ILW failing???

[Kollerkrot]

It has no other immediate option??? What about the Constitution, it's been immediately available for at least three centuries, and it's been the only option so far..
The government doesn't like it?? It loves power, and the more power it has the more it wants it, and will not stop till it gets all the power it can get. The Executive power grew exponentially disregarding the checks & balances inscribed in the Constitution, so much so it has become almost a terrorist organization on par with middle eastern regimes. We're only a hair away from Orwellian 1984 visions..

What does the Constitution say about terror attacks and how the government is to protect the people from them? I understand that the world changed after 9/11! There are sky marshals on the planes, metal detectors, cameras, officers patting you down, there is lost freedom but gained security everywhere. I rather have it that way...because: what is freedom if you are not secure in it? To me being afraid of the government...it's like being afraid of the people themselves, because in a democracy, government is by the people. There has to be a central regulating governing body appointed by the majority of the people. If the this governing body enacts laws or regulations that become obsolete or are determined to be in error down the road, the opposition, etc. will make sure that it will be repealed or corrected. I don't see a problem because I am not afraid and I have nothing to hide. I like to work with the government not against it. What sense does it make to live in a community/country and want to be completely independent. It's against human nature and very contradictory. If you don't want to submit to the laws and regulations in the community/country, you have to move in the jungle and lead a hermit life.

If people want to enact change in government they go to the polls, if something takes place outside that time frame, they go into the streets and demonstrate. I don't see anybody in the street demonstrating against government control. My goodness, I have so much to say to that subject, but I don't understand why I would want to fight/oppose my own government more than the regular party pro and cons that come with a democratic state and voting cycle.

Davdah, do you watch/listen to Glenn Beck?

[davdah]

No Koller, I don't watch Beck or any of them, lol. Most of it is too predictable or so heavily spun that it's a waste of time to bother with. Although we live in a different time and with that a different set of rules need apply, it shouldn't create an instant license to circumvent all rights and usurp our freedom in exchange for a minimal increase in security. That's what we ended up with. A little more safe but a whole lot less free.

The Eisenhower quote is quite appropriate. The more dependent we become on government, the more of a prison we build for ourselves. If the government didn't take on such an adversarial role maybe something positive could come of it. That includes the left or right. Both sides are near clones of the other with only icons and base colors being different. Red or Blue healthcare, take your pick. They cost the same and provide the same over priced and taxed coverage.


Iperson, Bush was not the boogy man. Contrary to what the left drummed on about he didn't all of a sudden create a tyrannical dynasty making himself king. Both sides of the aisle are hurling egregious insults but the fact is, they're nearly identical in action and idea. The clamor is nothing more than intentional distraction. Romney and Obama both implemented a state run health system. One that in combination with the rest of the mandated safety nets will bankrupt us all. 15% for SS and eventually another 15% or more for healthcare plus the minimum 15% fed tax coupled with the rest of it and you end up with an effective tax rate of over 80%. That will do wonders for an economy hard pressed to compete on the world stage. We can only run up those credits cards and produce nothing of legitimate value for so long before it comes back to bite us again. Next time around there won't be a bailout available. That next time isn't so far off either. Some rudimentary economic analysis would show it's probably less than 10 years out, if that. If any country's plan were workable that country would show zero on the liability side for health care costs. None do. All have borrowed to keep their programs running and all the while benefits have been cut to offset the amounts being set aside to pay for the borrowing already done. Eventually everything is owed and nothing will be available to be given.

The poles are not the effective means to change anymore. Who decides the candidates? We don't. Pick either the red guy or the blue but they both were produced by the same political process that we aren't invited to. If we don't pick the candidates, is that really a bona fide election? Iperson, that's why the tea party has been trounced on by the complicit media from day one. They were a last breath attempt at a real by the people political agenda. The mainstream political machine would have no part of that and engaged the media's spin doctors to marginalize them at every turn. Is it reasonable to accept that all those people were cooks and nut cases? That's what both sides would have you believe but it's far from the truth.

[Kollerkrot]

Kollerkrot, all you're saying is you're repeating fear mongering mantra of the far right tea party. No security measures implemented after 9/11 prevented any attacks and they never will, just as nothing can prevent school shootings, or just as torture doesn't render any results. They do give you a false sense of security but that's about it. However, the reduced freedoms, disregard for Constitution have much bigger implications which may lead to much more catastrophic events that today seem implausible. The removal of the Constitutional values this country has been founded on, makes this country no different than the middle eastern regimes. We're reversing progress, and doing much more harm to ourselves in the long process than the short term sense of security.
No we do not live in a different world. Terrorism is a modern version of ages long warfare, no difference whatsoever. In fact, the United States has for some time now become the sole terrorist on the planet earth waging unconstitutional wars everywhere in the world, if you want to use the term 'terrorism'. It is an unexpected onslaught/ attack, and all wars share that same characteristic, at least nowadays, while in the past the states waging wars on others tended to actually give a notice of an attack, issued a declaration of war. Sans that age long tradition, we call it terrorism today, and in the American mindset it is usually Muslim related. Mc Veigh wasn't labeled a terrorist because he wasn't a Muslim, although the attack in Oklahoma City was lacking a warning.

