John Edwards must want my vote

[jterrell]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/06/edwards-to-talk-up-trade/


WASHINGTON (CNN) — Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards will unveil what aides are calling a “new, transformational approach to how this country thinks about trade” in a speech he is scheduled to give later this morning.

In remarks to be delivered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Edwards calls current trade policies a “bad for working Americans,” and says when “Washington” evaluates trade deals the main question asked is “is it good for corporate profits.”

Keeping with his theme from Saturday’s YearlyKos convention, aides say Edwards will “continue to make the case that lobbyists in Washington exert too much influence and it’s time for the Democratic Party to reject their contributions.”

Trade issues will be a focus for Edwards this week. He will join the other Democratic presidential candidates at the AFL-CIO’s forum on Tuesday night in Chicago.

– CNN Senior Political Producer Sasha Johnson
------------------------


Edwards was only my 3rd or 4th choice amongst just the democrats and below both Paul and McCain whom I at least respect even if disagree with. BU this is my bread and butter issue for the most part and he has been pretty consistent on this issue starting in his attempt 4 years ago to win the nomination.

Being anti-big business is the surest way to win my vote.

If he really pushes this it will certainly cause me to take note.
As his written plan for America did 4 years ago.

[Eric_Boyer]

special interests and lobbiests are a direct result of the democratic platform to include general welfare as an enumerated power (a switch in time to save nine)

A democrat is not going to solve this problem because they would have to admit that too much government power is the cause and it is a direct result of their actions in the last century.

[jterrell]

special interests and lobbiests are a direct result of the democratic platform to include general welfare as an enumerated power (a switch in time to save nine)

A democrat is not going to solve this problem because they would have to admit that too much government power is the cause and it is a direct result of their actions in the last century.

That is both untrue and comical.

These special interest and lobbies are paid for by big business to get around the fact the government monitors, regulates and polices them.

I will grant you wouldn't have them if we had a laissez-faire approach but then we'd also have only a handful of mega-corporations running our entire world.

People do not realize that money is such a big factor and separating the special interest money from infiltrating the government is the only way you assure elections and laws are not bought and paid for.

In a completely free market all we'd find is that Japan could in fact own our country. The corporations have no souls and no loyalty to any particular country. The are only loyal to the almighty dollar/yen/euro and free market policy allows that to be taken to an extreme.

[Crown Royal]

That is both untrue and comical.

These special interest and lobbies are paid for by big business to get around the fact the government monitors, regulates and polices them.

I will grant you wouldn't have them if we had a laissez-faire approach but then we'd also have only a handful of mega-corporations running our entire world.

People do not realize that money is such a big factor and separating the special interest money from infiltrating the government is the only way you assure elections and laws are not bought and paid for.

In a completely free market all we'd find is that Japan could in fact own our country. The corporations have no souls and no loyalty to any particular country. The are only loyal to the almighty dollar/yen/euro and free market policy allows that to be taken to an extreme.

Who fired you?

[Eric_Boyer]

That is both untrue and comical.

These special interest and lobbies are paid for by big business to get around the fact the government monitors, regulates and polices them.

I will grant you wouldn't have them if we had a laissez-faire approach but then we'd also have only a handful of mega-corporations running our entire world.

Government power does far more to prop up monopolies then it does to discourage them.

But that is besides the point. The fact is our special interest industry is a direct result of the democratic platform to strip power from the states or the people and give it to the federal government.

in 1780 our federal government spent $5 for every man, women, and child in the country. In 1910 we spent $8. In over 140 years the figure went up only $3 per person.

During the reign of terror known as the FDR years we made all kinds of changes that gave the federal government power to take care of us from crade to grave. By the end of his term we were spending $68 per man,women and child.

Corporations certainly took notice - and the lobbiest indiustry was born. Today we spend $10,000 per man,women, and child.

FDR created is problem and until you hear Edwards or the other statists admit it, don't expect them to solve the problems they created.

[AtlCB]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/06/edwards-to-talk-up-trade/


WASHINGTON (CNN) — Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards will unveil what aides are calling a “new, transformational approach to how this country thinks about trade” in a speech he is scheduled to give later this morning.

In remarks to be delivered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Edwards calls current trade policies a “bad for working Americans,” and says when “Washington” evaluates trade deals the main question asked is “is it good for corporate profits.”

Keeping with his theme from Saturday’s YearlyKos convention, aides say Edwards will “continue to make the case that lobbyists in Washington exert too much influence and it’s time for the Democratic Party to reject their contributions.”

Trade issues will be a focus for Edwards this week. He will join the other Democratic presidential candidates at the AFL-CIO’s forum on Tuesday night in Chicago.

– CNN Senior Political Producer Sasha Johnson
------------------------


Edwards was only my 3rd or 4th choice amongst just the democrats and below both Paul and McCain whom I at least respect even if disagree with. BU this is my bread and butter issue for the most part and he has been pretty consistent on this issue starting in his attempt 4 years ago to win the nomination.

Being anti-big business is the surest way to win my vote.

If he really pushes this it will certainly cause me to take note.
As his written plan for America did 4 years ago.
If Edwards continues to take money from the trial lawyers and the unions, he is a hypocrite. Big corporations aren't the only one's with deep pockets for lobbyists. Unions, trial lawyers, environmental groups, and foreign countries all have deep pockets for lobbyists.

[Eric_Boyer]

If Edwards continues to take money from the trial lawyers and the unions, he is a hypocrite. Big corporations aren't the only one's with deep pockets for lobbyists. Unions, trial lawyers, environmental groups, and foreign countries all have deep pockets for lobbyists.

Agreed.

What happened JTerrell? When I left 4 years ago you were a guy that made sense. Now you are lock step with the the democratic party and BrainPaint makes sense?

Insert Twilight Zone music here.

[jterrell]

If Edwards continues to take money from the trial lawyers and the unions, he is a hypocrite. Big corporations aren't the only one's with deep pockets for lobbyists. Unions, trial lawyers, environmental groups, and foreign countries all have deep pockets for lobbyists.

