BREAKING - Bush defies congressional subpoenas - Claims EXECUTIVEPRIVELEGE, of course

[Guest Liberalhere]

David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in

news:bJ6dnUEPfe1MnRrbnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com:

> liberalhere@yahoo.com wrote:

>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in

>> news:eNSdnX1ElL4ldhnbnZ2dnUVZ_vHinZ2d@comcast.com:

>>

>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:

>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in news:1J-

>>>> dnf6aOcVA_BnbnZ2dnUVZ_qzinZ2d@comcast.com:

>>>>

>>>>> Deliri wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>> IF GONZALES REFUSES TO SHOW UP FOR TESTIMONY UNDER THE

>>>>>> SUBPOENA, WHY COULDN'T THE COMMITTEE DISPATCH THE

>>>>>> SERGEANT AT ARMS WITH A COUPLE OF ASSISTANTS TO

>>>>>> FROG-MARCH HIM OVER TO THE COMMITTEE VENUE?

>>>>> Congress has no such authority.

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Facts one, Hartung zero.

>>>>

>>>> "Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of

>>>> the United States Congress or one of its committees.

>>>> Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or

>>>> to testify, the Committee is entitled to report a resolution

>>>> of contempt to its parent chamber. Following a contempt

>>>> citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the

>>>> Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the

>>>> floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the

>>>> presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the

>>>> House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment

>>>> reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from

>>>> the contempt citation.)"

>>>>

>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

>>> I stand corrected.

>>>

>>

>> If Gonzales is found to be in Contempt of Congress, should his

>> license to practice law be revoked? IIRC, there is a ethical and

>> moral to being granted a license; it's not simply passing the bar

>> exam.

>

> Given the partisan nature of the current Congress, probably not.

 

 

Ha! "Partisan"? Try comparing it to the previous Congresses over the last

twelve years.

[Guest Liberalhere]

bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote in news:46890196.543405

@news.east.earthlink.net:

> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 06:15:54 -0000, "liberalhere@yahoo.com"

> <liberalhere@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>Blackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote in

>>news:a9kg83hoc9gvfa7cjl0q74incuhpk515dj@4ax.com:

>>

>>> "liberalhere@yahoo.com" <liberalhere@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>>bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote in

>>>>news:46869313.114403@news.east.earthlink.net:

>>>>

>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:27:20 GMT, "Docky Wocky"

>>>>> <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>>blackwater sez:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>"Congress DOES have one very formidible power - the power

>>>>>>over

>>>>>> the BUDGET..."

>>>>>>_____________________________________

>>>>>>Congress is too damn corrupt to do anything other than what

>>>>>>they do best..

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Agreed.

>>>>

>>>>well, clearly the rethug side. One demcrat versus....jees,

>>>>I've clean run out'o fingers.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>I hear they are getting an automatic raise. Up to around

>>>>>>$170,000 for doing nothing.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Meanwhile, many local governments are freezing wages,

>>>>> rolling-back wages, firing people, not filling

>>>>> vacancies, slashing health plans and generally freaking

>>>>> out because the property boom "bubble" burst. The locals

>>>>> are screaming bloody murder about assessments made

>>>>> during the artificial price spike and demand serious tax

>>>>> cuts.

>>>>>

>>>>> Meanwhile, American industry sinks further and further

>>>>> into the toilet as jobs are outsourced to the far east

>>>>> and/or Mexico. It would take an act of congress to slow,

>>>>> halt or reverse this trend - but will congress DO

>>>>> anything ? No. Hell no.

>>>>>

>>>>> So, you won't be able to get a paramedic or cop when you

>>>>> need one at home, you and your kids won't find good

>>>>> jobs. Meanwhile, congress enjoys its raise - but then we

>>>>> know full well that their salaries aren't but a tiny

>>>>> fraction of the money they "earn".

>>>>

>>>>The answer here is: tax shield.

>>>>

>>>>Bet you can't see the point.

>>>>

>>>>A business simulation would demonstrate my point.

>>>

>>>

>>> Tax shields aren't a general solution. The money to

>>> run the govt and stuff its friends with pork has to

>>> come from somewhere. If not business, then YOU.

>>>

>>> Tax shields CAN be useful if you use them very

>>> selectively to build-up specific sectors of

>>> business you suspect will return large amounts

>>> of revenue later on. A variant would be something

>>> like the way the Japanese government invests

>>> money in certain technology companies, hoping

>>> it will allow them to develop the next iPhone

>>> and dominate the world market. Sometimes it pays

>>> off, sometimes it doesn't.

