Lest any of you believe electing a woman to the office of president would make any difference..............read this.
Arroyo Backs Away From Constitution Change
When THIS lady is upset because her Senate is controlled by her opponents, she tries to change the constitution to eliminate it. As unamerican as Bush is, he's not thought of that .......... yet.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Lest any of you believe electing a woman to the office of president would make any difference..............read this.
Posted by Oldfart at 12/15/2006 09:03:00 AM
Monday, December 11, 2006
The principle of supply-side economics, also known as Reagan's "voodoo economics", is to give the suppliers of the economy, i.e. the business/corporate side, tax breaks and other benefits so as to encourage them to create more jobs and find more business.
The problem with this version of economics is that it assumes that business has an interest in creating more jobs and finding new businesses. Unfortunately, history tells us that it does not. During the 20 years this country was controlled by voodoo economic freaks, business used the extra money to (1) move to other countries, (2) buy their competition, (3) buy company's with large trust and retirement funds so they could bust them, (4) try to bust unions and (5) buy more government toadies.
(1) move to other countries. This has the effect of putting pressure on wages in THIS country. It is an attempt by business (which has neither patriotic nor worker loyalties) to force the American worker back to some sub-human wage condition that existed in the late 1800's.
(2) Buy their competition. If they can buy their competition and reduce the workforce, they can gain more profit with less expense. Business is about profit - not employees.
(3) Buy other companies who have large cash reserves (trust fund or retirement fund). This activity got so bad during Regan's term that golden umbrellas and poisoned pills were invented to protect businesses from predator businesses. The object of the predator company was often the cash reserves of the target company without regard for the employees of the target company. Quite often the retirement plans were raped, the business gutted and employees dumped.
(4) With extra cash, a company could try to bust a union contract since it could withstand a strike longer than the union members could go without food. Also, companies could buy judges, lawyers and police officials who could bankrupt unions with phony court cases. The focus of this effort was to reduce wages and benefits earned by the unions over the years since these impeded profits.
(5) Business always needs toadies in congress - state and federal. More money means more lobbies means more toadies means more power. Also they need judges to avoid nasty court renderings such as environmental requirements.
During the time Reagan and the elder Bush were in power, I was sitting in a safe job on a railroad in the midwest. For 12 years my railroad did not hire a single soul - in fact it (and other railroads) got federal laws changed to do away with 2 members of a crew and a caboose. While I was not a part of management I was around them all the time and I was well aware of their objectives: reduce employees to interchangeable robots, eliminate work rules, reduce wages and benefits. During this era the railroad reduced it's total amount of rail and closed goodly percentage of it's stations. Now, if Reagan's economics were so beneficial, why would the railroad do that? Why would not the railroad be out there looking for more business and hiring more employees? It's because supply-side economics helps no one - not even business.
Point: If a business man does not hear his cash-registers jingle, he won't hire new employees and he won't attempt to expand his business. And supply-side economics does not make the registers jingle.
Now the current Bush continues the same old bullshit. At this point we have had over 6 more years of supply-side bullshit and the economy sucks. The middle class is smaller than ever and the growth of those in the lower class is overwhelming. Bush keeps claiming that the economy is making jobs but those are low paying jobs with no benefits - just the kind of jobs that businesses want. Some people work two-three jobs but, since none of them are over 40 hours a week, they can't get benefits. The various free trade agreements continue to attack American industry and endanger American security (do we really want to buy our military supplies from other countries?) benefiting only the global corporations. Free trade agreements are great when made amongst equals but who in America can compete with a $.50/hr Chinese or Thai worker? Ask what's left of the American textile industry how they like the free trade agreements.
Myself - I believe in eliminating the myth of the corporate individual. I believe that corporation shareholders are directly responsible for the behavior of their corporation and should not be shielded by this myth. When you eliminate the corporate individual you also eliminate the corporate income tax. This is fine with me because corporate profits have been illegally taxed twice (once as a corporate profit and once as shareholder income) for a long time. With no corporate tax and no corporate deductions, corporations can decide to reinvest their money or spread it out to their shareholders where it can be taxed as income ONCE. BUT - if it is deemed that the corporation has done something illegal, ALL company officials and shareholders are deemed equally liable. Such as dumping dangerous waste material into areas where a school's water supply comes from.....
And then - i believe in much reducing the taxes of the lower and middle classes. Why? Because, they buy things, they save money, they make the cash registers ring.
Both buying things and saving money are good for the USofA. Because all these people do not work as a unit - they work as individuals and are therefore more responsible, more patriotic and much less dangerous than corporations. Whereas an individual may want to get ahead in the world and make more money, he is generally able to do that without harming others.
Now - you might think that after all this I am against business and corporations and global corporations. I am not. Neither am I against lions and tigers - but I know a predator when I see one. The primary goal of business is to make a profit. For a few businesses, secondary goals may include the welfare of its workers but that is very rare. In almost all modern businesses, workers are a cost center not a profit center. They are liabilities, not assets. The same is true of corporations and global corporations only you can add that most global corporations are not loyal to any particular country - they are loyal only to themselves. But some things just can't be done in a Mom and Pop shop. Some things require organization beyond the mundane. From that I feel that businesses and corporations are necessary mechanisms without which we could not function. They need to be healthy and growing for us to be healthy and growing. But, as with Lions and Tigers and Bears, you need to keep your eye on them and protect yourself as much as you can because they will turn on you in a minute and eat you alive.
See this link for more information on Voodoo Economics:
Posted by Oldfart at 12/11/2006 12:23:00 PM
First read this short article
From the above article:
"District Attorney E. Michael McCann has said no child can give legal consent for sex."
