Really a good read here. Quite good today Friedman NYtimes.

[Brat]

Months ago my daughter was considering speakers for her employer's annual partner's meeting. These partners fund innovation and have a global prospective. Friedman was on the list but scratched because he 'stated the obvious'.

The real question is how do we go forward..

Even if the US significantly decreased its reliance on foreign oil development in other nations would off set it and cash will keep rolling in. In time the Gulf nations money machine will dry up but in the interim we must deal with their emotional difficulties. They are not the only potential problem spot, don't forget possible competition with Russia over Arctic reserves.

There are many reasons why we need to be energy independent. I am wary of Fed intervention in the energy sector. Research is fine, but I think that economic forces will be more efficient than Fed funding. This transition will be very difficult for families living on the economic edge as the cost of energy will consume ever greater % of their budgets.. even indirectly through increasing food costs as corn is diverted to ethanol.

 

[travelover]

How come the House only has 2 year terms, but the Senate has 6 year terms?

I suggest the following:

1)4 year terms for all Senators

2)A limit of 5 4-year terms, they do NOT have to be served in succession.

My opinion? If you couldn't get it done after 20 years, it ain't gettin' done by you........

I'd agree the 2 year representative terms are too short at 2 years, but lots of luck with the term limits.

 

[haha]

Months ago my daughter was considering speakers for her employer's annual partner's meeting. These partners fund innovation and have a global prospective. Friedman was on the list but scratched because he 'stated the obvious'.

Apparently not obvious enough, considering some of the board-members reactions to his piece.

Ha

 

[Wags]

Apparently not obvious enough, considering some of the board-members reactions to his piece.

Ha

Unfortunately some people refuse to face reality and when they do not agree with a person's political or religious views at times they will use tactics such as this to silence the messenger and to stop the disenting speech. And then at times they will resort to personal attacks, physical violence, name calling, gay bashing, false insinuations, false assumptions, bullying, attacks on a person's religion, etc..., etc....

Whether the left or right do it - It is not right and all it does is hurt democracy.

God Bless

 

[Rustic23]

Travelover,
Not to hijack the tread, but public financing of campaign will lead to the end of the US as envisioned by our forefathers. IMHO. The wealth of our nation is in the shape of a pear with the very rich at the top, a large middle class and a large lower class. One Bill Gates and lots making 0. The founding fathers realized that politicians would have to go to the rich to get the money to run for office but they would have to pay attention to the poor or middle class if they were to get elected or stay in office. If you change that by allowing politicians to ignore the folks with the money, then they will take rich's money in the way of added taxes and give it to the poor. i.e. they will buy their office with your money. They currently practice this and are only held back by having to get their finances from the wealthy and business today.

 

[travelover]

Travelover,
Not to hijack the tread, but public financing of campaign will lead to the end of the US as envisioned by our forefathers. IMHO. The wealth of our nation is in the shape of a pear with the very rich at the top, a large middle class and a large lower class. One Bill Gates and lots making 0. The founding fathers realized that politicians would have to go to the rich to get the money to run for office but they would have to pay attention to the poor or middle class if they were to get elected or stay in office. If you change that by allowing politicians to ignore the folks with the money, then they will take rich's money in the way of added taxes and give it to the poor. i.e. they will buy their office with your money. They currently practice this and are only held back by having to get their finances from the wealthy and business today.

Interesting logic. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned campaign costs like we see currently. Even up to the 1950's , people of more modest means had a shot at elected office. And, I don't think that the common man's interests are being looked after in a sustainable way - evidence the lack of progress on medical care costs, runaway energy costs, coming train wreck of Medicare.

I do worry about the "common" man's ability to make intelligent political choices. In the past the rich / upper class seemed to have a more responsible attitude of national stewardship, which seems to be replaced with a greedier outlook. So entrusting the rich to look after all of us, doesn't seem to me to be working.

 

[Rustic23]

I worked for an elected official for 5 years. I have had the opportunity to see them first hand. I can tell you there is nothing more the politician would like to do than not have to go to the people for their election funds! Why do you think 10% of the population pays 80 to 90 percent of the taxes? Why do you think 50% of the population pay no income tax? I firmly believe if you fund politician campaigns with public funds only, that number will grow, and I think history is on my side.

"About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic 2,000 years before: “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury.."

