Au revoir, Paul Martin! by Skywalken

Hmm. I was sort of indifferent to Martin until he started openly opposing the United States. I guess I'm glad to see that that position still merits and instant lose in Canada.

Hopefully this new guy will be a better ally to the US. Hey, with an ally like Canada, a country with arguably the world's largest deposits of oil, perhaps we can forget this whole middle east thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 27, 2006 7:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Hmm. I was sort of indifferent to Martin until he started openly opposing the United States. I guess I'm glad to see that that position still merits and instant lose in Canada.

Hate to break it to you, but that wasn't why he lost the election, in fact that was one of his redeeming qualitites.

Martin's road to getting fired began with some corruption scandals (well, they were scandals in Canada, in many countries they wouldn't have been worth a mention) that caused the parliament to pass a vote of no-confidence in Martin and his administration, which prompted the election, an election in which Paul Martin decided to run, in spite of the fact that his administration couldn't be trusted (which is what prompted the election in the first place). So it's not that Harper and the Conservatives were more popular in terms of policies (they did, however, have an excellent election campaign), it's more to do with the fact that the Liberals had totally lost the plot.

The fact that the Liberals still got 30% of the vote is due to, amongst some other things, Martin's opposition to the war, a position that most Canadians can identify with.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 27, 2006 7:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Hopefully this new guy will be a better ally to the US.

Yeah he probably will be, although he won't take shit from the US either (witness his response to the Americans objecting to him sending military ice breakers to the Arctic Ocean).

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Hey, with an ally like Canada, a country with arguably the world's largest deposits of oil, perhaps we can forget this whole middle east thing.

Canada has some oil, but what are you talking about!? Next to the Middle East, Russia has the largest oil reserves, and Russia is an ally, but you don't see the US making itself dependent on Russian oil. Why? Well, I guess pride has a role to play, but also, Russia won't be able to supply enough oil for US consumption, hence the dependence on the Middle East. So Canada definitely wouldn't manage.

Also, just because Canada wasn't too happy about the war doesn't mean that it wasn't a trading partner of the US. If Canada really were floating on an ocean of oil, don't you think they would've traded it with the US!? It would've been to their economic benefit too, you know.

Edit to add: http://www.geohive.com/charts/charts.php?xml=en_oilres&xsl=en_res
Canada's 13th in the list of countries with most oil reserves...
http://www.geohive.com/charts/charts.php?xml=en_oilprod&xsl=en_res
... and 9th in the list of oil producing countries.

From these you can see that the middle east will be an area of American interest for a loooong time to come.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 27, 2006 8:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skywalken:
... as a conservative American I just want to add that this handgun-owning, private health insurance-loving, Kyoto Protocol-opposing, social welfare-hating, capitalist is damn happy to see Martin and the Grits fall down to opposition status.

You and I have two things in common: we're both alive, and we both like Firefly. I see we more or less disagree on the rest (although I won't deny that private health insurance and capitalism aren't all bad).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 27, 2006 8:26 PM

I wonder just how long Harper will last anyway.....

one year maybe.... unless he plays the social angle right down the middle, and doesn't cozy up with the Americans.

If he trys to join the US on missile defence, or fails to pursue our treaty rights over softwood lumber, or now the artic sovernity issue... I'd say we'd likely have an instant non confidence vote followed by another election.

Don't think they give a shit

I'm with Signy and Rue

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 27, 2006 9:10 PM

I think in terms of social policies he'll probably be alright, even if every now and again he'll be unpopular because of them, but his main weakness will likely be his foreign policy (he's been in office 4 days and already he's in a territorial dispute with the US and Russia). Despite the way he portrayed himself during the campaign (fairly centrist compared to what he really is), he's quite right, and, as a whole, Canada isn't, especially when it comes to foreign policy. I doubt the parliament will hand out another vote of no confidence unless Harper really puts his foot in it (after all, it doesn't want Canadian politics to become a farce), but judging by what little I know about him, I'd be surprised if everything is going to go well.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 27, 2006 9:21 PM

if he steps in on the Canada health act in any major way, or abortion, or many other similar issues.....
in addition to the foreign policy problems

the Bloc, the NDP, and the Liberals will force an election... and if the Liberals oust the Martinites and put forward a decent leader free of scandal, we could have a complete reversal.

Harper has to keep it to the center, and hope he can win a majority down the road... otherwise the bloc will be able to alienate him in Quebec ( his supporters will go back to the Liberals ) and Ontario will also go straight back to the Liberals.

Don't think they give a shit

I'm with Signy and Rue

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 27, 2006 9:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
if he steps in on the Canada health act in any major way, or abortion, or many other similar issues.....

Hopefully he'll have the common sense to stay away from them. He seems smart and I don't think he'd touch something that works, at least not in a big way.

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
the Bloc, the NDP, and the Liberals will force an election...

Together they do have the majority, and I can totally see the Liberals and NDP combining forces if the need arises.

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
...and if the Liberals oust the Martinites and put forward a decent leader free of scandal, we could have a complete reversal.

Running Martin was a mistake and the Liberals paid for it. The election almost seems to have taken them by surprise... they started their campaign off fairly late, and then when it started it was very negative. They also didn't bother looking at other potential candidates aside from Martin, I guess maybe because it would've taken them too long to establish the replacement and show how he's different from Martin. Overall, the Liberals seemed out of touch and it almost felt like they thought they were entitled to a win, as a reward for being in power for 12 years.

But I agree that, with new leadership, the Liberals will be in a good position to challenge for power next time around. I think most people still agree with the Liberals as a perty, it's just that Martin and his buddies were past their sell-by date, and pretty much everybody saw it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 27, 2006 10:14 PM

Who do you think will take over the Liberals ?

McKenna ? Tobin ? Bob Rae ?

While I don't think Belinda Stronach would get the top job in the party this time, I could see her jumping into the top five... making her jump from the Conservatives more a long term brillant maneuver
than the dumb choice it looked like at first..

Like the old Brit saying, Promotion comes from Bloody wars and disased shores

Don't think they give a shit

I'm with Signy and Rue

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 3:30 AM

Sure, opposition to the war is a positive position. An American presidential candidate, say John Kerry, could have done very well by opposing the war. Why he didn't can only be speculated on, I suspect it goes to the democrat parties true stance, and Kerry's being not all that bright. Either that or he was just intentionally throwing the election.

But, and I know jack about Canadian politics, it seems that Martin went much further than that, going to a full out anti-American stance.

While I don't know jack about it, I can see that the liberal slipped 14 points from an 8 lead since '04. In two years that's impressive. It's possible more than one thing is wrong.

When I try to think of an American president to lose that much support, I'm coming up all Johnson, but technically he didn't run because he lost the '68 primary.

Quote:

Yeah he probably will be, although he won't take shit from the US either.

Wouldn't expect him to. I'm not the sort who thinks Tony Blair is a great ally. I expect people to look after their own interests. I don't expect to see Canadian troops in Hillary's upcoming invasion of Iran. I think it's a mistake to support America when shes wrong.

On oil, the whole Alberta story, they're claiming to have more oil than Saudi Arabia, it was in the news, maybe it's an exaggeration, but if it's true, then when are we dancing with Saudi princess? What's with this hoser Bush and this kerfuffle in the mideast, eh?

Anyway, just giving a "here's what it looks like to an uninformed American" perspective.

Quote:
You and I have two things in common: we're both alive, and we both like Firefly.

Lol. This was funny. I feel this way sometimes.

Quote:
If he trys to join the US on missile defence,

Why wouldn't he? Missile defense is a great idea. Why would you oppose it? I would assume Harper would want Canadians not to get nuked. This is not an issue yet, but it sure will be when Bin Laden gets his hand on a nuke. Which eventually he will.

Honestly, I can't see the softwood as being more than a nitpicky point. The canadian economy is large in charge an sophisticated, and not based on lumber.

I still think the election results show the strength of anti-Americanism, in my uninformed way. Nobody likes social programs being slashed, but it didn't cost reagan or clinton any votes, or bush for that matter. I don't think there are enough people hinging on this point. Since I know that canada is a wealthier country than the US, I would suspect it's less of a life-changing issue in Canada than here. More people may feel that it
s right to have them, but probable fewer than actually rely on them, and those are the votes you're likely to lose. If Harper makes progress in the private sector economy, creates jobs, etc., then any cuts he makes on social programs will probably not do him that much damage.

Just putting my ignorant two cents in

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 4:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Sure, opposition to the war is a positive position. An American presidential candidate, say John Kerry, could have done very well by opposing the war. Why he didn't can only be speculated on, I suspect it goes to the democrat parties true stance, and Kerry's being not all that bright. Either that or he was just intentionally throwing the election.

I dont see that at all. A opposition Presidential canidate in wartime is in an almost impossible position. Why? because amongst the honourifics attached to the Presidency is the title of "Commander in Chief" it becomes very easy for a wartime encombant to wrap themselves in the flag and bask in the reflected glory and the respect Americans show their fighting men.

Your ONLY hope is that the war is unpopular, which it wasn't at the time of the election. The Dems pushed Kerry because he had a war record. They could say "yes Bush is Commander in Chief but OUR guy saw actual combat." That was what the "Swiftboat" attack ads were all about to try and remove any argument Kerry had that he would make a better CinC.

So no, at that time an anti war canidate would have lost the election easily because in America it's far too easy to make anti-war somehow equal antitroops or suggest that because the President is "Commander in Chief" dissing him somehow reflects on the average American soldier.

