US Governance

SheWolf wrote:

Wow...you know, at least as Canadians, we learn about the rest of the world, and not just our own country's stuff. The average American still thinks we (Canadians) live in igloos up in the north pole!!

Damn! That Canadian elitism is hard to conceal. Rick Mercer doesn't translate to reality, however. Unfortunately, you got it wrong: It's the average Canadian who thinks that, which makes it all the more embarrassing.

Canadians think igloos, penguins abound in North: poll


A new survey of southern Canadians found 69 per cent believe northerners still live in igloos. (Kevin Frayer / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Andy Johnson, CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Wednesday Apr. 20, 2011 10:49 PM ET

Canadians get great pleasure from mocking Americans for their perceived ignorance about the Great White North, but a new survey suggests our own lack of knowledge about Canada's northern extremes is equally laughable.

For instance, a mind-numbing 74 per cent of Canadians believe penguins might live in the Arctic, according to the survey by Up Here, a Yellowknife-based magazine that focuses on northern issues.

They don't. In fact, penguins live at the exact opposite end of the planet, in the Antarctic and other parts of the Southern Hemisphere, but only 25 per cent of those surveyed knew that.

Another 69 per cent of those surveyed thought northerners still lived in igloos, and 50 per cent believe Canada has several military bases protecting the Northwest Passage.

Katharine Sandiford, editor of Up Here magazine, called the results "shameful."

"We suspected that southern Canadians were out of touch with the North but the statistics revealed they were far more out to lunch than we thought," she told CTV.ca.

The goal of the survey was to take the temperature of southern Canadians and get a clear idea about how much, or how little, they know about the culture and geography of the territories.

Sandiford said staff at the magazine came up with the idea because they were fed up with correcting friends and relatives in the south about common misconceptions and stereotypes about the north.

The results showed the misconceptions were more widespread than they had suspected, she said.

"A few key questions were embarrassing and disturbing because the North is part of Canada, it's undergoing rapid development and it affects the rest of Canada quite a lot," she said.

"It's important that people in the rest of Canada understand what life is all about up here."

Some of the responses to the survey bordered on the hilarious, Sandiford said. Only 40 per cent of those surveyed could correctly name the capital city of the Yukon, only 27 per cent knew that Canada's highest peak was in the Yukon, and 62 per cent thought there is a university in the north. There isn't.
--

It might be nice to dream that Canadians are taught more about the rest of the world than Americans, but when most Canadians can't even identify what kind of a political system they have, and the majority think they vote for the Prime Minister, that is just a dream. I have heard just as many Canadians expressing dumb beliefs about the US as I have heard Americans making dumb comments about Canada.

Dancamp wrote:

It's true that I talk about shit when I smell it and you're good at throwing it in full buckets.

You smell it because your mouth is full of it. Particularly coming from the guy who wants us to believe Canadians have a constitutional right to property. And that wolves roll in elk dung to mask their scent while they lie in wait. Yes, you are full of the stuff.

Quote :

Buckets of propaganda that only serve to antagonise people instead of finding ways to help them work together.

It's true, I have no interest in "working together" with anyone who wants to govern in an unconstitutional manner. It's sort of like cooperating with a child molester. Morally okay for you; not for me.

Quote :

First "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,'. And since through the amendment process the legislative can balance the judiciary. They didn't write it exactly the way you could understand it, they didn't know you or the extent of your closed mind.

If your attention span had been able to last longer than one lone sentence, you would have also read (and possibly quoted) the entire Article, which specifies the enumerated powers of the judiciary. Let me help you out with the parts of that Section of Article III that you apparently didn't notice:
...the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Those enumerated powers make the Judiciary triers of fact. Please do point out where you see the power to exercise Constitutional oversight mentioned. And you know who owns all the powers not specifically enumerated for the Federal Government, right?

It is equally amusing that you think the checks and balances the Framers intended for the Judiciary are for the Legislative branch to amend the constitution.

Let's ignore for the moment that, like everything else you claim, that isn't to be found anywhere in the Constitution.
Let's ignore for the moment that amending the Constitution generally takes up to seven years... three Congressional elections.
Let's ignore for the moment that it is the States that ratify an amendment, not the legislative branch.

The fascinating bit is that the Judiciary can bugger off and do whatever they will, and the checks and balances on this branch of government, provided by the Constitution, are the Amendment process. If that works for one branch of government, it follows that it can work for the other two. So the President can simply adopt the power of the purse, write his own budget, and start spending as he sees fit. When Congress says "You don't have the power to do that", he just tells them to go get an Amendment as that's their checks and balances on the Executive. And when the Republicans control both the Senate and the House, they can simply decide to start a war to take out Iran, using nukes if necessary. When the President says "Hey, you don't have the power of the sword", Congress just tells him to go get an Amendment because that's his checks and balances on the Legislative branch.

Truly fascinating stuff.