 

[FinanceDude]

Unfortunately some people refuse to face reality

That "reality" for me is much more than a blanket statement...... We are in Iraq, and whether we should be there or not will be debated long after we all are dead. However, I grow weary of all the bashing of why we went there...........I think it is a slap in the face to our armed forces, they must sit there and think we don't give a hoot about the work they do. Do you think our military wants to "cut and run"??

and when they do not agree with a person's political or religious views at times they will use tactics such as this to silence the messenger and to stop the disenting speech. And then at times they will resort to personal attacks, physical violence, name calling, gay bashing, false insinuations, false assumptions, bullying, attacks on a person's religion, etc..., etc....

Are you talking about YOU or society in general? I know what side of the political spectrum you are on, and that's fine. Just remember half the country may feel differently. And I am prepared if a Dem gets in the White House for you to tell us all on here in a long diatribe about how they are the "best President EVER".............

God Bless



Whether the left or right do it - It is not right and all it does is hurt democracy.

God Bless[/quote]

 

[Gumby]

I worked for an elected official for 5 years. I have had the opportunity to see them first hand. I can tell you there is nothing more the politician would like to do than not have to go to the people for their election funds! Why do you think 10% of the population pays 80 to 90 percent of the taxes? Why do you think 50% of the population pay no income tax? I firmly believe if you fund politician campaigns with public funds only, that number will grow, and I think history is on my side.

"About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic 2,000 years before: “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury.."

I think this phenomenon (the tyranny of the majority) explains why social security will almost certainly be means tested.

 

[Gumby]

How come the House only has 2 year terms, but the Senate has 6 year terms?

I suggest the following:

1)4 year terms for all Senators

2)A limit of 5 4-year terms, they do NOT have to be served in succession.

My opinion? If you couldn't get it done after 20 years, it ain't gettin' done by you........

Good thoughts. I would like to see this coupled with a single presidential term of 6 years. It currently seems as if most of a president's first term is spent jockeying to be re-elected for a second. If you knew you only got the one shot at it, you might actually accomplish something worthwhile.

 

[Gumby]

That "reality" for me is much more than a blanket statement...... We are in Iraq, and whether we should be there or not will be debated long after we all are dead. However, I grow weary of all the bashing of why we went there...........I think it is a slap in the face to our armed forces, they must sit there and think we don't give a hoot about the work they do. Do you think our military wants to "cut and run"??

As a former member of said armed forces, I can assure you that they are not stupid. If asked to go to a foreign land and wage a war, they will do so vigorously and well, and they hope and expect that the people will give them the tools they need to do the job. But they are also well aware that we live in a democracy where people are not only allowed but expected to speak their minds. Despite the rantings of my relatives, it is not treasonous to question either the reasons for going to Iraq or the wisdom of staying there. The fact that we are in a war is no reason to abrogate our civil rights. Indeed, it is for just such occasions of high passion and perceived overriding need that the founders realized we require a Bill of Rights.

Some think that patriotism is saluting smartly and doing whatever the commander in chief says, stifling all criticism in the belief that we should all stand together. I believe that the true patriot is the one who so wants his or her country to be the very best that it can be -- militarily, economically, politically and ethically -- that he or she is not afraid to say the emperor has no clothes if that is what is required.

Realizing that your country has made a stupid mistake and should cease the drain of blood and treasure is not "cutting and running". There is no glory in refusing to admit or walk away from a mistake for fear that one will somehow will be perceived as weak.

 

[Rustic23]

Gumby,
First, Well written. However, having also been a former member of said armed forces, I believe the time for descent is before troops are commited. Once the nation has committed troops to the field, to maintain a vigorous descent at home encourages the enemy. While some will deny this, I believe they are wrong. The nature of a gorilla war is to wear down the home front until they demand and end to the war.

Therefore a paradox exist. If you are against the war, how do you continue to protest without hurting those in the field? It is not about weather the troops feel good it is about what the enemy thinks and what he is willing to do to encourage those protest.

So, while I support your right to decent, I think it is harmful to those doing the day to day battle. I also realize that many will say 'bringing them home would be even safer'. Once more, that is why the protest should be loud and clear prior to the commitment of troops, and not after.

 

[Gumby]

There was loud and clear dissent prior to the start of the war; I witnessed firsthand the massive protests in the streets of New York, and I know there were others throughout the country. But "The Decider" ignored them and Congress sold out for perceived political gain. (One of the reasons I would find it very difficult to vote for Hillary Clinton is her vote on the war.)

