|
|
|
|
 |
TonyEX
 |
|
Duh.... didn't we see this coming? Like a year and a half ago?
From the LA Times
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32049471/ns/politics-white_house/
"...The hope and optimism that washed over the U.S. in the opening months of Barack Obama's presidency are giving way to harsh realities..."
"...and his ability to blame them on his predecessor is fading..."
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
The United States has massive problems that built up over decades. I never expected Obama to repair everything in the first six months of his presidency.
If anything, the article speaks to the general impatience of the public. The 24/7, ultra-capitalist, magic-pill, hyper-materialist, ADHD, instant gratification society is not used to waiting.
|
TonyEX
|
|
Naw... Obama is as much as part of the problem. He adheres to the old progressive-socialist notion that you can solve problems by throwing money at them and legislation.
I think most americans are finally waking up to reality.
Phhhht! :-P
atomiclightbulb wrote:
The United States has massive problems that built up over decades. I never expected Obama to repair everything in the first six months of his presidency.
If anything, the article speaks to the general impatience of the public. The 24/7, ultra-capitalist, magic-pill, hyper-materialist, ADHD, instant gratification society is not used to waiting.
|
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
What would you do then? Nothing?
That's really the problem I have with the anti-Obama politicians in Washington. They don't offer anything except tax cuts, and I don't think tax cuts are prudent when we have 2 ongoing wars.
The only reality is that difficult problems take effort and pain to solve. I think the WWII generation understands this. Japan and Nazi Germany did not fall in 6 months. The Baby Boomers and those who came after are generally complete failures when it comes to patience.
|
TonyEX
|
|
I would
(1) make political contributions illegal
(2) strongly control -if not outright make illegal- political lobbyism.
(3) bring ALL public employees into Social Security
(4) stop borrowing from SS to pay for the deficit
(5) legalize all drugs except a few few (heroin)
(6) enforce our borders
(7) index taxes and introduce a flat tax
(8) mandate that ALL financial transactions at ALL US bourses and OF ALL US equities be registered ( no more CMO trading in London)
(9) enforce right to work laws _AND_ safe working environments
(10) get the Gov. off abortion.. that's an individual right
I could go on and on...
But, if I were elected, I will surely piss both Democrats and Republicans, mostly because I would piss off Big Business...
http://www.citizen.org/_corpcrime/politics/index.cfm
atomiclightbulb wrote:
What would you do then? Nothing?
That's really the problem I have with the anti-Obama politicians in Washington. They don't offer anything except tax cuts, and I don't think tax cuts are prudent when we have 2 ongoing wars.
The only reality is that difficult problems take effort and pain to solve. I think the WWII generation understands this. Japan and Nazi Germany did not fall in 6 months. The Baby Boomers and those who came after are generally complete failures when it comes to patience.
|
|
MalcolmR
|
|
TonyE:
I'm with you.
Why not just remove government from everything except protection of life and property. Limit taxes simply to raising revenue for that.
Decriminalise everything else. Remove regulations. People are competent - especially in free groups with the authority and responsibility to live for themselves.
Malcolm
|
RayChuang
|
|
In my humble opinion, :-) we need to clean up our economic house to get the USA back on its feet.
This needs to be done in two steps:
1) Completely revamp our taxation system--including repealing the 16th Amendment if necessary!--so if encourages personal savings and capital investment in the USA. Our current income tax system encourages too much tax evasion (e.g., participating in the underground economy and legally sending liquid assets out of the USA to avoid income taxes), favors too much debt financing over cash financing, and will cost Americans a frightening US$350 BILLION this year to comply with 2008 taxes (and it will get more expensive per year from now on!). That's why I'm a big fan of the FairTax national sales tax to completely replace all of our income taxes, which will finally bring much-needed liquidity back to the US economy and save Americans the US$350 billion/year cost of compliance.
2) Clean up our financial regulations to stop uncontrolled investments that caused the stock market crash last year. This means requiring liquidity backing to trade in hedge funds, derivatives and credit default swaps, raising the minimum margin requirements for trading in stock futures and commodities futures from 5% to 15% (and as much as 25% for items critical to the national economy), revamping the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to better balance IPOs and accounting reporting requirements, and reimposing the full provisions of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act to get the banks out of the equities business.