I'm an outsider and even *I* see that. Now politics change very quicky, most Americans no longer back the war and a significant number dislike Bush's handling of it. If the election were held this year MAYBE the antiwar canidate would have a chance but you dont fight next years election you try to appeal to the opinions the voters have the day they enter the polling booth.

As to the new Conservative leader in Canada, don't expect a sea change. I stopped paying attention to Canadian politics ten years ago and back then the Conservatives were nowhere and Reform and the Bloc were the big news. If they follow the pattern of their UK equivalent the Conservatives will be generally more aggressively nationalistic, and given that most Canadians define themselves as "not Americans" that wont make them more "pro Washington."

My guess is that they will tinker with market reforms, some privatisation and tax policy. I doubt that they will do much more than try to manage healthcare costs, when I lived there most Canadians were as proud of their healthcare as the US is of its military -- you will see the Canadian healthcare system go away the same year they sell off the Pentagon and scrap the US navy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 8:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Sure, opposition to the war is a positive position. An American presidential candidate, say John Kerry, could have done very well by opposing the war. Why he didn't can only be speculated on, I suspect it goes to the democrat parties true stance, and Kerry's being not all that bright. Either that or he was just intentionally throwing the election.

But, and I know jack about Canadian politics, it seems that Martin went much further than that, going to a full out anti-American stance.

While I don't know jack about it, I can see that the liberal slipped 14 points from an 8 lead since '04. In two years that's impressive. It's possible more than one thing is wrong.

When I try to think of an American president to lose that much support, I'm coming up all Johnson, but technically he didn't run because he lost the '68 primary.

Quote:

Yeah he probably will be, although he won't take shit from the US either.

Wouldn't expect him to. I'm not the sort who thinks Tony Blair is a great ally. I expect people to look after their own interests. I don't expect to see Canadian troops in Hillary's upcoming invasion of Iran. I think it's a mistake to support America when shes wrong.

On oil, the whole Alberta story, they're claiming to have more oil than Saudi Arabia, it was in the news, maybe it's an exaggeration, but if it's true, then when are we dancing with Saudi princess? What's with this hoser Bush and this kerfuffle in the mideast, eh?

Anyway, just giving a "here's what it looks like to an uninformed American" perspective.

Quote:
You and I have two things in common: we're both alive, and we both like Firefly.

Lol. This was funny. I feel this way sometimes.

Quote:
If he trys to join the US on missile defence,

Why wouldn't he? Missile defense is a great idea. Why would you oppose it? I would assume Harper would want Canadians not to get nuked. This is not an issue yet, but it sure will be when Bin Laden gets his hand on a nuke. Which eventually he will.

Honestly, I can't see the softwood as being more than a nitpicky point. The canadian economy is large in charge an sophisticated, and not based on lumber.

I still think the election results show the strength of anti-Americanism, in my uninformed way. Nobody likes social programs being slashed, but it didn't cost reagan or clinton any votes, or bush for that matter. I don't think there are enough people hinging on this point. Since I know that canada is a wealthier country than the US, I would suspect it's less of a life-changing issue in Canada than here. More people may feel that it
s right to have them, but probable fewer than actually rely on them, and those are the votes you're likely to lose. If Harper makes progress in the private sector economy, creates jobs, etc., then any cuts he makes on social programs will probably not do him that much damage.

Just putting my ignorant two cents in

There us a movement up here to pull out of NAFTA over the US violating its trade agreements over softwood lumber.... It might not be our entire economy, but how do you trust somebody who agrees to one thing, then starts to make up the rules as they go along ? Even the NAFTA panel has ruled against the US repeatedly... there has been talk we should sell more to China, at least they keep their word.

Don't think they give a shit

I'm with Signy and Rue

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 10:52 AM

Fletch,

War is bad.

It's full of tortured children getting their fingers pulled off by raving lunatics in uniform, and this war is no different. The bulk of Americans already opposed the war 60% according the MSM and 80% according to the blogs. And this is after extensive campaigns by the whitehouse to make it more popular. Even if you think it's not enough, you can easily make the war unpopular by simply circulating the imagery of the war, torture, dead kids, rich oil companies.

Have you heard about the bonus oil? Oil companies are getting free oil from our govt. in Iraq. American oil companies. Are taking oil from Iraq, which they did not purchase, and they are not paying for it. I have a word for that. I call it theft. But this isn't just theft, it's state sponsored theft. I know what to call such a country. I think it's a rogue nation. That election was a cakewalk for any man with the balls to tell the truth and listen to the voices of the people. Kerry didn't want to win. Not enough, at least. I'm not mourning not having Kerry by any means, but I can't honestly say, now there's a guy who gave it his all. More like, there's a self important ivy league C-student twit who went as far as he could without losing his christmas bonus.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 10:54 AM

Fletch,

On Canada, I wasn't expecting big news. I mean, if it ain't broke...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 10:55 AM

Gin,

NAFTA is a commie plot. It's part of the neocon global domination conspiracy. Any time you see the words 'multinational union' read 'NWO conspiracy'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 11:24 AM

I think Kerry wanted to win, I'm just not so sure that Hillary's people wanted him to win. I disagree with your "team evil" idea because it's too grand aand overarching a conspiracy......that doesn't mean that there are not "forces at work" in both parties, I just dont think they collaborate.

I think that there were those in the Democratic party terrified that an antiwar canidate would be seen as an unpatriotic "move to the left" which would not just loose the party this election but put it in a weaker position come 2008. That was why the Clintons/DLC pushed Wesley Clarke so hard, because a failed Howard Dean run could weaken Hillary in 2008.

I don't think Dems would have done such a job of isolating Dean and Kosinich had they felt a peace platform was winable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 2:44 PM

Quote:
I think Kerry wanted to win, I'm just not so sure that Hillary's people wanted him to win. I disagree with your "team evil" idea because it's too grand aand overarching a conspiracy......that doesn't mean that there are not "forces at work" in both parties, I just dont think they collaborate.

Hmm. Interesting idea. It's possible. I can't peg Kerry down for team evil. He's S+B. So he's in to some degree, and he is often seen in team evil operations, like the filibuster of Alito, which is a solid team evil op. It has Hillary, Difi and Kerry all speaking out. When these guys work, they do it in style, they each make public statements, it's like a TE seal of approval. I think the goal of this filibuster is to force the nuclear option.

I'm not abandoning team evil, but you have over time made some good point. I prefer realism, small plots to grand conspiracies, because I think that's how the world works. I do have, have posted, what I think is overwhelming evidence of a collusion between certain members of the two parties. Over the last month Bush has dropped no fewer than half a dozen solid hints of co-conspiracy with Hillary. Just yesterday he said she was formidable, and that no republican could successfully oppose her senate '06 re-bid. I think that challenging her there would assist her defeat in '08.

I think Bush pretty clearly is setting the GOP for a fall here in '08. His advisors plan to become part of the Hillary admin. But TE exists in degrees, I would grant. I think there's a very small core. On the GOP Senate side, I might say Cornyn of TX and possibly Sessions of GA, maybe KBH of TX. But when you fan out from the center, the grasp gets less tight. Looking at this from a Joss point of view, these outer members are like Faith or Riley, they're not always in the secret meetings with Buffy, Giles, Willow. If there's a team slayer, there's definitely a degree of *in*.

Or in Angel, where at the end, Lindsay is so out that even when he thinks he in, he's well,

Select to view spoiler:

getting killed by Lorn

So too I suspect with TE. TE inner circle members themselves collude and conspire, but don't have enough raw power between them to get things done, so they need outside help. I think TE's main goal is to stay in power, and the agenda elements come from groups like PNAC who are dead set on their agendas. But sometimes these agendas may conflict with each other, it's a whole internal struggle.

But also, things change, people change, and someone once out could be in. McCain and Bush Sr. were once considered sworn enemies of TE, and now they might be tollerated allies. Apologies for the rant, I thought this gave me license to rant :) but no seriously I thought I'd take a chance to explain the way I think it works. I'm definitely not on a slant like pirate news of thinking this is all one arch conspiracy. But I do think we've acquired a powerful ring. Also, I think they are deliberately switching parties, something they have done before, but this time it's more deliberate than ever before. There's a certain smoothness to the transition. Things were much rockier going from Reagan to Clinton for the backers, the ideologues.

Quote:
I think that there were those in the Democratic party terrified that an antiwar canidate would be seen as an unpatriotic "move to the left" which would not just loose the party this election but put it in a weaker position come 2008. That was why the Clintons/DLC pushed Wesley Clarke so hard, because a failed Howard Dean run could weaken Hillary in 2008.

Hmm. I'm not sure I agree. I think they viewed Dean as an outsider. Later, they gave him a seat at the table, and now he behaves. Plays hide the Salami. I agree that they viewed 2004 as a throw-away candidacy. I think that may have been because they had Bush, and he was good for 4 more years.

I want to stop and say that again. They had Bush. We're not talking about a group of people here who voted against or opposed Bush's policies. He was, to some extent, their guy. Whether they controlled him or not is not the point. He was doing more or less what they wanted done.

Quote:
I don't think Dems would have done such a job of isolating Dean and Kosinich had they felt a peace platform was winable.

Maybe they didn't intend to win. Yet. Kuccinich was a clear outside, and also a monster raving looney. He bankrupted Cleveland. He was a guaranteed loser. He sounded like a fuhrer in speeches, and looked like an elf-troll with a comb-over. That said, I respect the guy for standing up for what he believes in, and actually opposing Kerry in the convention, sort of.