Anyhow..

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." Dwight Eisenhower.

IP..that is not right. You can't say that any of the measures implemented didn't prevent any attacks...we haven't had any and they caught several perpetrators because of the heightened security. I think they are good...and so do many other people. How would everybody submit to these inconveniences if they wouldn't make any sense....to make it more difficult for intending perpetrators has always made sense and has always been man's way of finding security (e.g., locking a door, etc.). I don't understand where mine or your constitutional freedom is reduced. I am still doing the same I've ever done. What Constitutional values have been removed, what are you talking about,... I don't know what you are referring to here.

Terrorism is terrorism...is not war, however, I do agree with the president, that he can attack terrorists, without a declaration of war same as they have or would do. I liked his speech on the subject recently where he explained that. I am with him on that...even if they would be American inside the country, they would be taken out by Swat Team...so same thing. That's not terrorism/police state, that's defense even a pacifist like me can agree with.

[davdah]

I'd agree that the ramped up security has derailed the overwhelming majority of potential incidents. The cost of it should also be weighed. There is the personal cost and inconvenience of being frisked, photographed, and delayed at an increasing number of places. Property damage should be included. I've had two expensive laptops destroyed by the TSA who smugly tell you, "have a nice day" when confronted with their abuse of authority. There is also the damage we can't see. How much of our privacy isn't private? We'll never be told because that's a state secret. I'd wager it's all of it.

Iperson, the world is different. Years back if there were surprise attacks the reprisal would entail a blanket retaliation to ensure those responsible got theirs. Obviously there would be a lot of collateral damage. These days we're able to single out the responsible parties avoiding a substantial amount of innocent lives lost. It wouldn't matter if it were announced the day before that you were going to carpet bomb a 100 square mile area. But flying a drone in to strike a single house, that's a little different. Make no mistake, they are out to get us. However, the overkill in attack methodology from years ago has been replaced with a deep grab of our civil liberties as an offset. Which is worse?

For many they don't notice it because there hasn't been a need or want to exercise the rights lost. If you don't like guns, you won't miss the second amendment. If you've never protested, you wouldn't miss the first either. If you're the type to never question the legitimacy of actions by someone with a badge, the 4th isn't that important either. Few if any are so long as you never question, doubt, do as you're told, and don't ask questions. I'd rather worry a little than rest in the comfort of having no rights at all. That's the exchange we're faced with.

[davdah]

Whether it be Stewert or any of them, it serves the same purpose. It divides the people into waring factions to divert attention. Case in point. There is all this hub bub over the Koch brothers.They donated over 100 mil over the last decade to various candidates. However, if taken into perspective, it is a drop in the bucket. In Obama's last election alone he got over a Billion in donations. This escalation of a single donator's activity was to misdirect and subvert. It's not as if those two guys went out on the street and rallied supporters, invented secret hand shakes, or hypnotized the tea party followers into buying an agenda that doesn't align with the person's own views. It's as I said. Marginalize and dispose of any opponents to the controlling parties by any means available.

Taxes? The latest episode from the white house has the tax scandal eking it's way closer to Obama's front door. If it's found even one person in the inner circle of decision makers had a part in it or new of it, that invalidates the last election. This was an overt and broad reaching malicious stifling of the vote. That's what they did using the IRS to impede the ability non-left leaning groups.

Is this real or just another event to have us commoners at each others throats versus looking up and seeing what's really going on. It's hard to believe that all the people involved in this scandal kept it secret this long. They were all so loyal to the Obama regime carrying out their illegal marching orders that not a single one accidentally said the wrong thing to a republican in their office? Or for that matter, to someone with a conscience? Imagine the hero's welcome for breaking something so far reaching had it occurred at the opportune time, just before election night. A conspiracy of this size and magnitude can't possible last more than a few weeks without its secrecy lifted. That is, if there were people willing and able to let the cat out of the bag to a public who they believed had a right to know. This was supposed to have happened over 4 years ago? B.S!

BTW, 9-11 was not the first occurrence. Terrorism is the most recent tip of the tongue phrase used to describe the same event that was labeled something else in the past. Pearl Harbor 1942? Germany's march on Poland in 39? What were those if not by the common held understanding the same. 9-11 was an excuse to usher in an increase in rights deprivation. That's the major significance of the date.

