Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Citizens Have Power To End Washington Crisis

November 3, 2013

To The Reader’s Forum: In a CNN poll, completed after the end of the recent shutdown, just over half of the American public believe that it’s bad for our country to have GOP control in the House of......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(69)

CREDENCE

Nov-08-13 11:56 AM

Unions have this in common with Govt. They steal peoples money and use it to their own selfish advantages. Forced to pay dues then $ used for things you disagree with. Just like the jokers in DC

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Emelye

Nov-07-13 2:47 PM

I didn't mention unions or the capitalists, loneriderrr1. The concept of money as political speech is an open invitation to corruption no matter where the money comes from.

That said, a union is a collective of individuals who can vote about where to press their combined political weight. An individual billionaires like Sheldon Adelson, George Soros or the Koch bothers, are thus very different than a group of people who unite for a common cause.

The rules can be written to allow more than adequate free speech without giving the process away to an oligarchy of plutocrats.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Nov-07-13 9:32 AM

Just over half the country doesn't want the Republicans to control both houses? Duhhhh....they voted Democrat. What else would they think!

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CREDENCE

Nov-06-13 2:26 PM

Henry, You are funny I'll give you that; But that's about all. I was going to give you a coupon for a free prostate surgery, but perhaps better suited a free frontal lobotomy. :o)

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

HenryH

Nov-05-13 5:42 PM

I would be pleased with that. We would need to remove the electoral college and move to a popular vote for all offices. For the House, I'd expect a limit of 5 terms. Having people serving in the House which have been through 15 or more election cycles is not good for the union.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

HenryH

Nov-05-13 4:54 PM

Forgive me Doggie, for I have strayed too far. My comment of 12:55 was meant to be humorous but, in hindsight, can be interpreted otherwise.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

HenryH

Nov-05-13 4:35 PM

Lone, your rebuttal was filled with assumptions. I'll ignore your statement of 3:30pm as it is your personal observation. Personally, I do not care where an independent sits but if they support the status quo, they are part of the problem.

I do not care if the money is from unions, corporations or PACs, it all needs to come out of the system. It is this money which has ballooned our military industrial complex and prevented downsizing of significant measures.

Turning to the power of unions, I thought that unions were loosing power, loosing members and are only still active in white collar, old guard professions. I too believe that unions should be removed from this space but, as Adam Smith rightly stated, there must be a clear moral approach to employment as it is a cyclical system.

So, we agree. Money needs to be removed from elections. I'd go so far as to say elections must be time bound and, at a national level, there must be term limits.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

HenryH

Nov-05-13 12:55 PM

Oh Doggie, DavidVA threw you a softball like that and your retort was "I'm too old"?!?!? At least be a little bit of fun. Oh well, missed opportunity to be creative and witty.

So were you a hippy, Doggie? I think you said you served in the 'Vietnam era'. You weren't one of those guys who spent his whole two years in Germany enjoying the luxuries of protecting the soviet front? Can you prove you are a patriot, Doggie? Your rhetoric seems a bit verbose for a vet who saw action. I half wonder if 50s in his 6:30am comment was implicating you?

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

HenryH

Nov-05-13 11:52 AM

DavidVA, well stated. Obviously we agree on the spending. I appreciate you articulating your views clearly. I've never thought of the navy as you wrote previously. It is a protection service, isn't it. We are the only country operating multiple aircraft carriers. They are but reminders of hegemony antagonizing bygone idealogical foes.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

HenryH

Nov-05-13 11:48 AM

Bluesy, forgive me but I don't follow. We reduce spending and cut taxes. We don't do it like Reagan did it in cut taxes but leave spending high. Nor do we do it as Obama has done it with a Keynesian approach. There is no waste because the revenue was never collected. The budget for defense drops from 4% of GDP to 1.5% of GDP. Yes, we will see the economy take a hit with this in the near term. Yes, there will be job losses. However, we can then focus on getting out of the debt trap.

Do you follow. Uncle Sam never puts the money in his pocket.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidVA

Nov-05-13 11:47 AM

Military spending, better known as weaponized Keynesian economics, is the least beneficial use of stimulus money there is. Almost everything that's procured is intended to never be used, or is destroyed in war. You might make an arugument for a Navy, but it is primarily a free protection service for the corporate class. Let them defend their own freighters and oil tankers.

So of what public use is our military? It far exceeds the defense needs of the nation. It's an offensive and meddeling force that's been inserted into one mess after another for decades.

Note: the Germans don't have much of a miltary anymore. Even the Russians are toning it down. Only the Chinese are flexing their muscles, and mostly using their wallet to do it, not the Red Army.

Time to hand the hegemon role to another country. Thes last two wars cost $3 Trillion, and counting. Isn't that enough?

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidVA

Nov-05-13 11:35 AM

Seadog wrote: "I'd rather pat for a strong military, than for all of Obama's food stamps and welfare. Maybe all the able bodied men on welfare and the fence jumpers they catch, should be put in Afghanistan? How's that Henry - killing two birds with one stone."

