I'm sick of American Presidents using freedom as a excuse for war.

boygabriel

And ACORN actually did a lot for communities. Mainly job training and the like.

If they hadn't been grossly misrepresented by the extremely deceptive video perpetrated on the country by Breitbart & Co, they'd still be doing a lot of good in communities across the country.

Sadly, the damage has already been done, and all those people who were so angry about ACORN can't be bothered in the slightest to take responsibility for the lies they acted upon. Strangely enough, few of these people are poor people of color living in urban areas.

Hmmmmm.

armchair_warrior

If American's don't rein in in both parties wasteful spending. This would be the last generation of excess, other nations and peoples have learn what makes the world go around.

The rest has risen. No longer a American driver or waiter or mechanic is worth more than some doctor or physicist from some other country. in the past your blue collar worker here would be worth much more than some other guy in some a other country's doctor etc...

People should realize what they are really worth. Instead of squandering the great wealth that was generated on waste, use it wisely. Other wise This is American Empire in decline.

idlewild

armchair_warrior said:

If American's don't rein in in both parties wasteful spending. This would be the last generation of excess, other nations and peoples have learn what makes the world go around.

The rest has risen. No longer a American driver or waiter or mechanic is worth more than some doctor or physicist from some other country. in the past your blue collar worker here would be worth much more than some other guy in some a other country's doctor etc...

People should realize what they are really worth. Instead of squandering the great wealth that was generated on waste, use it wisely. Other wise This is American Empire in decline.

You kind of lost me on this one, AW. Are you speaking about blue collars paid by the government or blue collars in general? Or, maybe unionized blue collar? I don't begrudge anyone a high salary that doesn't involve my tax dollars. And, if they do earn high salary based on tax revenue, they better make at least a 5% net profit for us.

armchair_warrior

unionize blue collar, I'm just taking a pure capitalistic view of labor as a world market. people should realize its no longer localized.

whynot_31

I totally agree AW. The american unions have made the labor of their members too expensive by failing to realize this.

I hope it is not too late for them to make the adjustments necessary to bring jobs back.

After all, if a plant or industry can leave the US because labor is too expensive, if may be willing to return to US if labor prices decrease. Change does not have to be permanent.

...and China's labor costs are slowly increasing. At some point it might become more profitable to produce in the US again.

boygabriel

Most would agree that lowering costs to remain competitive is a must.

However the single biggest employment cost in this country is health care. Many of the biggest employers were actually in favor of things like the public option or single-payer.

Automakers in other countries for example, face a fraction of the health care costs, allowing them to dramatically undercut the American auto industry.

idlewild

Actually, I'd say a lot of unionized (and non-union alike) American companies are losing out because they build crap products, or they're being absorbed/merged by bigger companies to get rid of competition. GM is certainly a prime example of building sub-par products. McDonnel Douglas was a fine builder of aeronautic products, until Boeing took them over. Now, most if none of their crafts are used and are relegated to spare parts and the archives. Ford on the other hand is pretty much catching up with the Asian market in quality and popularity.

I'm not sure I agree you, AW,with the pay scale unionized workers get as too high, barring the $40-an hour light bulb changer. I will say that unions do drive up costs in other ways such as dictating what type of equipment companies can use, who can do what. etc. Basically tying the hands of the Man who runs the company. And I believe we all know about corruption on the inside.

whynot_31

So, we seem to agree that companies locate elsewhere because it is cheaper ....but then differ over why it is so expensive (is it how much union workers make? Is it union corruption? is it health care costs? bad engineering? is it government regulations or taxes?).

Meanwhile, as a fictional company, I am moving.

I don't care which cost you lower. I only care that my costs of producing in the US get lower. ....let me know when you work it out.

Armchair, can you teach me mandarin?

homeowner

Companies locate elsewhere because their all-in costs are significantly lower. To say it another way, there are no unions so employees can be paid pennies for work, there are no health care costs, there is no OSHA, no ADA, no FMLA, etc. Nothing. No 40 hr workweek, no lunch hour, no fire inspections, or any other disruptions which would keep people from creating the crap Americans crave. Its so cheap to make things in some of these countries that they will even build dormitories and cover the housing costs for all the workers so that factories can run 24/7.