Quote :

Wow what show of knowledge. Sure US is a republic and the government is elected through a democratic way of voting.

Like the election of the President, you mean?

Quote :

Anyway what do you propose ?

Well, I don't propose what you advocate for: re-education camps for the politically incorrect, government looking after you from cradle to grave and telling you how to live your life, and euthanasia for those who can't adapt to socialism.

Quote :

About the citations. All good speakers wrote and said many things and most of them must be taken in their full context not only in citations.

Yes. Including that Article that you chose to only quote one sentence from. Was that dishonest or just more stupidity?

One more thing you missed about citations: I can find citations from the Framers and other constitutional authorities to support my argument. You - as usual - can't. Perhaps that's why you have such a dim view on citations...

Dancamp wrote:

rydnseek wrote:

Power & money go together, for sure.. but the more we can keep them offset, the better for 'we the people'.

I completely agree with that. We are trying to limit electoral spendings by entreprises so the elected people don't have to give a kickback to those who spend more money for their election. There is big resistance to that since the government is a big contract giver and policy maker that can ease or unease the operations of entreprises.

There is an economic oligarchy developing in the world and it's influence is sometimes greater than that of the majority of citizens. There is a lot of blackmailing through jobs. It's like Japan. They had a new economy mostly paid for by Americans and then they took advantage of it to invade other markets. Since then the needs of their population changed but coubntries like China and India have big markets and low cost manpower so they can invade markets where consumers have more money.

Open economy helps equalize level of life across the world but equalizing also means lower at some places. And when we speak of economy it always evaluated as a rate of growth. Since the ressources are not infinite the growth can't be infinite either. We'll have to change our way of life that's for sure.

It is a big problem here, too.. 'conflict of interest.' One of the big problems is when a group, PAC, or some major contributor to a campaign obviously wants the candidate to vote a certain way. Their Independence is lost.. sold to the highest bidder. Like when big unions get their guy elected, then negotiate with the politician (who they bought) for the wages of their members. But the elected representative is supposed to watch out for all the voters, not just his union cronies. This is a major conflict of interest that will have to be addressed.. though it is mostly on the local & state govt level (where most corruption occurs!).

..not sure of your point about blackmailing, japan, china...

Open world markets are definitely a cost equalizer.. but not everyone plays by the same rules. US manufacturers have dwindled since China's explosion into the world manufacturing market. We cannot compete with their labor, or their financial smoke & mirrors. I tend to agree with Donald Trump on this topic. The Chinese send their shrewdest negotiators, while we send some bureaucrat with no experience or interest to negotiate major world financial policy.

But it won't be long with the current growth levels before China out paces the us for the biggest economy. What's the big deal with that? It is 4 times the size of the us, so what if it's economy grows up to what it should be? Eventually their people will tire of working for peanuts, & unionize, & demand better conditions, wages, etc.. then the pendulum will swing the other way for a while. The us citizenry has been living beyond it's means for a while, anyway. Cutbacks need to be made by all.

rydnseek wrote:

It is a big problem here, too.. 'conflict of interest.' One of the big problems is when a group, PAC, or some major contributor to a campaign obviously wants the candidate to vote a certain way. Their Independence is lost.. sold to the highest bidder. Like when big unions get their guy elected, then negotiate with the politician (who they bought) for the wages of their members. But the elected representative is supposed to watch out for all the voters, not just his union cronies. This is a major conflict of interest that will have to be addressed.. though it is mostly on the local & state govt level (where most corruption occurs!).

The issue is more complex than that.

For starters, I don't see the problem as the fact that unions can donate and then get something special in return. Or General Electric and their donations to Obama, or Time-Warner, or anything else.

To me, legislation to stop those donations somewhat follows the theory that you address crime by restricting and prohibiting guns.

I believe the problem is with voters, and you don't blame somebody else for your (collective) failing. If we really believe a politician is bought and paid for, then just why the hell do we vote them back in? In many cases, again and again and again? We vote in ignorance (regardless of which party the candidate who happens to be in question is from), and yet that is the system's fault? Taken to it's inevitable conclusion, the Constitution is at fault because we exercise our right to vote like a pack of morons? To paraphrase a comment from a Supreme Court justice: "There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents elected governments from making stupid laws and stupid agreements - or voters from making stupid choices".

Unions? I support the right to have them and CHOOSE to join them, because I've seen enough of how bad it can be without them. Not to mention that freedom of association thing. But how much of their member's money gets spent on political lobbying? Not just for a deal after an election, but to pursue the socialist ideals of their chief officers. Where is that in THEIR constitutions?

In the US, as a union member you have the right to demand that your union deduct no more of their normal dues than the percentage required to carry out your share of their employment-related function. If you exercise that right, the percentage that would be used for political activities, junkets to other countries, organizing foreign workers, political education, assorted feels-good activities, etc cannot be deducted. Many, many union members are at odds with their national leadership in their political views - but how many know of this right, or if they know it, bother to exercise it?