I don't disagree there at all.

But his takes I agree with and at least he is stating them.

All of these candidates are taking money from somewhere, money may not win elections but a lack will certainly lose them.

I especially agree that our current trade agreements are bad for Americans.

He was on my list of most disliked politicians for exactly the reason you state but he does become relevant for me if he is at least addressing issues I consider crucial.

[jterrell]

Agreed.

What happened JTerrell? When I left 4 years ago you were a guy that made sense. Now you are lock step with the the democratic party and BrainPaint makes sense?

Insert Twilight Zone music here.

ROFL. Who exactly made you arbiter of political worthiness?

I think you have a poor memory.

I was stating 4 years ago Hillary would be President and laughing at GWBush and his supporters which I thought included you. Not much has changed.

I have not been fired except twice in my entire life. Neither any time recently and once was in high school. But I work in corporate America and understand the business perspective and slant. I have worked for Verizon/GTE, Bank of America and a federal government arm. Outsourcing is rampant and corporations are increasingly short-sighted with shady financial dealings meant to make a lot of money for a few people in the interim with no regard for long-term effect on the economy, employees or company itself.

Everyone is up in arms over Social Security but pensions, 401Ks and other retirement plans are now all but void except in the highest levels of a corporation.

People love to have these theories and ideas but seldom seem interested in actually carrying them out to their logical conclusions.

[AtlCB]

I don't disagree there at all.

But his takes I agree with and at least he is stating them.

All of these candidates are taking money from somewhere, money may not win elections but a lack will certainly lose them.

I especially agree that our current trade agreements are bad for Americans.

He was on my list of most disliked politicians for exactly the reason you state but he does become relevant for me if he is at least addressing issues I consider crucial.
My problem with John Edwards is that about half of his campaign contributions come from lawyers. Tort reform needs to happen in this country and most of his money comes from people who don't want these changes to happen. When these guys win multi-million dollar suits against the large corporations, these companies simply shift the cost of higher insurance premiums onto you and I - the consumer.

[Eric_Boyer]

My problem with Edwards is he tells people what he thinks they want to hear.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1626498-2,00.html

Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else—that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before—and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else.

This is pretty big news I would think. The 2004 presidential hopeful basically calls the 2004 VP hopeful a big fat liar.

Seems like news to me :bang2:

[Ben_n_austin]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/06/edwards-to-talk-up-trade/


WASHINGTON (CNN) — Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards will unveil what aides are calling a “new, transformational approach to how this country thinks about trade” in a speech he is scheduled to give later this morning.

In remarks to be delivered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Edwards calls current trade policies a “bad for working Americans,” and says when “Washington” evaluates trade deals the main question asked is “is it good for corporate profits.”

Keeping with his theme from Saturday’s YearlyKos convention, aides say Edwards will “continue to make the case that lobbyists in Washington exert too much influence and it’s time for the Democratic Party to reject their contributions.”

Trade issues will be a focus for Edwards this week. He will join the other Democratic presidential candidates at the AFL-CIO’s forum on Tuesday night in Chicago.

– CNN Senior Political Producer Sasha Johnson
------------------------


Edwards was only my 3rd or 4th choice amongst just the democrats and below both Paul and McCain whom I at least respect even if disagree with. BU this is my bread and butter issue for the most part and he has been pretty consistent on this issue starting in his attempt 4 years ago to win the nomination.

Being anti-big business is the surest way to win my vote.

If he really pushes this it will certainly cause me to take note.
As his written plan for America did 4 years ago.

I'm right behind you. And he knows how the system works. If he's about what he says he is, he'd do a damn good job, domestically. And you can't get any worse than Bush on foreign policy, so what the heck?

[Ben_n_austin]

special interests and lobbiests are a direct result of the democratic platform to include general welfare as an enumerated power (a switch in time to save nine)

A democrat is not going to solve this problem because they would have to admit that too much government power is the cause and it is a direct result of their actions in the last century.


You put too much credence in party affiliation. And it's lobbyists...

[BrAinPaiNt]

I think you guys are just jealous of Edwards because he has sexy hair.

I know from exp that people are jealous of men with sexy hair.

On a serious note.

Would ANYONE here actually vote for Edwards as President...say in the primaries.

Of course some would vote for him in the regular election because they would vote dem not matter what.

But I am talking if they had a choice of dems to vote for would anyone here actually vote for Edwards?

[Eric_Boyer]

You put too much credence in party affiliation. And it's lobbyists...

I put credence in verifiable historical facts.

Is my spelling of lobbyist all you have to counter with? The democrats are to blame for the increase in govenrment power that brought us general welfare and eventually lobbyists. If you disagree, then bring something to the debate other then a dictionary.

[Mavs Man]

Increasing Big Government doesn't check Big Business (in truth, it is the opposite). Neither does pandering to populist, nationalist sentiments of "fair trade" on balance help American workers.

Let's return to a true free market that provides competitive market incentives for companies and citizens alike to make their own choices freely - not a furthering of the Big Brother/Nanny state.

[Eric_Boyer]

I think you guys are just jealous of Edwards because he has sexy hair.

I know from exp that people are jealous of men with sexy hair.

On a serious note.

Would ANYONE here actually vote for Edwards as President...say in the primaries.

Of course some would vote for him in the regular election because they would vote dem not matter what.

But I am talking if they had a choice of dems to vote for would anyone here actually vote for Edwards?

Not a chance. Obama is the least annoying of all the dems

[jterrell]

I put credence in verifiable historical facts.

Is my spelling of lobbyist all you have to counter with? The democrats are to blame for the increase in govenrment power that brought us general welfare and eventually lobbyists. If you disagree, then bring something to the debate other then a dictionary.

sigh.....

let's talk facts....

Who was president under the last meaningful welfare reform?
The one that enforced 'term limits"?

Bill Clinton.

Further, studies show he had one of the most effective welfare policies and one that did not cause spikes in crime.

Republicans think by saying we aren't gonna give away any money to the impoverished or undereducated they are making life better for the middle class.. WRONG!