But Kerry, himself, could have adopted a peace platform. It wouldn't have to be a cut and run platform. People say oh, McGovern was a peace candidate and lost horribly, peace always loses. Eisenhower ran on a peace platform. Twice. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say something truly radical, which is Bush Sr. ran on what was, more or less, a peace platform, which was ending the cold war. The Gulf War may have discreditted the idea that he was a peace president, sure, but he did run on it, and did end the cold war by treaty as his first act in office, with the Berlin Wall still intact, Bush Sr. signed a treaty of alliance with the communist USSR, ending the cold war. So, I guess my point is, it could be done. Kerry would have to have done the research, find out the strategy and say "If elected, I will go to Iraq." I think this strategy would have involved making alliances with the major insurgent leaders for a coalition govt., setting up international observers that the *Iraqis* trusted not to steal their oil (Maybe Jordan, palestine, perhaps Russia or China) and some that we trusted, to watch over it all. Then ultimately lead transition to democracy, possible three party state. Something like that. It wouldn't have looked wimpy, it would have looked aggressive, diplomatic, but not gunboat diplomacy. I admit, the "If elected, I will guarantee defeat" platform is not a winner. That was McGovern's peace, that's why it lost. Eisenhower and Bush Sr. both promised stalemate peace, and the people will vote for stalemate peace. Instead, Kerry promised us more war. What he offered in his Iraq package war:
1. 500,000 US Soldiers on the ground.
2. No guarantee of no draft, meaning probable draft.
3. 4 more years of Iraq Occupation.
4. Possible hostilities towards Iran and Syria.

which was very PNAC of him, though less biblical than Bush's offer:

1. 150,000 US Soldiers on the ground.
2. A guarantee of no draft.
3. 2 more years of Iraq Occupation.
4. Possible hostilities towards Iran and Syria.

It's not much, but I think the pragmatic peace voter, given the circumstances, voted for Bush.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 8:37 PM

I think Kosinich could offer a peace alternative just because he WAS an outsider. The truth about politics is that there are always going to be the idealist/activist types and the political operators. Parties need activists, these are the folks that donate to party funds, get cold and wet putting up posters and standing on doorsteps. If you had to hire people at market rates to do this elections would be even more expensive. The operators in my opinion come in two types, those attracted to power and what they can use it for to benefit both their ideals and themselves --- the Tom DeLays if you like --- and the realists who understand that all the policies, theories and good intentions in the world mean nothiung unless you get elected and will do what they can to make that happen.

My belief is that the activist part of the Dems last election cycle was probably pro-peace which is why Kosinich and Dean managed big rallys and seemed to have a lot of grass roots backing. The Democratic leadership and the think tanks and institutes that support it however are political operators, they understood that with his current approval ratings no canidate they fielded on any platform would defeat Bush. Replacing the Executive in wartime? Never happened except by death of the encombant. If going in we had the current situation, DeLay stepped down Abramoff scandal, support for the war and the President's approval this low..... yes the operators could see a way to make that work, but I say again AT THE TIME it was not an option. That's why folks like Wesley Clarke showed up when they did to try and break up the peacenic faction amongst the activists and dilute Deans popularity.

And yes all of this is setup to 2008. I don't think Dems looked at Bush and thought "he's our guy, let's give him an easy ride" I just think the realists understood that with the approval numbers he had and with a war in progress the very best you could do is come respectably second.

Bush is a Republican problem. It may make you feel better to imagine he's some remote controlled liberal puppet but the truth is that his power base is in the GOP and that even when he's gone that influence is liable to continue. There is nothing inherent in the Republicans that say they have to be the party of conservatives, in fact they have had progressive flashes throughout their history, in Neoconism takes a grip in the party then conservatives will be faced with the same unpleasant choices that activist factions always have with "big tent" political parties, they can move outside and pitch their own tent and maintain their ideological purity, or they stay within the party and hope for better days. Going outside is suicide in my opinion if they want to keep the GOP conservative they have to fight for it's soul NOW.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:59 AM

Quote:
My belief is that the activist part of the Dems last election cycle was probably pro-peace which is why Kosinich and Dean managed big rallys and seemed to have a lot of grass roots backing. The Democratic leadership and the think tanks and institutes that support it however are political operators, they understood that with his current approval ratings no canidate they fielded on any platform would defeat Bush.

I agree with the first part, but I don't think this was a pragmatic choice, I think it was an ideological one. The dems were so attached to the war that they would rather lose the election than the war.

Quote:
Replacing the Executive in wartime? Never happened except by death of the encombant.

This is just blatantly not so. Truman had tapped Adlai Stevenson to continue his administration's policies, but Stevenson lost to the oppositon, Dwight Eisenhower, in the middle of the Korean war, or what proved to be the end because Eisenhower was elected, but was by no means winding down.

Sixteen years later, Johnson failed to win his own primary while he was an incumbent president during the Vietnam war.

If we look back historically, James Cox, Wilson's chosen successor, lost to Warren G. Harding while the US was at war with Russia.

In two of these three instances, the election the republican resulted in the immediate termination of hostilities, and in the third it represented a marked reduction in total number combat exercises/civilian casualities and ultimately the termination of hostilities.

This is part of my problem with democrats. They *can't* call it quits on a war. They either continue fighting until they have the unconditional surrender of the enemy, or the war ends because a republican gets elected.

Quote:
That's why folks like Wesley Clarke showed up when they did to try and break up the peacenic faction amongst the activists and dilute Deans popularity.

This is an interesting idea. You could very well be right. Clarke's ties to Clinton are strong, and he is no man of peace.

Quote:
And yes all of this is setup to 2008. I don't think Dems looked at Bush and thought "he's our guy, let's give him an easy ride" I just think the realists understood that with the approval numbers he had and with a war in progress the very best you could do is come respectably second.

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to imply that the democrats, collectively, said "He's our guy." I think the Clintonites, who number in maybe half a dozen, Clarke, Hillary, and people I call team evil democrat, I think thought of Bush as their guy. I don't think that they 'threw' the election totally, I think they would have rather won. They wanted Kerry in office. But, given a choice between losing the war or losing the presidency, they were unwilling to let go of the war. I actually cannot think of a historic precedent for a democrat letting go of a war.

Quote:
Bush is a Republican problem.

Not denying this. He's our bad.

Quote:
. It may make you feel better to imagine he's some remote controlled liberal puppet but the truth is that his power base is in the GOP and that even when he's gone that influence is liable to continue.

After the number of messages we've bounced on this board, you should know me better than this. I am far to pragmatic to let something like this happen to me. If I'm analyzing Bush as a left wing plant, it's not out of any effort to feel better. If I felt the core of the GOP was threatening to become this sort of thing, I'd just leave. It's through an effort to understand my opponent, Bush et. al, the neocons, that I *accidentally* stumbled on this information.

I was reading an article which contained the line "Neocons, who have been in the govt. for 30 years..." And suddenly it struck me. Where was I? I've been paying attention, and if these neocons were around for 30 years, why did I not hear the term until so recently?

Well, I wondered over to google and did a search on "coined term neocon." That returned the result "Michael Harrington" which itself wasn't that remarkeable. But what I didn't realize was that what I had just stumbled across was a rabbit hole.

This rabbit hole, like the matrix, goes as far down as you are willing to follow. After taking that jouney, I was convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there was a deliberate attempt to subvert the longstanding position of the GOP. This attempt came from a group called the "social democrats" and some other further left groups, such as the socialist workers party, and ultimately from the communist party USA.

This was very classic film noir sort of stuff, but there was certainly at least a grain of truth to it. Without even touching the concept of 'conspiracy theory' you can watch the influence with the movement migrate to the GOP, join with a few militant conservative christians and zionists, and form a new ideology. This new ideology isn't strictly "democrat," but it is definitely an infection of the ideology. And that, yes, is our problem.

But, and here's where it gets tricky. Not all the social democrats made the move to the GOP. The faction that stayed behind had the same radical ideology, but was not in tune with it's right wing twin until the Clinton years. The right-evil saw the left-evil as a failure, and it wasn't until the upset that the two started to really communicate. Under Bush, that tie has been growing stonger. Though they oppose one another, and accutally *do* struggle for power, these are not opponents. These are allies who *play the role* of opponents.

Hillary, who never opposed the policies of Bush, spends a lot of time posturing to make people think she is the opposition. You'll find Hillary say things like "Worst president ever" but you won't find her voting against the patriot act, or the war. And this is not just a historical perspective where people can change. Hillary voted for the patriot act in the beginning, but she also voted for it again last month. She voted for Bush's war in Iraq at the start, and she just introduced a resolution for war with Iran. Hillary supported almost every initiative that came from the neocon influence in Bush. The only thing she opposes is whatever is traditionally republican, soc. sec. privatization, etc.

Quote:
There is nothing inherent in the Republicans that say they have to be the party of conservatives, in fact they have had progressive flashes throughout their history, in Neoconism takes a grip in the party then conservatives will be faced with the same unpleasant choices that activist factions always have with "big tent" political parties, they can move outside and pitch their own tent and maintain their ideological purity, or they stay within the party and hope for better days. Going outside is suicide in my opinion if they want to keep the GOP conservative they have to fight for it's soul NOW.

Sure, fair enough. I don't think until the neocon infection happened, that teh GOP really had that much sway of philosophy. Just random abberations like Hoover. But progressive republicans weren't leftists by any stretch of the imagination, they were if anything more capitalist.