Are we supposed to believe that the UMW, with all their blue collar workers and conservatives working in conservative states and where hunting and fishing is the main pastimes, are solidly behind their executive in supporting Obama? That their workers in coal mines support Obama while he's promising to attack coal fired energy and coal mining? In Canada, the CLC likes to brag (or used to) that about 35% of the working population was unionized. And those unions, for decades, almost without exception endorse the socialists in the NDP every single election. So why is it that, even if every single union member had to vote NDP, that party historically always gets less than 20% of the popular vote?

No "conflict of interest" legislation will cure the apathy and indifference, or address those who say they want or believe in something but then vote contradictory to that. It will just move the goalposts around so that the field of play is different. If people won't vote what they claim to believe in, whether for a president or for a union executive, they aren't going to get the representation they think they should get. They can blame the outcome on big business, big government, big banks, big oil, big media, big unions, whatever. That's all bullshit. None of those entities get to vote, and even if they did, they would get exactly one. Voters are the ones who decide who takes office, and once there, whether they get to stay or not. It's obvious from these discussions and everywhere else in the media and on the Internet when relationships exist between elected representatives and donors. Voters can't say "Well, we had no idea X got a donation from Y and then did Z". We get to vote - they don't. The credit for the outcome, good or bad, is ours alone.

Quote :

The Chinese send their shrewdest negotiators, while we send some bureaucrat with no experience or interest to negotiate major world financial policy.

Add "...or an agenda that has nothing to do with the best financial deal for the US, but directions to achieve something entirely different in another field".

Quote :

But it won't be long with the current growth levels before China out paces the us for the biggest economy. What's the big deal with that? It is 4 times the size of the us, so what if it's economy grows up to what it should be? Eventually their people will tire of working for peanuts, & unionize, & demand better conditions, wages, etc.. then the pendulum will swing the other way for a while.

Didn't China just surpass the US as the largest economy? There will be interesting times ahead for China. Add to your list the fact that their economy is outstripping their labour pool, which is in turn tied to their decades-long policy on children. I have a friend touring through China on the Silk Road right now who says foreign workers are everywhere, and even so projects seem in short supply for workers.

A sergeant I work with happens to have a degree in economics and international relations. Last year while we were having a few wobbly pops, he pointed out a little event went almost undetected in the media. An American firm in Tennessee somewhere won a contract over Chinese bidders to supply... chopsticks. To a jobber in China. Big deal? When an American firm could make a profit producing chopsticks for a Chinese purchaser cheaper than they could get them made in China, he thought it was a very big deal. An event signalling that the assumption that goods can be manufactured cheaper in China is no longer always true anymore. As wages and production costs in most states haven't changed dramatically over time, that change is happening in China.

Quote :

The us citizenry has been living beyond it's means for a while, anyway. Cutbacks need to be made by all.

Unfortunately, much of the talk seems to be about tax increases to continue providing as much of that excess as possible for along as possible, with as little cuts as possible. Look at all those programs, initiatives, and spending. Go find the authority for each of them in the Constitution for the Federal government. You'll find damned few.

"...maybe even eliminate most of them."

One thing I've always wondered is why is there no Congressional panel to oversee the sunset of legislation that is no longer needed? It seems that we pass more and more laws, rules and regulations but nothing is ever streamlined. Republicans and Democrats are equally at fault here. If I am wrong and such a panel DOES exist, someone please enlighten me.

Hmmm.. a legend in his own mind...

rydnseek wrote:

Lobbyists, SIG's & Pacs all want something for their support. There is a fine line between influencing & lobbying the govt official, & having major control or ownership. I have no problem with lobbying & influencing, just with politician ownership. I'm sure there are more than enough laws & regulations in place.. we just need to enforce them.

Yes, but if you OWN a politician, then you have an illegal relationship. If you give money to a politician or civil servant in exchange for a promise to do or not do something, then you have an illegal relationship. Can you get away with that without political opponents who know of it not finking you out to law enforcement? Difficult, I think. I believe there is a presumption that "x for y" is occurring that isn't there to begin with much of the time.

Obama is, apparently, bragging of how much he's got from his grassroots in fundraising so far. If this isn't just more lies, then you can assume it provides evidence that when voters really do care, as a group they can out-donate any special interest group. And unlike special interests and groups, they get to vote.

Quote :

I don't see how an entity that gets its money from the public sector should be able to use that money to try to influence elections. The taxpayers are paying for the campaign & the lobbyist.

It would depend on what the entity is. If a union, if the employees want to give a percentage of their paycheque to their union and then allow them to give some of that to politicians, then they worked for and earned the money: their business how they spend it. When it is money obtained from grants, funding, etc where money was provided without being earned, then yeah, that is just far too easily a shell game to launder money back to politicians and parties.

Quote :

I agree with this. We need to vote the bums out! But money follows the elections, & the elections follow the money. Sometimes the options just aren't there.