In addition, if I move my headquarters from the US to a european country I can also reduce my tax burden by paying taxes only on the sales side in the US, not on corporate earnings (which are significantly greater).

Its more expensive here, because American workers want to do more than make money at any costs. They want to be able to spend time with their families. They want to come home from a dangerous job with all their fingers and toes. They want to be able to sleep when they are tired and eat when they are hungry without having to beg for time off the line. And the competition is not some guy who snuck into this country from Mexico, but its someone in rural China for whom working 12 hours straight and then stumbling back to the dormitory to sleep is still better than life in a small cabin with no running water, no heat and family all sleeping on the floor.

whynot_31

I completely agree Homeowner.

Please note that I am not moving to China, I am just moving my fictional company there.

Ain't no way I am working that hard, and giving up the wonderful life we have here.

hmmmm

boygabriel

Idlewild said:

Actually, I'd say a lot of unionized (and non-union alike) American companies are losing out because they build crap products, or they're being absorbed/merged by bigger companies to get rid of competition. GM is certainly a prime example of building sub-par products. McDonnel Douglas was a fine builder of aeronautic products, until Boeing took them over. Now, most if none of their crafts are used and are relegated to spare parts and the archives. Ford on the other hand is pretty much catching up with the Asian market in quality and popularity.

As the son of an auto mechanic, nobody has less respect for American-made cars than I do.

However there isn't a whole lot of evidence that the crappy cars they produce are a major reason for loss of revenue.

Labor costs (incl. health care) are an exponentially bigger factor.

idlewild

whynot_31 said:

So, we seem to agree that companies locate elsewhere because it is cheaper ....but then differ over why it is so expensive (is it how much union workers make? Is it union corruption? is it health care costs? bad engineering? is it government regulations or taxes?).

Meanwhile, as a fictional company, I am moving.

I don't care which cost you lower. I only care that my costs of producing in the US get lower. ....let me know when you work it out.

Armchair, can you teach me mandarin?

Absolutely.

Does anyone know if the BMW plant in South Carolina is unionized?

armchair_warrior

You invade Bahrain. We take out Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. This, in short, is the essence of a deal struck between the Barack Obama administration and the House of Saud. Two diplomatic sources at the United Nations independently confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement in their neighbor in exchange for a "yes"

vote by the Arab League for a no-fly zone over Libya - the main rationale that led to United Nations Security Council resolution 1973.

The revelation came from two different diplomats, a European and a member of the BRIC group, and was made separately to a US scholar and Asia Times Online. According to diplomatic protocol, their names cannot be disclosed. One of the diplomats said, "This is the reason why we could not support resolution 1973. We were arguing that Libya, Bahrain and Yemen were similar cases, and calling for a fact-finding mission. We maintain our official position that the resolution is not clear, and may be interpreted in a belligerent manner."

As Asia Times Online has reported, a full Arab League endorsement of a no-fly zone is a myth. Of the 22 full members, only 11 were present at the voting. Six of them were Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, the US-supported club of Gulf kingdoms/sheikhdoms, of which Saudi Arabia is the top dog. Syria and Algeria were against it. Saudi Arabia only had to "seduce" three other members to get the vote.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD02Ak01.html

armchair_warrior

mandarin isn't my native language, I learn it in college, I am very rusty can understand some words of it and speak a bit lol.

armchair_warrior

BMW's Massive, Non-Union Plant Is Basically A Huge "Screw You" To Unions

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bmws-massive-non-union-plant-is-basically-a-huge-screw-you-to-unions-2011-2#ixzz1INoxwcxp

whynot_31

whynot_31 said:

So, we seem to agree that companies locate elsewhere because it is cheaper ....but then differ over why it is so expensive (is it how much union workers make? Is it union corruption? is it health care costs? bad engineering? is it government regulations or taxes?).

Meanwhile, as a fictional company, I am moving.

I don't care which cost you lower. I only care that my costs of producing in the US get lower. ....let me know when you work it out.

Armchair, can you teach me mandarin?

armchair_warrior said:

mandarin isn't my native language, I learn it in college, I am very rusty can understand some words of it and speak a bit lol.