As to whether dissent should continue -- a mature, robust democracy ought to be able to tolerate dissent, even during war. It is usually your more authoritarian regimes that stifle the voices of the people. But I respect your opinion and will simply agree to disagree on that point.

 

[Rustic23]

I believe you missed my point or ignored it. There was dissent, our elected official made a decision. There are and will always be those that don't like the decisions made. There continued dissent put our sons and daughters in harms way. You should know this but you appear blinded to it.

 

[FinanceDude]

There was loud and clear dissent prior to the start of the war; I witnessed firsthand the massive protests in the streets of New York, and I know there were others throughout the country. But "The Decider" ignored them and Congress sold out for perceived political gain. (One of the reasons I would find it very difficult to vote for Hillary Clinton is her vote on the war.)

That would put John Kerry and John Edwards in the same light, in your eyes...........

The protests I have seen pale in comparison to the Vietnam protests.........

Based on what I've gleaned here, the ONLY war that was worth fighting since 1919 was the 2nd World War, in a lot of folks eyes...........

That to mean, seems a sad commentary on the USA............

 

[FinanceDude]

There was loud and clear dissent prior to the start of the war; I witnessed firsthand the massive protests in the streets of New York, and I know there were others throughout the country. But "The Decider" ignored them and Congress sold out for perceived political gain. (One of the reasons I would find it very difficult to vote for Hillary Clinton is her vote on the war.)

As to whether dissent should continue -- a mature, robust democracy ought to be able to tolerate dissent, even during war. It is usually your more authoritarian regimes that stifle the voices of the people. But I respect your opinion and will simply agree to disagree on that point.

It to me seems interesting that the Dems got control of the Senate and House, and pledged action and inquiries and investigations and perhaps impeachment proceedings...........but a little over a year later I am still waiting.....and Congress still approves the war spending with hardly a whimper of dissent.

One would think if the left has the same thoughts as Gumby, they would either cut the war funding or stalemate it...........

 

[Gumby]

I believe you missed my point or ignored it. There was dissent, our elected official made a decision. There are and will always be those that don't like the decisions made. There continued dissent put our sons and daughters in harms way. You should know this but you appear blinded to it.

The problem with your theory that all dissent should stop once we are at war is that there is no ending point. President Bush has said that we are in the Global War on Terror, which is expected to last for the rest of our lives. When will it end so that we can go back to complaining about the government? And even if we are no longer allowed to revisit the decision to go to war in the first place, are we allowed to criticize the way it is conducted? And what if we realize that it has been a mistake and we should stop? Must we continue on until the last drop of blood is spilled because once the decision is made it must never be questioned? Can we never change our mind?

Frankly, the thing putting our troops at risk are people with guns and bombs, not legitimate dissent among the American people. If your vision of protecting our country calls for turning it into a fascist dictatorship, you can count me out.

 

[Gumby]

It to me seems interesting that the Dems got control of the Senate and House, and pledged action and inquiries and investigations and perhaps impeachment proceedings...........but a little over a year later I am still waiting.....and Congress still approves the war spending with hardly a whimper of dissent.

One would think if the left has the same thoughts as Gumby, they would either cut the war funding or stalemate it...........

The Democrats in Congress have hardly been profiles in courage. I am tremendously disappointed in them.

 

[Gumby]

That would put John Kerry and John Edwards in the same light, in your eyes...........

It does. Right now, my choice would be Barack Obama, and even though I disagree with him on many other things, I have great respect for Ron Paul as a consequence of his opposition to the war.

on what I've gleaned here, the ONLY war that was worth fighting since 1919 was the 2nd World War, in a lot of folks eyes...........

That to mean, seems a sad commentary on the USA............

WWII was forced on us and was a war of national survival. It was necessary and I'm glad we won. All our other wars since then have been wars of choice. I take no pride in the fact that we have chosen to wage pointless wars in places and for causes that have little or no relationship to our national security.

 

[youbet]

WWII was forced on us and was a war of national survival.

Generally agree. However, the case can be made that had we accelerated a defense buildup early on and not supported the UK, we might have been successful in staying out of the war, eventually winding up in cold war but with Germany/Japan instead of the USSR.

I take no pride in the fact that we have chosen to wage pointless wars in places and for causes that have little on no relationship to our national security.

Would you have been OK with allowing Saddam to have Kuwait? I'm kind of mixed on that one myself.......