Just a reminder. George Soros and all his money didn't save Democrats in the last election.

Money can buy campaign signs, TV spots, and all that other bumpf. At the end of the day, the contents of your wallet or your bank balance have nothing to do with whether you get to vote or not. One person, one vote, financial status irrelevant.

I see what you're saying. But if the majority of voters decide to choose x over y because they think the message is slicker, they like the mantra and can't be bothered to ask themselves if it is possible, etc... that illustrates the power of voter ignorance, not the power of money. Money simply takes advantage of that laziness and/or ignorance, because voters also allow that to happen.

Quote :

The problem with govt unions is there are no checks & balances. A business will go out of business if the unions are inflexible, then their members will have to go get jobs elsewhere.. maybe even a non union state. But if govt unions get out of hand, the politicians keep raising taxes until the rest of the taxpayers revolt, or the govt goes bankrupt.. like greece, ireland, california, etc.

Yes, and that is a situation where I am really at a loss as to how one can protect the right of association while at the same time providing balance. There is a bit of a check in, as you say, taxpayers revolt and then government exercises the right private business doesn't have - legislating the workers back to work. But as we see in the US right now, government often panders to those unions because of the votes that come with them. It becomes a vicious circle - union management proposes an agenda to make unions bigger, not smaller. After all, when did you ever see a union advocating government cutting in programs, spending, or government employees. Which leads to expanding government programs, invariably on things that have nothing to do with the core constitutional responsibilities of government. So we now have more union members and more government programs needing more funding. And unions dependent on sympathetic government continuing to fund those programs, regardless of their efficiency or lack thereof, to keep their members working (and voting for THEM). Which leads to a lot of votes for a candidate/incumbent from people dependent on government funding for their jobs to continue.

Not exactly an ideal situation, and badly abused in the US and Canada and no doubt elsewhere as well.

Quote :

Probably very few.. most just go along & seem content to let the union run their future.. or ruin their future..

Yeah, funny how self destructive we are, aren't we? More than that, why WOULDN'T you demand 65% of your union dues be returned to you? Union members have no use for that money? I sure could have used it when I belonged to the UMW and Steelworkers. It's not like your representation or employment situation would be adversely affected - your dues related to bargaining, representation, etc are maintained. You could argue that you would actually get better representation because your union leadership wouldn't be preoccupied trying to organize mine workers in Chile, "social justice" programs for Young Communists, or whatever. And you'd soon be rid of the union ladder climbers who didn't see the union as being about representing members, but rather a vehicle to use as a tool for social change.

Quote :

Unfortunately, we do get what we deserve.. we have been very bad, lately. Hopefully our electorate will become more enlightened & see through the posturing & disinformation.

Yup. And we all suffer equally, although those who want to depend on the government to give them everything and do everything for them stand the most to lose if the whole thing collapses.

I see the Taxed Enough Already Party concept as a good beginning. It would be nice to see a similar movement grow in the Democrat ranks. A return to what both those parties represented back in the early 60's would be a step backwards in some respects, but it would provide alternatives much more acceptable to most people in my opinion.

Quote :

Last i heard, China was still a distant second.. but at their rate of growth, they will catch us. But that is ok with me.. i don't feel that America has to have the biggest economy, biggest military, biggest cars, biggest dicks...

I had a quick boo and you're correct on China's position. Also some interesting articles on China's current economic stability. Here's just one if the riding weather is lousy and you're looking for reading material:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/04/the-united-states-vs-china-which-economy-is-bigger-which-is-better

And yes, I agree with you that being first at whatever is irrelevant in comparison with quality of life and the freedom of pursuit of happiness. However, what you have what so many potentially want or can profit from your demise, I don't see having the most powerful military as being a bad thing... Totalitarianism did not disappear from human consciousness in 1945 or the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Quote :

Cool. I've never heard that side before. Usually it is just our technology we sell.. for a while.. until they copy it.

Yes. And the maddening part is we don't leverage our position. The latest trade deal with South Korea for example, right after we spent God knows how much deploying forces to that peninsula to protect South Korea and get the North Koreans to wind their necks in. You and I would probably disagree whether such a use of the military constitutes a constitutional use of the military to defend the (economic) security of the US. But I will readily agree that when we take that action and then do not leverage it with the recipient country to ensure favourable economic returns, then it is a loser all the way around, except that war over there would have huge negative economic implications for us even if we stayed right out of it.

The whole "guns or butter" theory of the Euro Elitists misses all of that. One reason so many countries have been allowed to grow and thrive over the last sixty years is that the US provided the guns umbrella for them so all they had to do was spend most of their energy making butter instead of their own guns. The security that freed up funding and energy for their growth came from the US - and we have done nothing to get fair consideration for having done just that.

Instead, as you point out, we do little about industrial espionage, copyright infringement, etc. We have mostly picked a "go with the flow" approach, and we have done it to our detriment. It isn't about waging trade wars and isolationism, it's about expecting the foreign countries who are beneficiaries of the US in whatever way to deal fairly with the US and show fair consideration in return.