But I grant that we have a big fight ahead of us. It's a fight that might make the GOP smaller, a consequence I've spent some time thinking about. But to be larger enough to always be the majority, and yet completely sacrafice who you are, is a completely pyrrhic victory.

But, and this was my point, and an important one. You, on the left, have this infection too, and as long as you blame us on the right collectively for the problem, you will fail to see it.

Whether it's called Hillary Democrat or Blair Labor, it is there, and it's the evil twin sister to neocon. And it's not going away until you recognize that it's there, and recognize it as the enemy within.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 29, 2006 6:13 AM

I'm "on the left?" Really? Hummmm...

My facts still stand, Johnson did not lose a general election because he pulled out in the primarys, McCathy, the peace canidate that opposed him was NOT the person the party chose to contest the election.

Truman also didn't stand again so was also not defeated as an encombant. Both these wars were unpopular at home, something that Iraq was not during the last election cycle.

I took a peek down that rabbit hole of yours. First up, American "Social Democrats" are actually nationalistic Trotskyist, just need to make that clear before people start equating that with parties of the same name in Europe (though now you mention it....

)

I think you assume that political ideology is supposed to remain "pure" it isn't. "Road to Damascus" moments happen to political theorists all the time, that's because politics deals with people and therefore has no "absolute truths" that can be uncovered, this also explains why Utopian visions ultimately fail.

I made two purchases at the remainder bookstore yesterday, one was Irvin Kristols "Neoconservatism: the Autobiography of an Idea" the second was an autobiography of Basil Brush. One is writen by one of the most influential thinkers of the late 20th century, the other by a sock puppet. I suspect Citizen is the only one that understands that joke or knows which is which.

Havent read Kristol's book yet but in flicking through most of the articles are essentially attacks in leftist ideology. You probably think that this is a blind and that he's a trojan horse for some left wing agenda, however I suspect you'd have thought Saint Paul was a Roman plant. I suspect that he's actually stating an honest opinion, as you know the disillusioned are often the zeolots of a new "religion."

If Neoconism is a problem at all, then it is the American conservative movements "problem" because if it remains in prominence "traditional conservatism" will either leave the GOP and die or stay and wither.

The problem the American left has (over and above the usual problems of the left) is that it's bought and paid for. If the Dems regain Congress all that would happen is that the gravy train would flow to them instead of the GOP. In my view under it's current leadership the Democrats are no longer a "progressive" party.

So in effect we have a "pox on both your houses" I think you'd like it to be the same pox so that both sides can suffer the same indignity. I think they are different "poxes" but with the same cause --- lack of political hygene--- too much dirty politics, and too much dirty money.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 29, 2006 7:24 AM

Quote:
My facts still stand, Johnson did not lose a general election because he pulled out in the primarys, McCathy, the peace canidate that opposed him was NOT the person the party chose to contest the election.

This actually doesn't support your argument. Humphrey, a continuation of Johnson's political line, lost to Nixon when America decided to change horses in midstream. Yay us.

Quote:
Truman also didn't stand again so was also not defeated as an encombant. Both these wars were unpopular at home, something that Iraq was not during the last election cycle.

Yes, it was. I don't know any republicans here who support it, well okay, one, and one democrat. The blogs are more to be trusted here than the MSM, who afterall, has something to gain from the agenda. Anyway, encombant is not a word. I let it slide the first time. The Truman didn't stand argument doesn't work, as Stevenson was handpicked, tapped by Truman to run. The fact is the record shows that America *does* change horses in midstream, and usually benefits by it.

Quote:
I took a peek down that rabbit hole of yours. First up, American "Social Democrats" are actually nationalistic Trotskyist, just need to make that clear before people start equating that with parties of the same name in Europe (though now you mention it.... )

Yeah, I knew they were troskyites, Shachtmanites to be precise. That was kind of the point. I wasn't implying that Germany's Social Dems were connected to Soc. Dem. USA, but that would be an interesting thing to investigate. Shroeder and Bush were not best buds, so I don't know if this angle is going anywhere, but if anyone has other thoughts, post them.

Quote:
I think you assume that political ideology is supposed to remain "pure" it isn't. "Road to Damascus" moments happen to political theorists all the time, that's because politics deals with people and therefore has no "absolute truths" that can be uncovered, this also explains why Utopian visions ultimately fail.

Baby. Bathwater.

See this is the problem. They don't remain the same, but they do remain consistant. Every republican since JQ Adams has added to the extant political philosophy of 'Republicanism' as it was first set up by Jefferson, and added to by other republican presidents. The most notable exception was Hoover, who got kicked out of the party, and the next republican went back and added to Coolidge as if Hoover had never happened.

Bush is a marked contrast to that. He's not an evolution, he's a revolution. He abandons planks already established, and he does it by legions. This isn't the way it should work. If the GOP has introduce A, and followed A, then the next conservative leaders adds B, and so forth until you have ABCDEF, you change it by making ABCDEFG. Possibly you can challenge F and say, maybe ABCDEG, but I can't think of a case where this has happened.

But Hoover and Bush stand apart in that they say AQRMPG which has to be looked at objectively. If, prior to coming into office, the republican platform is ABCDEF, then you have to say, well, that's republican. If your new candidate is ABCDE, then he's a reactionary republican. If he's ABCDEFG, then he's a progressive republican. If he's ABCDEG then he's a revisionist republican, if he's ABCDEF, then he's a stalwart republican. If he's AQRMPG, then maybe he's somehting else. Partywise, he's definitely republican, elected on a republican ticket, but ideologically, he's not a republican, in the sense of following republicanism set up by Jefferson, Adams and Adams. Ergo, it behooves the GOP to reject Bush as they did with Hoover, and return to ABCDEF, with as little change as possible, and build again from there. If it continues from AQRMPG to AQRMPGZ then it's fair to say it's not the same ideological political party, and I guarantee you you'll be seeing a prominant third party in the US.

Quote:
I made two purchases at the remainder bookstore yesterday, one was Irvin Kristols "Neoconservatism: the Autobiography of an Idea" the second was an autobiography of Basil Brush. One is writen by one of the most influential thinkers of the late 20th century, the other by a sock puppet. I suspect Citizen is the only one that understands that joke or knows which is which.

Of course I know Irving Kristol, he's the man who stood up and excepted the term after Harrington threw it at him, he's part of the whole wolfowitx, perle, set. "a liberal mugged by reality." Tell me if it's worth reading. I don't think he was a sock puppet, I think he was a puppetmaster. I know little about Basil Brush other than this:

I assume he is one of the most influential thinkers of the late 20th century, but I don't get the joke.

Quote:
Havent read Kristol's book yet but in flicking through most of the articles are essentially attacks in leftist ideology. You probably think that this is a blind and that he's a trojan horse for some left wing agenda, however I suspect you'd have thought Saint Paul was a Roman plant. I suspect that he's actually stating an honest opinion, as you know the disillusioned are often the zeolots of a new "religion."

Saint Paul *was* a Roman plant. Absolutely. I've never thought otherwise. I thought it was obvious. I'm actually serious. Kristol is not a mole. That's not my point. It's the evolution of an idea. But it isn't that Kristol abandoned Soviet left wing thought and Adopted Jefferson/Adams Republicanism. That's very obviously not what happened. Kristol et al created something new, which then latched on the GOP as a way to get into power. Sure, they were disillusioned with teh American left, and the Lenin/Mao left, but they never abandoned the ideas of Shachtman and Trotsky. They hated wussy peace left, and flowers and bunnyrabbits left. The want global social revolution, new world order.

Quote:
If Neoconism is a problem at all, then it is the American conservative movements "problem" because if it remains in prominence "traditional conservatism" will either leave the GOP and die or stay and wither.

Sure, I think I said the same thing. But, and this is my point, once again, the left has it's own copy of necons, call them neolibs or whatever, partners in crime, and they own the Democratic party and they own the Labor party, and if the left does not also stand up and deal you are going to see left wing war against Iran, and a million people dead. I'm not saying that the right doesn't have an inhouse problem to deal with. We do, sure. But the left also does, and I think that it has decided to put all the blame on us rather than dealing. It's not as if Clinton, Clinton and Blair aren't evil, just as evil as Bush.

Quote:
The problem the American left has (over and above the usual problems of the left) is that it's bought and paid for. If the Dems regain Congress all that would happen is that the gravy train would flow to them instead of the GOP. In my view under it's current leadership the Democrats are no longer a "progressive" party.

Sure, but not it's not the capitalists steering them astray, it's the damn team evil and it's militarist predecessors. Long before there was DiFi, Hillary, Joementum and the Benator, there were the hawks, the democrats of the 20th century who lead us into battle in japan, korea, vietnam. I think that the dems would have issues, even without the TE. But I think that the left needs to recognize the threat first. After that, we can argue on our tremendous disagreements on policy issues. But the Hillary administration would be a continuation of the Bush Administration policies just as the Bush administration was largely a continuation of Clinton. This is what I mean by team evil. A Feingold or Boxer administration would be markedly different. I'm not saying it would be perfect, but at least it would be reasonable, moderate, and democratic, not running on an extremist preset agenda.

Quote:
So in effect we have a "pox on both your houses" I think you'd like it to be the same pox so that both sides can suffer the same indignity. I think they are different "poxes" but with the same cause --- lack of political hygene--- too much dirty politics, and too much dirty money.