>>

>>Son of a gun...you are bright enough!!! Pity your emotional

>>maturity is so limited that you think animal abuse is good if it

>>"annoys" a liberal. Child abuse "annoys" me too...go rape a kid

>>in your neighborhood in order to piss me off.

>

> Interesting you'd suggest "rape" as the preferred

> form of 'child abuse' ...

>

> Got anything you want to tell us ... hmmm ? :-)

 

Yeah....yer a pedophile.

 

Curious that you'd label my statement as indicating a preference, got

anything you need to finally admit?

>

>>The reason we're in the economic situation we're in is precisely

>>due to the tax shield effect....more specifically, tax rates are

>>too low and economically useful deductions so few that companies

>>find it profitable to outsource and screw their remaining

>>employees. Higher expected value and all that.ructure

>

> "Tax rates are too low" ... and then you complain

> about too few deductions ? Low taxes mean you don't

> NEED lots of deductions.

 

Excuse me! Apparently my sentence structure was too advanced. But my point

remains valid: tax rates too low, [countervailing] deductions too few.

 

The issue isn't tax revenues, it's about making business decisions that

are counterproductive, for the nation, way more expensive for the company.

Deductions mean that despite high tax rates businesses will have plenty of

money for reinvestment.

 

 

>

> It often IS more profitible to outsource - low wages,

> no benifits, no unions, no EPA or OSHA, no insurance,

> easier to hide/disguise profits and losses. This

> situation is going to presist for a LONG time yet.

> The problem is that while we might address one or

> two of the things that make outsourcing worthwhile

> I doubt we can muster the will to adress ALL of them.

> That would mean an almost unregulated, untaxed laissez-

> faire business environment with a near-slave labor force.

> Congress probably wouldn't mind the 'slavery' but

> unREGULATED, unTAXED ??? No, no, NO !

>

> So, this leaves us with three options

>

> 1) Watch American industry get flushed down the toilet

> into 3rd-world cesspools (Marxist types like this)

>

> 2) Turn America into the image of those 3rd-world

> cesspools

>

> 3) Make it illegal or unprofitible to 'outsource'.

>

> I'd prefer option #3. It will "strain" businesses, but

> probably not destroy them.

 

Well, that's just plain stupid. "Outsourcing" is SOMETIMES a good

decision for the company and the country. Just depends on the situation.

 

>

>>Reagan started this mess with his cut taxes and deduction

>>argument. I doubt rethug voters can ever be smart enough to begin

>>rejecting the so-called low taxes means more investment nonsense.

>

> As soon as ye olde 'liberals' reject the insane notion

> that high taxes are good for everyone.

>

>>You do make the mistake of thinking tax cuts are only needed at

>>the start of a new industry. Nope. Globalization/outsourcing

>>means tax policy must always make outsourcing more expensive.

>

> My recommendation, and I've seen it echoed elsewhere, is

> to tax corporations the difference between what it costs

> to use outsourced labor and what they'd have to pay a US

> worker to do the same job. That way they can benifit from

> outside EXPERTISE, but not profit financially by moving

> out jobs or whole factories.

 

I've advocated exactly that as well....welcome aboard. I say business

should compete on management (product design, factory layout, executive

headcount and pay, etc.), not worker pay and benefits.

 

>

> Any application of tax shields or govt investment must be

> an ongoing thing. While "start up" time IS critical, and

> where a lot of businesses fail, there may be times during

> normal operation where a helping hand is needed (the Chrysler

> bail-out was one example) or desireable. Of course when

> you help one business or sector, the others complain. Few

> are ashamed of taking "welfare" these days ...

 

I'll respond directly: yes and no! Chrysler's problem was management

mistakes. But had the company gone under, only management had "golden

parachutes." Those should be outlawed as they shield management from the

consequences of their bad decisions.

 

>

>

>>>>>>Pretty sweet. You more excitable types need to toss some

>>>>>>bombs their way to wake them up

>>>>>

>>>>> At this point, the "Throw the bastards out" movement

>>>>> might indeed be revived, with a vengence. Neither GOP

>>>>> or DNC is the answer to our problems. Clean house.

>>>>

>>>>Your judgement on the better replacements is, like every

>>>>rethug, obviously piss poor.

>>>

>>> The "replacements" ARE the main problem. They'd be a bunch

>>> of know-nothings at the beginning ... and where do they

>>> COME from anyway ? Get GOP/DNC certified candidates and

>>> you'll just be getting more of the same.

>>>

>>>>> Of course that's no guarentee that the new guys won't

>>>>> be just as corrupt as the old guys within a few years.

>>>>>

>>>>> There's something about politics that takes the best

>>>>> of intentions and twists them into greedy self-interest

>>>>> practically overnight. Seems to have always been that

>>>>> way. Maybe it's the nature of politics ... meaning

>>>>> it's something about OUR nature, human nature ?