The middle class is who gets to deal with the impoverished and undereducated that are turning to crime and drugs any other means possible of making a living.

The Repubs love welfare for IBM and Cisco and Mobil/Exxon but boy there better not be 1 red cent handed out to the unwed 17 year old mother who lives in the projects.

Other various notes from the thread:

BP: I would not at this time vote for John Edwards but he is back on my radar and I'll pay attention to him now. There are a couple of issues I side with him versus Hillary on and I'll see how that plays out for me.

Lawyer donations: Law firms are and lawyer causes are amongst the biggest donors overall to the political candidates. GWBush had his list of top 100 donors littered with law firms and lawyers' associations. Edwards does have the ambulance chaser feel to a certain extent but do not mistake that he is far from alone in his political donations from legal firms.

[jterrell]

Increasing Big Government doesn't check Big Business (in truth, it is the opposite). Neither does pandering to populist, nationalist sentiments of "fair trade" on balance help American workers.

Let's return to a true free market that provides competitive market incentives for companies and citizens alike to make their own choices freely - not a furthering of the Big Brother/Nanny state.

ROFL.

What fact exactly are you basing anything on?

Oh thats right you are not.

Right now even with regulations and watchdog groups we are fighting an uphill battle against big business. Be it Microsoft or AT&T or the Utility Companies they own such a share of business as to be monopolies. We have regulation because when we did not we learned quickly how awful that can be. US Steel and other companies.....

If we are going to have a free market then make it totally legal for me to beat a greedy businessman's arse. Do not ask me to abide by laws and then say businesses do not have to. The greediest of all possible organizations oft-times created solely to make money... yea they'll be nice and fair about everything.....

Here's a nice little article about de-regulation in place currently...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19649894/site/newsweek/

But we'll go farther and define the terms here.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

A free market describes a theoretical, idealised, or actual market where the price of an item is arranged by the mutual non-coerced consent of sellers and buyers, with the supply and demand of that item not being regulated by a government (see supply and demand); the opposite is a controlled market, where government sets or regulates price directly or through regulating supply and/or demand.[1] However, while a free market necessitates that government does not regulate supply, demand, and prices, it also requires the traders themselves do not coerce or mislead each other, so that all trades are morally voluntary.[2] This is not to be confused with a perfect market where individuals have perfect information and there is perfect competition.

The notion of a free market is closely associated with laissez-faire economic philosophy, which advocates approximating this condition in the real world by mostly confining government intervention in economic matters to regulating against force and fraud among market participants. Hence, with government force limited to a defensive role, government itself does not initiate force in the marketplace beyond levying taxes in order to fund the maintenance of the free marketplace. Some free market advocates oppose taxation as well, claiming that the market is better at providing all valuable services including defense and law. Anarcho-capitalists, for example, would substitute arbitration agencies and private defense agencies.

While most economists regard the free market as a useful if simplistic model in developing economic policies to attain social goals, some regard the free market as a normative rather than descriptive concept, and claim that policies which deviate from the ideal free market solution are 'wrong' even if they are believed to have some immediate social beneficial. Samuelson treated market failure as the exception to the general rule of efficient markets. But more recently the Greenwald-Stiglitz (1986) theorem [3] posits market failure as the norm, establishing "that government could potentially almost always improve upon the market's resource allocation." And the Sappington-Stiglitz theorem "establishes that an ideal government could do better running an enterprise itself than it could through privatization"[4] (Stiglitz 1994, 179).[5]

In political economics, one opposite extreme to the free market economy is the command economy, where decisions regarding production, distribution, and pricing are a matter of governmental control. Other opposites are the gift economy and the subsistence economy. The mixed economy is intermediate between these positions and is the preferred basis of socioeconomic policy for most countries and political parties.

In other words, a free market economy is "an economic system in which individuals, rather than government, make the majority of decisions regarding economic activities and transactions."[6] In social philosophy, a free market economy is a system for allocating goods within a society: purchasing power mediated by supply and demand within the market determines who gets what and what is produced, rather than the state. Early proponents of a free-market economy in 18th century Europe contrasted it with the medieval, early modern, and mercantilist economies which preceded it.

---------------------------------


The reason a free market is IMHO such a load of complete dung is the section in BOLD.

The underlined section details my exact feelings on the matter.

[Eric_Boyer]

sigh.....

let's talk facts....

Who was president under the last meaningful welfare reform?
The one that enforced 'term limits"?

Bill Clinton.

Further, studies show he had one of the most effective welfare policies and one that did not cause spikes in crime.

Republicans think by saying we aren't gonna give away any money to the impoverished or undereducated they are making life better for the middle class.. WRONG!

The middle class is who gets to deal with the impoverished and undereducated that are turning to crime and drugs any other means possible of making a living.

The Repubs love welfare for IBM and Cisco and Mobil/Exxon but boy there better not be 1 red cent handed out to the unwed 17 year old mother who lives in the projects.

Other various notes from the thread:

BP: I would not at this time vote for John Edwards but he is back on my radar and I'll pay attention to him now. There are a couple of issues I side with him versus Hillary on and I'll see how that plays out for me.

Lawyer donations: Law firms are and lawyer causes are amongst the biggest donors overall to the political candidates. GWBush had his list of top 100 donors littered with law firms and lawyers' associations. Edwards does have the ambulance chaser feel to a certain extent but do not mistake that he is far from alone in his political donations from legal firms.

sigh.

1780 - $5 spent per person in this country

1910 - $8 per person

1913 - democrats want to soak the rich. Fight for an amendment allowing tax to be non-proportional - now they can soak the rich. Courts are threatened that if they don't lossen up on spending, the courts will be packed.

1940 - $68 dollars spent per person.

1940's - democrat passes legislation allowing this indirect tax on labor to be applied before we even see a dollar of our earnings. Soak the rich my arse!

early 1990's - about $3,600 per person.

Today - $10,000 spent per person. It would of been impossible to get to this point if it weren't for jealousy and the desire to soak the rich and to redistribute property. Liberals need to accept what they did in the name of tax problems just as conservatives need to accept the error of their war mongering ways of late.