Do my two suggestions and our economy will stabilize and turn around in under a year. :)
|
Dren
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
TonyE:
I'm with you.
Why not just remove government from everything except protection of life and property. Limit taxes simply to raising revenue for that.
Decriminalise everything else. Remove regulations. People are competent - especially in free groups with the authority and responsibility to live for themselves.
Malcolm
|
I agree with a lot of that. Income tax has to go. The government got along quite ok with the relatively small 8% corporate tax a while ago. The Fed has to go also. Money should be privatized like it used to be.
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
Why not just remove government from everything except protection of life and property. Limit taxes simply to raising revenue for that.
Decriminalise everything else. Remove regulations. People are competent - especially in free groups with the authority and responsibility to live for themselves.
Malcolm
|
Decriminalization I can agree with. I am strongly against repealing regulations.
Why?
Because the reality of the world we live in is that there are many complex products and services we consume, and there is no way for the average person to know what is safe and what is not. While government regulation is imperfect, it is better than nothing.
For example, I have a full time job and responsibilities at home. If I get an ear infection, I don't have the time or expertise to conduct tests on prescription antibiotics to make sure they are safe. The same goes for the food I eat, and pretty much every other product I use.
I deposit my money in a bank, and invest in mutual funds. Without regulation or the FDIC, I cannot be sure that my assets are safe. I cannot be sure that the mutual funds are real.
Lack of regulation made sense in centuries past, when products and services were relatively straightforward. If I was buying farming tools, defects would be readily apparent. Food was grown and consumed locally. I would have more assurance that the food was fresh and not contaminated with industrial chemicals.
In a world where everyone is honest and well-intentioned, an Ayn Rand-style deregulated economy would be ideal. But I am under no illusions that the world is a happy place. The greedy loan companies that made subprime loans willy-nilly, Bernie Madoff, corrupt politicians like the ones recently arrested in the state of New Jersey, Al Queda terrorists, and many others are proof enough that the world is full of smart but dishonest and violent people who need to be counterbalanced.
|
FAL
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
MalcolmR wrote:
Why not just remove government from everything except protection of life and property. Limit taxes simply to raising revenue for that.
Decriminalise everything else. Remove regulations. People are competent - especially in free groups with the authority and responsibility to live for themselves.
Malcolm
|
Decriminalization I can agree with. I am strongly against repealing regulations.
Why?
Because the reality of the world we live in is that there are many complex products and services we consume, and there is no way for the average person to know what is safe and what is not. While government regulation is imperfect, it is better than nothing.
For example, I have a full time job and responsibilities at home. If I get an ear infection, I don't have the time or expertise to conduct tests on prescription antibiotics to make sure they are safe. The same goes for the food I eat, and pretty much every other product I use.
I deposit my money in a bank, and invest in mutual funds. Without regulation or the FDIC, I cannot be sure that my assets are safe. I cannot be sure that the mutual funds are real.
Lack of regulation made sense in centuries past, when products and services were relatively straightforward. If I was buying farming tools, defects would be readily apparent. Food was grown and consumed locally. I would have more assurance that the food was fresh and not contaminated with industrial chemicals.
In a world where everyone is honest and well-intentioned, an Ayn Rand-style deregulated economy would be ideal. But I am under no illusions that the world is a happy place. The greedy loan companies that made subprime loans willy-nilly, Bernie Madoff, corrupt politicians like the ones recently arrested in the state of New Jersey, Al Queda terrorists, and many others are proof enough that the world is full of smart but dishonest and violent people who need to be counterbalanced.
|
And many of those smart and dishonest people are in government and use regulations as weapons or policy tools to achieve ideological goals and punish their enemies, as well as increase their personal power, wealth and patronage.
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
FAL wrote:
And many of those smart and dishonest people are in government and use regulations as weapons or policy tools to achieve ideological goals and punish their enemies, as well as increase their personal power, wealth and patronage.
|
Agreed. But the government's powers in the United States are divided: horizontally among the branches, and vertically from local to national. This creates checks on dishonest people.
For example, Vince Fumo, a Senator in the Pennsylvania legislature, stole millions in taxpayer dollars for personal use. His corruption went on for years, but the US Attorney nailed him and he's going to prison.
