"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

1) Your data does not change the basic idea behind what Gould said. Those
people are still paid a LOT less than comparable workers here.

2) Their comparable purchasing power is not relevant to this discussion.
We're not talking about how bad we feel (or not) about their wages. The
point is that we're stuck with lousy service because American companies
are
unwilling to pay what it takes to provide complete and proper support.


"John Smith" wrote in message
news:zVTGc.37658$MB3.18218@attbi_s04...
Doug,

I think you missed the point of my posts, so often rumors and incorrect
data
is transmitted as fact on the internet. According to the Times of
India,
they are on the verge of increasing the minimum wage from their current
rate
of Rs 64.72/hr (or approx. $1.50/hr). According to those in the
Telephone
Service Industry promoting outsourcing of jobs, the average wage for
telephone service center operators is $2 to $3/hr which equals $4160 -
$6240
annual income, well above the average income in the US, when comparing
the
purchasing power of their income ( $2900 in India is equal to the
average
income in the US.)

So if you want your argument to carry weight it is best to use accurate
info, instead of repeating rumors and incorrect data.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"John Smith" wrote in message
news:fbTGc.6642$WX.211@attbi_s51...
Gould,

Thanks for the suggestion, but I was hoping you would have followed
up
on
some of the links yourself to see that they really do not pay call
center
employees $1 / hr.

Chuck has a job. You want a secretary? Hire one.







You will not pay $1000 for a 60 gig disk drive! If you would, then the
manufacturers could build them here. Fully bundled labor cost in Malaysia
is probably in the $3-5 range, was $1.50 in the early 1990's. So, since the
consumer wants the $60 drive retail, the companies are forced to build
overseas. You think that a PR guy for a union pension fund, should make
$100k+? Then you can hire him, but if you could get the same thing for
$20k, would it not be provident to do so for the benefit of the pensioners,
and stockholders?

You will not pay $1000 for a 60 gig disk drive! If you would, then the
manufacturers could build them here. Fully bundled labor cost in Malaysia
is probably in the $3-5 range, was $1.50 in the early 1990's. So, since the
consumer wants the $60 drive retail, the companies are forced to build
overseas. You think that a PR guy for a union pension fund, should make
$100k+? Then you can hire him, but if you could get the same thing for
$20k, would it not be provident to do so for the benefit of the pensioners,
and stockholders?

No, most folks wouldn't pay $1000 for a disk drive. That would amount to
several days' income for a typical American.

Ironically, when we build them overseas and sell them for $60, that price
represents several days' income for the people that built it.

The missing portion of this equation is executive compensation. UP Uranus
Widgets and Gidgets, (for example), traditonally grossed $500mm per year in
sales with a respectable 8% operating net of $40mm. The CEO earned $6mm per
year.

UP Uranus moved manufacturing from Oklahoma to Malaysia, and accounting and
customer service to New Delhi. The decrease in personnel cost improved the
company operating net from $40mm to $110mm, activating an "incentive" clause in
the CEO's contract that increased his pay from $6mm per year to $35mm.
The board of directors voted themselves fat bonuses, dividends went through the
roof, and the stock price advanced sharply. The CEO, the board, and the
stockholders were all delighted.

Somewhat less delighted were the ex-rank and file employees of UP Uranus. Many
had to rely on unemployment insurance, some were forced into an early and
underfunded retirement, and others settled for "underemployed" jobs at a
fraction of their former wages and lost homes, cars,
savings accounts, as a result.

Almost as undelighted were the taxpayers in Oklahoma. UP Uranus discovered that
by forming sub corporations in Malaysia
and India and registering these entities in certain Caribbean nations, there
would no longer be any US federal or local sate taxes paid on the proceeds.
Just when UP Uranus dumped thousands of involuntarily jobless people onto the
doorstep of society, UP Uranus engineered a way to avoid participating in the
social costs associated with the layoff.

That's what is defined as "smart business" by many people whose god is a
greenback
and holy writ is last quarter's financial statement. What the hell, let the
common people eat cake. If they get too desperate, they can sell one of their
Lexus......(surely every family has at least a couple of those, right?)