Quote :

Almost all businesses & individual have had to make cuts to survive in the current economy. So have the states, cities, counties, etc. But the federal govt has grown! It has boomed! They should do what everyone else has had to do. Cut back. We should pay our debts, entitlements (fix them, if possible), & military. But the rest of the govt should be cutting back.. major cut backs. The new budget should have each dept with a 40-50% decrease in their budget allowance. The DOE, DOT, DOA, and any other letter combinations should prioritize & cut back, just like businesses & individuals do. Why do they get a pass? Why do they get a bail out, when the rest of the taxpayers don't?

Now isn't that the multi-trillion dollar question! Apparently, however, the answer is more taxes to pay for and grow more government. Apparently, the theory is you can spend your way out of debt... sort of like believing you can steal your way out of jail.

But... cut government? Why you heartless bastard! I never thought you were that kind of guy! Think of the children! (and ACORN, and....)

TBird1 wrote:

One thing I've always wondered is why is there no Congressional panel to oversee the sunset of legislation that is no longer needed? It seems that we pass more and more laws, rules and regulations but nothing is ever streamlined. Republicans and Democrats are equally at fault here. If I am wrong and such a panel DOES exist, someone please enlighten me.

My guess is that such a panel would logically start with this as their first question in considering legislation:

"Is this activity/entity something the Constitution says the federal government should properly be doing in the first place"?

And when did any government ever work to REDUCE it's power and influence? Given the current liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause, what area of human activity can the Federal government NOT argue they have the power - no, the duty - to regulate, oversee, license, control, etc?

Quote :

I would put the line at where the money comes from. If money is held out of a govt. employees check, then put directly into a pac or other lobbyist acct., that should be wrong. If a govt. employee voluntarily gives their money to a pac, fine. But the possibility of corruption is greater where the employee does not have direct control of their money.. when the union decides where to best spend their pac 'donations', when most of the union members don't have a clue where their money goes. I think it is a conflict of interest for a union to be active in politics when they get money from the politician they support. If a big corporation lands a big govt contract because they got their guy elected, everyone howls 'conflict of interest!' It is the same with govt. unions.

If they feel that way, they should be howling "Enjoy it while you're there, you're gone in the next election". Which is what Tea Party candidates did with many of the Republican back room boys in the run-ups to the last election - one of the most refreshing things seen in US politics in a while. Imagine if the Democrats also had their version of the Tea Party, cleaning up their old backroom hacks as well. I think we'd be better off as a country.

How can you constitutionally attack their right to freedom of association and right to allow the money they've earned to be spent as they see fit with laws that prevent them from doing that? Is ignorance, laziness, whatever a justification for interfering with that right? I don't think so, although the results badly injure hopes of constitutional government. To paraphrase a quote from SCOTUS, emotions and frustration make for bad law.

More to your point, union members do have direct control where their dues go. While they may exist, I'm not aware of anywhere that unions can deduct from worker's paycheques to go to lobbyists or PACs without the employee's approval - even if that approval is "Well, you didn't say you DIDN'T want us to do that". Workers can legally require that their union only withhold the percentage of monthly dues directly used for employment-related activities - bargaining, grievance representation, health and safety issues, pensions, etc. Very, very few choose to do that. Why? Think about how crazy that is for a moment, and how representative of the American voter it is. If you don't like the way your union spends your money on political activities you don't agree with, why the hell wouldn't you demand that your union give that share of your dues back to you? If you really don't need that money, why not vote it to a charity instead, or the political party of your choice?

Like a federal election, every union member gets exactly one vote, no more, no less. Union members, like the general public and the federal government, like to bitch about their union president and executive - but they keep right on voting them right back in. Or not voting at all. And so you see unions like the UMW and Steelworkers in both the US and Canada supporting socialists and "global warming" fearmongers attacking the very industries which provide their jobs, and the union membership can't miss this and yet they refuse to vote the bastards out.

Quote :

If the liberals had to rely solely on contributions, & did not have their hand in the public treasury, they would have a harder time promoting their agenda.

Yes, but the Constitution never provided for handicapping those of different views by controlling what they allow their income to be used for. Sort of like the left wingers wanting to use the (Un)Fairness Doctrine to attempt to stifle the First Amendment rights of conservative talk shows and media because liberal talk shows and media can't get enough listeners (and therefore advertising) to survive.

And unionized government workers do not (yet, anyways) outnumber the taxpayers who pay their wages and benefits. If a politician supports government union workers over the desires and interests of the majority of the voters in their constituency, why in the world don't the voters then ensure he is a one term politician? Wouldn't take much of that before politicians figured out that, if they wanted to be around longer than one election, they better concern themselves with the interests of the majority, not the special interest groups whether they are unions, ACORN, military contractors, etc.