[federale86]

Interestingly enough Koller, the TSA and DHS Office of Inspector General have done testing of screeners, and there is no improvement over pre-911 screening by contract security workers at the airports. Most of the security "improvements" have not been improvements at all. All sound and fury, signifying nothing.

And recent events in London have shown that the only security is restricting immigration by those who would go on to be terrorists, which would be Muslims.

Similarly, the debate over amnesty is being conducted without attention to the important facts, most immigrants from certain countries end up on welfare or as terrorists, or both. We all know that, but instead we focus on either the irrelevant or pretend to ignore the elephant in the room.

No one deals with facts in either airport security or immigration.

[davdah]

Some of what you wrote about the Koch's might be true iperson. They pitched in for some of the expenses in the process of getting the movement off the ground. That's not to be criticized since it occurs with every campaign. The followers weren't unified under the
umbrella of anti-government. Anti-government as usual is more accurate. Most real Americans are fed up with the lack of transparency, truth, and dysfunctional representation government offers. Not to mention being taxed into oblivion and the rampant waste government is notorious for. Anytime a political side yells from the mountain tops a bil, rule, law, or however it's labeled restriction to stop some characterized wrong doing their opponent is supposedly guilty of it's always done under the guise of being to your benefit. A spear at the enemy summarizes the tact. Who wouldn't go along with that? However, once implemented it has the same affect on everyone. It reduces your liberty just as much as the next person. Isn't it odd than in nearly every circumstance that detail is omitted.

Let's tax the koch's income even more to keep them from funding right wing causes. Yippie!!! April 15 rolls around and you open your tax bill. "WTH?" Their response? You told us to raise taxes so we did. What's the problem?

[davdah]

Curious. You said they don't give their rightful portion back to society. let's examine that. What is rightful? Why should anyone contribute more than another? Wouldn't it be more mathematically correct that each contributes equally since no one person can use more than another of the public's domain? In addition, it could be said a person who creates jobs shouldn't be taxed at all since they are creating that which keeps people from becoming beggars and living off the dole. They're saving money in that regard. Companies wouldn't outsource if government here weren't so anti-business.

[davdah]

The wealthy are paying less taxes? Less than what? The tax system is both progressive and punitive. Meaning, the more you make the higher the percentage they take. That's not fair by any moral measure when the person paying has no more right to public services than someone paying a token amount or nothing. It's accountants that find right offs, not the lawyers. They aren't really loopholes either. A right off is always structured around the concept of not taxing an amount due to those funds being used for an activity that results in a future growth or expense incurred. In other words, the money was used for some business purpose and not on a personal expenditure.

No business attempts to live in a vacuum. Im not sure what's meant by that. They exist to sell which by definition means they reach out to the public domain in search of customers. If a company has X number of dollars in their account, who's to say there is anything wrong with not spending it? Why do they have to? For that matter, why should they? Business does not exist to support the public at large. That's a socialism cause which we're too close to already. Why is there this belief that any business or individual has an unwritten obligation to 'give back'? Haven't they been taxed enough? If person A has less than person B, why does it become person B's duty to support A? There isn't one save the government's trouncing on ability and ambition stealing the fruits of one's labor. A closer examination usually discloses the fact that A is just lazy and doesn't want to put out the effort. The notion that success was preceded by guiltless greed and corruption is without merit. It's nothing more than a means to pit a have not against the haves with an empty justification. "They must have stolen it to be well off and Im poor because Im honest." Never is there proof to back it up. Mostly, the accuser is spared the duty of self reflection to explain why they have nothing.

If government here were pro-business, we wouldn't have a disappearing manufacturing base. It's all but gone due to government interference. How many cars are still made in Detroit? No where near what it used to be. Who's got the big upsurge in manufacturing? Will the Chinese give back to us for buying all the cars since we handed them the jobs for making them? Not a chance. They're laughing at us for holding onto something that in the end means nothing. You can be right all you want but you're still broke.

I liked those articles. It's what I've known about for quite a while. How are they doing it? Simple. Phone calls go through satelites. Who controls them? Internet? How is the traffic routed? Via DNS servers. Who controls those? If you said guvment, you'd be right on both counts. This new info is from one of two sources. True ones that is. One, someone got careless combined with another who's got relentless prying eyes. Or, the more dubious cause. Intentionally leaked to give us a pretended scope of their activity in order to satisfy curiosity thereby subverting the motivation for further scrutiny.

[davdah]

The idea that there is a limited supply of money implies there is a threshold to it's upper quantity. That isn't true. Economic growth or currency debasement demonstrate the notion as a fallacy. Also, if person A makes a dollar more it doesn't mean person B has a dollar less. The contrary is patently obvious without further argument. Money, in what ever form, is a measure of value used to exchange. It is worth something. And not just to those here, everywhere. Otherwise, why would so many want to come here to have a better life. Its importance is a universal understanding.