>>>>

>>>>Well gee, did a light dawn?

>>>

>>> Gee, I've know this stuff for 40 years ... how long

>>> did it take you to catch on ? Oh wait, maybe you

>>> haven't. I'll bet you still think Democrats are

>>> somehow "better" ... :-)

>>

>>Of course I do.

>

> RUBE ALERT !!! RUBE ALERT !!!

>

> Just keep makin' those donations and kissin' DNC butt.

 

 

FASCIST ALERT !!! FASCIST ALERT !!! (Golly, your B/S technique is fun)

 

Better than your anal tonguing after rethug bowel movements. We could rely

on empirical facts such as GDP growth and deficits by administration...but

if you fear facts and prefer juvenile name-calling...That is, of course,

where you excel.

 

>

>>More greedy old perverts have gone to prison or

>>resigned in disgrace in every rethug administration than

>>democratic since Eisenhower.

>

> With the govt so GOP-heavy, it is any suprise that

> more Republicans get caught ? Stuff the place with

> Dems and you'll see more Dems arrested - or maybe

> you won't since the Media sees no evil when they

> look at Dems.

 

 

Of course it has to come as a surprise...rethugs being so insistent that

they are the only party with morals and ethics.

 

And as for the "Media"....right...a couple of democrats traded their

postage stamps for money (admittedly a crime) and the media made it sound

like the end of the Union. Clinton gets a blowjob and he endangered

American morality....all the rethug illegitimate kids running around don't

count.

>

>>>>The empowering element is the lack of public financing of

>>>>campaigns. Ya see, when yer buying a politician, you have'ta

>>>>pay more for an honest one.

>>>

>>> Campaigns are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg ...

>>> and even then "special interest" money can be slipped into

>>> the pouch marked "public funding" or simply left in a

>>> brown paper bag under a bridge at midnight. Face it, the

>>> wealthy interests will ALWAYS be able to buy or bully

>>> politicians. One way or another, they'll reel them in and

>>> make them serve.

>>

>>Hogwash, audits of officeholders' finances for every year in

>>office and five years after leaving would go far to prevent

>>bribery...

>

> Ha, ha, ha, ha ... !

 

Brilliant response.

 

 

>

>>as would ten year prison sentences for briber and

>>bribee. Plus, if a bribee decides to wait out the five year post-

>>office audits...put no statute of limitation on the crime.

>>Accepting a bribe in public office should be only a lesser crime

>>than treason.

>

> NOTHING stops bribery - or bribery-equivalents. The potential

> returns from bribery are SO great, for buyer and bought alike,

> that they'll do it no matter WHAT the risks. Besides, since

> the people taking the money ARE the law, only politicians

> that annoy the big power brokers will be 'found out'.

 

Bullshit. White collar criminals don't commit murder (anymore) because the

cost/benefit ratio is so bad.

 

 

>

>>(Afterthought: an audit of the two years prior to running for

>>office may be necessary too. May sound harsh, but look where we

>>are and where we're going.)

>

> Lots of ways to hide pay-offs.

>

> Oh yea, who's going to WRITE these draconian regulations

> you speak of ? Democrats ? HA ! Republicans ? HA ! Like

> the big "campaign finance reform" law, it only got passed

> after the important politicians had found ways to get

> around it.

>

>>> As Churchill observed, 'democracy' is the worst system of

>>> government imaginible - except for all the others. The

>>> 'democratic' system can be corrupted in SO many ways, bent

>>> to SO many purposes, that it's simply impossible to cope

>>> with. Perhaps it's best to quit whining about the

>>> corruption you can't fix and instead learn how to use the

>>> existing system ?

>>

>>"Perhaps"? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Nothing like long, long,

>>long prison sentences to keep a wobbly politican on the straight

>>and narrow.

>

> Tell me about it, once you're made king and can write

> any laws you please.

>

>>And white collar business crime needs sentences at

>>least equal to armed robbery. Enron proves white collar crime is

>>neither amusing nor minor.

>

> Won't happen.

 

 

Not with clowns like you saying they won't work so why try them.

 

>

>>I've recommended that lobbyists only contact an officeholder in

>>an official office and all such meeting be recorded and "YTubed"

>>on a government website. Let the public see what lobbyists and

>>officeholders discuss.

>>

>>But there is another issue you've ignored or missed. The problem

>>we have today isn't the mere existence of corruption...it's how

>>endemic it has been in the republican party and White House.

>

> Don't forget those DNC whitehouses ...

 

When has there been an equivalent democratic admistration?