BUT.....we haven't finsihed casting all the villains in this little scenario.
Throw in another 200 million adults of consuming age and blind them all to any
portion of a purchase decision except price. Have them shop in a business that
is so powerful it collects almost 10-cents out of every retail dollar spent in
the US, and have that business inform its competing suppliers that it *expects*
them to offshore
as many jobs and reduce costs as much as possible so that the company's
200-million customers can buy a new toaster for $10, or a microwave oven for
$39.

Winners: The very rich and the very poor. (Most of the very poor being
overseas). Middle class consumers but only to a point. (Higher unemployment and
greater underemployment depresses wages for all,
meaing that it takes as long or longer to earn that $39 microwave as it did
when the
appliance cost a bit more).

Losers: The middle class overall. Skilled labor, white collar professionals,
and tax revenues. (Sales tax doesn't diminish much when the companies
reorganize offshore, so the portion of the tax burden paid by the consumer,
rather than the corporations, remains relatively high. Transfers the tax burden
to the little people).

Is this a "good" thing or a "bad" thing?
That's up to everybody to decide based on individual values and perspectives.
No doubt about it, however, it is a common scenario in contemporary times.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
You will not pay $1000 for a 60 gig disk drive! If you would, then the
manufacturers could build them here. Fully bundled labor cost in
Malaysia
is probably in the $3-5 range, was $1.50 in the early 1990's. So, since
the
consumer wants the $60 drive retail, the companies are forced to build
overseas. You think that a PR guy for a union pension fund, should make
$100k+? Then you can hire him, but if you could get the same thing for
$20k, would it not be provident to do so for the benefit of the
pensioners,
and stockholders?

No, most folks wouldn't pay $1000 for a disk drive. That would amount to
several days' income for a typical American.

Ironically, when we build them overseas and sell them for $60, that price
represents several days' income for the people that built it.

The missing portion of this equation is executive compensation. UP Uranus
Widgets and Gidgets, (for example), traditonally grossed $500mm per year
in
sales with a respectable 8% operating net of $40mm. The CEO earned $6mm
per
year.

UP Uranus moved manufacturing from Oklahoma to Malaysia, and accounting
and
customer service to New Delhi. The decrease in personnel cost improved the
company operating net from $40mm to $110mm, activating an "incentive"
clause in
the CEO's contract that increased his pay from $6mm per year to $35mm.
The board of directors voted themselves fat bonuses, dividends went
through the
roof, and the stock price advanced sharply. The CEO, the board, and the
stockholders were all delighted.

Somewhat less delighted were the ex-rank and file employees of UP Uranus.
Many
had to rely on unemployment insurance, some were forced into an early and
underfunded retirement, and others settled for "underemployed" jobs at a
fraction of their former wages and lost homes, cars,
savings accounts, as a result.

Almost as undelighted were the taxpayers in Oklahoma. UP Uranus discovered
that
by forming sub corporations in Malaysia
and India and registering these entities in certain Caribbean nations,
there
would no longer be any US federal or local sate taxes paid on the
proceeds.
Just when UP Uranus dumped thousands of involuntarily jobless people onto
the
doorstep of society, UP Uranus engineered a way to avoid participating in
the
social costs associated with the layoff.

That's what is defined as "smart business" by many people whose god is a
greenback
and holy writ is last quarter's financial statement. What the hell, let
the
common people eat cake. If they get too desperate, they can sell one of
their
Lexus......(surely every family has at least a couple of those, right?)

BUT.....we haven't finsihed casting all the villains in this little
scenario.
Throw in another 200 million adults of consuming age and blind them all to
any
portion of a purchase decision except price. Have them shop in a business
that
is so powerful it collects almost 10-cents out of every retail dollar
spent in
the US, and have that business inform its competing suppliers that it
*expects*
them to offshore
as many jobs and reduce costs as much as possible so that the company's
200-million customers can buy a new toaster for $10, or a microwave oven
for
$39.