Perhaps you should go yourself, since it's your idea.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bluesman

Nov-05-13 11:20 AM

To answer your question. Yes, the government wastes money on the military like they waste money on everything else. You can always cut waste. 75% takes away more than just waste. When pols start talking about big cuts to the military it's because they have plans for that money. I just want to know what those plans are. To waste it on something else would be foolish.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

HenryH

Nov-05-13 11:00 AM

Credence, you remind me of that kid on the playground who was always the hanger-on. When upset, he'd yell: "I'm rubber you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks on you." Was that you Credence?

See buddy, through all of this I've remained on topic. I've offered clear and measurable changes. I've offered to help your buddy 50s understand the political spectrum by enrolling in one of our excellent classes at JCC.

And with you, you interrupt interesting discussion with the aforementioned approach. Never do you offer anything other than rhetoric from which you get off of the poorly thought out TEA Party platform. So Credence, are you going to consign your social security? If you are an ER doctor at WCA, are you changing your costs plus a small margin to medicare or are you taking the whole lot? But, I suspect you've never seen med school as you have a demonstrable inability for articulation. *Prepares for Credence's snarky retort - as always*

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

HenryH

Nov-05-13 10:48 AM

Doggie, your understanding of international politics astounds me. Remember, we armed Bin laden in '81 when he fought off the Soviets. Was that a bad decision? We armed the Kurds in Iraq. Is that a bad decision? We have armed various warlords and marxist groups around the world over the past 80 years.

What does this get us? 1. A testing ground for weapons. 2. Stability to create markets for military and secondary goods. 3. Support of the military industrial companies which need political instability to meet their sales of weapons and keep stockholders happy. Do you have any of these defense companies in your 401K, Doggie? I'm betting so.

Go ahead and keep on your high horse. Direct military aid is very small. Israel has the largest direct aid and it is less than $2 billion. Try again, Doggie. Educate yourself about how these businesses make money. I can send you the Goldman Sach's market report if it helps.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CREDENCE

Nov-05-13 10:44 AM

back to the dishpan with polosi

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

HenryH

Nov-05-13 10:41 AM

Bluey, I did answer the question. You do not over spend for spending sake to keep an industry going which adds very little to organic growth. I said choose a number and make it large. My number is 75% as that leaves our spending sill number one in the world. Look at the numbers. Our spending is greater than the next 10 countries combined.

Now it is my turn, Bluey. Tell me how do you stay ahead of the world by and preserve American freedom? Is it by having a big stick (aka drones) and going around the world killing people who you deem a terrorist without a trial? It is one thing if a nation declares war and mobilizes itself. It is another if a sub-population uses guerilla tactics to combat ideologies with which it does not agree. Remember, the first Americans won not with the biggest military but with tactics which defeated the British morale. Money does not determine effectiveness. Money is not the measure by which you should feel secure in believing you have the best protection.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bluesman

Nov-05-13 10:29 AM

And hanky, as long as you are not answering questions, don't answer this one. How many dems in congress agree with you that military should be cut 75%? Just say you mis-spoke hank, that works for Obama.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bluesman

Nov-05-13 10:24 AM

Get in line seadog. Hanky Panky still hasn't answered my question. One more time HH. If you knew we were going to be at war with Russia or China 5 or 10 years from now, would you cut military by 75% today? There is a plan in place for attacking Canada. You must plan for war with anybody who sits on your border. You can't just cut the military 75% because of limited threats today. Come on Hank, smart people answer simple questions. Those who are pretending to be smart can't answer questions.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

HenryH

Nov-05-13 8:38 AM

50s, you are jumping to conclusions. I no way does my inquiry state a position on unions. You are again resulting to fallacy of injecting interpretation into my question where none applies. Again, I'd support helping you with the reading comprehension skills required in online discussion. We can add that to the introduction to political science classes if you'd like.

Clearly you need those political science classes as you again misunderstand my position within the political spectrum. You continue to think I am left of you when I am much farther right. Your neck is cranked so far to your left shoulder that you are unable to turn it the 180 degrees to look at me. Again, let me know when you've enrolled and I'll sort it out with the JCC Bursar. Of course, I'm assuming you live in Jamestown but you might be like Feddie and have left our community to a warmer clime.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Nov-05-13 6:30 AM

Evidently loner HH doesn't see the tea party the same way he sees unions. Duhhhh. He's on of those guys who think his intellectual crowd should assign working class folks jobs according to what their think tank considers ability. Eventually, "the people" they rave about freeing see them as the target of frustration because there aren't any more corporations to hate. Then they end up being targets for the Che dude they used to wear on their t shirts. Ironic justice.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

carlaw

Nov-05-13 5:24 AM

Emelye does make some good points that are hard to refute.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

carlaw

Nov-05-13 5:21 AM

Give it up folks. He's too much in love with himself to listen to reason. :)

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

HenryH

Nov-05-13 1:58 AM

Lone, why do you hate unions so much? There are only 14 million union members in the country. Membership continues to fall. They have marginal money compared to corporate interests.

I'm amused that you hold such distain for them. Care to share why that is the case?

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

HenryH

Nov-05-13 1:50 AM

Doggie, you are so lost in your rhetoric that you cannot even see straight. None of what you wrote is germane. You are missing the fact that they are all the same. Both are culpable.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 69 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web