Quote :

I think we will see a reformation of sorts of unions.. public unions especially. It has become the exclusive domain of left wing, socialist extremists. Many of the rank & file are getting tired of that.

A Tea Party for unions? You wish...

This would be the same rank & file that won't vote out those socialist extremists heading their union, who are supporting and promoting politicians with agenda's harmful not only to their finances, but agendas contrary to their lifestyle? The same rank & file that won't even defund those socialist extremists by forbidding them to take any more in union dues than that required to carry out employment-related activities?

I don't think union voters show any more thought in how they deal with their union leadership, than voters show in how they deal with their political representatives.

Quote :

The democratic party was from the old south.. roots in racism & good old boy cronyism. They have done a great job re-writing history & trying to make the republicans appear as the racist rooted party, & the democrats as the party of the poor & oppressed.

A hundred years ago? Robert Byrd was a Kluxer. Clinton made excuses for him saying he "had" to join the Klan. George Wallace? Our current President sitting and listening to a racist and anti-Semitic preach for 20 years, now telling Hispanics to "attack your enemies" and telling Republicans they can ride at the back of the bus? You don't have to go back a hundred years - fifty will do nicely.

Quote :

Agree. But we cannot bankrupt ourselves trying to stay #1.

One of the few indisputable constitutional powers of the federal government is the military and providing for defense. I've served in countries who came in second in a war - we don't ever want to be there. Ever - we have a hard enough time dealing with a Pearl Harbour or 9/11. And if we ever end up in second place in a war, all worries about constitutionality, fiscal responsibility, government infringing on our rights, our childrens' futures, etc will become pretty much a moot point. This country can easily continue to fund the military to ensure it is indeed the most powerful military in the world - all we have to do is get the spending and the programs that are not part of the federal government's enumerated powers and responsibilities under control.

That does not mean military spending is beyond review. It should be reviewed, and redundant and unrelated spending should be cut. But if we are going to err on the side of caution on retaining government spending, that error should be on military spending before anything else.

rydnseek wrote:

It is a big problem here, too.. 'conflict of interest.' One of the big problems is when a group, PAC, or some major contributor to a campaign obviously wants the candidate to vote a certain way. Their Independence is lost.. sold to the highest bidder. Like when big unions get their guy elected, then negotiate with the politician (who they bought) for the wages of their members. But the elected representative is supposed to watch out for all the voters, not just his union cronies. This is a major conflict of interest that will have to be addressed.. though it is mostly on the local & state govt level (where most corruption occurs!).

..not sure of your point about blackmailing, japan, china...

Open world markets are definitely a cost equalizer.. but not everyone plays by the same rules. US manufacturers have dwindled since China's explosion into the world manufacturing market. We cannot compete with their labor, or their financial smoke & mirrors. I tend to agree with Donald Trump on this topic. The Chinese send their shrewdest negotiators, while we send some bureaucrat with no experience or interest to negotiate major world financial policy.

But it won't be long with the current growth levels before China out paces the us for the biggest economy. What's the big deal with that? It is 4 times the size of the us, so what if it's economy grows up to what it should be? Eventually their people will tire of working for peanuts, & unionize, & demand better conditions, wages, etc.. then the pendulum will swing the other way for a while. The us citizenry has been living beyond it's means for a while, anyway. Cutbacks need to be made by all.

I don't think that the problem is as simple as corruption in our governments. There is a cultural trend that hides the problems that we are going to face. There are more and more people on the planet. The ressources to supply these people are not infinite. We'll meet a wall at some time. Most of the problems are always adressed on an economic basis. There were times when decisions were made strictly on moral or religion basis. We need to balance everything to make decisions that will have lasting results. As long as closed minded people working only for their own power will be in control, the results will only bring benefits to them.

As fot the blackmailing it is in regard to their markets. China wants and gets a lot of R & D easily because it lures occidental enterprises to manufacture in China. It's a condition to have access to their market. After that they manufacture using modern technology and they export at low cost. they are now buying cies that control natural ressources across the world. Once they control enough of these ressources, they will have a tool to economically influence foreign governments. We must say that they learned by observing what we did.

As occidentals we got to a certain level of living that got us uninterested in the public affairs. It led us to let some specific interests to take control. We are drowned in political bullshit from all horizons. We must take care of our way of life if we don't want others to take care of it for ourselve. All these people that say they want our best are getting it and we don't get much in return. The flags are used to twist our minds away from our own problems. And while they are used that way there are some pockets that get filled while ours are full of holes.

Jäger wrote:

One of the few indisputable constitutional powers of the federal government is the military and providing for defense. I've served in countries who came in second in a war - we don't ever want to be there. Ever - we have a hard enough time dealing with a Pearl Harbour or 9/11. And if we ever end up in second place in a war, all worries about constitutionality, fiscal responsibility, government infringing on our rights, our childrens' futures, etc will become pretty much a moot point. This country can easily continue to fund the military to ensure it is indeed the most powerful military in the world - all we have to do is get the spending and the programs that are not part of the federal government's enumerated powers and responsibilities under control.