I'm not the king of wishful thinking here. I don't think corruption is the main issue, it's an issue, but I think the agenda is the main issue. We have a group of people who are now in office, in both parties, who in the 70s said it would be a great idea to go to war in the mid east, and to turn the world in a bunch of multi-national unions, so that we could marginalize the people we disagree with and prevent dissent and free will worldwide, because it's dangerous. And these people are true believers. They think that society would never acheive salvation if there are people like Bin Laden around trying to muck it up. I think of Bin Laden as a reality check. Sure, he would exist anyway, but his support comes from our arrogant aggression. But also, more importantly, the crooks of capitalism could never have accomplished the theft that the ideologues have. We're talking about people who can't see past the next quarter. They're never going to be consistantly scheming for thirty years. They're not even going to be on message for thirty years. Hell, they aren't going to be on message for ten years, if a grand scheme isn't profitable in 5 years, a well organized and thought out profit plan is likely to be abandoned. The corrupt crowd would abandon it if it's not profitable in six months.

I guess I'm still not buying your causitive agent. I think corruption is one part of the puzzle, but it's not running the show. Ideology is running the show, and using corruption in the short term to get the job done.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:13 AM

It implies a consistant ideology and that isn't apparent. Traditionally the left has had a problem, they can't organise worth ****. Because a lot of their ideology is and remains theoretical it has the ability to mutate and split and do a lot of things detremental to the ability to win political power.

You like the Strachtmanites but in truth his various changes of tack during his lifetime fragmented and completely disorganised American Trotskyism, if you can catagorise it at all it would be anything other than a consistant plan. These folks fall out all the time, I can't see them maintaining a unified vision.

And that in the end is the problem with TE as a concept. You've looked back over the last 30 years cherry picked all that was wrong with America in that time and assigned that to TE, which you then decide is an external influence. It's evading responsability by creating a conspiracy that is responsable.

Let me give you an alternative that explains the same situation. A number of things have happened since WW2. First up the European Imperial powers fell back, openning what had been protected Imperial markets to outside (US) competition. This meant that increasingly the US economy was involved in foreign trade. This in turn acted against classical US isolationism. Second the retreating Empires created a power vacuum that post war theorists assumed would lead to Communist gains, this would threaten not just American economic interests but also create a competitor for the resources a very healthy US economy needed.

The result is clear as day. For the last 30 years the US has taken on the habits of an Imperial nation. It maintains a large powerfull military to protect its Imperial assets, it vies with other imperial blocks for influence and resources. In addition it has generated an "Imperial Class" a group of academics, industrialists and political operators whose fortunes are linked to the American Imperial supremacy.

Now when we did it we stuck a Union Flag on anything we could because we're nationalitic kinds of guys, but then again we were using military might to make an Empire, the US only uses its might to protect an Empire that actually grows through commerce.

Your Imperial Class has a vested interest in extending US influence and more importantly most Americans support that idea. When we had an Empire just about everyone in the UK except for Anarchists and a few malcontents thought it was a great idea. Look at the pictures of public rallys after victories or state pagents. We used to have the World's biggest navy day just to show that our fleet was twice as big as anyone elses. You do exactly the same thing it's what Imperial nations do.

"Team Evil" hasn't been around for 30+ years, "Team America" has been. As you took on your destiny as leader of the world you set in place economic, political and cultural changes that have altered your country and the way it sees itself. Those changes are now so ingrained that they are the established culture and that culture allows for GW Bush and friends. If you really believe that prior to this year the majority of Americans were against the war you are sadly deluded. If you say only 2 of your friends supported it then you have great friends, but not representative ones.

I have sat in a bar and watched war footage with your "fellow Americans" and you know what? People cheer precision bombing footage.

I've told you before, you dont live in 1953ville, the country you have is the result of economic and social forces that have changed the world since WW2. That it means that corruption is more likely goes without saying, money has always followed power and guess where the power is?

My guess is that "traditional" isolationist, small government conservatism is dead if it ever really existed at all. If the imperial drive stalls and America falls back it will morph into either a petty nationalism or something worse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 6:16 AM

SKYWALKEN

Bon debarras! That phrase means "good riddance" in French, and it sums up what intelligent people everywhere ought to say about the end of the Martin government.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 8:39 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:

I assume he is one of the most influential thinkers of the late 20th century, but I don't get the joke.

Boom Boom!

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 8:57 AM

SKYWALKEN

Top cabinet ministers include:

-Jim Flaherty, a former Ontario finance minister, at finance.

-Peter MacKay, who engineered the creation of the new Conservative party, at foreign affairs.

-Vic Toews, an ex-Manitoba justice minister, at justice.

-Gordon O'Connor, a former army general, at defence.

-Tony Clement, a one-time Ontario health minister, at health.

-Maxime Bernier, a Quebec MP, at industry.

-John Baird, former Ontario cabinet minister, at Treasury Board.

-Rob Nicholson, a former federal cabinet minister, is House leader and democratic reform minister.

-Chuck Strahl, who is battling cancer, at agriculture.

-Rona Ambrose, from Alberta, at environment.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 7:12 PM

Quote:
It implies a consistant ideology and that isn't apparent. Traditionally the left has had a problem, they can't organise worth ****. Because a lot of their ideology is and remains theoretical it has the ability to mutate and split and do a lot of things detremental to the

ability to win political power.

Socialists are left, these guys were a part of that, they mutated into something different. Now they are neither left nor right, but exist in both. They follow their own agenda, often matching it to others as much as they can. Oil companies, religious groups, zionists and

christians both, anyone whose goal fall in line with the agenda. I agree with the left being sucky organizers, but these aren't your typical left. I don't think, for instance, that the black caucus are sucky organizers, I think they're aces, I think they're the best thing the

democrats have going. So, yes, as a whole, the left sucks at organizing, but individual groups may fair better. I think part of why the right-shachtmant segment was successful sooner is that they shifted right because they may have had some ideological issues with

the left (marvel at the concept) but also because they saw the right's power to organize and wanted in.

Quote:
You like the Strachtmanites but in truth his various changes of tack during his lifetime fragmented and completely disorganised American Trotskyism, if you can catagorise it at all it would be anything other than a consistant plan. These folks fall out all the time, I

can't see them maintaining a unified vision.

Shachtman wasn't their only influence, but we are talking about a coherent group here with a coherent ideology. They also like Strauss and Kristol and others.

Quote:
And that in the end is the problem with TE as a concept. You've looked back over the last 30 years cherry picked all that was wrong with America in that time and assigned that to TE, which you then decide is an external influence. It's evading responsability

by creating a conspiracy that is responsable.

Nah, they supported Vietnam, but they certainly didn't cause the war. They didn't make the stock market crash of '87, there's a lot they didn't do. I think they're pretty misguided and cause a lot of damage, but until Watergate, they had no power, and they didn't have

much until Clinton.

Quote:
Let me give you an alternative that explains the same situation. A number of things have happened since WW2. First up the European Imperial powers fell back, openning what had been protected Imperial markets to outside (US) competition. This meant that

increasingly the US economy was involved in foreign trade. This in turn acted against classical US isolationism. Second the retreating Empires created a power vacuum that post war theorists assumed would lead to Communist gains, this would threaten not just

American economic interests but also create a competitor for the resources a very healthy US economy needed.

Sure. Or you could say that democrats learned how to win elections. The democrats never believed in American isolationism, and it was pretty much killed by Wilson in 1917. But isolationism was a doomed policy, which is why TR and Taft constructed

internationalism. But none of the democrats wars helped business, and this had nothing to do with TE. This is a modern evolution that made noise in the 70s, and became public policy in the 90s.

Quote:
The result is clear as day. For the last 30 years the US has taken on the habits of an Imperial nation. It maintains a large powerfull military to protect its Imperial assets, it vies with other imperial blocks for influence and resources. In addition it has generated an

"Imperial Class" a group of academics, industrialists and political operators whose fortunes are linked to the American Imperial supremacy.

Nah, I don't buy it. American image is far more important to the American economy than our assets. This is maybe a neocon view, but it's not the driving force of America since WWII. This is clearly something off course from the idea of soft power.

Quote:
Now when we did it we stuck a Union Flag on anything we could because we're nationalitic kinds of guys, but then again we were using military might to make an Empire, the US only uses its might to protect an Empire that actually grows through commerce.

This is still way off base. What you say is true, but not responsible for Bush, or connected to it, or to TE. The American economy, and the strength of the individual companies of America has been shrinking under this nonsense. This maybe was what Eisenhower

was about, but it's not what Cheney is about.

Quote:
Your Imperial Class has a vested interest in extending US influence and more importantly most Americans support that idea. When we had an Empire just about everyone in the UK except for Anarchists and a few malcontents thought it was a great idea. Look

at the pictures of public rallys after victories or state pagents. We used to have the World's biggest navy day just to show that our fleet was twice as big as anyone elses. You do exactly the same thing it's what Imperial nations do.

This isn't about extending US influence. These guys don't give a damn about America, they keep saying they're globalists and they mean it. They intend to be in power in the one world govt. they hope to create. It won't be an American rule of Earth, it will be an Evil

rule of Earth, and include lots of folks from the EU and the UK as well. I imagine there will be a few Saudis and Israelis in the mix.

Quote:
"Team Evil" hasn't been around for 30+ years, "Team America" has been.

No. No. No. This is not team America. Team America has been around forever. Team evil has been around for 30 years, they haven't been in power for 15. But you would like to see this as "America is Evil" which fits nicely into a European pre-conception, but this is

just as much an EU problem, since the EU is part of the master plan. Evil is everywhere, which is why the EU, the UK, Merkel, et al are making war with Iran and have been, to help fulfill the agenda. The idea of ruling multinational states was a Shachtman one, and it's

why they took the EEC and made the EU out of it.