Richard Nixon tried to use all of his executive powers to cover up Watergate, and he was eventually forced to resign in disgrace. Congress would have impeached and convicted him.
In a purely Randian economy, with no regulation or check on corporate power, corporations would run amok with impunity. The US of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was rife with dangerous working conditions and dangerous products.
Government is not always well-intentioned, but a check on corporate bureaucracy and abuse is better than no check at all.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
Millions of free hearts and minds making decisions in their best interests are the best check of all.
Remember, humans making decisions in their best interests includes fellow humans. Otherwise you wouldn't bother posting here. You care.
Malcolm
|
MalcolmR
|
|
FAL:
Agreed.
You said: "And many of those smart and dishonest people are in government and use regulations as weapons or policy tools to achieve ideological goals and punish their enemies, as well as increase their personal power, wealth and patronage."
Yes, and they can be the best friends of many corporate crooks trying to screw individuals. Much of the corporate greed that 'lefties' moan about can only be accomplished with their political cronies. And through regulations.
Look at the Kennedys: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14209
The Kennedys created a myth, a brand, a mythical legacy. Kennedy Inc., seems crooked to the core. Yet 'lefties' think the Kennedys looked after the working man and can do no wrong.
I have met very few 'truly bad' humans. Yet I have met many people who tell me that humans are 'bad'. And everyone of those people explains they're not one of the bad. Interesting.
I'll back individuals working in freedom from regulations. They'll make more decisions in the best interests of all.
Malcolm
|
HONDA AFVM
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
FAL:
Agreed.
You said: "And many of those smart and dishonest people are in government and use regulations as weapons or policy tools to achieve ideological goals and punish their enemies, as well as increase their personal power, wealth and patronage."
Yes, and they can be the best friends of many corporate crooks trying to screw individuals. Much of the corporate greed that 'lefties' moan about can only be accomplished with their political cronies. And through regulations.
Look at the Kennedys: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14209
The Kennedys created a myth, a brand, a mythical legacy. Kennedy Inc., seems crooked to the core. Yet 'lefties' think the Kennedys looked after the working man and can do no wrong.
I have met very few 'truly bad' humans. Yet I have met many people who tell me that humans are 'bad'. And everyone of those people explains they're not one of the bad. Interesting.
I'll back individuals working in freedom from regulations. They'll make more decisions in the best interests of all.
Malcolm
|
As the GREAT Ronald Reagan said in the 1960's, you would swear he came back from the dead and spoke about it TODAY;
REAGAN: Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.
There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. But at the moment I'd like to talk about another way because this trip is with us and at the moment is more imminent.
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it.
Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.
So with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand said, if we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, they can we can expand the program after that. Well, let's see what the socialists themselves had to say about it. They say once the Ferrand bill is passed, this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population. Well, we can't say we haven't been warned.
James Madison in 1788, speaking to the Virginia Convention said: “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
Now in our country under our free enterprise system, we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.
But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.
This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being.
In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in world’s history. The only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relation to man, a little group of the men, the founding fathers for the first time – established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny.
This freedom was built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today. And strangely we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. Well, majority rule is a fine aspect of democracy, provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities.
What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms and that you demand the continuation of our traditional free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen, even if we believe that he's on our side to begin with, write to strengthen his hand. Write those letters now. Call your friends and tell them to write. If you don't, this program, I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow. And behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country... until one day as Norman Thomas said, we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don't do this and if I don't do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free.
That's powerful people and we MUST NOT allow this man......Obama to destroy this land we love and protect with our lives, prosecute CIA agents, stuff Cap & Trade down our throats, health care in and out of our pay checks and determine what we can and CAN'T listen to on the Radio.
God Bless Ronald Reagan and his principles of Strength and Conservative values. May we elect that PERSON in 2012 to rid this nation of this infestation of leftest disease, political correctness, carbon control, guilt by success, appeasement and apology for no wrong done and dictation of FREE SPEECH!
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
|
Dren
|
|
|
Reagan wasn't a great president. He spent quite a large sum of money, more so than many Democrats before and after him. We have lost freedoms with each new president, some more than others. Sure, I'd rather have Reagan than Obama, but that's not saying much.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
Many issues are just recycled: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/698.html
So the question becomes: why?