Winners: The very rich and the very poor. (Most of the very poor being
overseas). Middle class consumers but only to a point. (Higher
unemployment and
greater underemployment depresses wages for all,
meaing that it takes as long or longer to earn that $39 microwave as it
did
when the
appliance cost a bit more).

Losers: The middle class overall. Skilled labor, white collar
professionals,
and tax revenues. (Sales tax doesn't diminish much when the companies
reorganize offshore, so the portion of the tax burden paid by the
consumer,
rather than the corporations, remains relatively high. Transfers the tax
burden
to the little people).

Is this a "good" thing or a "bad" thing?
That's up to everybody to decide based on individual values and
perspectives.
No doubt about it, however, it is a common scenario in contemporary times.



Part of the problem has been the astronomical inflation of wages in the USA
in the last 25 years. Middle class wages. 1980 a good engineering job paid
about $23k a year. A car cost $2-4K and the burger flipper was making $2 an
hour. Now the burger flipper is making $9 an hour and the employed engineer
is making $100k a year for the same position and the same car is $25-40k.
What is that inflation wise? About 10% a year. A lot brought on by the
overspending of the government giving away lots of money to the downtrodden.
War on Poverty. Did we win the war? Still people complaining about the
downtrodden. Look at the Carter Presidential years. 17%+ inflation. We
have priced ourselves out of the market in a lot of areas. The rust belt,
had huge unemployment because of a couple of reasons. Iron ore ran short,
and the foundries did not upgrade to produce steel with scrap and some ore
more efficently. And the labor unions forced huge wage increases via
strikes. Sure, it is nice to be a high school dropout, or even a graduate
and earn $80k a year. average public traded companies CEO's in 1962 made
about $130k. 10x the average workers salary. Now same CEO's are making
$1mm. maybe 15x the average workers salary. Sure, there are the Martha
Stewarts, et al. But a small percentage of the CEO's. And we probably had
a similar % ripping off the stockholders in 1964. We are in for hard times,
but maybe we come back into line with the rest of the world in terms of pay.

On 08 Jul 2004 15:58:37 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

You will not pay $1000 for a 60 gig disk drive! If you would, then the
manufacturers could build them here. Fully bundled labor cost in Malaysia
is probably in the $3-5 range, was $1.50 in the early 1990's. So, since the
consumer wants the $60 drive retail, the companies are forced to build
overseas. You think that a PR guy for a union pension fund, should make
$100k+? Then you can hire him, but if you could get the same thing for
$20k, would it not be provident to do so for the benefit of the pensioners,
and stockholders?

No, most folks wouldn't pay $1000 for a disk drive. That would amount to
several days' income for a typical American.

Ironically, when we build them overseas and sell them for $60, that price
represents several days' income for the people that built it.

It's all relative I guess.


The missing portion of this equation is executive compensation. UP Uranus
Widgets and Gidgets, (for example), traditonally grossed $500mm per year in
sales with a respectable 8% operating net of $40mm. The CEO earned $6mm per
year.

UP Uranus moved manufacturing from Oklahoma to Malaysia, and accounting and
customer service to New Delhi. The decrease in personnel cost improved the
company operating net from $40mm to $110mm, activating an "incentive" clause in
the CEO's contract that increased his pay from $6mm per year to $35mm.
The board of directors voted themselves fat bonuses, dividends went through the
roof, and the stock price advanced sharply. The CEO, the board, and the
stockholders were all delighted.

Somewhat less delighted were the ex-rank and file employees of UP Uranus. Many
had to rely on unemployment insurance, some were forced into an early and
underfunded retirement, and others settled for "underemployed" jobs at a
fraction of their former wages and lost homes, cars,
savings accounts, as a result.

Almost as undelighted were the taxpayers in Oklahoma. UP Uranus discovered that
by forming sub corporations in Malaysia
and India and registering these entities in certain Caribbean nations, there
would no longer be any US federal or local sate taxes paid on the proceeds.
Just when UP Uranus dumped thousands of involuntarily jobless people onto the
doorstep of society, UP Uranus engineered a way to avoid participating in the
social costs associated with the layoff.