 

 

>

>>There is venality in a number of democrats...but only Jefferson

>>seems to have risen to the GOP level. And, I think, only in some

>>petty business deals having to do with African telecommunications

>>businesses. Not national defense issues like Cunningham.

>

> The military-industrial complex has been a big player

> since Trumans day. It has a hold on administrations

> both GOP and DNC. Favoring business "friends" is

> nothing new, and practiced widely by both parties.

>

> Take off the DNC-colored sunglasses and see reality

> for once. Yes, it hurts ....

 

Yeah, why fix a problem cuz there are so many more.

 

Idiot!

>

>>>>> This MAY be as good as it gets. Mull THAT bitter

>>>>> possibility for awhile ...

>

>

[Guest David Hartung]

Liberalhere wrote:

> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in

> news:bJ6dnUEPfe1MnRrbnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com:

>

>> liberalhere@yahoo.com wrote:

>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in

>>> news:eNSdnX1ElL4ldhnbnZ2dnUVZ_vHinZ2d@comcast.com:

>>>

>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:

>>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in news:1J-

>>>>> dnf6aOcVA_BnbnZ2dnUVZ_qzinZ2d@comcast.com:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Deliri wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> IF GONZALES REFUSES TO SHOW UP FOR TESTIMONY UNDER THE

>>>>>>> SUBPOENA, WHY COULDN'T THE COMMITTEE DISPATCH THE

>>>>>>> SERGEANT AT ARMS WITH A COUPLE OF ASSISTANTS TO

>>>>>>> FROG-MARCH HIM OVER TO THE COMMITTEE VENUE?

>>>>>> Congress has no such authority.

>>>>>>

>>>>> Facts one, Hartung zero.

>>>>>

>>>>> "Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of

>>>>> the United States Congress or one of its committees.

>>>>> Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or

>>>>> to testify, the Committee is entitled to report a resolution

>>>>> of contempt to its parent chamber. Following a contempt

>>>>> citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the

>>>>> Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the

>>>>> floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the

>>>>> presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the

>>>>> House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment

>>>>> reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from

>>>>> the contempt citation.)"

>>>>>

>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

>>>> I stand corrected.

>>>>

>>> If Gonzales is found to be in Contempt of Congress, should his

>>> license to practice law be revoked? IIRC, there is a ethical and

>>> moral to being granted a license; it's not simply passing the bar

>>> exam.

>> Given the partisan nature of the current Congress, probably not.

>

>

> Ha! "Partisan"? Try comparing it to the previous Congresses over the last

> twelve years.

 

Your point?

[Guest Blackwater]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:51:41 -0000, Liberalhere

<liberalhere@lyahoo.com> wrote:

>bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote in news:46890196.543405

>@news.east.earthlink.net:

>

>> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 06:15:54 -0000, "liberalhere@yahoo.com"

>> <liberalhere@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>

>>>Blackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote in

>>>news:a9kg83hoc9gvfa7cjl0q74incuhpk515dj@4ax.com:

>>>

>>>> "liberalhere@yahoo.com" <liberalhere@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote in

>>>>>news:46869313.114403@news.east.earthlink.net:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:27:20 GMT, "Docky Wocky"

>>>>>> <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>blackwater sez:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>"Congress DOES have one very formidible power - the power

>>>>>>>over

>>>>>>> the BUDGET..."

>>>>>>>_____________________________________

>>>>>>>Congress is too damn corrupt to do anything other than what

>>>>>>>they do best..

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Agreed.

>>>>>

>>>>>well, clearly the rethug side. One demcrat versus....jees,

>>>>>I've clean run out'o fingers.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>I hear they are getting an automatic raise. Up to around

>>>>>>>$170,000 for doing nothing.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Meanwhile, many local governments are freezing wages,

>>>>>> rolling-back wages, firing people, not filling

>>>>>> vacancies, slashing health plans and generally freaking

>>>>>> out because the property boom "bubble" burst. The locals

>>>>>> are screaming bloody murder about assessments made

>>>>>> during the artificial price spike and demand serious tax

>>>>>> cuts.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Meanwhile, American industry sinks further and further

>>>>>> into the toilet as jobs are outsourced to the far east

>>>>>> and/or Mexico. It would take an act of congress to slow,

>>>>>> halt or reverse this trend - but will congress DO

>>>>>> anything ? No. Hell no.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> So, you won't be able to get a paramedic or cop when you

>>>>>> need one at home, you and your kids won't find good

>>>>>> jobs. Meanwhile, congress enjoys its raise - but then we

>>>>>> know full well that their salaries aren't but a tiny

>>>>>> fraction of the money they "earn".

