Reply With Quote
What are you smoking? The rich own the conglomerates benefiting most from globalization.So trade is crooked because the rich are opening themselves up to compe ion?
The $437 billion already budgeted for the Pentagon does not include the billions more we will be pooring into Afghanistan and Iraq in the new budget cycle. That gets added in at the end of the fiscal year.Quote: For all this, the Pentagon is requesting $439 billion for fiscal 2007, or almost 7 percent more than the $411 billion authorized in fiscal 2006. Seems like a lot, and it is - about equal to the combined defense expenditures of the next 16 high-spending countries. Yet it is less than proposed next year for Medicare/Medicaid ($592 billion) and Social Security ($581 billion) - and hardly more than a third of the anticipated combined expenditures for both.
Where your income tax money really goes:
What are you smoking? The rich own the conglomerates benefiting most from globalization.So trade is crooked because the rich are opening themselves up to compe ion?
The le of the article is "When Americans No Longer Own America" and my comment is: what the is wrong with that?
Companies all over the world own other companies. Let me use Argentina as an example:
In Argentina, the Spanish own two of the five largest banks, the largest Telecom company, gas distribution and electricity generatino and distribution companies. The French own a Telco and the water company although this one they are selling). The Britich own transmission lines and banks. The Americans, Spanish, Brazilians, French and many others own oil and gas fields.
So you see, this is the result of globalization. And the US has been a big promoter of it because the have made money out of it.
So quit the complaining.
You do realize the average American would be considered to be "rich" when compared to about 60% of the world's population, no?
What part of the globalization pie does Argentina play? The U.S., as the world's only super-power is the muscle in the globalization machine's world rise. Things happen economically because if they don't the ever looming threat of Marines coming in and making it happen is always present.
The way we pay to fund that Military is through wages and taxes, if those wages and taxes aren't there, then neither is the threat to regimes who don't play nice with the ruling elite's globalization plans, and as we are seeing in presently in Central and South America, you get the rise of leftist regimes who promote Nationalism over free trade.
So what’s your point?
America will still be a rich country if some sectors of the economy are owned by foreigners.
Seriously, don’t worry about it.
Maybe you should worry more about the current direction of your national government and less about problems that affect middle-class Americans.
I think the way to heal the world's problems doesn't come from shredding the middle class of America, and creating a middle class for the rest of the world. The rest of the world does not share our political philosophy, and the growing economic powers are not always our friends. Compe ion for goods has generally been good for business, but poor for peace.
For instance, can we imagine one day, as the oil supply dwindles and demand grows, a country invading another for their oil supply?
As manufacturing jobs move overseas, who is responsible for manufacturing military defenses if very little manufacturing happens in this country?
We are moving towards becoming an ordinary nation - a nation that will not be immune from military conquest, scarcity of goods, and political corruption on a global stage.
This is like a guy who wins the lottery and ends up living on the street because he gave everything he had away, and those he gave to left him high and dry. You're right - we can't have it both ways. We can't be a superpower in the world and destroy a system that values superpowers. We have to do our part, but we can't solve all the problems and ills of the world. And free markets do not always lead to allies.
An example: Osama bin Ladin was more than willing to be trained by the CIA. He was more than willing to take our tactics and used them to free the people of Afghanistan from the crippling occupation by the USSR. The problem is, he was only our ally as long as there was a common enemy, and eventually he started using his tactics against the United States.
China is a sleeping giant that's about to wake up, and I don't think they wake up as allies of the United States of America. Money doesn't buy all people, and thinking that it does is a naive at ude that will lead to a weaker United States.
You claim to be vey democratic and all but you comment was pretty dictatorial, Dan.
I live in America, so let me worry about whatever the I want.
By the way, the direction of my government is in line with you economic inclinations, therefore you should be happy.
Bush Tackles Outsourcing Issue
On the final day of his India visit, the president defends U.S. firms that send jobs overseas.
By 'good policies', Dubya must mean cutting funding for vocational training and gutting education spending by $2.1 billion next year, and cutting FED money available for college kids."People do lose jobs as a result of globalization, and it's painful for those who lose jobs," the president said during a round-table discussion at the India School of Business in this city about 800 miles south of New Delhi. "But the fundamental question is, 'How does a government or society react to that?'