That's what is defined as "smart business" by many people whose god is a
greenback
and holy writ is last quarter's financial statement. What the hell, let the
common people eat cake. If they get too desperate, they can sell one of their
Lexus......(surely every family has at least a couple of those, right?)

BUT.....we haven't finsihed casting all the villains in this little scenario.
Throw in another 200 million adults of consuming age and blind them all to any
portion of a purchase decision except price. Have them shop in a business that
is so powerful it collects almost 10-cents out of every retail dollar spent in
the US, and have that business inform its competing suppliers that it *expects*
them to offshore
as many jobs and reduce costs as much as possible so that the company's
200-million customers can buy a new toaster for $10, or a microwave oven for
$39.

Winners: The very rich and the very poor. (Most of the very poor being
overseas). Middle class consumers but only to a point. (Higher unemployment and
greater underemployment depresses wages for all,
meaing that it takes as long or longer to earn that $39 microwave as it did
when the
appliance cost a bit more).

Losers: The middle class overall. Skilled labor, white collar professionals,
and tax revenues. (Sales tax doesn't diminish much when the companies
reorganize offshore, so the portion of the tax burden paid by the consumer,
rather than the corporations, remains relatively high. Transfers the tax burden
to the little people).

Is this a "good" thing or a "bad" thing?
That's up to everybody to decide based on individual values and perspectives.
No doubt about it, however, it is a common scenario in contemporary times.

Chuck, you've outlined the case very well, and it is indeed a problem.
So what do we do about it?

Naturally, most of us who aren't on the board of directors of a large
corporation cannot understand the need for the high bonuses that are
paid to these guys. But I have to wonder just what percentage of the
total company profit that those bonuses account for if we eliminate or
greatly reduce them.

Now you have to consider and accept the fact that business is not
confined to this country, and we face competition from world wide
companies. Suppose an upstanding U.S. company decides to fly in the
face of "smart business", and keeps their production in this country,
obligingly pays union wages, and keeps the supports services here as
well. Even if the CEO forgoes his bonuses, do you think that the
product that this company manufactures could compete in the
marketplace against a competing company from say, Taiwan, who used
"smart business" techniques to lower production costs? What would
happen to the market share, stock valuation, and ultimately the
longevity of the U.S. company when its competitive edge is gone? How
long are those workers going to stay employed?

You'll probably remind me at this point to consider that the
government could impose tariffs against foreign made goods in order to
allow U.S. companies to remain competitive. This was how U.S.
businesses got off the ground in the 1700's. It was a smart idea then.
But it's not so good now. Here's why I feel this way:

First off, you will now raise the costs of all goods to the consumer,
which basically makes their take home pay worth less. This gives rise
to rampant inflation (Which is the reason we're in the boat we're in
to begin with), and a general falling off of demand, which will kill
businesses.

Consider also that the U.S. is not the only market for most companies.
In other countries which are not subject to our "Equalizing" tariffs,
our goods will be at a considerable competitive disadvantage, and our
market share will shrink to nothing.

Then you have to consider the backlash that a tariff would create from
other countries who would see this as an affront against them and they
would do similar things against us, further eroding our international
markets.

Chuck, I don't see an easy solution to this. The only solution that
seems viable is the long term equalization of the world's standard of
living. This will take time. In the meantime, the only thing we can do
is choose careers that are not likely to be outsourced. We will always
need services like plumbers, electricians, and other building trades.
Doctors, lawyers, and other professionals will also remain in high
demand. High tech jobs in areas which require a "hands-on" presence
are also not as likely to be farmed out.

Manufacturing is out. The sooner we adjust to it, the better.

Dave

Chuck, you've outlined the case very well, and it is indeed a problem.
So what do we do about it?

The very first step has to be a huge reduction in government spending.