Quote:
As you took on your destiny as leader of the world you set in place economic, political and cultural changes that have altered your country and the way it sees itself. Those changes are now so ingrained that they are the established culture and that culture

allows for GW Bush and friends. If you really believe that prior to this year the majority of Americans were against the war you are sadly deluded. If you say only 2 of your friends supported it then you have great friends, but not representative ones.

Leader is a vague term. Leader in the republican sense is like MVP. That's the way we see ourselves, Most Valuable Player. In the democratic sense, it's been World Cop. In the neocon sense it's global King. But they only use that until they declare themselves

world Emperor.

Quote:
I have sat in a bar and watched war footage with your "fellow Americans" and you know what? People cheer precision bombing footage.

In bars. With alcoholics. Sure, there are those people. Young, stupid, people usually. But then, if Britain was at war, you would have no shortage of people cheering your govt. on in its bad decisions. People are patriotic, and they are sports fans, they want to cheer

for their team, which is the USA. They don't see the evil.

Quote:
I've told you before, you dont live in 1953ville, the country you have is the result of economic and social forces that have changed the world since WW2. That it means that corruption is more likely goes without saying, money has always followed power and

guess where the power is?

You really are a spinmeister. You took this comment out of context intentionally and then used it over and over again to paint me as an out of date fossil. Well sorry if I don't bow to the worship of the nanny state, the HIV virus and crack cocaine. Not all change is

good.

Quote:
My guess is that "traditional" isolationist, small government conservatism is dead if it ever really existed at all. If the imperial drive stalls and America falls back it will morph into either a petty nationalism or something worse.

Isolationism, as I said, is outdated, and it was outdated in 1900. Now we have internationalism. Globalism is not an extension of that, it stands in direct opposition to it. This is the debate, the power struggle within the GOP, and it's parallel struggle in the democrats.

Everything else in American politics is more or less subservient to it. The old conservative ideology is very alive, just not in the executive branch. It does fill the halls of the Senate, and is likely to find its way back into power.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 9:02 PM

I'm not taking you in isolation. You stated that you would prefer 1953 or 1983 to today. I'm just showing you what that isn't possible.

You accuse me of pandering to a European view that America is "evil" that's rubbish. America isn't pure in international affairs, it never has been and never will be. From the birth of your nation America has always acted in her own best interest and idealism has always taken second seat to practicality. For all Jefferson's talk of isolationism he sent the Marines to Tripoli when he was President. Was he TE too or was he exercising America's sovereign right to act in her own best interest?

I will explain it again to you. America has built a commercial empire in the last 60 or so years. Like any Empire it serves two functions, a source of cheap raw materials (especially oil) and protected or influenced markets. To maintain this system it maintains a large military with a global reach. Trust me on this, my country had an empire we know what they look like. You may not call it an empire, you may not like the idea that you have one, but you do... sorry.

Globalisation favours US industry because they have 3 very usefull attributes not shared by their competitors.

1) Excellent capitalisation
2) A large home market
3) certain lobbying advantages that come from having the world's only superpower in your corner.

Combined they give US companies a certain degree of additional leverage in the marketplace. Globalisation is good for American business and when it comes to American politics, it's US businesses that foot the bills.

So if after every election it seems like the new boss is just the same as the old boss it's good to remember that the same folks are paying the bills. What they are paying for is to keep things moving forward in a business friendly way.

And that's why your "traditional" conservative position is dead -- there is simply no profit in it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 2:32 PM

I feel I already understand American industry and politics, their connections, and the international links very very well. It's not like you're enlightening me to this as something new. I don't think this is what's going on. In fact, I'm really quite sure of it. American capitalist expansion is not the force behind globalism, in fact it's being hit, possibly critically wounded, by it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 3:35 PM

I can see that part of the problem is that I used the wrong terms I should have said "American Corporations" rather than "American Business" or "American Industry," I suspect your quaintness is rubbing off on me.

And no, I'm afraid you don't tend to demonstrate any knowledge of American industry as far as I can see. I loved your comment about Microsoft designing the Mac for Apple, now there's industry research at it's finest.

Let me explain it simply. Imagine a company "Apple of the Loom" which traditionally makes textile products in North Carolina where it employs US workers and makes a modest profit. The opertunity comes along to have the same products made in Indonesia at a fraction of the cost. "AotL" closes it's N. Carolina factories and moves manufacturing overseas.

So lets look at that.

AotL shareholders are happy because profits just went up. They are in the business as an investment not to make T-Shirts.

AotL executives are happy because profits went up. They have a legal duty to their shareholders to maximise return on investment. They have no legal duty to their workers, the state of N. Carolina or Uncle Sam.

AotL's new workforce in Indonesia is happy, AotL pays better than local rates for it's workers in order to attract the best. Some can even afford to buy the products they are making so AotL's Indonesian sales grow.

AotL's American customers notice a drop in prices with no obvious loss of quality. They traditionally trust the AotL brand and so continue to buy it.

AotL's former workers in N Carolina are unemployed.

The city in N Carolina where AotL used to have it's factories suffers a slump because the secondary service economy that was funded by AotL workers discressionary spending is hurt. If you are out of work you dont buy as much in local stores.

The state of N. Carolina suffers a drop in tax revenue because of the number of people now out of work. This effects funding of services.

The current congressman for that part of North Carolina starts pushing for a bill to limit textile imports from Indonesia, fearing that more local companies will follow AotL off shore.

The executives of AotL seeing the potential hit to their bottom line if this goes through puts money into lobbying their perspective that free trade with Indonesia is a fair and proper thing to do. Together with other companies who would be equally effected they start to donate funds to canidates in favour of global trade.

Since the election cycle in the US is expensive and the kinds of companies that benefit most from globalisation tend to be bigger than the ma-and-pa companies that oppose it natural selection favours "pro international business" canidates in both parties.

Some time later when Indonesian rebels threaten the status quo and try to move Indonesia towards an Islamic theocracy threatening the assets of American companies based there, considerable pressure is brought on the administration to "protect US interests in the region" by sending a career battle group. In addition the US sends advisors and technical aid against "insurgents."

Later, when the US government changes party the Indonesian position is maintained because there are still US economic assets on the islands needing protection and the "pro-international business" canidates of the new ruling party have the same financial backers as their predecessors.

No Team Evil, just the basic political-economic games that have existed since at least Roman times.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 4:17 PM

Quote:

I can see that part of the problem is that I used the wrong terms I should have said "American Corporations" rather than "American Business" or "American Industry," I suspect your quaintness is rubbing off on me.

It's not that. There are 300,000 corporations in America. There are 15,000 publicly held corporations. There are probably several thousand American publicly traded international corporations whose business relies on an international market. In counting those that benefit from newcon globalization, you would have trouble getting up to the double digits, and in no way would approach the triple digits.

Quote:
And no, I'm afraid you don't tend to demonstrate any knowledge of American industry as far as I can see. I loved your comment about Microsoft designing the Mac for Apple, now there's industry research at it's finest.

I did work for a stock broker for ten years, I do understand this industry, and feel no need to argue the point. No offense, but to stem the flood fo your propaganda is not a call for me to waste time I could spend working, please don't force the situation.

Quote:
Let me explain it simply. Imagine a company "Apple of the Loom" which traditionally makes textile products in North Carolina where it employs US workers and makes a modest profit. The opertunity comes along to have the same products made in Indonesia at a fraction of the cost. "AotL" closes it's N. Carolina factories and moves manufacturing overseas.

Sure, but this doesn't benefit by neocon policies, this is normal business as usual. The GOP has been the party which has been pushing to lessen the tax burden which makes deserting America profitable. To ban companies from leaving would be protectionist, and just plain wrong. THe effect of such a policy would not be that AotL would stay in business, it would be that it would become uncompetitive in the world market and go bankrupt. We have this argument in the US all the time, it's not exactly foreign territory. The reason businesses leave is that the tax burden placed on a company for each American they hire. This is not just a "It's all the democrat's fault" but it is, all the democrats fault, but that's not the point. The point is we need a way to fix it without withdrawing from the international market. This all has absolutely nothing to do with the globalist agenda, which is all about one world govt. and not about support for American business. It's just blatantly so, as the facts show, businesses and the American economy have suffered under this Administration and these globalist policies, which are anti-competition, anti-private sector and un-American. The only "Corporations" which are helped are ones for whom the #1 customer base is not overseas, or the American people, but one single govt., which for many of these Bush companies represents over half of their revenue, and that customer is the Federal Govt. These are corporations almost in name only. They are not free agents, independent of govt. which are benefiting from Bush.

Quote:
ma-and-pa companies that oppose it natural selection favours "pro international business" canidates in both parties.

Nothing is wrong with international business. What is wrong I already posted at length. Break down the cost of hiring an American, and you will find that it costs a company $3 in taxes and federally mandated spending for every $1 that they pay to the American worker. So instead, they move operations overseas, largely to *high* wage countries. The majority of American jobs are leaving for countries where the *wages* are actually higher, but because of favorable pro-business regulations, the *costs* are lower. The cost of labor in South Carolina is nothing. It's the cost of doing business in America which is prohibitive. The lion's share of this cost is going to pay for things like this militant globalism and rampant corruption.