 

[Gumby]

Generally agree. However, the case can be made that had we accelerated a defense buildup early on and not supported the UK, we might have been successful in staying out of the war, eventually winding up in cold war but with Germany/Japan instead of the USSR. Would you have been OK with allowing Saddam to have Kuwait? I'm kind of mixed on that one myself.......

I did not then and do not now care who runs Kuwait and didn't see that the question involved our essential national interests. But I must admit that is the selfish view of an American national (me). If we mean to have a peaceful world, we all probably do need to work together to prevent countries from invading their smaller and weaker neighbors. So, like you, I am of mixed mind on that.

 

[haha]

If we mean to have a peaceful world, we all probably do need to work together to prevent countries from invading their smaller and weaker neighbors.

Agree, if this can be done diplomatically. I am radically in disagreement with regional policing as a casus belli. Let regions police themselves. Our only criterion for going to war should be whether it furthers an important narrowly defined national interest, and can we afford it.

For the most part we cannot afford war, so IMO we should learn to live within our means and face reality. Even our excellent military could be put out of business quickly by OPEC. Or even Russia No shots need be fired, just some crude held back.

Where would you rather live, Switzerland or the US? Which country fights more wars?

Ha

 

[Rustic23]

So if the duly elected official don't do what you want then it is a "fascist dictatorship". Sounds a little like your opinion is a "fascist dictatorship". In this country we hold elections. It seems your side lost, and now you are trying to get your way through protest no matter the consequence, and camouflage it in a Vail of 'We are more patriotic' Give me a break! We will have another election in about 10 months. So I suggest your get out their and support your candidate of choice. However, don't be surprised if they don't pull out of the middle east, and if they don't I sure expect to hear the protest from you on this board.

 

[Gumby]

Now it is your turn to misunderstand. I never claimed that elected officials not doing what I want is tantamount to a fascist dictatorship. What I object to is the contention that if you support the war and I oppose it, once the troops are committed, I must shut my mouth and never raise the issue again, because that would giving aid and comfort to the enemy. That, my friend, is the hallmark of an authoritarian regime.

I respect your right to argue that we did precisely the right thing by invading Iraq. I disagree, but you are free to make that argument. I would ask only that you extend the same courtesy to me and not try to stifle my opposition in the guise of supporting the troops.

And you can count on me to scream long and loud if the Democrats gain the White House and do not immediately start withdrawing our troops. My opposition to the war does not turn on which party is in power.

 

[clifp]

All our other wars since then have been wars of choice. I take no pride in the fact that we have chosen to wage pointless wars in places and for causes that have little or no relationship to our national security.

Actually all American war have been wars of choice. WWII is the sole exception, and I can easily make the argument that we could have easily prevented Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

All the US would have had to do is turned blind eye to Japan's invasion China. Not screamed bloody murder about the Rape of Nanking (Nanjing). If we hadn't protested their occupation of French Indonesia (Vietnam), by cutting of all strategic materials, and organizing a world wide oil embargo against the country, they wouldn't have had any reason to attack us.

In fact, pretty much since 1812 if we had just ignored the rest of the world we probably wouldn't have had to fight a single war. The civil war certainly could have been avoided if the silly northern folks had simply accepted the fact Negros were better off as slaves. Similarly the mistreatment of the Filipinos by the Spanish, the attacks on Belgium, France and Russia by Kaiser's German, the slaughter of Ethiopians by Mussolini, and all of Hitler various actions, weren't directly threatening the US national security.

Clearly almost nothing since WWII other than sticking nuclear missiles in Cuba was a direct threat to us folks living in the US. Who cares who runs South Korea, Kosovo, Kuwait, Panama etc., life sure would be simpler if the US acted like Switzerland. Plus maybe we could take a page from Swiss, and turn our soldiers into mercenaries available to the highest bidders. Certainly, there is no need ask prying questions like where did you get all of those teeth with gold filling, or rings with fingers attached, just happily open up bank accounts no questions asked. No wonder the Swiss are so wealthy.

Now it is true that every country acted like Switzerland there would be no need for country like the US or prior to that Great Britain to get involved in the affairs of other countries. I imagine that if all of the people in this country behaved like most of the members on the forums we wouldn't need cops either. Course the real world is different than that.

I recently watch South Park Team America: World Police and the final speech about P*, D*, and A*hole was hilarious but largely true.

I have no problem with people continuing to voice dissent even while troops are oversees fighting. As former sailor Gumby has more than earned his right. However like Jeannette Rankin history isn't always kind to pacifist.