Each subsequent administration spends money even faster that the previous.
Until recently, each side had an excuse that the "other side" controlled either
the Executive Branch or Congress. Now that one party controls both, spending is
out of control like never before. We're borrowing almost $2 billion a day just
to keep up with
it. (to put that in perspective, every six weeks we're borrowing as much money
as congress appropriated last year to continue the war in Iraq!)

If we are going to reduce wages in the US,
and it seems that we must in order to compete with the third world, that money
that remains in a worker's paycheck has to count for something. High interest
rates (to support the government deficit) and high taxes collected either at
the time the spending is occurring or "postponed" until another party is in
power to absorb the political heat take far too much of the disposable income
from the average worker.

To say that taxes are the only problem, and that tax cuts without spending cuts
will solve it, is silly. Every dime of the deficit is a deferred taxation, we
just haven't scheduled the collection yet.

Just like $3mm a month CEO salaries, there is a lot of waste in the government.
Cutting out the waste would reduce the cost of government while leaving basic
services in tact.

Second step is to tax exported capital.
You want to send $1 billion US to East Overshirt to build a factory that will
put
35,000 Americans out of work? No problem, but we do have a bit of a tax you
need to pay to cover the social costs associated with your private
profiteering.
It just might be so high that you'll think twice about moving the
factory..........

Third step is to progressively eliminate social security, and the associated
taxation. It's too late to tell people in their 60's to start saving for
retirement because there isn't going to be any social security.
But it might not be too late to tell those
55-60 that their benefits will be only 95% of what they expect. Those 50-55
will have to
save enought to cover 10%. Ages 40-50
will get only 80%, ages 30-40 only 60%
(they have more decades to compound interest on savings), ages 20-30 only 30%,
and kids just starting off......zero.

When Uncle Harry or Aunt Georgia spends
every dime they ever earn and can't pay the rent in their "golden years" they
better hope the relatives will take them in.

There might ge a middle ground on Social Security. Nobody should be without
minimal and safe shelter or susbsistence food, and nobody should have to die
simply because medical treatment for an illness in unaffordable.
However, if able bodied and mentally alert people want to take the last few
decades of life "off" and not have to work for a living, it should be up to
them as individuals to arrange for that rather than up to all of us as a
society to guarantee it.

On 09 Jul 2004 16:16:46 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Chuck, you've outlined the case very well, and it is indeed a problem.
So what do we do about it?

The very first step has to be a huge reduction in government spending.

Then can I count on your support for republican congress people, who
have historically been more inclined to cut government spending?


Each subsequent administration spends money even faster that the previous.
Until recently, each side had an excuse that the "other side" controlled either
the Executive Branch or Congress.

The last administration managed to find a budget surplus, mostly due
to the efforts of the republicans in congress, who took great efforts
to cut spending.


Now that one party controls both, spending is
out of control like never before. We're borrowing almost $2 billion a day just
to keep up with
it. (to put that in perspective, every six weeks we're borrowing as much money
as congress appropriated last year to continue the war in Iraq!)

We are in a special circumstance. We're at war. Most of that spending
is toward the war effort. Once the war is over, things will settle
down again.


If we are going to reduce wages in the US,
and it seems that we must in order to compete with the third world, that money
that remains in a worker's paycheck has to count for something. High interest
rates (to support the government deficit) and high taxes collected either at
the time the spending is occurring or "postponed" until another party is in
power to absorb the political heat take far too much of the disposable income
from the average worker.

Hear hear!!!

To say that taxes are the only problem, and that tax cuts without spending cuts
will solve it, is silly. Every dime of the deficit is a deferred taxation, we
just haven't scheduled the collection yet.

The deficit is an illusion. It can be eliminated by the stroke of a
pen if desired. It has no effect on the interest rates charged by most
lenders, which are still at an all-time low. Only when inflation rears
its ugly head does the fed raise baseline interest rates.

Just like $3mm a month CEO salaries, there is a lot of waste in the government.
Cutting out the waste would reduce the cost of government while leaving basic
services in tact.

I agree. We need to stop spending money on things of questionable
worth. Such as entitlement for the arts, new sporting arenas,
healthcare for illegal immigrants, etc.