I'd still like to hear something more than a have not's argument as to why a person who labors more should give up a greater amount of their income. There isn't a rational argument that rises to the level necessary to justify the level of forced relinquishment that occurs. Not a one that can be pinned to the earner as either an equal benefit measurable to the contribution or of a supposed obligation implied or expressly agreed to. Neither exists which leaves its benefit and agreement bound to third parties who don't contribute but merely reap the benefits. That is wrong no matter how viewed.

[davdah]

The generalization you made was a bit too simple. Warren doesn't personally own all the money he controls. Most of it belongs to third party investors. When he makes them a profit, there is new money generated. Those new profits turn into purchases made by the investors. On it goes. Money merely represents a stated value. The value it represents can and does change. Such as the case with the dollar. It's always a dollar but what value it holds changes over time. The value can shift based on the number of notes, real or virtual, in circulation or the quantity of that which it's used to purchase. More dollars, more goods, or less of either or both can functionally change it's exchange rate. The only limitation is the amount of paper to print with on the one extreme or zero on the other.

Make those corporations, like Apple, spend their billions and it would give the appearance that dollars multiplied like rabbits without the offsetting increase in purchasable items. Mega-inflation would be the result. I'm curious why government wants big business to spend when the results are only inflationary. Boost production, then the money will follow without the inflationary pressures. That would be pro-business and not something conducive to this administration's efforts so we're stuck with making everyone collectively poorer.

I doubt that's E. The article is so full of holes only a fool would give it an ounce of attention.

[davdah]

The money made by a business was a result of producing something.Government on the other hand produces nothing. It merely takes. Picture a person who works and earns a paycheck versus the person on unemployment. The worker is contributing to the number of assets for sale and is given
an offestting amount of currency for his increase to the economy.

A balance is created between money in circulation and the availability things to buy with it. The unemployment check offers nothing as an equalizing value to the economy. They just added money but no extra products to buy were created. That's why we had such inflation in food, gas, and basics over the last few years. Those unemployment checks, millions of them, inflated prices because those people produced nothing to get them.

Spending when you can show the money you have was the result of a contribution you made is good. When you create it out of thin air, as is the case with all entitlements, you dilute the money earned by those who actually work for a living. Whether you realize it or not, everyone earning a living is subsidizing those who don't by paying higher prices. You're paying for their free ride, like it or not.

[davdah]

In order for business to thrive there has to be a minimal faith in government that it will at least not interfere or ideally assist in expanding.
When business fears government's tentacles of control, oppression, or arrogance, it withdraws and eventually leaves the playing field.
Hence, the vacating of the city you live in.

Did you read the responses from Google, facebook, twitter, and others concerning the NSA scandal? That says it all.

[davdah]

If there is no one working, there are no customers. The corporation ceases to exist. It's self defeating to wilfully shrink the work force who happens to be the customer base. Many businesses, large and small, aren't hiring accompanied by an appetite for saving. Excess saving is often a sign of doubt over future prospects. That worry is due to lack of faith in government. There is the cause, just and true.

To fix it requires reinvigorating faith. It won't come by some spectral of empty promises delivered from a platform reminiscent of a Roman theatre. Business is too smart to fall prey to typical election cycle tactics. It needs to be real, provide benefit, and be done without the sneak and grab after the fact motivations buried in fine print. No one works for nothing and even less are willing to have what they worked for given away for free. Jobs come by way of economic expansion. There is no other solution other than priming that which produces them. The employer.

Detroit hasn't had a race riot since 1943. Since then the population climbed to a peak in the late 60's and began a decent there after. A decline mirrored by an increase in industrial growth in other countries now making the things we used to. The very countries who's tolerance to diversity are much more appropriately scrutinized than our own.

There won't be law suits. At least not directed at google or the others. They were compelled by the boot of big government. Isn't it odd that a spy of NSA calibre chose China of all places to deploy to. Hong Kong is under mainland authority. A fact he's well aware of. A country who recently sentenced people to lengthy prison terms for a crime this person has as the shiny star on his resume. The same country who's also had run-ins with Google, facebook, and others within the last couple years. A location where he can be picked up and dropped into a deep dark hole on a moments notice long before help can arrive. He's either a traitor and on their payroll or there is something else going on.

[davdah]

You might want to re-check your facts. Detroit isn't burning and those movies are not intended to be a source of facts. Neither are those books. If government wants employers to hire, give them a reason to. At least get out of their pockets and quit regulating anything of value into extinction. That's why there isn't any manufacturing going on in Detroit. For that matter, very little anywhere else.

The only irony is most people have no clue how business really operates yet they want it to function according to dictates that benefit themselves. It's not something to be looked upon as a source of exploitation for third party benefit. Would anyone expect a worker to keep their job when it no longer benefits them? It's no different.