Fine. I'll stay here and wait for China's labor and benefits cost to rise.

I wish I didn't understand how markets work, so I could hate asians.

---- By the way, as I get older, I keep running out of people to hate. However, I see lots of old people who hate. What is this about? ----

boygabriel

armchair_warrior said:

You invade Bahrain. We take out Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. This, in short, is the essence of a deal struck between the Barack Obama administration and the House of Saud. Two diplomatic sources at the United Nations independently confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement in their neighbor in exchange for a "yes"

vote by the Arab League for a no-fly zone over Libya - the main rationale that led to United Nations Security Council resolution 1973.

The revelation came from two different diplomats, a European and a member of the BRIC group, and was made separately to a US scholar and Asia Times Online. According to diplomatic protocol, their names cannot be disclosed. One of the diplomats said, "This is the reason why we could not support resolution 1973. We were arguing that Libya, Bahrain and Yemen were similar cases, and calling for a fact-finding mission. We maintain our official position that the resolution is not clear, and may be interpreted in a belligerent manner."

As Asia Times Online has reported, a full Arab League endorsement of a no-fly zone is a myth. Of the 22 full members, only 11 were present at the voting. Six of them were Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, the US-supported club of Gulf kingdoms/sheikhdoms, of which Saudi Arabia is the top dog. Syria and Algeria were against it. Saudi Arabia only had to "seduce" three other members to get the vote.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD02Ak01.html

Yup, the rank hypocrisy of American foreign policy.

Where were most of the 9/11 attackers from? where is one of the global centers of middle east extremism? where is there no democracy?

Saudi Arabia.

Do we apply pressure? Invade? Nope. We make them one of our closest allies in the region.

Protesters shot in Bahrain, just like in Libya. Do we offer military support? Nope.

100,000's die in Sudan. Many at the hands of the Sudanese Air Force. Were there widespread calls for no fly zones? Nope. In fact, what does Bush/Cheney do? Invite the Sudanese president Omar Al Bashir to the US as a guest of the state.

But the THREAT of attacks in Libya? The US can't provide support fast enough to get that evil bad man Gaddafi. Is Gaddafi more evil than the murderers in power in Sudan? Nope.

American foreign policy:

oil & US capitalism.

Anything else is lies.

whynot_31

I often wonder the same about myself.

When I was younger, I used to volunteer a lot more than I do now. Now, I sit back and wonder why that was the case.

Did I have more free time? Maybe.

Did I care more about the causes (hunger, oppression, war, trees, freedom) the volunteering was meant to address? No

Then I look at some of the other reasons I used to volunteer:

-As a single straight guy, I liked to be near women who were single and my age.

-I liked free and low cost t-shirts far more than I do now.

Is there anything wrong with volunteering for the "good cause" that is likely to put you in the company of attractive potential sex partners? ...even if it leaves similar causes desperate for volunteers, or completely unsupported?

Could it be that the government of the US is very similar?

As a politician, is there anything wrong with asking yourself "what will my constituents say if I enter this conflict, lose american lives and have nothing to bring home?"

...you, know, like a tshirt, ally/sexual partner or oil?"

Is it wrong for a politician to know that s/he will likely lose popular support for a war that does not involve benefits for the american public, and therefore refuse to enter such conflicts because they are deemed unachievable?

Is there any basis to expect the country (its politicians, corporations and citizens) to act differently that I do?

Are we often altruistic only in our imaginations, and the imaginations of others?

booklaw

So the driving force behind US foreign policy is a desire to meet girls?

Finally I understand!

whynot_31

booklaw wrote: Finally I understand!

glad I could help.

armchair_warrior

its all about the bitches man!! more nookie from the cookie or what ever the saying was .

whynot_31

Thanks guys!

I'm glad I have accomplished moving you from one simplistic explanation to the next

....we are making progress!

boygabriel

oops WN I hid your previous post by accident, meant to quote it. Looking into fixing it now.

Anyway, you wrote:

"Is it wrong for a politician to know that s/he will likely lose popular support for a war that does not involve benefits for the american public, and therefore refuse to enter such conflicts because they are deemed unachievable?