Second step is to tax exported capital.
You want to send $1 billion US to East Overshirt to build a factory that will
put
35,000 Americans out of work? No problem, but we do have a bit of a tax you
need to pay to cover the social costs associated with your private
profiteering.
It just might be so high that you'll think twice about moving the
factory..........

How is that different from an import tariff, as far as net effect? In
either case, the competitive edge of the U.S. corporation is lost to
foreign corporations. If the tax is excessive enough, it just might
drive the corporations off shore as well. They could just as soon set
up shop in the Bahamas or Bermuda, and thereby thumb their nose at the
U.S tax code. The end result is that in addition to factory workers,
the white collar office workers will be on the unemployment line. The
"rich" execs, will be living la-vida-loca in some nice tropical place
with no taxes.


Third step is to progressively eliminate social security, and the associated
taxation. It's too late to tell people in their 60's to start saving for
retirement because there isn't going to be any social security.
But it might not be too late to tell those
55-60 that their benefits will be only 95% of what they expect. Those 50-55
will have to
save enought to cover 10%. Ages 40-50
will get only 80%, ages 30-40 only 60%
(they have more decades to compound interest on savings), ages 20-30 only 30%,
and kids just starting off......zero.

That is EXACTLY my plan. And since many Americans are loth to stash
away cash for the future, the money that used to be deducted from your
pay to cover SS, would be instead deposited into an IRA, Roth, or
401K plan of your choosing.


When Uncle Harry or Aunt Georgia spends
every dime they ever earn and can't pay the rent in their "golden years" they
better hope the relatives will take them in.

That's sort of why I favor a mandatory IRA plan in leu of SS.

There might ge a middle ground on Social Security. Nobody should be without
minimal and safe shelter or susbsistence food, and nobody should have to die
simply because medical treatment for an illness in unaffordable.

Yes, but if you do provide it, someone has to pay for it, and the
costs go up again. It should be the responsibility of the individual
to plan for those eventualities while they are young.


However, if able bodied and mentally alert people want to take the last few
decades of life "off" and not have to work for a living, it should be up to
them as individuals to arrange for that rather than up to all of us as a
society to guarantee it.

Are you sure you're really a liberal Chuck? Those sound awfully close
to conservative ideas. ;-)

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On 09 Jul 2004 16:16:46 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Chuck, you've outlined the case very well, and it is indeed a problem.
So what do we do about it?

The very first step has to be a huge reduction in government spending.

Then can I count on your support for republican congress people, who
have historically been more inclined to cut government spending?

The ones who wrote a blank check to a monkey for a war whose goal could've
been met for under five hundred dollars a year by simply getting your
president a prescription for Viagra? Those Republican congress people?

Then can I count on your support for republican congress people, who
have historically been more inclined to cut government spending?

There is no correlation between party affiliation and irresponsible spending.
With a gop in the WH and gops controlling Congress, we *should* be running a
tight ship right now.

Alas:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/


(here's where you come back with a retort about how it's really Clinton's
fault)


The last administration managed to find a budget surplus, mostly due
to the efforts of the republicans in congress, who took great efforts
to cut spending.

So, what happened? Without an opposing party Executive, the Republican Congress
has gone on a *wild* spending spree.

We are in a special circumstance. We're at war. Most of that spending
is toward the war effort. Once the war is over, things will settle
down again.

Nonsense. Anybody can look up the current federal budget and see that only a
small portion of our current super-expenditures are directly related to the
invasion of Iraq.

Has Bush vetoed a single spending bill, yet? (As of very recently he had not.)

Now here it gets a bit more confusing...............

I remarked:

High interest
rates (to support the government deficit) and high taxes collected either at
the time the spending is occurring or "postponed" until another party is in
power to absorb the political heat take far too much of the disposable
income
from the average worker.

and you replied:

Hear hear!!!

Was that because you failed to recognize the fiscal (phony tax cut) policy of
the Bush Administration expressed in such simple terms, or because you don't
support it?