>>>>>

>>>>>The answer here is: tax shield.

>>>>>

>>>>>Bet you can't see the point.

>>>>>

>>>>>A business simulation would demonstrate my point.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Tax shields aren't a general solution. The money to

>>>> run the govt and stuff its friends with pork has to

>>>> come from somewhere. If not business, then YOU.

>>>>

>>>> Tax shields CAN be useful if you use them very

>>>> selectively to build-up specific sectors of

>>>> business you suspect will return large amounts

>>>> of revenue later on. A variant would be something

>>>> like the way the Japanese government invests

>>>> money in certain technology companies, hoping

>>>> it will allow them to develop the next iPhone

>>>> and dominate the world market. Sometimes it pays

>>>> off, sometimes it doesn't.

>>>

>>>Son of a gun...you are bright enough!!! Pity your emotional

>>>maturity is so limited that you think animal abuse is good if it

>>>"annoys" a liberal. Child abuse "annoys" me too...go rape a kid

>>>in your neighborhood in order to piss me off.

>>

>> Interesting you'd suggest "rape" as the preferred

>> form of 'child abuse' ...

>>

>> Got anything you want to tell us ... hmmm ? :-)

>

>Yeah....yer a pedophile.

 

Slander.

>Curious that you'd label my statement as indicating a preference, got

>anything you need to finally admit?

 

Your statement "Go rape a kid in your neighborhood".

 

Certainly sounds like a recommendation. Could have

been "Go kick a kid", "Go beat a kid", "Go steal

candy from a kid", "Go taunt a kid" ... but NO,

you said to "Go RAPE a kid".

 

A Freudian slip of sorts, perhaps ? Naughty

naughty ! :-)

>>>The reason we're in the economic situation we're in is precisely

>>>due to the tax shield effect....more specifically, tax rates are

>>>too low and economically useful deductions so few that companies

>>>find it profitable to outsource and screw their remaining

>>>employees. Higher expected value and all that.ructure

>>

>> "Tax rates are too low" ... and then you complain

>> about too few deductions ? Low taxes mean you don't

>> NEED lots of deductions.

>

>Excuse me! Apparently my sentence structure was too advanced. But my point

>remains valid: tax rates too low, [countervailing] deductions too few.

>

>The issue isn't tax revenues, it's about making business decisions that

>are counterproductive, for the nation, way more expensive for the company.

>Deductions mean that despite high tax rates businesses will have plenty of

>money for reinvestment.

 

"Counterproductive" for WHOM ?

 

Business decisions are made to help the business (owners).

If they can make 30% more profit by moving operations to

Indonesia then many businesses will do just that. It's

all in the numbers for them. "Loyal American" business

owners who WON'T move - well good for them, but Joe

Consumer will buy the competitors slighly cheaper

product and Mr. Loyal will soon be in the poorhouse.

Visit a Wal-Mart sometime, see how many "Made In

America" products get sold ... or are even on the

shelves.

 

Cash logic drives jobs overseas, cash logic makes the

consumers buy the slightly cheaper overseas products

in order to stretch their meager dollar. In a sense,

neither entity is "wrong" - they're being smart. Of

course it's a short-sighted kind of smartness but

just tell that to Mary Joe Singlemom trying to feed

and clothe three kids on a minimum+1 paycheck.

 

The only practical option is to change the logic, make

it slightly MORE expensive to buy foreign. Mary Joe

will be PISSED. Sam Waltons ghost will be PISSED.

However, Mary Joes KIDS will benifit - they'll have

decent jobs when they grow up. The American economy

will benifit - there will still BE one in 25 years.

Even Sams grandkids will benifit, even if dad fails

to see it at the moment.

 

"Protectionism" ? Yep. Tear up NAFTA/CAFTA/SAFTA. Tell

the euros they can keep their cheaper steel. Judging

by how easy it was to run up the national debt, the

USA just isn't making enough MONEY anymore. Cash logic

says we've got to FIX that - and quickly. It's quite

literally a national-security issue, more important

than exploding moslems or crappy Iranian nukes. Will

other nations retaliate ? Sure. However, a revitalized

America should be able to make products the just can't

resist, ones they'll buy even IF there's an import tax.

If they want our iPhones, if we can MAKE iPhones and

similar innovative high-quality products, we will be

fine in the long run.

 

>> It often IS more profitible to outsource - low wages,

>> no benifits, no unions, no EPA or OSHA, no insurance,

>> easier to hide/disguise profits and losses. This

>> situation is going to presist for a LONG time yet.

>> The problem is that while we might address one or

>> two of the things that make outsourcing worthwhile

>> I doubt we can muster the will to adress ALL of them.