Clinton was an OK president (for modern times). This isn't about Clinton, it's much older then that.

[AtlCB]

Lawyer donations: Law firms are and lawyer causes are amongst the biggest donors overall to the political candidates. GWBush had his list of top 100 donors littered with law firms and lawyers' associations. Edwards does have the ambulance chaser feel to a certain extent but do not mistake that he is far from alone in his political donations from legal firms.
The problem that I have with Edwards is the amount of contributions that come from this group. In 2004, the contributions were over 50%. In comparison, Kerry received about 18% from lawyers. He may surprise me and turn on the ambulance chasers once he gets in office, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[AtlCB]

ROFL.

What fact exactly are you basing anything on?

Oh thats right you are not.

Right now even with regulations and watchdog groups we are fighting an uphill battle against big business. Be it Microsoft or AT&T or the Utility Companies they own such a share of business as to be monopolies. We have regulation because when we did not we learned quickly how awful that can be. US Steel and other companies.....

If we are going to have a free market then make it totally legal for me to beat a greedy businessman's arse. Do not ask me to abide by laws and then say businesses do not have to. The greediest of all possible organizations oft-times created solely to make money... yea they'll be nice and fair about everything.....

Here's a nice little article about de-regulation in place currently...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19649894/site/newsweek/

But we'll go farther and define the terms here.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

A free market describes a theoretical, idealised, or actual market where the price of an item is arranged by the mutual non-coerced consent of sellers and buyers, with the supply and demand of that item not being regulated by a government (see supply and demand); the opposite is a controlled market, where government sets or regulates price directly or through regulating supply and/or demand.[1] However, while a free market necessitates that government does not regulate supply, demand, and prices, it also requires the traders themselves do not coerce or mislead each other, so that all trades are morally voluntary.[2] This is not to be confused with a perfect market where individuals have perfect information and there is perfect competition.

The notion of a free market is closely associated with laissez-faire economic philosophy, which advocates approximating this condition in the real world by mostly confining government intervention in economic matters to regulating against force and fraud among market participants. Hence, with government force limited to a defensive role, government itself does not initiate force in the marketplace beyond levying taxes in order to fund the maintenance of the free marketplace. Some free market advocates oppose taxation as well, claiming that the market is better at providing all valuable services including defense and law. Anarcho-capitalists, for example, would substitute arbitration agencies and private defense agencies.

While most economists regard the free market as a useful if simplistic model in developing economic policies to attain social goals, some regard the free market as a normative rather than descriptive concept, and claim that policies which deviate from the ideal free market solution are 'wrong' even if they are believed to have some immediate social beneficial. Samuelson treated market failure as the exception to the general rule of efficient markets. But more recently the Greenwald-Stiglitz (1986) theorem [3] posits market failure as the norm, establishing "that government could potentially almost always improve upon the market's resource allocation." And the Sappington-Stiglitz theorem "establishes that an ideal government could do better running an enterprise itself than it could through privatization"[4] (Stiglitz 1994, 179).[5]

In political economics, one opposite extreme to the free market economy is the command economy, where decisions regarding production, distribution, and pricing are a matter of governmental control. Other opposites are the gift economy and the subsistence economy. The mixed economy is intermediate between these positions and is the preferred basis of socioeconomic policy for most countries and political parties.

In other words, a free market economy is "an economic system in which individuals, rather than government, make the majority of decisions regarding economic activities and transactions."[6] In social philosophy, a free market economy is a system for allocating goods within a society: purchasing power mediated by supply and demand within the market determines who gets what and what is produced, rather than the state. Early proponents of a free-market economy in 18th century Europe contrasted it with the medieval, early modern, and mercantilist economies which preceded it.

---------------------------------


The reason a free market is IMHO such a load of complete dung is the section in BOLD.

The underlined section details my exact feelings on the matter.
I have to agree with his statement. Big government favors big business. The tax code favors big corporations over small business. The death tax is one of the biggest killers of small businesses. When the business owner dies, his/her heirs usually cannot bear the IRS cost of the taxes on the value of the business. The business has to be either shut down or sold. In many cases, big businesses purchase the small company or purchase parts of the small company. Many small businesses that require a lot of expensive assets to operate also face large property taxes from cities and counties. Big businesses are also able to afford expensive lawyers to help protect them from predatory ambulance chasers, and can afford lobbyists to influence politicians.

[jterrell]

sigh.

1780 - $5 spent per person in this country

1910 - $8 per person

1913 - democrats want to soak the rich. Fight for an amendment allowing tax to be non-proportional - now they can soak the rich. Courts are threatened that if they don't lossen up on spending, the courts will be packed.

1940 - $68 dollars spent per person.

1940's - democrat passes legislation allowing this indirect tax on labor to be applied before we even see a dollar of our earnings. Soak the rich my arse!

early 1990's - about $3,600 per person.

Today - $10,000 spent per person. It would of been impossible to get to this point if it weren't for jealousy and the desire to soak the rich and to redistribute property. Liberals need to accept what they did in the name of tax problems just as conservatives need to accept the error of their war mongering ways of late.

Clinton was an OK president (for modern times). This isn't about Clinton, it's much older then that.

First you really should quotes sources for these types of arguments with numbers.


The tax amounts in the 1940's spiked because of the war.
In fact most tax spikes are attributable to a war effort.

Clinton balanced the budget, had a budget surplus and put us on the road to fiscal responsibility in this country. The Repubs repealed his balanced budget amendments for our poor little rich boy president.

Not only that but how much do you think 8 dollars in 1910 is equivalent to today?

[jterrell]

I have to agree with his statement. Big government favors big business. The tax code favors big corporations over small business. The death tax is one of the biggest killers of small businesses. When the business owner dies, his/her heirs usually cannot bear the IRS cost of the taxes on the value of the business. The business has to be either shut down or sold. In many cases, big businesses purchase the small company or purchase parts of the small company. Many small businesses that require a lot of expensive assets to operate also face large property taxes from cities and counties. Big businesses are also able to afford expensive lawyers to help protect them from predatory ambulance chasers, and can afford lobbyists to influence politicians.

