Economic News

As usual, the core values you present are in full agreement with mine. Thomas Pain was indeed an inspired man, and I present a small excerpt from "Rights of Man":

"It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect -- that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few ... They ... consequently are instruments of injustice.

"The fact, therefore, must be that the individuals, themselves, each, in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist."

Just as two human beings, I present to you that government mandate of universal healthcare and universal education would go against the "rights of man," by giving some pencil-pushing politician the power to take it away.

Which is not to say people should go uneducated or uncared for, but instead people need to take personal responsibility for their lives and the lives of their children and their family, even strangers if they can. I don't believe in putting my faith solely in the government, and I don't think you do either; if we can agree on that we can agree that the human spirit and the will to push on (maybe a little faith in God, even) is what's going to get us through each crisis we as a people face.

I believe it was you who kept using the phrase "once you're born, you're on your own"; it may sound harsh, but when has it ever been any different? If your parents don't have the good sense to provide and care their child, what gives the government the right to do so?

The "trickle down theory" is just a theory, and not a greatly enlightened one either. But government trying to play Robin Hood and take from the rich to give to the poor is not going to work either. Here's why:

I'm pretty sure you're not going to be a big fan of Clarence Thomas, but I've learned a lot from him. He wrote in his book "My Grandfather's Son" (which you might consider reading some time; it's at the Marshall Public Library), that he saw first-hand how giving someone something because they (or someone else) thinks they deserve it without having earned it is just going to make the receiver dependent on handouts from a government that won't always offer those handouts.

I say, if you want something, it's your right to reach out and grab it (figuratively, not literally), and if you set a goal no one thinks you can make, go ahead and jump for it anyway, but don't expect the government or other people to be your springboard.

NanaDot, our "Two roads (have) diverged in yellow wood"; let's take the one less traveled by. Let's forget who's Democrat and who's Republican, who's with the Constitution party or the Green party, or Libertarian or Independent, let's ask ourselves what it is we truly believe, and how we put those beliefs into practice?

Sound like a plan?

Music - I'm calmer now, but not much... If you want to read some historic stuff, be sure to read Tom Paine...

As far as what is right, you're certainly correct about that, but I propose a meeting ground...

no labels, no names, just the bare ideas...

Human beings live on this earth, which is a closed and finite system, therefore, we must treat it as such - very carefully and with great respect.

Human beings require certain things for life: clean air, clean water, food, shelter, covering; caring and concern are equally as necessary to healthy functioning as physical needs; useful work is good; safety and some social order is good; time to raise our young, care for our sick and elderly, and time to be in and part of our communities seem to be good ideas.

Can you say universal health care, universal education, sustainable agriculture, decent housing, a living, family wage, infrastructure, a professional civil service corps, community partnerships, worker protections and employee-stakeholders/owners...

We could all make a very decent living, contribute to the common good, individual excellence, and national growth. But I reject the 'trickle-down' BS that says it's ok to make a killing off of any one or any part of the Earth.

There is a value to what we take, whether the greedy bean-counters choose to acknowledge or not: What is the value of global water storage, cleaning and circulation?; What is the value of global air filtration and circulation? What is the value of atmospheric protection? What is the value of bio-diversity across the globe? Do we know more than God, the Earth, and/or evolution to think we can really tinker with DNA and the building blocks of life itself, and PATENT it with such impunity and arrogance?

How do we construct an economic system that is based on slow or no growth (non-cancerous), ecologically sound, and productive?

Do we NEED 15 kinds of toilet paper, 40+ brands of shampoos, 50+ brands of cereal? Are these not FALSE choices, distractions from REAL and IMPORTANT choices, like what is happening to the economy, the war, the energy crisis, how we GOT here? Are we willing to give up 150 channels of crap, hundreds of varieties of the same T-shirts or jeans, or other petty 'choices' for real ones, like our votes, our jobs, our lands, our schools and our hospitals?

And how do we pressure our elected corporatists of which ever ilk to GET REAL? Vote the bums out.

No music, but for the repubs to scream 'big taxes' is more than a little of 'the pot calling the kettle black' after the last couple of decades.

Until WE vote the bums out, and tell them to RE-regulate the banking/financial industry, start REFUSING TO BUY anything but absolute necessities, force Congress to reform campaign finance in a SERIOUS way, demand unions & jobs at home, CLOSE THE CORPORATE TAX loopholes, KICK the LOBBYISTS out of K Street, demand health care, education and a dignified retirement (- all of which ALL other industrialized nations ALREADY have - and NO we are NOT the ONLY western democracy and we do NOT have the 'highest standard of living' so please leave the xenophobic 'we're the BEST IN THE WORLD' propogandistic pablum out of this) I'll vote for the Democrats, who at least still have the sense that we are ALL in this together, not just the top 2% ...

Music - please note that the major corporations of which you are speaking have ALREADY done exactly what you are detailing, as well as moving offshore so that they don't HAVE to pay US taxes everytime they get the chance.

Also, we are ALREADY paying higher taxes, have a GIGANTIC deficit, a multi-TRILLION dollar budget and the largest increase in governmental spending in decades, all courtesy of the GOP over the last 28 years- the Democrats have ONLY had a SLIM (not veto-proof) majority for the last 18 months.

This is just my opinion and what I have observed in the local news and what I have read. It seems to me that McCain is more concerned with the big companies and the banks and the effect and overall outcome when it comes to this financial crisis. He seems more concerned with "big companies" pocketbook rather than ours. Obama actually seems to have legitimate concern with the middle class Americans that are affected with this crisis. I think it's important middle class people are protected, we need help and support too!!

Okay, to start off, the "90 percent of the time" stat is about worn out by now, but I'll give. Of course you will need to be more specific in the fact that while McCain has VOTED about 90 percent of the time with the Bush stuff, his SUPPORT of the President has fallen as low as 77 percent. Also, his support of what the Republican party itself has done has fallen as low as 67 percent; whereas Obama has stood with his party in the senate 97 percent of the time. Which in you're opinion was doing what he felt was right despite what his party told him? Oh, I forgot, the Democrats are ALWAYS right!

If you don't believe me, go to http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is...

So Chris Dodd can't prosecute; my apologies, I'm kind of new in the political game. But seriously, does that mean the truth is irrelevant? It seems to parallel the anti-oil argument, just because it won't solve every problem man has ever faced means it's not worth getting up off our bureaucratic butts to do. Of course the fact that you've taken the most amount of money from the mortgage lenders over the last 20 years really wouldn't influence your Democratic duty the way it would a fat Republican, now would it? Or would it? As of yet I don't see either party doing jack schnitzel.

Like I posted before, "It took members of both parties to get America into this mess, and it will take all of us, working together, to lead the way out." And that's going to take someone who's not just going to stand with his party 97 percent of the time, if you ask me.

Just a couple more thoughts I had:

Two years ago, John McCain wanted to reform the corruption within Fannie and Freddie, but congress wouldn't hear it and Bush's administration wouldn't do anything about it (by the way, that's a Democratic congress and a Republican administration).

As McCain said in his speech, "It took members of both parties to get America into this mess, and it will take all of us, working together, to lead the way out."

I'm sure everyone who reads these blogs and things think I'm a hard-right Republican for some of the things I've said and my support for McCain. Truth is, I'm more of an independent centrist who lean conservative because of my upbringing. I have no shame in saying Bush has made a mockery of the presidency, but I truly believe John McCain and Sarah Palin can adjust this country back to the track of greatness.