Hmmmm. Then why was this 13 year old boy charged? Because he willingly did something to the girl? The girl also willingly did something to him. Chances are that we will never know why the 11 year old did what she did because they will try to keep her from testifying but there are a number of minors who cannot "give legal consent for sex" being charged in this case including the 16 year old girl who promoted these acts. Can ANYONE explain why? Minors are people who are younger than 18. All those older than 18 at the time of these acts need to be charged as appropriate. But, if the DA is to be believed, NONE of those younger than 18 at the time of these acts can be charged since they couldn't give legal consent. Note also that the charges reflect the attitude that the sexual assault was on the female and NOT on the minor males. This is all hypocritical bullshit. Despite years of femnazis trying to turn males into females, most sex crimes in this country between a male and a female is assumed to be the fault of the male. If a 16 year old girl willingly performs fellatio on a willing 14 year old male, he can be charged with rape. After all - HE stuck some part of HIS body inside a part of HER body. If a 14 year old girl performs fellatio on a 16 year old male, he is really fucked if he gets caught. DESPITE THE FACT THAT NEITHER CAN GIVE CONSENT TO SEX!
Suppose a young couple - 16(she), 17(he) - have been having an affair for a year. Her parents hate him but tolerate the affair because they don't want to kick her out of the house. He turns 18. They have him charged with statuatory rape. He goes away for 20 years. Problem solved. (Actually, since he is a MALE, I think he can be charge before he hits 18.). This is a little extreme but I bet it has happened. Even if he doesn't go away for 20 years he is stuck with the sex offender label the rest of his life. In fact, if a young man (or woman but much less likely) goes to an illegal beer party, say, and takes a leak in an alley on the way home and gets caught by a cop or a righteous citizen (you know them, don't you?) - THEY can become a sex offender for the rest of their lives in some states. And politicians who try to change the law to prevent that quite often risk their careers.
Ya know - what we really want to do is put the real rapists and sexual predators in jail. Not these babies who don't know any better. Who are NOT taught sexual etiquette in schools or at home but by their peers who don't know any more than they do. How did the 16 year old girl get so corrupted that she thought this was ok? Was it done to her? How did the adult woman who was present come to think it was ok to do nothing? If an adult woman and a 40 year old man can stand by and let this happen, why are we laying all this moral holier-than-thou bullshit on a 13 year old boy?
However, for the most ridiculous charge I've heard of recently you have to read this story:
Now - I don't know about an 11 year old's ability to consent to sex but I'm pretty damn sure a 4 year old knows nothing about sex. However, I suspect that, since the principal in this school is whiter than white, the teacher's assistant was whiter than white too and Texas is a red, red, red state.
Posted by Oldfart at 12/11/2006 12:19:00 PM
There are 11-20 million illegal immigrants in this country. Not "undocumented persons" but illegal immigrants. There is no changing their status using word magic. They are trespassers on American soil.
However, there is no way of putting 11-20 million more people in American jails which are already overcrowded by an overly anal legislative and law enforcement society. So the idea of making 11-20 million more felons to arrest is ridiculous. What is not ridiculous is making and ENFORCING laws that penalize those businesses and companies which hire those illegal immigrants and those who aid and abet these activities by supplying fake identities and who smuggle people across our borders. Penalizing the companies (and unions) that hire and exploit illegal immigrant workers will eventually reduce the number of illegals to a managable size AFTER WHICH we can explore in a rational manner the necessity for temporary and seasonal workers.
There is no doubt that we need those workers. We have always used them - as long as I can remember back to my first political argument with my sister over a TV program about what was then called migrant workers in the south and west. Even then (back in the 50's) vegetable and fruit crops were picked and packed by workers from Mexico and points south. My sister and I argued over whether migrant workers should get education and benefits and other services. I won't tell you which side I took but I can say that I believe now that anyone who is liable to pay taxes in this country (including those who can't, such as children) should get the benefits of services available to natural born and naturalized americans.
However, WHEN they come back, as they will, laws should be in place to see that they get an AMERICAN living wage, that they pay local, state and federal taxes and that they receive the benefits they pay for. I see nothing wrong in a group of people coming from another country legally entering this country, doing work most Americans won't do or can't do, paying their share of taxes while they are here, obeying our laws and then returning to their homes with money well earned.
As for the President of Mexico? What the hell! He can't control his own country much less make demands of ours. I am reliably informed by an old friend of mine who married a Mexican woman and who lives in Mexico part of the time that Mexican schools teach their children that we "stole" Texas, Arizona and California from Mexico and several Mexican leaders insist that Mexicans have "native" rights in those states. Others are more radical and wish to reconquer those parts of the US gained from Mexico in ancient wars.
Screw all of them I say. Nothing pissed me off more than a video I saw of underarmed American Border Patrol running from what appeared to be Mexican military vehicles heavily armed with mounted machine guns. Some said they were drug runners, not army but who cares? Our people had to run for their lives while this country was being invaded. WTF? Our border guards get PROSECUTED for doing their jobs while those criminals continue to violate our borders. And our "beloved", "god-appointed" Resident does nothing about it? Why is that?
Because it would hurt business. With Bush as Resident, everything, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights and our Borders are up for sale. Influence is all. When a mexican mother complains that her drug running son was shot in the ass while running back to mexico for safety and two border guards are convicted while the drug running son of a bitch is a protected witness, something is very wrong. The most that should have happened to them is that they recieved more pistol training to correct their aim. A dead drug runner can't come back with his mamma and become a witness.
Posted by Oldfart at 12/11/2006 12:18:00 PM