>> That would mean an almost unregulated, untaxed laissez-

>> faire business environment with a near-slave labor force.

>> Congress probably wouldn't mind the 'slavery' but

>> unREGULATED, unTAXED ??? No, no, NO !

>>

>> So, this leaves us with three options

>>

>> 1) Watch American industry get flushed down the toilet

>> into 3rd-world cesspools (Marxist types like this)

>>

>> 2) Turn America into the image of those 3rd-world

>> cesspools

>>

>> 3) Make it illegal or unprofitible to 'outsource'.

>>

>> I'd prefer option #3. It will "strain" businesses, but

>> probably not destroy them.

>

>Well, that's just plain stupid. "Outsourcing" is SOMETIMES a good

>decision for the company and the country. Just depends on the situation.

 

 

It's got to NEVER be a "good decision".

 

>>>Reagan started this mess with his cut taxes and deduction

>>>argument. I doubt rethug voters can ever be smart enough to begin

>>>rejecting the so-called low taxes means more investment nonsense.

>>

>> As soon as ye olde 'liberals' reject the insane notion

>> that high taxes are good for everyone.

>>

>>>You do make the mistake of thinking tax cuts are only needed at

>>>the start of a new industry. Nope. Globalization/outsourcing

>>>means tax policy must always make outsourcing more expensive.

>>

>> My recommendation, and I've seen it echoed elsewhere, is

>> to tax corporations the difference between what it costs

>> to use outsourced labor and what they'd have to pay a US

>> worker to do the same job. That way they can benifit from

>> outside EXPERTISE, but not profit financially by moving

>> out jobs or whole factories.

>

>I've advocated exactly that as well....welcome aboard. I say business

>should compete on management (product design, factory layout, executive

>headcount and pay, etc.), not worker pay and benefits.

 

 

They'll compete on BOTH if you let them. So, we can't let them.

We've done so for too long, and become weaker and weaker because

of it. Time to reverse the trend.

 

But CAN we ? Is the government SO bought and paid for that it

will NEVER seriously inconvenience big biz ?

 

>> Any application of tax shields or govt investment must be

>> an ongoing thing. While "start up" time IS critical, and

>> where a lot of businesses fail, there may be times during

>> normal operation where a helping hand is needed (the Chrysler

>> bail-out was one example) or desireable. Of course when

>> you help one business or sector, the others complain. Few

>> are ashamed of taking "welfare" these days ...

>

>I'll respond directly: yes and no! Chrysler's problem was management

>mistakes. But had the company gone under, only management had "golden

>parachutes." Those should be outlawed as they shield management from the

>consequences of their bad decisions.

 

I disagree there ... ownership ought to be able to hire

any executives they want, pay them whatever they feel

like and give them whatever perks and security seem

fitting.

 

CEOs/CFOs may be good or bad - but if they turn out to

be bad it's the OWNERS who must bear the burden. The

board of directors, the primary stockholders, are the

ones who stand to lose millions or billions. THEY are

the ones who must not have a refuge. Make sure they

can't write-off their losses. This will encourage them

to choose their executives more wisely, and usually

issue only bronze parachutes (the executives must get

a bigger share of any PROFITS they're responsible for,

of course, as compensation for their lousy parachutes).

 

In modern practice, CEOs seem to be choosen more as

window-dressing, status symbols or because of their

family/financial connections rather than for their

business accumen. They're also used as convenient

scapegoats when things go wrong (one reason for the

golden 'chutes). When Enron went down, the CEO and CFO

were arrested and tried - but not the board. They

slipped quietly away, as usual.

 

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/enron/senpsi70802rpt.pdf

 

>>>>>>>Pretty sweet. You more excitable types need to toss some

>>>>>>>bombs their way to wake them up

>>>>>>

>>>>>> At this point, the "Throw the bastards out" movement

>>>>>> might indeed be revived, with a vengence. Neither GOP

>>>>>> or DNC is the answer to our problems. Clean house.

>>>>>

>>>>>Your judgement on the better replacements is, like every

>>>>>rethug, obviously piss poor.

>>>>

>>>> The "replacements" ARE the main problem. They'd be a bunch

>>>> of know-nothings at the beginning ... and where do they

>>>> COME from anyway ? Get GOP/DNC certified candidates and

>>>> you'll just be getting more of the same.

>>>>

>>>>>> Of course that's no guarentee that the new guys won't

>>>>>> be just as corrupt as the old guys within a few years.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> There's something about politics that takes the best

>>>>>> of intentions and twists them into greedy self-interest

>>>>>> practically overnight. Seems to have always been that

>>>>>> way. Maybe it's the nature of politics ... meaning

>>>>>> it's something about OUR nature, human nature ?