Quote:
Some time later when Indonesian rebels threaten the status quo and try to move Indonesia towards an Islamic theocracy threatening the assets of American companies based there, considerable pressure is brought on the administration to "protect US interests in the region" by sending a career battle group. In addition the US sends advisors and technical aid against "insurgents."

Again, not so much. This is how it should work, but we seem instead to be going to war places where the war itself threatens the USA, and not doing what we should, which is go to defend our friends. Which is really what we're talking about. Bush Sr. goes to defend Kuwait, sure, to some extent because of pressure, but it what he *should* be doing anyway. We should have gone to defend other people we didn't because of the lack of that pressure, sure, granted, but it wasn't Apple of the Loom, and it doesn't have anything to do with the global agenda. The kleptocracy relies on Oil companies to fit the bill for re-election, but they are still a small minority, and the other cronies, Halliburton, pharmagovt, are really part of govt., because they rely on the public till for their revenue.

Quote:
Later, when the US government changes party the Indonesian position is maintained because there are still US economic assets on the islands needing protection and the "pro-international business" canidates of the new ruling party have the same financial backers as their predecessors.

Sure, as perhaps it should do. This is a separate issue.

No Team Evil, just the basic political-economic games that have existed since at least Roman times.

Wrong again. Team Evil has an agenda, and it's not helping American business. Capitalism was best served by peace, something which the republicans of the 20th century believed, and supported, for an entire 100 years. They were right, and they proved their point time and time again. Then we get this New American Century clowns who mock this old order which is working very very well, and introduce something new, which is derived from socialism, but is a new animal, and it sucks. They are bent on creating a one world order with no dissent, no competition, no will other than their own, because they believe it is the right thing to do. They think it will end conflict. It won't. It will create a new kind of conflict, one between those with too much power and those with too little, otherwise known as oppression.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 4:48 PM

Sorry that last post was more hostile than it should have been. It's just this kind of attitude irritates me, esp. coming from the pro-govt. types.

In my view, the problem here is that we have fallen off the left end of the political spectrum, and we need to move back to center. People say 'this is too far right, we need to walk left,'
and I think they are missing the point, blaming the wrong people.

Corporations have cured diseases, made efficient food production, transportation, labor saving devices, brought us information and technology which make us capable of much more than we were, they are the instigators of progress.

Govts have brought us war, genocide, oppression and taxes.

Capitalism isn't perfect, and corporations aren't angels. The ones I call pharmagovt. were once good companies, now corrupted. A great great uncle of mine was cofounder of Eli Lilly and Co. which used to do good work curing diseases, and they still do, but they also rob the public till and deal in what has become legal drug trafficking. But corporations aren't inherently evil. The profit motive doesn't drive them to dominate the lives of people. The profit motive drives companies to provide services that the people want. People want to be helped. They do not want to be dominated. They're not going to buy domination. It's not a profitable mechanism unless you have a hand in writing the laws, and then you are govt., and you have the power to oppress.

Captialism at its heart is the truer democracy. Democracy is a fake democracy compared to capitalism. It's the free will of us to do what we want to help one another, to compete for the support of the people. I can be a corporation if I want, I've been part of one before, and then I can compete by finding new ways to help people, make their lives easier, work more efficient, etc.

My point is this: We're not the bad guys. Not America, not corporations, not the right wing. We are trying to help. Our methods may be completely at odds with yours, but we deeply believe in what we are doing, and trying to do.

Neocons are not us. They are their own thing. They deeply believe they are helping, but they're not. They're help requires being in completely control of everyone and everything. They don't want anyone spoiling their 'perfect idea.'

I think they're wrong, and in an environment of no competition and no dissent, which is what they foster, there can be no argument, and my belief that they are deeply and utterly wrong will have no impact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 9:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It's not that. There are 300,000 corporations in America. There are 15,000 publicly held corporations. There are probably several thousand American publicly traded international corporations whose business relies on an international market. In counting those that benefit from newcon globalization, you would have trouble getting up to the double digits, and in no way would approach the triple digits.

Really?

Well this isn't scientific but on this page is a link to a list of Companies known to be outsourcing jobs abroad.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/

I did only a quick count but I got to over 100 just on the "A's." I doubt very much that these companies would be doing this if it wasn't to their economic advantage.

Even if we accept your figures and say that this kind of world trade benefits only 1% of US companies, just how much GDP does that represent? Any governments economic policy favors some over others. If your choice is between policies benefiting a company like Microsoft which contributes say 1% of GDP or 10,000 Ma-and-pa outfits that contribute just 0.001% between them then you favour Microsoft. The numbers of companies doesnt matter. If your "handfull" produce 70% of GDP then yes you'll do what's good for them, even if 1000 family businesses go bust as a result.

Quote:

I did work for a stock broker for ten years, I do understand this industry, and feel no need to argue the point. No offense, but to stem the flood fo your propaganda is not a call for me to waste time I could spend working, please don't force the situation.

My wife worked for a Bar Association for 2 years, that doesn't make her a lawyer. I'm assuming that as you say you worked *for* a stock broker and not *as* a stock broker you never actually traded?

As to the "Democrats taxed us until we were uncompetative," tax and regulation is of course a factor but it's only part of the cost base of a country.

Two little stories here.

First a former collegue of mine and Anglo-Indian guy called Amrit. Amrit's folks had come to the UK in the 60's he was born a Brit, never lived in India but every year he went to India for 3 weeks during the summer for various weddings and festivals. He told me that when he arrived in the town where his folks had grown up he would hire a maid and a man servant to look after him while he was there, to run errands, clean his clothes and his room and cook if needed. Cost? About 2 pounds per day which meant he said that in 3 weeks they earned the equivalent of over two months regular pay. At that time my parents spent 2 pounds a day on dogfood.

Story number 2

In a previous job have actually trained my own outsource replacements, two well educated guys from Bangalore. I didn't resent it because the company was in dire straights at that time and if they didn't make savings they would have closed completely. However, I can tell you this, the two kids I trained earned less than I was paying for the modest one bed appartment I was living in. If central government died overnight, if my personal and corporate tax burden fell to zero the savings would not have been enough to have kept that job onshore.

Assuming it's all about Tax is an avoidance of reality and a knee jerk pandering to dogma. If a guy can have a good life on $15,000 in India you will hire him for $15,000, you can not hire an American for $15,000 if that is less than the guy needs to live. That's just reality.

Quote:

Nothing is wrong with international business. What is wrong I already posted at length. Break down the cost of hiring an American, and you will find that it costs a company $3 in taxes and federally mandated spending for every $1 that they pay to the American worker. So instead, they move operations overseas, largely to *high* wage countries. The majority of American jobs are leaving for countries where the *wages* are actually higher, but because of favorable pro-business regulations, the *costs* are lower.

examples?

I'm not saying that it couldnt be true but I disagree with *largely* I would be very surprised if there were many places that paid substantially more than US rates.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 5:37 AM

Fletch,

You don't even read my posts, do you. Haven't I said three times, I'm not talking about outsourcing? Outsourcing is not the problem. Outsourcing doesn't gain by invading Iraq.

Since you haven't gotten it, here it is again:

Outsourcing is right, not wrong. Outsourcing is good. These are the good guys. They bring to the third world what socialists and govts. never could: An end to poverty and the drastic unequal balance of the world economy. The old world economy held the third worlders as somehow less than human. Now that's changing. Everyone gets to play. So yay them.

And I'm not changing my tune here. You can look back at past posts and see me say 'yay outsoucing' pretty consistantly. America's uncompetitiveness is not India's fault. This is what the democrats would like you to believe, but it's simply not the case. Yay India, yay China, yay Korea for their striving to compete. Our uncompetitiveness is our own damn fault.

Quote:

Assuming it's all about Tax is an avoidance of reality and a knee jerk pandering to dogma. If a guy can have a good life on $15,000 in India you will hire him for $15,000, you can not hire an American for $15,000 if that is less than the guy needs to live. That's just reality.

And yet it is simply not so. American take home pay is often under $15,000. Starting salaries in the US are typically around $26K and the average American pays over half his wages in tax in some form, whether it be fed income tax, soc. sec., medicare, corporate pension plans, union dues, state income tax, school tax, property tax, and then once he actually has the money, he pays sales tax on everything he buys with it. His untaxed buying power is probably closer to $12K.

But it doesn't cost $26 to hire him, it costs around $40 when you add in the govt. mandate spending on his behalf that the company must engage in, like health insurance and other benefits, insurance, etc.

Now, add to this the corporate income tax paid by American corporations, which is about 25%. This is coming out of any business operating in the US and is taken out before he gets his wages, and is uppng the price of anything American he buys.

Now the hiring of the Indian isn't free. Someone has to set up a business in India, and may have to ship merchandise back from India. Now if the goods are to be sold in India, I see no reason why they shouldn't be made in India, Japan has done this in the US for decades. In addition there are taxes and regulations in India, they're just much lighter. I read an article by a CEO who estimated this cost at $5K per worker, so if we add that to his salary, the indian is costing $20K, just about half of what the American is costing him.

Team evil isn't responsible for the US policy of international trade. We've had this set up since WWII, but it's never been a problem until now, because America has been competitive. Flaws in the education system are also to blame, but the largest bugbear is govt. spending, taxation, and regulation. It's like our leaders have been living in a bubble while our nation has been trading internationally.