The answer: Fear -----> enables a foundation for control.
Malcolm
|
TonyEX
|
|
Reagan understood one thing very well.
The American Revolution was based upon the fundamental and inalienable rights of the INDIVIDUAL. The Government is granted rights by the people, NOT the other way around.
The Government is suffered by the people as a painful necessity to avoid anarchy.
True socialist countries (France) are the opposite. The Government (fraternity of citizens) grants rights to the individual.
Socialism, hence, puts the power source with the Government.
American Liberalism (not that progressive crap the Dems use) puts the power source with the individual. It's a crying shame that the US Democrats have co-opted and corrupted the name because they are not Liberals. They are fascists.
Home on the range is not a concept, but a reality. Dude...
Say what you may about Ronald Reagan (and in many ways he failed) but at least he had his fundamental stuff down right pat.
And one hell of a ranch. No quaint place in Martha's Vineyard.
Dren wrote:
Reagan wasn't a great president. He spent quite a large sum of money, more so than many Democrats before and after him. We have lost freedoms with each new president, some more than others. Sure, I'd rather have Reagan than Obama, but that's not saying much.
|
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
I'll back individuals working in freedom from regulations. They'll make more decisions in the best interests of all. |
This is a terribly flawed concept because the premise is that the major actors in an economic system are individuals. This is false.
Corporations control most of the ebb and flow of economic activity in the world. Corporations are not individuals -- they are collectives with generally only ONE purpose: make money for shareholders. In fact, they are legally required to do this. Corporations do not act in the best interests of everyone. They act in the best interest of their shareholders.
Individuals within corporations do not have "freedom". Most employees answer to middle managers who may or may not be competent. Everyone answers to the "Human Resources" department. Corporate culture can and often does force people to choose between making the morally right decision, and keeping one's job.
The primacy of "individuals" in the economic system only makes sense in the context of a 18th and 19th century economy dominated by small scale producers and artisans.
Regulation serves to put the brakes on Corporate collectives. And the world is a better place because of Regulation.
Much of the acid rain and particulate pollution that was destroying my area of the country is largely gone because of regulation of coal fired plants. Regulation requiring that cars pass emissions standards means that the air quality in cities and towns is much much better than in the 70's. Food and drug safety is pretty good, unlike the 19th century's food and drug (mostly snake oil). Good water quality is the result of frequent testing and regulation on the part of state government here.
It doesn't matter if "most" humans are good. It only takes ONE Osama bin Laden or ONE Bernie Madoff to really fuck things up. The more checks there are on these sorts of people, the better.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
atomiclightbulb:
'Individuals' as in the millions of hearts and minds that make purchasing decisions in the market place every day.
Malcolm
|
MalcolmR
|
|
atomiclightbulb:
Watching Honda and GM over the last 35 years it was understandable that GM would fall and Honda grow. Entirely.
Looking broadly, early last century Ford took the lead with assembly technology. GM adopted the new technology and took the lead with marketing and manufacturing. Toyota took this hard (manufacturing) and soft (managerial) technology and added fundamental quality which required a huge change in all basic processes from assembly to management to relations with suppliers. And changes in attitude toward people and customers. Honda has this and a far superior philosophy.
Executives of every major American and European automaker have said they want their company to be more like Honda. Yet they fail, it seems, to really understand what makes Honda tick.
When buying cars, individuals make purchasing decisions. Individuals determine which entrepreneur wins - the entrepreneur best able to meet their needs. GM or Honda.
Individual executives in both GM and Honda guided their companies' fate. Much more importantly, because individuals in companies come and go, individuals in the marketplace determined the companies' fate.
Working in croneyism (we don't have capitalism) GM execs played the system. GM was spared the marketplace's honesty. When fuel prices rose and consumers became more responsible and competition heated up, GM crashed.
Osama bin Laden, to whom you referred, should be prevented from flying aircraft into buildings, prevented from damaging any life or property. That is the government's main responsibility.