Please remind us... Who is the CIC? Would you obey his orders, no matter what?

Yes, it is the most expensive military in the world, by a factor of 10 over any other country....How much is enough? 5X?

taoshum wrote:

Please remind us... Who is the CIC? Would you obey his orders, no matter what?

The current Commander In Chief, more correctly called the Clown In Chief, is The Anointed One. This is the same guy who not only couldn't remember the name of the first soldier he awarded a Medal of Honour to, but also couldn't remember whether the man he awarded it to was alive or dead when he awarded the Medal. What a leader, can you imagine what an example that sets! And I will not obey his orders, because I have no duty to do so.

If you believe American soldiers have to obey the orders of the CinC, no matter what, you might want to read up on United States v. Keenan. "I was only following orders" doesn't work any better for US soldiers than it did for German soldiers at Nuremberg.

Quote :

Yes, it is the most expensive military in the world, by a factor of 10 over any other country....How much is enough? 5X?

In a world of asymetrical warfare (you know what that is, right?), the cost really doesn't matter if Iran's president decides the best way to get that last Imam, The Mahdi, out of the well is to help a Wahabbist terrorist sneak a small nuke into New York harbour before detonating it. The federal government either spends enough money and effort to fulfill it's constitutional duty to secure the US, from all threats FOREIGN and domestic, or it doesn't. The precautionary principle applies here. I don't know what the price tag to the US ultimately was from the 9/11 attacks, but it will be peanuts compared to the results of letting Wahabbist whackos and nations who support and enable them prepare attacks abroad at their leisure. If nothing else, it would end for the survivors any interest in further discussion on how much we should spend to positively prevent such events.

There is a lot more to national security these days than saying we have spent enough to repel them on the beaches and shoot them down as they fly into our airspace. Sometimes difficult to explain to amateurs who fancy themselves as military experts and analysts, but a fact of life nonetheless. Amusingly enough, that is not a conversation that takes place in... oh, China for example. And as far as that goes, if China threw all of their air force at the US air force, the US would lose. Aside from their rapid buildup in modern military aircraft like the J15 and J20, along with aircraft carriers, the disparity in numbers is so great that China can simply engage in a war of attrition with the US in the air as well as the land - they would lose far more, but in the end the US would lose all while the Chinese retained air superiority. Know what happens to ground forces when you lose air superiority? Ask the Iraqis from Gulf I and 2.

So, while Obama wants to add another $100 billion to defense cuts over the $500 billion he is already asking for, the Chinese are busily ramping up military spending on combat aircraft, aircraft carriers, and carrier task force killer missiles. Gee, I wonder who they have in mind with all that spending and that focus of military equipment? Taiwan? Luxembourg? That's who Chinese carriers and carrier-killer weapons are intended to do battle with?

And what if the US ends up facing an enemy with it's own coalition? While you were doing your military analysis of the money the US spends, you no doubt noticed the Chinese military buildup in Gilgit-Baltistan. What, in your opinion, is the strategic implications of that, and the possibility of a military coalition ultimately resulting?

Amazing the obsession of just how much the Federal government spends on something that is without question one of it's Constitutional powers and obligations, and yet not a peep about all the money pissed away on entitlement programs and other feels-good BS that isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. I guess for those used to having their hand out for taxpayer largess provided by the federal government, the feeling is that one shouldn't criticize the goose handing out the golden eggs, much less kill that goose and end those handouts. And of course, if you use that goose and those golden eggs to keep buying the votes of the entitlement crowd - particularly the 47% not concerned about the cost of entitlements because they don't pay a penny in income tax - then you also don't talk about all that spending not provided for in the Constitution.

rydnseek wrote:

Corruption follows the money. People can do whatever they want, when they have direct control over their money. But when an entity automatically holds back money from each paycheck.. & this paycheck comes from the taxpayers.. & that money is dropped in a big pot, stirred & laundered, it becomes more difficult to see which money goes where.. what is part of a pension, & what is used to pay off corrupt politicians. We have very strict campaign contribution laws.. donors are scrutinized & conflict of interest is watched for. But unions get a pass.. they get to automatically deduct dues from members, then use it to buy candidates. The members do not have much say..

But on the contrary, union members do have all the say. They get free votes on who their union leaders are, usually more often than they get to vote for who will be President of the country. That vote is their mechanism to register their approval or disapproval of what their union is doing, including it's political activities using union money. They can't claim they have no idea their union spends on political activities when it is boasted about in every union newsletter. How could you be an SIEU union member and not understand their involvement with Obama and his agenda - all you have to do is watch TV once in a while.