Thats just not true. Not even friggin close. What percentage of small businesses close because of the death tax dude?

The biggest killer of small businesses is the free market and big business.

Small businesses can not compete with companies like Wal-Mart that can import good manufactured at slave wages in mass quantities. Most small businesses die int he first 3 years and they do so base don lacking the capital to compete with bigger corporations who have endless marketing and advertising budgets and low prices based on selling mass quantities of goods.


The free market is driving us to China (amazingly a communist country) because they have price certainty. It also drives us t India but now we have risen the level of living in India to where its average wealth is higher than most US cities. And that money? It mostly comes from America. From big businesses who Americans spend their money with and get to talk to some guy named "Paul" in friggin Indonesia or somewhere reading through a computer voice simulator off a script.

[Eric_Boyer]

First you really should quotes sources for these types of arguments with numbers.


The tax amounts in the 1940's spiked because of the war.
In fact most tax spikes are attributable to a war effort.

Clinton balanced the budget, had a budget surplus and put us on the road to fiscal responsibility in this country. The Repubs repealed his balanced budget amendments for our poor little rich boy president.

Not only that but how much do you think 8 dollars in 1910 is equivalent to today?

Everything I posted can be found on the IRS website.

We had wars prior to 1910.

But let me save you some time - I can see now that history begins with Bill Clinton for you. I have little interest in arguing that - like I said he was a decent modern president.

He didn't do nearly enough to lower spending - he benfitted from a dot com boom, and the end of the cold war to lower defense spending - and we had a single year surplus. Kudos - it's a start - not sustainable without massive spending cuts but it was a start that Bush campaigned to squander.

I'm talking about a higher level of who expanded the power of government - which is the root of our problems.

When a guy like Edwards talks about how the little guy is getting screwed, unless he follows it up with discussion of the Fed and the tax code, then he is missing the big picture and won't be able to solve anything.

[Crown Royal]

Thats just not true. Not even friggin close. What percentage of small businesses close because of the death tax dude?

The biggest killer of small businesses is the free market and big business.

Small businesses can not compete with companies like Wal-Mart that can import good manufactured at slave wages in mass quantities. Most small businesses die int he first 3 years and they do so base don lacking the capital to compete with bigger corporations who have endless marketing and advertising budgets and low prices based on selling mass quantities of goods.


The free market is driving us to China (amazingly a communist country) because they have price certainty. It also drives us t India but now we have risen the level of living in India to where its average wealth is higher than most US cities. And that money? It mostly comes from America. From big businesses who Americans spend their money with and get to talk to some guy named "Paul" in friggin Indonesia or somewhere reading through a computer voice simulator off a script.

Just out of curiosity, when a small business becomes a big business, is it morally corrupt? I mean, how much revenue does it take for the small, sacred, righteous mom & pop coffee store to transition into the monolithic, sleazy, morally inept Starbucks?

I mean, is it when you have business dealings in every state? Is it when you go public? When should you stop being rewarded for your success and start being punished or regulated?

I'm curious because your comments on industry and business have been widely general. I mean, surely not every corporate endeavor is evil.

[Mavs Man]

ROFL.

What fact exactly are you basing anything on?

Oh thats right you are not.

Does 10,000 years of human history and a degree in economics count?

Right now even with regulations and watchdog groups we are fighting an uphill battle against big business. Be it Microsoft or AT&T or the Utility Companies they own such a share of business as to be monopolies.

I am neither for Big Business nor Big Government. It is not an either-or choice.

If you remove barriers to entry (which is oftentimes the government) then competition weeds out monopolies. If a company is making money hand over fist, competitors will soon follow. Just because you are an innovator in your field does not make you a monopoly for life. Is Microsoft the evil beast now? All I read in news magazines and papers is Google. But Google wasn't even around 10 years ago. And there'll be somebody new another ten years from now.

Wal-Mart is considered evil, yet they are so big and have cut prices so much on consumer products that economists give them credit for keeping inflation in check.

Where was Wal-Mart 30-40 years ago? Small fish. Sears was king. And 50 years before that Montgomery Ward was the industry leader. Now? Sears was bought out by a company that filed for Chapter 11 only years before, and Montgomery Ward doesn't even exist. Times change, the industry changes. Even now companies like Target are gaining market share.

We have regulation because when we did not we learned quickly how awful that can be. US Steel and other companies.....

You mean Standard Oil, US Steel, and others from the robber-baron days that lowered costs and the average price of railroad transportation, oil, and steel during the Industrial Revolution of the late 1800s that took the U.S. from a rural/agricultural society after the Civil War to a global superpower by the early 1900s?

That is one way to look at it, an extreme one that ignores the other side, just as your view does. There are benefits and costs to everything, not all one or all the other.

If we are going to have a free market then make it totally legal for me to beat a greedy businessman's arse.

Not sure what this has to do with anything. I'm pretty sure assault should be illegal unless it's in self defense

Do not ask me to abide by laws and then say businesses do not have to. The greediest of all possible organizations oft-times created solely to make money... yea they'll be nice and fair about everything.....

Here's a nice little article about de-regulation in place currently...

<snip>

The reason a free market is IMHO such a load of complete dung is the section in BOLD.

The underlined section details my exact feelings on the matter.

Businesses should abide by the same rules as citizens. But who grants Big Business the privilege it enjoys? <hint: it starts with a "G" and ends in "overnment">

You assuredly know that the government can buy your home and your land to build a road or public project. But did you know that the government can now confiscate your home and your land and build a casino or a shopping center or any business that will generate taxes (now considered "public use")? Is that the fault of Big Business or Big Government? Who granted those rights?