Reputable reports claim bin Laden was created by the CIA and USA policy. bin Laden may be a looney but his actions are motivated by politics and deep seated pain in the Middle East. That is not an excuse for him to kill anyone, but that was his way of addressing wrongs that no government would address - and that were caused by governments and enabled by other governments turning a blind eye to abuse and economic stagnation caused by government controls as acts of foreign policy. That still does not mean he can be allowed to kill people. He should not. But he is, apparently, driven by deep needs for fairness and protection of people in many areas of the middle east. And as his pain grew, he likely became frustrated, angry and violent. While I can see his needs and his situation, I do not condone his actions. He is responsible for many deaths - in a situation created by many governments around the world.
Madoff - was able to do his work because of regulations. The agency with oversight responsibility twice sensed something was fishy and let him off the hook. The first time they advised him, apparently, on a smarter way of operating.
Who do you think benefits from regulations? Those smartest and able to work their way around them. Those who bribe/persuade congress members to create the regulations. What did Robert Rubin do before he became secretary of the Tresury under Clinton? What did he do after he left the administration? Who benefitted from the regs he drove?
Look around at how governments are creating messes. Global warming is not caused by humans - it's a path to tax every aspect of our lives through energy that drives every aspect of our lives. Look at USA foreign policy. And before America's coming of age, the foreign policy of Britain, Germany, France.
Look at the benefits apparently paid to those in congress, the exemptions they have, the rorts, the ......
We need governments to protect life and property. That means foreign affairs and a military and it means domestic police. That requires taxes. We need free trade to ensure skills and ideas are mobile and go to where they're most efficiently used. We need honest money not the inflationary system of fiat money enamored by many governments. We need freedom to use initiative.
Look at history.
America blossomed in its early years. Little England became Great Britain under free markets. Chile prospered after being a basketcase. Germany blossomed after the chancellor told the occupiers he was removing their controls after the second world war.
Speaking of war, it's caused by human fears (control is based on fear). Fears can manipulate others when it is joined by power. Power comes from the creation of regulations.
The stats show peace is somewhat correlated with democracy. The stats show peace is very highly correlated with free trade and economic freedom. Think about it, that makes sense. Why go to war if trade best allocates resources? (Try to think of real trade without govt regulations).
This is rambling and I'd like to provide more stats and references but lack the time. Please excuse my rush.
Without knowing your background and interests I dislike making recommendations. So I'll simply say that I gained enormously from reading Ludwig von Mises "Liberalism: The Classical Tradition". It is all so clear. We do not have capitalism, not even close. When you look and see how much govt controls in the USA, in Australia, in ...... you'll realise we are living in socialist nations. And every four/three years we have an election in which candidates have an auction over our vote using our money.
A question for you. Why are so many on the left eager to state humans need to be protected from inherent badness of humans yet so adamant only they can define the 'bad' and should do the protecting?
In my overwhelming experience in many nations, I've found humans are inherently decent and caring. Distortions due to the human condition and artificial barriers - largely imposed by governments (consisting of individuals) - create disconnect and opportunities for exploitation.
Freedom liberates the human soul and releases the good in people. When people seek to do what they need for themselves they very quickly realise that do so over the long term they need to care for others.
That is the secret to Honda's success. Care for oneself cares for others. Care for others cares for oneself.
And then to deal with the human condition we need to apply true forgiveness - the greatest power we have. (Not knowing your background, let me simply add that true forgiveness is not about being weak. What most people think of as forgiveness is often really blame and abdication - weakness.) I still learning about true forgiveness so I'll leave it there.
Again, the secret to Honda's success. Care for oneself cares for others. Care for others cares for oneself. To stay successful it needs to remember that.
Malcolm
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
atomiclightbulb:
A question for you. Why are so many on the left eager to state humans need to be protected from inherent badness of humans yet so adamant only they can define the 'bad' and should do the protecting? |
I have no idea. Go to your local socialist party office and ask.
As a center-right militarist, I believe that there are genuinely evil people out there who need to be taken out.
The smartest bad guys can get away with things... but only for a little while. We need regulators to crack down hard on criminals. The US Attorney's office has been doing just that, with scores of local politicians arrested in money laundering and other corruption schemes.
Bernie "Made Off with my money" got away for awhile because the SEC was understaffed in terms of technical experts and overstaffed with lawyers. Competent regulation works. Incompetent regulation doesn't. It's not a question of whether regulation is inherently good or bad -- it's a question of the people behind the agencies.