The real myth is that labor is somehow intrinsically 'cheaper' somewhere else, which is simply not a reality. The productivity per dollar of takehome pay for skilled labor is basically the same everywhere in the world. If cost of living varies, that's only a reflection of the other factors, taxation, regulation, etc., because we can grow food here in America, we can make stuff, build houses, etc., there's no reason the cost of living in America should be any higher than in India, and if it is, that is only a reflection of people buying goods and services from companies which need to pay an enormous tax burden. We know that this is so because religious groups in America do it all the time. The organize their own people to do the labor of covering the basic building of houses and growing of food, and I know because I do it to. My family built this house, grew food, and participate in our nations economy because they choose to do so, because they believe in the system. But my cost of living in America is now not higher than in india, and I don't make more money than they do.

But international trade is not the problem. To some extent Team Evil is responsible for America's uncompetitiveness, but this isn't out of malice, it's just the result of bad policy. Team Evil is not as smart as it thinks it is, or may just not care what happens to America. Probably a little of both.

So yay outsourcing, and yay corporate America, and no this doesn't have anything to do with the neocon globalist agenda. They want one world govt., and they think if they have it, no one will be able to attack them, or to gainsay their will, and they can make their hairbrained apocalyptic dystopia a reality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 5:45 AM

Our principle outsourcee is Canada. Our other large labor partners are in Europe and east asia, particularly Korea, a nation where the take home pay is larger then that of American workers. We used to outsource to Japan but it has gotten too expensive. After that, we outsource largely to China and India, but our outsourcees there classify as high wage markets on a global scale, because they are communities like Shanghai, where wages are high, and not 50c an hour.

The people with sweatshops and the like are not outsourcers, they're contracting partners who abuse their own people, and companies that deal with such people, such as Walmart, should be punished under US law for doing so. But this isn't outsourcing, and sure, I grant, some companies do this, and it's wrong. But in large part, as i said, overwhelmingly, we're talking about people earning normal wages, wages on the scale of my own.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 10:49 AM

I do read what you write. Just as I said the moment you start into a TE rant I skip it, because I don't have time to go through the same "everything crap that happens to us is TE" rubbish every time. Stating the same rubbish again and again does not make it a reality sorry. So if you hid the point of your little speech somwhere in the included block of TE spew then yes I missed it.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Our principle outsourcee is Canada.]

Odd, that's an high tax "socialist" country, if their taxes and regulations are higher than yours (and they are, I've lived there) then what's the story morning glory? Doesn't this prove that American taxation is not the be all and end all problem you suggest?

The countries you tend to cite like Korea are not outsource destinations, they are industrial competitors. Samsung did not start life in a Chicago suburb and then head east. Most of these countries economic muscle was grown at a time when they did pay considerably less than US rates. If rates are higher now that's an inevitable effect of the local labour market, as more and more companies compete for the same worker the worker's compensation improves. Over time US pay rates will go down and Indian ones up until a ballence is reached, companies will then look for other cheaper options. You will already notice that companies in countries like Japan and Korea are themselves outsource to China. in 1983 you might have outsourced to Korea, these days you would go to China.

Let me explain something to you about cost base. Taxes, direct and indirect make up only part of it. There is the cost of acquiring energy, the costs of property and a lot of other factors. If you eliminate all taxes tomorrow would the US be more competative? You betya, without a doubt, but you still can't employ an American at less than his cost base (well unless you legalise slavery.)

When an HMO sends a radiologist in India your CT Scan for evaluation then of course the guy avoids US taxation, but the home he just built outside of Calcutta costs 1/5 what a simular sized US home cost. His education cost a fraction of what his US colleagues degree cost. He lives happily as a professional on $20,000 a year not just because he pays less tax (though that's nice) but because all of HIS costs are lower too.

I'm not against free trade. In fact from what you have writen I suspect I like it more than you do. I'm just saying that in the modern world where US corporate interests are involved in more and more places you should expect both political parties to be internationalist. That Clinton and Bush have similar internationalist tendencies is a product of them living in the same part of American history, not an admission that they are in Cahoots.

Now if without TE references you can explain why Globalisation is anything other than a natural extension of the principles of free trade I'll address those issues. I don't see there is a difference which is why I've been trying to show that this is a natural process. If you think different you have a chance to prove it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 1:44 PM

Quote:
I do read what you write.

Since my "TE Rant" as you call it contains explanation and justification for my inference about who in in charge in the DNC and GOP, and you "skip it" it will be impossible to convince you of my "rubbish."

Quote:
Quote:
Our principle outsourcee is Canada.
Odd, that's an high tax "socialist" country

Canada a socialist country? That's news. It's also absurd. Canada is to the left of the united states, but they also have more corporate industry per capita. Canada's main advantage is in it's education system, which is better than America's and as a result, canada

does not have large amounts of illiterates, and so it does better. Since both countries have the same style of education system, it's hard to argue that what ideological difference may exist, which are very slight, have much to do with it. If I credit anything, it's

Canada's military isolationism, which is probably a decent policy.

Quote:
their taxes and regulations are higher than yours

I don't know what you paid, but I know what our companies pay when they go there, and this is simply not the case.
The base rate for the middle class bracket where virtually all employees will fall is 26% vs. 28% for the same bracket in America. In addition, since it is Ontario we outsource to, typically from here in NY, but also Il, it's a ON state tax rate of 6% vs. 8% here. Add the

long list of other fex taxes, medicare, soc.sec., (over 10%) and the local taxes, sales, property, school (over 15%) then you have already boosted that 4% savings to 30%. In addition, there is the big big bonus of the canadian govt. has the medical and bennies

already covered. since this cost is as great as the cost of taxes, the savings have been doubled. Finally, because of a superior educated population, the worker productivity is slightly higher, about 10%. The total savings comes out to over half.

Quote:
The countries you tend to cite like Korea are not outsource destinations, they are industrial competitors. Samsung did not start life in a Chicago suburb and then head east.

No one's saying they did. Actually, much of our industry does go to Korea, GM has had plants in Korea for years, so have many other industrial companies. The fact that these susidiaries create a skillbase which later becomes a competitor is just how capitalism works.

Quote:
you still can't employ an American at less than his cost base (well unless you legalise slavery.

I strongly disagree. American labor is not intrinsically more expensive. Neither is american enery, or american property.

Quote:
When an HMO sends a radiologist in India your CT Scan for evaluation then of course the guy avoids US taxation, but the home he just built outside of Calcutta costs 1/5 what a simular sized US home cost.

Building this house cost $20,000. The cost of US houses is a matter of where people choose to live, and the market created by supply and demand. Property in Chicago is 1/2 million a house sized lot because people desire the convenience of living there, it's

over a million in NYC. But you can go to Alabama or even upstate new york and buy land, and build houses, quite cheaply.

Quote:
His education cost a fraction of what his US colleagues degree cost. He lives happily as a professional on $20,000 a year not just because he pays less tax (though that's nice) but because all of HIS costs are lower too.

This point I will concede. The rising cost of US education, as well as the falling quality are two non-tax related factors of American decline. I humbly suggest privatizing the industry could give us a radical edge.

Quote:
I'm not against free trade. In fact from what you have writen I suspect I like it more than you do.

This is curious. I think there are few more pro-free trade statements then 'yay outsourcing.'

Quote:
I'm just saying that in the modern world where US corporate interests are involved in more and more places you should expect both political parties to be internationalist. That Clinton and Bush have similar internationalist tendencies is a product of them living

in the same part of American history, not an admission that they are in Cahoots.

Internationalism is what outsourcing grows from. Globalism is not the same thing. Internationalism recognizes an 'other,' globalism does not, it is an extension of self. I know the politics of business and the positions of these factions within the GOP.

Quote:
Now if without TE references you can explain why Globalisation is anything other than a natural extension of the principles of free trade I'll address those issues. I don't see there is a difference which is why I've been trying to show that this is a natural process.

If you think different you have a chance to prove it.

Globalism favors a world govt. The globalist agenda is not about open competition and making deals, it's about extending the reach of power. It's about creating authorities with longer arms rather than dealing with the local powers. It's applied in govt. through things

like our Iraq policy, and through business through things like Walmart. The internationalists create tables for discussion to settle political difference, and make deals with local companies and sure, create outsourcing branches, but it's not an effort to monopolize the

local economy like with Walmart. There is a lot of internationalism going on right now, it's far from dead, but it would be doing even better if Bush were removed and replaced with a more pragmatic businessman.

Finally, I have to say something else. There are points here where you and I vehemently disagree. I think we've hashed this all over to the Nth degree, and there's little point in continuing. Rather than bait me out in your response, Let's table all of this, at least until

someone has new information to bring to bear.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 2:50 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Since both countries have the same style of education system, it's hard to argue that what ideological difference may exist

"Education spending per capita provides another lens to view worldwide education spending. Norway leads the group again with an estimated $2,850 per capita spent on education. The United States ranks second at approximately $1,780. The top five also include France, The Netherlands and Canada. Each spent more than $1,200 in education per capita in 2001." http://www.oclc.org/membership/escan/economic/educationlibraryspending
.htm

However the Canadian (or Canadien) national government heavily subsidizes university education, so college education is not primarily out-of-pocket.

In 2003-2004 the average Canadian college tuition was $4,025. (Canadian, or roughly $3200 US) http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/educ50a.htm?sdi=tuition

In the US tuition for private non-profit 4-year institutions averaged ~ $21,000 per year, public institutions charged ~ $5,500 per year tuition. http://www.collegeboard.com/press/article/0,,48884,00.html

While Canadian primary and secondary education is the province of the provinces, so to speak, the availability of college and graduate programs in Canada creates a pool of college and post-graduate people.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 2:58 PM

Bored now

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 8:52 PM