>>>>>

>>>>>Well gee, did a light dawn?

>>>>

>>>> Gee, I've know this stuff for 40 years ... how long

>>>> did it take you to catch on ? Oh wait, maybe you

>>>> haven't. I'll bet you still think Democrats are

>>>> somehow "better" ... :-)

>>>

>>>Of course I do.

>>

>> RUBE ALERT !!! RUBE ALERT !!!

>>

>> Just keep makin' those donations and kissin' DNC butt.

>

>

>FASCIST ALERT !!! FASCIST ALERT !!! (Golly, your B/S technique is fun)

 

 

Too bad I wasn't bullshitting ...

 

>Better than your anal tonguing after rethug bowel movements. We could rely

>on empirical facts such as GDP growth and deficits by administration...but

>if you fear facts and prefer juvenile name-calling...That is, of course,

>where you excel.

 

 

Dems are no better than Republicans. Wash off the make-up and

you'll find ugly little power-grubbing POLITICIANS underneath.

 

>>>More greedy old perverts have gone to prison or

>>>resigned in disgrace in every rethug administration than

>>>democratic since Eisenhower.

>>

>> With the govt so GOP-heavy, it is any suprise that

>> more Republicans get caught ? Stuff the place with

>> Dems and you'll see more Dems arrested - or maybe

>> you won't since the Media sees no evil when they

>> look at Dems.

>

>

>Of course it has to come as a surprise...rethugs being so insistent that

>they are the only party with morals and ethics.

 

 

That's THEIR disguise. The whole "We care for the PEOPLE

and LIBERTY" line, that's the DNCs disguise.

 

>And as for the "Media"....right...a couple of democrats traded their

>postage stamps for money (admittedly a crime) and the media made it sound

>like the end of the Union.

 

Yep. That way it can claim to be "unbiased". Gotta sacrifice

a few lambs so the rams can do what they want.

>Clinton gets a blowjob and he endangered

>American morality....all the rethug illegitimate kids running around don't

>count.

 

Politics, politics. So long as the electorate is dumb enough

to worry about blowjobs or little bastards the politicians

will keep USING such things as ammunition. Almost nobody

studies appropriation bills in great detail - even though

they overflow with pork and suggestions of conflict of

interest. Those are the REAL damning evidence - but since

nobody wades through that stuff it's no good for political

purposes.

 

>>>>>The empowering element is the lack of public financing of

>>>>>campaigns. Ya see, when yer buying a politician, you have'ta

>>>>>pay more for an honest one.

>>>>

>>>> Campaigns are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg ...

>>>> and even then "special interest" money can be slipped into

>>>> the pouch marked "public funding" or simply left in a

>>>> brown paper bag under a bridge at midnight. Face it, the

>>>> wealthy interests will ALWAYS be able to buy or bully

>>>> politicians. One way or another, they'll reel them in and

>>>> make them serve.

>>>

>>>Hogwash, audits of officeholders' finances for every year in

>>>office and five years after leaving would go far to prevent

>>>bribery...

>>

>> Ha, ha, ha, ha ... !

>

>Brilliant response.

>

>

>>

>>>as would ten year prison sentences for briber and

>>>bribee. Plus, if a bribee decides to wait out the five year post-

>>>office audits...put no statute of limitation on the crime.

>>>Accepting a bribe in public office should be only a lesser crime

>>>than treason.

>>

>> NOTHING stops bribery - or bribery-equivalents. The potential

>> returns from bribery are SO great, for buyer and bought alike,

>> that they'll do it no matter WHAT the risks. Besides, since

>> the people taking the money ARE the law, only politicians

>> that annoy the big power brokers will be 'found out'.

>

>Bullshit. White collar criminals don't commit murder (anymore) because the

>cost/benefit ratio is so bad.

>

>

>

>>

>>>(Afterthought: an audit of the two years prior to running for

>>>office may be necessary too. May sound harsh, but look where we

>>>are and where we're going.)

>>

>> Lots of ways to hide pay-offs.

>>

>> Oh yea, who's going to WRITE these draconian regulations

>> you speak of ? Democrats ? HA ! Republicans ? HA ! Like

>> the big "campaign finance reform" law, it only got passed

>> after the important politicians had found ways to get

>> around it.

>>

>>>> As Churchill observed, 'democracy' is the worst system of

>>>> government imaginible - except for all the others. The

>>>> 'democratic' system can be corrupted in SO many ways, bent

>>>> to SO many purposes, that it's simply impossible to cope

>>>> with. Perhaps it's best to quit whining about the

>>>> corruption you can't fix and instead learn how to use the

>>>> existing system ?

