the other candidates dem or rep...and Michigan is pretty much a liberal state...
Posted by glassman on :
the media is crushing Ron Paul.
every time they mention his name they snicker. or chuckle as if we are crazy...
what was it prop man said? globalisation is inevitable? only because people just like the Clintons and the Bush's are gonna keep pushing it thru..
remember, Bill signed George the Firsts NAFTA bill... NAFTA didn't do anything that was promised by the politician that pushed it thru, as a matter of fact, it's done just what H Ross Perot said it would do...
Posted by a surfer on :
The media crushes everything at some point Glass!!
Here is an e-mail I received tonight crushing Obama.
Sorry if its already been discussed.
Subject: Obama and the Democratic Party
Obama is supposed to be the candidate to bring us all together. Click on the web sight of his church and look at its list of vision priorities. If a white candidate belonged to a church for whites only and placed allegiance to Europe over that of the US, it would be a constant topic in the press until he was driven out of the campaign. I find it nearly impossible to believe that the only viable candidates for President in the democratic party are Obama and Clinton! What has happened to the party of Truman, Kennedy, and Roosevelt?
Obama mentioned his church during his appearance with Oprah. It's the Trinity United Church of Christ. I found this interesting. In fact, I found it SCARY! Obama's church: Please read and go to this church's website and read what is written there. It is very alarming. Barack Obama is a member of this church and is running for President of the U.S. If you look at the first page of their website, you will learn that this congregation has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa. No where is AMERICA even mentioned. Notice too, what color you will need to be if you should want to join Obama's church... B-L-A-C-K!!! Doesn't look like his choice of religion has improved much over his (former?) Muslim upbringing. Strip away his nice looks, the big smile and smooth talk and what do you get? Certainly a racist, as plainly defined by the stated position of his church! And possibly a covert worshiper of the Muslim faith,even today. This guy desires to rule over America while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa! I cannot believe this has not been all over the TV and newspapers. To think that Obama has even the slightest chance in the run for the presidency, is really scary.< BR> Click on the link below: This is the web page for the church Barack Obama belongs to: www.tucc.org/about.htm Posted by glassman on :
OK, i just got to use the the newest Deibold machine. no lines.
it (apparently) gave me the "option" of printing my votes before they were actually cast. the receipt is recaptured on another roll and maintained in the machine.
this should not be an option. i was able to view a printout similar to a cash register receipt and that did match my votes. however, since it was an option that would seem to mean not all the votes are being printed.
it is possible, that it would have printed it out after i cast it, but i don't know...
Posted by bdgee on :
There was no backup. paper or otherwise, where I voted.
That means that, in event of a power surge or other event or if there is hanky panky (I voted for Obama in a heavy republican district), there will be no way to know if I did or didn't vote or for whom and my vote for sales of booze in restaurants will not count.
Posted by glassman on :
you in a dry county bdgee? are y'all 'lowed to brown bag at the restaurant?
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
we're not just last in health care among the industrialised world...
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: you in a dry county bdgee? are y'all 'lowed to brown bag at the restaurant?
Wet or dry here goes by precinct, not county. And some counties may be "wet" only with respect to sales in grocery stores or liquor stores or maybe in resturants, but only with a meal.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I do not support a draft of any kind men or women, but I do not think that all women should ever be included in a draft, voluntary service only. Call me old fashioned ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
...![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