Union members also have absolute say over whether their union dues are used for anything other than activities directly related to their employment. Whether their money comes from the taxpayer via the federal government as employer is irrelevant - they earned that money through their labour, it wasn't given to them as an entitlement or some sort of freebee. The fact dues are deducted by checkoff, just as they are from every union worker in the private sector does not change things. Their union dues deducted are displayed on their pay stub, and they get a receipt for them to use at tax time.

The fact that union members abuse or waste their union votes (in our opinion), allow their union to support parties who attack their own way of life, take no interest in politics, can't be bothered to stop their money going to political activities, etc is not sufficient reason to infringe on their Constitutional rights by controlling what they do with money they've earned. And because that money usually ends up being used to support a socialist politician does not mean the politician is "corrupt". He may well be, but more likely he's simply one more socialist or statist we don't agree with. I don't think too many conservatives would be too upset about unions spending money on politics if the majority of that money was going to strongly conservative candidates. Nor would we see that politician whose policies were supported with union contributions as being "corrupt".

Quote :

This is what is wrong with the system. If the union had to rely on voluntary contributions to implement their agendas, they wouldn't have the money. So they mandate it, in effect. Dues are held out of people's checks & used for political purposes. The union uses this as one of the perks of being in the union.. part of the collecting bargaining process. That would be fine if there were a balance.. someone who looked out for the taxpayer's interest, instead of just the union's.

The contributions are voluntary - members can vote out of office union officers who pursue political agendas (or agendas contrary to the political agenda they really want) if they so choose. They usually don't. Members also have all the power they need to compel their union to deduct only the percentage of monthly dues that gets used on employment related activities and keep the rest for themselves. Again, very few do that - even when doing so would put more take home pay in their wallet. The fact many people don't like that union members do that is not sufficient reason to infringe on their Constitutional rights and compel them to jump through some kind of extra special hoops before deciding how they're allowed to spend the money they have earned at work. They're not children, and the argument that they need some kind of special keeper to mind how they spend their money is far too close to how the government involves itself in other facets of our life. It's their money, they earned it, and whether they want to piss it away in a casino at a roulette wheel or supporting Obama is their business, not ours. They may be dumb, or incapable of seeing where this is leading, but it is still their vote on union officers and policy, and their money that they earned. More government regulations on what they do and what they spend their money on is not the answer.

Quote :

Unions are notoriously corrupt.. lots of money & power there, i wonder why? Intimidation & threats are the normal order of business. If you go up against the union machine, be prepared to be chewed up & spit out.. many have tried in the past, but reform is very difficult. The only way is to limit the money & any conflicts of interest.

I think that's kind of like "everybody knows people with guns are a danger to everyone around them". I don't accept such a blanket statement about unions, any more than I accept it about firearms ownership or anything else. I have no doubt there are corrupt unions, but I also don't believe it is an accurate description of unions in general. And if unions were heavy supporters of conservatism and Constitutionalism with their efforts and dollars, I suspect a lot of us would suddenly decide they were fine, upstanding icons of America. They have people with agendas and Machiavellian plotting - but then, so does every one of the fish and game and gun clubs I belong to, and my wife has entertaining stories about the machinations going on in the local art council she is a member of. Or how about the wars fought within the NRA over their efforts and positions over the years? People will always operate within the borders of permissibility and walk the fine line - and a few will deliberately cross that line to reach their agendas. Unions are nothing special in that regard.

Quote :

You are probably right.. i am a dreamer.. but i can hope!

An audacity of hope? Just askin'...

Quote :

Obviously we should stay cutting edge & keep our military 'the best it can be'. But when money is tight, we have to cut things. I would not exempt the pentagon for scrutiny. Do we really need the thousands of military bureaucrats that fill the pentagon? Is there no way to keep better track of govt contracts & make sure the taxpayers aren't getting hosed? I'm sure millions if not billions can be saved in unnecessary & ineffective military expenditures as well.

No doubt. Is any other field of government spending any different, however?

When money is tight and we have to cut things, it occurs to me that Defense is one of the very few areas where there it is an uncontestable fact that Defense is the Constitutional duty of the federal government. So when we start talking about "money is tight and we need to cut things", that may be true - but the very first things we should be looking at cutting are those programs and spending for which their is no Constitutional duty - the things the federal government has simply decided it will involve itself in because it wants to. Start with that stuff. Get rid of that and all the other handouts and entitlement crap that the feds piss money away on each year - tell the states that if they want those kind of programs, they can set them up and pay for them themselves.

Once you've focused on cutting all the funding and waste in programs the federal government has no business being involved in to begin with, then turn your attention to evaluating and cutting waste in areas that the feds DO have a Constitutional right and obligation to be spending money on. I'm not in the least bit opposed to requiring the military to establish a reasonable link between national defense objectives and their military programs, manpower, and spending. And where programs are inefficient, either change that or see that program killed or those running it fired until it meets the objectives at a justifiable cost. But it seems to me the logical place to start cutting federal government spending is the money they spend on things they have no business being involved with to begin with - spending in those areas should already be exactly $0.00.