>>>

>>>"Perhaps"? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Nothing like long, long,

>>>long prison sentences to keep a wobbly politican on the straight

>>>and narrow.

>>

>> Tell me about it, once you're made king and can write

>> any laws you please.

>>

>>>And white collar business crime needs sentences at

>>>least equal to armed robbery. Enron proves white collar crime is

>>>neither amusing nor minor.

>>

>> Won't happen.

>

>

>Not with clowns like you saying they won't work so why try them.

 

 

Go ahead, try. But first read-up on how laws get written.

Your stuff will never make it past the first committee.

I rather doubt MY stuff, the stuff that would end the

'outsourcing' trend, would make it any further either.

 

>>>I've recommended that lobbyists only contact an officeholder in

>>>an official office and all such meeting be recorded and "YTubed"

>>>on a government website. Let the public see what lobbyists and

>>>officeholders discuss.

>>>

>>>But there is another issue you've ignored or missed. The problem

>>>we have today isn't the mere existence of corruption...it's how

>>>endemic it has been in the republican party and White House.

>>

>> Don't forget those DNC whitehouses ...

>

>When has there been an equivalent democratic admistration?

 

 

They're better at hiding things :-)

 

>>>There is venality in a number of democrats...but only Jefferson

>>>seems to have risen to the GOP level. And, I think, only in some

>>>petty business deals having to do with African telecommunications

>>>businesses. Not national defense issues like Cunningham.

>>

>> The military-industrial complex has been a big player

>> since Trumans day. It has a hold on administrations

>> both GOP and DNC. Favoring business "friends" is

>> nothing new, and practiced widely by both parties.

>>

>> Take off the DNC-colored sunglasses and see reality

>> for once. Yes, it hurts ....

>

>Yeah, why fix a problem cuz there are so many more.

>

>Idiot!

 

 

I'm not the one who thinks he's King Of America.

 

You can say things should be run this way and that, but

if they'll cost anyone important MONEY it has about zero

chance of becoming LAW. In simple terms, in DC, the

foxes are guarding the chickencoop. The media is supposed

to be guarding the foxes, but the government and bureaucracy

has grown SO huge and complex that they can't do more than

find an occasional dirty, careless, fox from time to time.

 

Oh yea, and the media is OWNED by the same people who pay

the foxes to slip them the juciest chickens.

 

So good luck with all those new rules you want.

 

That's the cold hard reality of the situation. You can

stage a revolution, but the new bosses will become just

like the old bosses in no time flat.

[Guest Liberalhere]

David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in

news:ao-dnWKlsvpZ4BTbnZ2dnUVZ_oHinZ2d@comcast.com:

> Liberalhere wrote:

>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in

>> news:bJ6dnUEPfe1MnRrbnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com:

>>

>>> liberalhere@yahoo.com wrote:

>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in

>>>> news:eNSdnX1ElL4ldhnbnZ2dnUVZ_vHinZ2d@comcast.com:

>>>>

>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:

>>>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in news:1J-

>>>>>> dnf6aOcVA_BnbnZ2dnUVZ_qzinZ2d@comcast.com:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Deliri wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> IF GONZALES REFUSES TO SHOW UP FOR TESTIMONY UNDER THE

>>>>>>>> SUBPOENA, WHY COULDN'T THE COMMITTEE DISPATCH THE

>>>>>>>> SERGEANT AT ARMS WITH A COUPLE OF ASSISTANTS TO

>>>>>>>> FROG-MARCH HIM OVER TO THE COMMITTEE VENUE?

>>>>>>> Congress has no such authority.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> Facts one, Hartung zero.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> "Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of

>>>>>> the United States Congress or one of its committees.

>>>>>> Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or

>>>>>> to testify, the Committee is entitled to report a resolution

>>>>>> of contempt to its parent chamber. Following a contempt

>>>>>> citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the

>>>>>> Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the

>>>>>> floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the

>>>>>> presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the

>>>>>> House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment

>>>>>> reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from

>>>>>> the contempt citation.)"

>>>>>>

>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

>>>>> I stand corrected.

>>>>>

>>>> If Gonzales is found to be in Contempt of Congress, should his

>>>> license to practice law be revoked? IIRC, there is a ethical and

>>>> moral to being granted a license; it's not simply passing the bar

>>>> exam.

>>> Given the partisan nature of the current Congress, probably not.

>>

>>

>> Ha! "Partisan"? Try comparing it to the previous Congresses over the

>> last twelve years.

>

> Your point?

 

 

The fact you couldn't see it the first time means a second go-around would

be pointless.