[AtlCB]

Thats just not true. Not even friggin close. What percentage of small businesses close because of the death tax dude?

http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/feb2001/sb20010220_646.htm

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/estattax/estattax.htm

I found some really interesting passages in this government document:

The existing tax code already offers family businesses limited estate tax relief. Family-run businesses may apply to the IRS to pay their estate tax bill in installments over 14 years. 93 This is particularly useful for family farms, which may be asset-rich and cash-poor. Family businesses may also attempt to apply special valuation rules to their enterprise, which allows them to be valued at their current actual usage, rather than at a potentially more valuable usage. 94 In addition, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 introduced an additional tax exclusion for qualifying family-owned businesses. 95

Although these tax provisions do provide some relief, they are often inadequate to prevent the estate tax from breaking up many family businesses. Survey data indicate that the estate tax continues to be a primary reason why small businesses fail to survive beyond one generation. In fact, the estate tax is more likely to be the cause of failure during business succession than is the health or success of the business itself. A survey of family business owners by Prince & Associates found that 98 percent of heirs cited "needed to raise funds to pay estate taxes" when asked why family businesses fail.

Also, the document states that estate tax is only a small percentage of the taxes collected by the government. In other words, the government wouldn't have to make up much revenue or cut much spending if the estate tax was repealled.


The free market is driving us to China (amazingly a communist country) because they have price certainty. It also drives us t India but now we have risen the level of living in India to where its average wealth is higher than most US cities. And that money? It mostly comes from America. From big businesses who Americans spend their money with and get to talk to some guy named "Paul" in friggin Indonesia or somewhere reading through a computer voice simulator off a script.Link? I'm sorry, but I find this extremely difficult to believe.

[Mavs Man]

Thats just not true. Not even friggin close. What percentage of small businesses close because of the death tax dude?

The biggest killer of small businesses is the free market and big business.

Small businesses can not compete with companies like Wal-Mart that can import good manufactured at slave wages in mass quantities. Most small businesses die int he first 3 years and they do so base don lacking the capital to compete with bigger corporations who have endless marketing and advertising budgets and low prices based on selling mass quantities of goods.

The free market is driving us to China (amazingly a communist country) because they have price certainty. It also drives us t India but now we have risen the level of living in India to where its average wealth is higher than most US cities. And that money? It mostly comes from America. From big businesses who Americans spend their money with and get to talk to some guy named "Paul" in friggin Indonesia or somewhere reading through a computer voice simulator off a script.

Most small businesses fail because of poor planning, overestimating the market, misunderstanding their market niche, underpricing their products or services, or underestimating the operating costs.

Anyone who opens a small business to directly compete with a Wal-Mart is an idiot and shouldn't be in business, anyways.

I suppose next we should blame Teddy Roosevelt for not protecting the horse and buggy industry from being overtaken by the introduction of automobiles and the airplane.

[Crown Royal]

Most small businesses fail because of poor planning, overestimating the market, misunderstanding their market niche, underpricing their products or services, or underestimating the operating costs.


.

I knew some folks in a small college town that had a coffee shop franchise. When the town got a starbucks, they closed within a couple of months, *****ing that they couldn't compete. What they wouldn't admit is that you can't compete when you open at 9-10 AM, close one day of the week and no later than 8 PM, and try to market scrapbook supplies in conjunction with a non related business.

I wish I had the capital to start a coffee shop, the chance to compete is phenomenal if you aren't retarded.

[Mavs Man]

I knew some folks in a small college town that had a coffee shop franchise. When the town got a starbucks, they closed within a couple of months, *****ing that they couldn't compete. What they wouldn't admit is that you can't compete when you open at 9-10 AM, close one day of the week and no later than 8 PM, and try to market scrapbook supplies in conjunction with a non related business.

I wish I had the capital to start a coffee shop, the chance to compete is phenomenal if you aren't retarded.

Exactly. If you try to be Starbucks on a budget, most people will want the real thing, especially if you're lax with your business hours. But if you opened a coffee shop that provided something extra, then you have a market niche and something that sets you apart - something that gives people a reason to pay you money. Local businesses can and do succeed if run and managed smartly, as any business should be.

If you are providing products or services that people do not want or can get better value somewhere else, you cannot and will not stay in business very long, regardless of who you are competing with.

[Ben_n_austin]

I put credence in verifiable historical facts.

One of the most fallible ways of thinking is to assume that history is a reliable means to predict the future. That's what I get out of this statement; unless you'd like to elaborate some more.....

Is my spelling of lobbyist all you have to counter with? The democrats are to blame for the increase in govenrment power that brought us general welfare and eventually lobbyists. If you disagree, then bring something to the debate other then a dictionary.I would say that government, as a whole, has gotten too large. More recently; by and large, it's been the Republicans who have written the legislation to increase the size of government; or at least the scope of its power... due to fact that it can deem virtually anything a terrorist threat and violate any right you ever thought that you had (Patriot Act).

To further the notion of Republicans impacting the government in such a way that makes it "larger:", I can only speak from recent facts as opposed to ones of more outdated ages and times when I say that the imposition of government power has never been greater than that of what it is now - and I'm inclined to blame the Republicans for the recent upscale in government power, size and authority.

But to blame any certain party for this is somewhat absurd and Rush Limbaugh-ish; in that the only thing it serves is to polarize. In reality, there is usually some middle room for blame, particularly in regards to how much the government has grown since its birth.

To point the finger at one certain party or event is silly.

[Ben_n_austin]

I have to agree with his statement. Big government favors big business. The tax code favors big corporations over small business. The death tax is one of the biggest killers of small businesses. When the business owner dies, his/her heirs usually cannot bear the IRS cost of the taxes on the value of the business. The business has to be either shut down or sold. In many cases, big businesses purchase the small company or purchase parts of the small company. Many small businesses that require a lot of expensive assets to operate also face large property taxes from cities and counties. Big businesses are also able to afford expensive lawyers to help protect them from predatory ambulance chasers, and can afford lobbyists to influence politicians.

This was the exact topic of discussion on the Rush Limbaugh show the other day.

Damn, this is the most frustrating aspect of politics today.....