Just because a regulatory agency fails some of the time does not mean regulation is ineffective. That would be like arguing that we should not have air bags in our vehicles because they don't prevent injury 10% of the time.
Fact is that air quality in my state is greatly improved due to regulations. Regulations forced the utilities to clean up their coal and oil fired plants. Regulations ensure that the food and water here is mostly uncontaminated.
I just don't buy the argument that in a purely free market, the power companies would have installed expensive scrubbers in their coal-fired plants.
| In my overwhelming experience in many nations, I've found humans are inherently decent and caring. Distortions due to the human condition and artificial barriers - largely imposed by governments (consisting of individuals) - create disconnect and opportunities for exploitation. |
I don't dispute this.
Again, the secret to Honda's success. Care for oneself cares for others. Care for others cares for oneself. To stay successful it needs to remember that.
Malcolm |
Honda succeeded in the past because of hard work, nothing more, nothing less.
You are more of an idealist than I am.
I have known harsh realities for much of my life. Ideas matter, but often only when backed with the force of arms and the willingness to shoot without mercy.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
atomiclightbulb:
Thank you.
Honda succeeds because of its philosophy. Many companies and many individuals work hard yet fail to achieve.
Philosophy, as the provider of guidance and driver of culture, is the critical component. It directs the hard work.
When I bought my first Honda, the first Accord, in 1976, I could tell immediately that this was a different car company. In every way. That car, even back then, was designed and built to be easier to live with from the driver's perspective, the customer's, the mechanics, the assembly line worker, the car salesman, .......
On the back of that car and despite being very new to the car business, Honda climbed quickly to be seen as (positively) different. Within a couple of years doctors were trading their BMW's for Accords. During their first year in the market in some areas of the USA, Accords commanded premiums of 50% over list price.
On culture/philosophy: Why does the USA have the highest incarceration rates? Yet it has among the highest violent crime rates. What does that say about the prison system? About the laws? About the culture?
(By the way, I am not knocking the USA. When I first lived in America from 1979-1982 and travelled through all 50 states, I admired it as the 'best' nation on Earth. Of course, 'best' is subjective. Nonetheless, I admired it enormously. And despite the deterioration in congress and government, I still admire America enormously.)
Malcolm
|
Dren
|
|
TonyE wrote:
Reagan understood one thing very well.
The American Revolution was based upon the fundamental and inalienable rights of the INDIVIDUAL. The Government is granted rights by the people, NOT the other way around.
The Government is suffered by the people as a painful necessity to avoid anarchy.
True socialist countries (France) are the opposite. The Government (fraternity of citizens) grants rights to the individual.
Socialism, hence, puts the power source with the Government.
American Liberalism (not that progressive crap the Dems use) puts the power source with the individual. It's a crying shame that the US Democrats have co-opted and corrupted the name because they are not Liberals. They are fascists.
Home on the range is not a concept, but a reality. Dude...
Say what you may about Ronald Reagan (and in many ways he failed) but at least he had his fundamental stuff down right pat.
And one hell of a ranch. No quaint place in Martha's Vineyard.
Dren wrote:
Reagan wasn't a great president. He spent quite a large sum of money, more so than many Democrats before and after him. We have lost freedoms with each new president, some more than others. Sure, I'd rather have Reagan than Obama, but that's not saying much.
|
|
Reagan may have said things in that manner, but what he practiced in office was often very different. He was no different than the other sums of presidents we've had over the years, and in many ways worse.
|
Dren
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
On culture/philosophy: Why does the USA have the highest incarceration rates? Yet it has among the highest violent crime rates. What does that say about the prison system? About the laws? About the culture?
Malcolm
|
Sadly, a large percentage of incarcerated individuals in the USA are non-violent offenders, ie buying/selling/making drugs, lying, insider trading, etc. Laws are force. I think the laws are a huge reason why crime rates are so high.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
Dren:
Exactly.
Did you mean 'laws are force'? or laws are a farce?
Malcolm
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
On culture/philosophy: Why does the USA have the highest incarceration rates? Yet it has among the highest violent crime rates. What does that say about the prison system? About the laws? About the culture?
|
I believe that the incarceration rate in the United States is very high because drug users/addicts are prosecuted as criminals, rather than treated as people with a treatable disease. This is why the prisons in my region are overflowing.