A politician's job is to LEAD. Sometimes that means doing precisely what your constituents' polling tells you. Sometimes you must lead the way, even if it's unpopular (crazy but true).

Had more LEADERS LED 100,000 Iraqis wouldn't have died, with another 1-2,000,000 maimed or injured.

Had Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright and Warren Christopher LED in 1994, 1 million Rwandans might not have died.

Do I expect such leadership from today's dysfunctional United States government & electorate? No.

Does that mean I don't still vote, rally, think and talk about it? Being heavily critical? No.

Is there any basis to expect the country (its politicians, corporations and citizens) to act differently that I do?

Um, given the difference in stakes? (WN's 20-something exploits vs dead American soldiers) YES.

Are we often altruistic only in our imaginations, and the imaginations of others? "

Oh how I do love your rhetorical (?) questions.

cool the kid

America's foreign policy is indeed a joke, one thing I wholeheartedly agree w/BG on.

I find people who think otherwise are just uncomfortable with confronting the ugliness of it all. The whole premise of how the country was founded, built & established as a superpower is ugly and set the precedent for many of the problems we have now (US's relationship with black people, US's failed manipulations of foreign powers biting us back in the ass, US sense of imminent domain & moral superiority over everyone)... it's all a big joke.

whynot_31

The politicians are constrained by the complex forces we've discussed.

Yet, you would like our leaders to be able to somehow overcome these biases and make the decisions that you agree with.

....but we all expect this. And we all have differing opinions.

Does this mean we are always screwed? Or does this mean that the ideal leader is a dictator, or merely a super hero?

Everyone knows how one ends up with a dictator, but how does one get a super hero to take a low paid position where most people hate him/her?

We all seem to want a leader who feels guilty about people being slaughtered in Africa, yet is smart enough to not enter conflicts that are not winnable. How would we know ahead of time that our new leader would be a good one?

Is there a human who doesn't say a version of the serenity prayer on a daily basis?

God grant me the serenity

to accept the things I cannot change;

courage to change the things I can;

and wisdom to know the difference.

Although I perceive politicians as human, your belief that they can somehow rise above and "Lead" makes me wonder if you do.

Do people become unhuman once they become politicians, or are they unhuman before hand?

You seem to believe that Democrats are somehow wiser that the Republicans at the moment, was there a divine intervention that I missed?

BTW, Here's the answer to the question I asked above:

Yes, we are altruistic only in our imaginations and the imaginations of others.

I'll answer the others if you like.

boygabriel

You seem to believe that Democrats are somehow wiser that the Republicans at the moment, was there a divine intervention that I missed?

Whoa. Wait. No.

Only in some instances. In foreign policy, everything short of full-scale 150,000-troop invasions-post-cold-war, no, both are failures.

As for everything else: I don't accept failure, failure to act, failure to reform, failure to lead, failure to educate, failure to stand up for simple competency (against Iraq, saving 500,000-1,000,000 Sudanese lives).

You seem to feel otherwise. Not sure what to say.

whynot_31

Given the constraints, you are correct: I actually do think we are doing remarkably well.

(and, no, these are not the whimsies of someone who is on too many anti-depressants. Unfortunately.)

Is there a human who doesn't say a version of the serenity prayer on a daily basis? No.

And, to bring it full circle: I can't think of better reason to go to war than "freedom".

...but I also have no idea what freedom means, and I think that (no matter how one defines it) one person's freedom often conflicts with another's.

whynot_31

Passenger on the Bus of Life:

Please ask whoever is driving this bus called "life" where the hell we are going.

2 minutes later:

Huh, what do you mean there is no driver?

boygabriel

And, to bring it full circle: I can't think of better reason to go to war than "freedom".

In my opinion this was Bush and the United States' fundamental error in Iraq, and our entire way of viewing the world.

Some people and cultures don't tend to value freedom above all else. They value justice.

Failure to understand this is why Iraq was one gigantic failure, among many other reasons.

whynot_31

Like "Freedom", "Justice" also has as many definitions as there are people in the world.

....actually both terms may have more definition than that, because individual people definition change their minds about what each means regularly.

Perhaps the great philosopher, leader and superhero known as Spiderman said it best:

"With great power, comes great responsibility."