Learn to think for yourselves, people!!! As in, bring your OWN thoughts to an argument.:mad:

[Eric_Boyer]

One of the most fallible ways of thinking is to assume that history is a reliable means to predict the future. That's what I get out of this statement; unless you'd like to elaborate some more.....

Boy, some things never change.

Clearly what you missed is I'm not predicting the future. This is a discussion about the past and when/how things started going wrong.

This is specifically about how we came to spend so much money and gives no consideration to future events.

I would say that government, as a whole, has gotten too large. More recently; by and large, it's been the Republicans who have written the legislation to increase the size of government; or at least the scope of its power... due to fact that it can deem virtually anything a terrorist threat and violate any right you ever thought that you had (Patriot Act).

To further the notion of Republicans impacting the government in such a way that makes it "larger:", I can only speak from recent facts as opposed to ones of more outdated ages and times when I say that the imposition of government power has never been greater than that of what it is now - and I'm inclined to blame the Republicans for the recent upscale in government power, size and authority.

But to blame any certain party for this is somewhat absurd and Rush Limbaugh-ish; in that the only thing it serves is to polarize. In reality, there is usually some middle room for blame, particularly in regards to how much the government has grown since its birth.

To point the finger at one certain party or event is silly.

In regards to how our laws were altered allowing spending to rise so quickly, you truly can point the finger at one party.

Issues such as the loss of state rights while increasing corporate "rights" are things the republicans can be singled out for, but that is a seperate debate involving primarily the civil war and the interpretation of the 14th amendment.

But all of this is irrelevent. The issue is that unless a guy like Edwards discusses the root problem - which is that the present day constitution is powerless to control federal politicians and the lobbiest industry - spending won't be controlled and corporations won't be controlled. His solutions are for more government programs to fix failed government programs. He wants to give the corrupt federal government more power and more control to regulate the election process basically expecting the cancer to heal itself.

[Ben_n_austin]

Boy, some things never change.

Okie dokie. I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.

Clearly what you missed is I'm not predicting the future. This is a discussion about the past and when/how things started going wrong.No, clearly, what you're missing out on, or rather what you're rather oblivious to is that the increase in government spending today, as in the age that we are living in now, as opposed to your quite irrelevant perspective on the history of spending and who's responsible.

Of course, you'll ignore the fact that we're at record levels of spending. And this started under a Republican president and congress; recently, that is.

I appreciate the historical perspective. But it doesn't mean jack squat when, right now, as in, today, we're spending the most we've ever spent - under Republican guidance.

...Largely due to a war that we were all lied to about. Which, four years later, I think most would be inclined to agree that, to some extent or another. You'd have to be your, typical, one-track minded self to think otherwise.

Particularly because current historical perspective will tell you that the party platforms have pretty much swapped. It's not the Democrats who are going on needless spending rampages, just so that they can further their own personal selfish ends.... It's quite atrocious that you'd point the finger at the Dems for the current situation - and the Republican's utmost irresponsible spending of today's government.


This is specifically about how we came to spend so much money and gives no consideration to future events.But it has nothing to do with now. And you're not considering what issues parties are running on now.

It's not like the Republicans and Democrats are what they were 10-15 years ago.. much less 70 or 80 years ago which is what you make it sound like in your useless examples.

The roles have reversed, as an informed historical (and political) perspective would tell you, so to make comparisons in regards to parties of different ages is nothing other than absurd.





In regards to how our laws were altered allowing spending to rise so quickly, you truly can point the finger at one party. For a guy who thinks that government shouldn't have much power, you sure do give a lot of credit to the democrats for things that they've done in past ages, without including the things they've done in current times, which is absolute futile thinking, if you as me.

Under the Democrats, our debt (borrowed money or "spending) was at a surplus...

But those damned, mean Democrats don't give a rats about the economy....



Issues such as the loss of state rights while increasing corporate "rights" are things the republicans can be singled out for, but that is a seperate debate involving primarily the civil war and the interpretation of the 14th amendment.Basic history, but let's talk about recent issues. Because as I was saying, yesterday's news has nothing to do with today's problems in reality.

Pointing blame at parties for this or that in regards to a past issue, and trying to correlate that as if it makes it relevant to today's time is, again, absurd.

I guess you're right. Some things never change. If you're going to make an argument. At least make a reasonable one. History doesn't have much to do with today's issues. But for some reason, people like to make arguments as if history is an indicator of what the future holds.

Your argument pretty much points a finger at a party and says, they did this bad.. so they must be bad now...

That's terrible logic, and quite a misinformed perspective.

But all of this is irrelevent. The issue is that unless a guy like Edwards discusses the root problem - which is that the present day constitution is powerless to control federal politicians and the lobbiest industry - spending won't be controlled and corporations won't be controlled. His solutions are for more government programs to fix failed government programs. He wants to give the corrupt federal government more power and more control to regulate the election process basically expecting the cancer to heal itself.What can I say? Vote for Ron Paul, I guess. Good luck. It seems your mind is made up...

[Mavs Man]

Okie dokie. I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.

No, clearly, what you're missing out on, or rather what you're rather oblivious to is that the increase in government spending today, as in the age that we are living in now, as opposed to your quite irrelevant perspective on the history of spending and who's responsible.

Of course, you'll ignore the fact that we're at record levels of spending. And this started under a Republican president and congress; recently, that is.

I appreciate the historical perspective. But it doesn't mean jack squat when, right now, as in, today, we're spending the most we've ever spent - under Republican guidance.

...Largely due to a war that we were all lied to about. Which, four years later, I think most would be inclined to agree that, to some extent or another. You'd have to be your, typical, one-track minded self to think otherwise.

Particularly because current historical perspective will tell you that the party platforms have pretty much swapped. It's not the Democrats who are going on needless spending rampages, just so that they can further their own personal selfish ends.... It's quite atrocious that you'd point the finger at the Dems for the current situation - and the Republican's utmost irresponsible spending of today's government.


But it has nothing to do with now. And you're not considering what issues parties are running on now.

It's not like the Republicans and Democrats are what they were 10-15 years ago.. much less 70 or 80 years ago which is what you make it sound like in your useless examples.