Regrettably, this does not speak very well to our local laws and culture. It basically says that politicians would rather sweep people under the rug and hide them than deal with the actual epidemic of drug addiction.
The amount of violence in some parts of the inner cities has two causes: (1) Poverty caused by the sudden departure of factory work, which resulted in a depleted tax base and no funding for decent schools. I've seen entire areas that have just died because factories left in the 60's and 70's. Without the money to get education or move to a place with jobs, families basically got by on low wage service jobs, and their children did not receive good schooling. (2) The wide availability of firearms. The gun laws here are lax, although state and local authorities have really stepped up enforcement after a very bloody 2007 and 2008 where police and citizen casualties were very high. Illegal handguns are extremely easy to get. Hungry and desperate people with weapons, or drug dealers defending their turf will open fire with little provocation if they feel they are being disrespected. Often, their targets are not the ones hit -- it is usually innocent bystanders who are injured or killed.
Poverty and hopelessness mean that some people feel they have very little to lose -- I have often heard interviews where citizens in poor neighborhoods openly said they did not expect to survive the violence.
This kind of violence is not often seen in the small towns, suburbs, or rural areas of the United States. People in these areas generally live comfortable lives, and are insulated by vast distances from the violence of the cities. Petty criminals are not going to waste expensive fuel or personal energy traversing tens of miles to rob a convenience store in a suburban strip mall.
|
Dren
|
|
Drug addiction is a personal problem, not a problem for politicians to deal with.
You say that often innocent bystanders are injured or killed. Do you have any info to back that? Sure it happens, but how often?
I don't see guns as a cause for the amount of violence. Guns are just a tool, much like knives and other weapons. Guns may make some crimes easier to commit, but I don't see them as a cause for any crime.
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
Dren wrote:
Drug addiction is a personal problem, not a problem for politicians to deal with.
You say that often innocent bystanders are injured or killed. Do you have any info to back that? Sure it happens, but how often?
I don't see guns as a cause for the amount of violence. Guns are just a tool, much like knives and other weapons. Guns may make some crimes easier to commit, but I don't see them as a cause for any crime.
|
If you'd watched the local news in my region in the years 2007 and 2008, you'd have seen daily reports of murders and bystander shootings.
Guns in of themselves usually don't "cause" crime, but they make it easier to resort to violence to resolve disputes. Bullets that miss their targets can go anywhere and hit anything.
Gun trafficking on the other hand does cause crime. The lax gun laws here make the area a prime center for distribution of weapons to neighboring states, along with the turf battles that go along with such an industry...
|
HONDA AFVM
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
Dren wrote:
Drug addiction is a personal problem, not a problem for politicians to deal with.
You say that often innocent bystanders are injured or killed. Do you have any info to back that? Sure it happens, but how often?
I don't see guns as a cause for the amount of violence. Guns are just a tool, much like knives and other weapons. Guns may make some crimes easier to commit, but I don't see them as a cause for any crime.
|
If you'd watched the local news in my region in the years 2007 and 2008, you'd have seen daily reports of murders and bystander shootings.
Guns in of themselves usually don't "cause" crime, but they make it easier to resort to violence to resolve disputes. Bullets that miss their targets can go anywhere and hit anything.
Gun trafficking on the other hand does cause crime. The lax gun laws here make the area a prime center for distribution of weapons to neighboring states, along with the turf battles that go along with such an industry...
|
I have had a gun all my life and I never used it for turf battles, robbery or murder. I am a responsible gun owner and don't keep it anywhere it can be found by a stranger or my kids, but it is close enough to get to just in case. My first 2 bullets are hollow points and the rest are solid.
People kill people, guns are just a means to get the job done, if guns are taken, the killing will continue in another way. It's just human nature. It's sad, but there are evil people roaming the streets and as my MAN BUSH always said "GOOD WILL PREVAIL over EVIL" If given the chance I will not allow evil to take me or my family.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
From what I've seen, the reality is that Barack Obama's 2009 (lack of) substance is slowly yet surely emerging triumphant over his election campaign's choreographed spin.
Malcolm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] 2 |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