..........

Are you sure you're really a liberal Chuck? Those sound awfully close
to conservative ideas. ;-)

Dave


It's a curve, not a straight line.

When you get far enough out to the left you do begin to catch a glimpse of some
of those folks on the extreme right, they're just coming around the same circle
from the other direction.

We extremists all have a common desire- we want the boot of government off our
neck. Many of the righties would then hope to create a Norman Rockwell
conformist religious utopia, while more of the lefties would rejoice in a new
era of personal intellectual freedom and self sufficiency.

How is that different from an import tariff, as far as net effect?

It's putting up a fight vs. meek capitulation.
"Oh well, it's inevitable. Might as well see our billioinaires become
zillionaires as a result, though"

On 09 Jul 2004 20:11:18 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Then can I count on your support for republican congress people, who
have historically been more inclined to cut government spending?

There is no correlation between party affiliation and irresponsible spending.
With a gop in the WH and gops controlling Congress, we *should* be running a
tight ship right now.

Alas:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/


(here's where you come back with a retort about how it's really Clinton's
fault)

The economic downturn did start while he was on watch. But since I
don't blame specific ebbs and flows of the economy on any one
politician, you get a pass on that one.




The last administration managed to find a budget surplus, mostly due
to the efforts of the republicans in congress, who took great efforts
to cut spending.

So, what happened? Without an opposing party Executive, the Republican Congress
has gone on a *wild* spending spree.

We are in a special circumstance. We're at war. Most of that spending
is toward the war effort. Once the war is over, things will settle
down again.

Nonsense. Anybody can look up the current federal budget and see that only a
small portion of our current super-expenditures are directly related to the
invasion of Iraq.

Then what is the rest being spent on? Certainly we're not spending it
on entitlement programs (Except that lame prescription drug program,
than I'm a bit ****ed at Bush for supporting).



Has Bush vetoed a single spending bill, yet? (As of very recently he had not.)

Now here it gets a bit more confusing...............

I remarked:

High interest
rates (to support the government deficit) and high taxes collected either at
the time the spending is occurring or "postponed" until another party is in
power to absorb the political heat take far too much of the disposable
income
from the average worker.

and you replied:

Hear hear!!!

Was that because you failed to recognize the fiscal (phony tax cut) policy of
the Bush Administration expressed in such simple terms, or because you don't
support it?

I agree that the government takes far more money than it deserves from
people's pockets. I was more in agreement with your lead-in statement
in this paragraph (Which, for some reason you failed to include here).


.........

Are you sure you're really a liberal Chuck? Those sound awfully close
to conservative ideas. ;-)

Dave


It's a curve, not a straight line.

When you get far enough out to the left you do begin to catch a glimpse of some
of those folks on the extreme right, they're just coming around the same circle
from the other direction.

We extremists all have a common desire- we want the boot of government off our
neck. Many of the righties would then hope to create a Norman Rockwell
conformist religious utopia, while more of the lefties would rejoice in a new
era of personal intellectual freedom and self sufficiency.

Until you can get people to stop succumbing to the dark sides of human
nature, the leftist utopian society will never happen without
governmental oversight, which will severely limit personal freedoms.

Capitalism is the ultimate expression of freedom and liberty. You are
what you make of yourself. Since extreme leftists tend to demonize the
rich and successful, in order to push forth their idea of equality in
wealth. But since this cannot happen naturally, I cannot see this
happening without a big fight.

I'm sorry that you elected not to comment on my counter to your
corporate tax issue driving corporations from our country. Maybe I
shouldn't be surprised, because this is the point where many guys on
the left usually abandon the discussion. It's not so easy to come up
with good solutions is it? Many "solutions" breed bigger problems of
their own.

I'm not saying that I've got the answers. But I do see a pretty big
picture of the problem, and it's probably too late to change the road
that we're on. Our best bet is to adapt to the changing conditions,
and gravitate toward careers which are best suited to this country,
and not likely to be farmed out to lower paid workers in foreign
countries.

Dave