"And it's basically one of two ways. One is to say losing jobs is painful, therefore let's throw up protectionist walls. And the other is to say losing jobs is painful, so let's make sure people are educated so they can find — fill the jobs of the 21st century."
....
Bush sought Friday to recast the issue in the public's mind.
"We won't fear compe ion, we welcome compe ion, but we won't fear the future either, because we intend to shape it through good policies," Bush said. "And that's how you deal in a global economy. You don't retrench and pull back. You welcome compe ion and you understand globalization provides great opportunities."
I wasn't talking about US, I was talking about the developing world.
The misery of poverty has slowly started to recede in recent years. Read the article I posted, it is pretty well backed up by other studies on global poverty.
The "developing" world is doing just that, developing, and free trade is the engine driving that.
The world doesn't need less free trade, it needs more of it.
Yuppers. Yet another way in which Bush's words don't quite match his rhetoric. Spending LESS on higher education is the exact wrong thing to do.
The quote from Bush's speech is something I agree with (glad his advisors have more sense than he does), but yet again, the short-sighted way in which he is governing has made him into a hypocrite.
I can only grit my teeth and wait for this train-wreck of an administration to be over.
But free trade is bad because Bush supports it.
Clinton was more committed to free trade than this president is.
Bush has made some noises about free trade but has evidenced a very strong protectionist streak in his actions.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=463
This administration is soooo in the pocket of industry, that it is absolutely incapable of acting on the public good. The thing that frustrates me to no end is that they have such a good PR arm that the truth gets buried in all the spin.
Sure. I'm just pointing out the contortions one must go through in order to oppose the current administration at every turn.
(laughs)
They have some things that they say they are for that I quite strongly support, such as manned missions to Mars, and others.
BUT
I have seen them time and again SAY one thing and DO the opposite, just as in this example.
I would liken the Bush administration to a crack addict. It makes so many bad choices, is surprised that those bad choices have bad results, and then blames those bad choices on everybody else. It lies so habitually, that even on the rare occassion that it tells the truth that truth you are so used to being lied to that your first impulse is to not believe it.
I have on occasion given them credit for doing somethings right when I believe they have done so. I don't have a pathological hatred for Bush et al. but, like a crack addicts friends and family, I am so very tired of its , and wish desperately that it would start making choices that were good for the country.
I liken the Bush administration to every other. Their opponents harp on the pure evilness of it and paint every move in the worst possible light.
That I agree with. It has taken on very similar emotional overtones with the people who were foaming-at-the-mouth Clinton haters.
Yep.
When one door closes another door opens; but we so often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door, that we do not see the ones which open for us.
Alexander Graham Bell
" I liken the Bush administration to every other"
what a surprise.
"Their opponents harp on the pure evilness of it"
Because it's there.
Murdering The US military and Iraqies in a bogus war launched for NONE of the stated reasons.
Total, willful, neglectful incompetence in running the Exceutive branch and fed govt in general.
Corporate welfare
Name 10, or 1, redeeming qualities of the of the dubya/ head reign. What have they accomplished. Is D.C., or any place else, abuzz with how well the Repugs are running fed govt?
A large majority of The American People have seen the light, as shown in dubya poll ratings, while Clinton, under full attack by Starr, had 60+% approval ratings.
This Repug administration will go down in history as one of the worst in US history, NOT "like any other".
nah, THE worst!
Try using some reading comprehension before replying.
The point is that the Republican's out of control spending has helped to expediate the sale of industries and commodities that once made this country strong and has underminded the American middle class.
But, as a Argentinian, who's country supports Hugo Chavez, I don't expect you to understand.
Dan, how long have we run a deficit on the federal budget. And how long
have we had a imbalance of foreign trade? Since shortly after the WWII.
I think the last balanced budget we had was under Eisenhower. If I remember
correctly we had a million dollar surplus. And don't quote all the false
crap the Clinton folks put out, it didn't exist.
The last balanced budget we had was under President Clinton, in fact Clinton even ran a surplus, which, if you know your economic 101, is when you cut taxes (which he did), not while you are piling up deficits.
GW must have bought the hype then, because he's ackowledged that he inherited a budget operating at surplus when he took the presidency.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