The roles have reversed, as an informed historical (and political) perspective would tell you, so to make comparisons in regards to parties of different ages is nothing other than absurd.





For a guy who thinks that government shouldn't have much power, you sure do give a lot of credit to the democrats for things that they've done in past ages, without including the things they've done in current times, which is absolute futile thinking, if you as me.

Under the Democrats, our debt (borrowed money or "spending) was at a surplus...

But those damned, mean Democrats don't give a rats about the economy....



Basic history, but let's talk about recent issues. Because as I was saying, yesterday's news has nothing to do with today's problems in reality.

Pointing blame at parties for this or that in regards to a past issue, and trying to correlate that as if it makes it relevant to today's time is, again, absurd.

I guess you're right. Some things never change. If you're going to make an argument. At least make a reasonable one. History doesn't have much to do with today's issues. But for some reason, people like to make arguments as if history is an indicator of what the future holds.

Your argument pretty much points a finger at a party and says, they did this bad.. so they must be bad now...

That's terrible logic, and quite a misinformed perspective.

What can I say? Vote for Ron Paul, I guess. Good luck. It seems your mind is made up...

Eric supports Ron Paul, but he is far from a lock step Republican.

With politics, it's not a case of Good and Bad with the Dems and Repubs. It's more like Bad and Ugly. Real Ugly.

The surplus under Clinton had just as much to do with the Republican controlled Congress as it did with Clinton's vetos (and that Congress had long since left the building before Democrats swept them out of power in 2006). Things work better (less gov't spending) when the legislative and executive branches are controlled by different parties. But let's not get carried away. The surplus lasted one year, and was heavily influenced by NAFTA and the internet boom in productivity, so neither party can really take credit for the economy, the increase in tax revenues, and the short-lived surplus. Though I do blame Republicans soley for the loss of it after Bush began his presidency.

But do you honestly think the Democrats spend less than Republicans? Tax and spend, sadly, is more fiscally conservative than borrow and spend, but I would prefer spend less, tax less.

But remember the Medicare bill that was passed a few years ago? Democrats were outraged when the Republicans passed that monstrosity, not because of the waste of money, but that the Republican bill WAS NOT LARGE ENOUGH.

Bush has spent an insane amount of money, but your shortsighted "who cares about the past" view ignores the fact that government spending really exploded with FDR and greatly increased with LBJ's Great Society programs. That's not to say it's Dems - bad, Repubs - good. They're both money whores. But facts are facts.

Some of your comments really leave me scratching my head over.

"History doesn't have much to do with today's issues." I'm speechless.

[Ben_n_austin]

"History doesn't have much to do with today's issues." I'm speechless.


Regarding that, I was talking about parties, and the platforms that they adhere to.

In other words, it's pointless to note which party was responsible for what back in the 40s when the issues that they side with have changed so much as time has went on.

Therefore, history doesn't have as much of an impact as he'd like for his comparison to imply. As you probably know, Dems and Repubs haven't always ran on the same issues, consistently, over time.

That's what I was saying, not to say that history is entirely irrelevant, but to use history in the manner in which he was attempting to use it, to serve his purpose, really doesn't have much to do with today's issues. Today's problems are largely exacerbated by people pointing fingers and citing party loyalty as a reason to be right or wrong.

Sorry for the clarity issue. Sadly, I don't have too much time for writing anymore.

[Ben_n_austin]

Though I do blame Republicans soley for the loss of it after Bush began his presidency.
.


I applaud you; a Republican who can actually face the facts that are actually relevant to today's issues.

[Mavs Man]

Regarding that, I was talking about parties, and the platforms that they adhere to.

In other words, it's pointless to note which party was responsible for what back in the 40s when the issues that they side with have changed so much as time has went on.

Therefore, history doesn't have as much of an impact as he'd like for his comparison to imply. As you probably know, Dems and Repubs haven't always ran on the same issues, consistently, over time.

That's what I was saying, not to say that history is entirely irrelevant, but to use history in the manner in which he was attempting to use it, to serve his purpose, really doesn't have much to do with today's issues. Today's problems are largely exacerbated by people pointing fingers and citing party loyalty as a reason to be right or wrong.

Sorry for the clarity issue. Sadly, I don't have too much time for writing anymore.

I don't think they've changed as much as you suggest over the years, but I'll give you that they are far from the same over that time, and they are more similar today to each other than they were 50 years ago. Republican presidential (fiscal) policies under Nixon, Ford (somewhat), and Bush II have been no different in theory than under a Democrat. Even Nixon instituted price contols - I mean, come on!

[Mavs Man]

I applaud you; a Republican who can actually face the facts that are actually relevant to today's issues.

I'm not really a Republican. I consider myself more of a constitutionalist/libertarian (small "l"), which really has no place in either party. I'm socially conservative (but feel many of those decisions should be left up to the individual states), with libertarian fiscal leanings (free trade, low taxes, limited gov't (size and spending), no subsidies, no price controls, school choice in education, etc.)

Which major party is for that?

[AtlCB]

I'm not really a Republican. I consider myself more of a constitutionalist/libertarian (small "l"), which really has no place in either party. I'm socially conservative (but feel many of those decisions should be left up to the individual states), with libertarian fiscal leanings (free trade, low taxes, limited gov't (size and spending), no subsidies, no price controls, school choice in education, etc.)

Which major party is for that?

That was the republican party 12 years ago.

[Mavs Man]

That was the republican party 12 years ago.

Yep. At least in Congress it was.

[Ben_n_austin]

That was the republican party 12 years ago.

Which is was my whole point. The history of which party stood for what decades ago really doesn't matter much in the present time because they're standing for different things now....

[Ben_n_austin]

I don't think they've changed as much as you suggest over the years, but I'll give you that they are far from the same over that time, and they are more similar today to each other than they were 50 years ago. Republican presidential (fiscal) policies under Nixon, Ford (somewhat), and Bush II have been no different in theory than under a Democrat. Even Nixon instituted price contols - I mean, come on!

:laugh2: