Post by: Paddy on September 01, 2007, 08:59:05 AM
Mexico trucks to roll on U.S. highways
By John Crawley 2 hours, 1 minute ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration can proceed with a plan to open the U.S. border to long haul Mexican trucks as early as next week after an appeals court rejected a bid by labor, consumer and environmental interests to block the initiative.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco late on Friday denied an emergency petition sought by the Teamsters union, the Sierra Club and consumer group Public Citizen to halt the start of a one-year pilot program that was approved by Congress after years of legal and political wrangling.
The Transportation Department welcomed the decision and said in a statement that allowing more direct shipments from Mexico will benefit U.S. consumers.
The 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement approved broader access for ground shipments from both countries but the Clinton administration never complied with the trucking provision. A special tribunal ordered the Bush administration to do so in 2001.
"This is the wrong decision for working men and women," Jim Hoffa, president of the Teamsters, said in a statement after the court ruling. "We believe this program clearly breaks the law." The Teamsters represents truckers that would be affected by the change.
The emergency stay was sought on grounds the administration's pilot program had not satisfied the U.S. Congress' requirements on safety and other issues. But the appeals court ruled otherwise.
SAFETY ASPECTS
The administration plans to start the program on September 6. Transportation Department officials hope to receive final clearance early next week from the department's inspector general's office, which is reviewing its safety aspects, and finalize details with Mexican authorities.
The Mexican government must grant reciprocal access to U.S. trucks under NAFTA. That provision is not expected to be a problem, regulators said.
Mexican trucks operating in the United States have for years been restricted to U.S. points near certain large border crossings where their goods are transferred to trucks owned by U.S. firms.
Under the pilot program, Mexican long haul trucking companies that have met safety, licensing, and other U.S. requirements will be allowed to operate their rigs throughout the country. Proponents say this will reduce costs and speed up shipments.
Trucking regulators said in a court filing the goal is to gradually accommodate 100 Mexican trucking companies by the end of the pilot program, or roughly 540 large trucks.
But opponents said those figures do not reflect the number of companies that could seek access to U.S. roads if the pilot is successful, which they said raises safety concerns.
"This (pilot) program is basically a show trial. They haven't provided notice up front about who will participate. You just don't know what the program will look like," said Bonnie Robin-Vergeer, attorney for Public Citizen.
Public Citizen and the Teamsters still plan to proceed with a lawsuit they filed in federal court, challenging the Mexican truck program on broader grounds. That case will not likely be decided until next year.
Trucks from Canada have no operating restrictions in the United States.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070901/us_nm/mexico_trucks_us_dc_1
Post by: longeyes on September 01, 2007, 09:09:18 AM
We're living in a fool's paradise, but I guess that's the way a lot of people want it.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 01, 2007, 04:49:34 PM
Roll on.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on September 01, 2007, 04:57:08 PM
Thats not really competition.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 01, 2007, 05:01:03 PM
Competition is great, until you are the one having to compete with someone from another country who will do the job for a quarter of what you are paid to do it.
Thats not really competition.
Thats not really competition.
Yeah. A recession is when your neighbor is out of work. A depression is when you're out of work.
Great joke, but that's all it is.
If I am shipping goods (and I do), I want the cheapest way to do it, It doesn't really matter to me whether the person driving is Mexican, a Chinese, or an American.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 01, 2007, 05:13:19 PM
Quote
Gee, I guess I am the only one here who thinks competition is good. The U.S. pledged to do this in treaty and the ones blocking it are the usual union suspects.
Roll on.
Roll on.
And hope you're not next to one when the duct-taped airbrake lines fail, or the ill-maintained tire explodes and takes out your vehicle.
Because Mexico is SO known for exemplary safety inspection agencies, and, why, the efficiency of all their government agencies. And never taking bribes. Never ever.
This will last until a Mexican truck jacknifes and kills a bunch of people when it sweeps cars off the road, and the cause is found to be poor maintenance. Unfortunately, some innocent people are going to have to die to convince the powers that be that this isn't a good idea.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 01, 2007, 05:17:04 PM
Quote
Under the pilot program, Mexican long haul trucking companies that have met safety, licensing, and other U.S. requirements will be allowed to operate their rigs throughout the country. Proponents say this will reduce costs and speed up shipments.
How does it feel being on the same side of the issue as Jim Hoffa and the Teamsters?
Post by: Manedwolf on September 01, 2007, 05:18:56 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 01, 2007, 05:22:14 PM
Argument? Mexico is a third-world narco-state. They can't even manage clean water and sewage processing in the 21st century.
Neither can parts of the U.S.Your point exactly?
Post by: Manedwolf on September 01, 2007, 05:28:14 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 01, 2007, 05:34:22 PM
Post by: drewtam on September 01, 2007, 05:35:45 PM
http://www.hoinews.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=48235
I agree with Rabbi, in so far as he supports free trade. But I also see the other side of the argument. We will need to have tough safety standard enforcement. The other problem is that Mexico has looser emissions standards than the US. For the OTR diesel engines that means more NOx emissions. NOx is a principle cause of smog. US trucking industry has paid big bucks on modern engines with reduced emissions. This will dramatically under cut that effort.
Drew
Post by: Sergeant Bob on September 01, 2007, 05:37:17 PM
Quote
Ah, the old "third world" argument again.
Well, they are a third world country, and the title is well earned. Ever been to T.J., Nuevo Laredo, San Luis? Yeah, they're real big on enforcement of safety regulations down there.Quote
How does it feel being on the same side of the issue as Jim Hoffa and the Teamsters?
What does that have to do with anything? Just because they are union doesn't mean they can't be right.
Big deal, they passed some pilot program so they could get their foot in the door. What makes you think once the gates are opened they are going to adhere to our safety standards like they did during the pilot? They're talking about only 540 trucks right now. What happens when that becomes thousands? Who's going to keep track of all of them?
Wait until a few American families get run over by drunken Mexican truck drivers or trucks with half the brakes out. It will happen and in greater numbers than it happens with American trucks.
Post by: wooderson on September 01, 2007, 05:56:21 PM
Not the consumers - does anyone really think we're going to see prices hold steady or drop thanks to cheap Mexican trucking?
Not the people on the highways - Mexican trucks are AT BEST no safer than American trucks, in all likelihood less safe (even if they've passed some standards testing - we can't even regulate food packing, or oil/gas refineries or pretty much anything else within our borders, much less trust that an extra-national corporation will keep up when we aren't looking).
Not small businesses who ship products in their business - this won't matter to UPS/FedEX/etc..
Post by: wmenorr67 on September 01, 2007, 06:36:41 PM
I don't know of any cities in the US where drinking municipal tap water will give you horrific diarrhea due to parasites and bacteria, where sewage still runs in open ditches and isn't subject to any treatment at all, do you?
New Orleans.
Post by: SomeKid on September 01, 2007, 07:36:33 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 02, 2007, 04:27:30 AM
Who does this benefit?
Not the consumers - does anyone really think we're going to see prices hold steady or drop thanks to cheap Mexican trucking?
Not the people on the highways - Mexican trucks are AT BEST no safer than American trucks, in all likelihood less safe (even if they've passed some standards testing - we can't even regulate food packing, or oil/gas refineries or pretty much anything else within our borders, much less trust that an extra-national corporation will keep up when we aren't looking).
Not small businesses who ship products in their business - this won't matter to UPS/FedEX/etc..
So you are positing that lowering costs in any industry does not benefit anyone? That would be news to most economists.Not the consumers - does anyone really think we're going to see prices hold steady or drop thanks to cheap Mexican trucking?
Not the people on the highways - Mexican trucks are AT BEST no safer than American trucks, in all likelihood less safe (even if they've passed some standards testing - we can't even regulate food packing, or oil/gas refineries or pretty much anything else within our borders, much less trust that an extra-national corporation will keep up when we aren't looking).
Not small businesses who ship products in their business - this won't matter to UPS/FedEX/etc..
Who says we can't regulate within our borders? Are you saying all regulation is unenforceable? That would be news to any industry I am familiar with.
If they are as safe as American trucks, what is the problem?
I am waiting for the Libertarians on the board to chime in with their mantra that you punish people for what they've done, not for something they haven't done yet.
Post by: Paddy on September 02, 2007, 07:43:58 PM
http://www.portstoplains.com/maps/New_PTP_Map_08_05a.pdf
http://www.portstoplains.com/index.html
Are we really importing so much stuff from Mexico that we need a 4 lane interstate highway carrying up to 2000 trucks a day? Or will those trucks be carrying other 'goods' from China and other third world countries, coming into Mexican ports on the Pacific?
Think about it.
Post by: De Selby on September 02, 2007, 11:52:09 PM
Where's the faith in capitalism people?
Post by: The Rabbi on September 03, 2007, 03:13:40 AM
Everyone loves the free market as long as they're free to set all the prices and exclude whoever.
Where's the faith in capitalism people?
Where's the faith in capitalism people?
I think the rule is that Libertarianism ends at the border. When it comes to gov't telling me what to do, I am against it. But when it comes to gov't telling everyone else what to do, I am for it.
Hypocrisy? You decide.
Post by: Paddy on September 03, 2007, 05:35:31 AM
Quote
Everyone loves the free market as long as they're free to set all the prices and exclude whoever.
Where's the faith in capitalism people?
Where's the faith in capitalism people?
I have yet to see a working free market example; apparently it's just an abstraction. Unrestrained and unaccountable capitalism is every bit as dangerous as unrestrained, unaccountable government.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 03, 2007, 05:57:02 AM
Quote
Everyone loves the free market as long as they're free to set all the prices and exclude whoever.
Where's the faith in capitalism people?
Where's the faith in capitalism people?
I have yet to see a working free market example; apparently it's just an abstraction. Unrestrained and unaccountable capitalism is every bit as dangerous as unrestrained, unaccountable government.
Who is talking about "unrestrained and unaccountable" capitalism? Is there such a thing? No, there isn't. It is an abstraction created by leftist idealogues to belittle capitalism and freedom.
Capitalism is always restrained: restrained by threat of lawsuits from damaged consumers, restrained by binding contracts, and restrained by the market place. And it is accountable to those as well.
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 03, 2007, 07:48:29 AM
Post by: roo_ster on September 03, 2007, 04:48:21 PM
Where's Mercedesrules when you need him?
He sold out to Bushco and is busy collecting our IPs so that we can all be rounded up when our neocon overlords decide it is time.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 03, 2007, 06:39:15 PM
I don't remember whence that line comes, but somebody had to paraphrase it.
Post by: jeepmor on September 03, 2007, 09:48:44 PM
Quote
Unrestrained and unaccountable capitalism is every bit as dangerous as unrestrained, unaccountable government.
Bush and his corporate chronies come to mind, and no, it's not working, it is dangerous. I don't think we need to argue that point.
Also, Portland, Oregon has CSO, Combined Sewerage Overflow, but only when it rains hard. Jeebus people, it's Portland, it rains 6 months a year here. Willamette River, 10th or 11th most polluted river in the nation last I checked.
Mexicans following safety regs, that's a good one. Reminds of the time as a college student when the elevator locked up on my buddy and I, trapping us inside. Of course, we were drunk and swilling on cheap mexican hooch, but I digress, that has nothing to do with elevator function, we pressed ALL the buttons I assure you. I figured out how to open the elevator car door to find all the wiring twisted together by hand and sealed with a quick fold of electrical tape. Wire nuts, bah, thats for the safety nazis. Not a wrapping or anything thoughtful, a quick fold, with half the wire still bare. Needless to say, the locals were laughing that we were stuck, I popped the faulty solenoid latch and set us free to pursue college age wares once more.
Yeah, I want those Mexican trucks on our roads. Come on, competition is one thing, safety is another. Ever ride in a Mexican cab or bus? Nuff said.
Quote
Capitalism is always restrained: restrained by threat of lawsuits from damaged consumers, restrained by binding contracts, and restrained by the market place. And it is accountable to those as well.
Oh yeah, the big corporates have done nothing to dumb down the regs so there are limits to their liabilty to minimize the financial impact to their negligence. If you're a big enough corporation and pony up enough dollars you can get away with darn near anything. Do we need to mention Enron or Halliburton to drum up some examples of government and capitalism abusing regulations?
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 04, 2007, 01:52:17 AM
I enjoy the fact that corporations and Republicans are frequently credited with creating the link between wealth and power. Goodness knows the rich never had more influence than the poor, until Bush was elected.
Post by: Paddy on September 04, 2007, 06:20:07 AM
Quote
Because none of the Enron execs were held accountable for the actions, right? rolleyes
I enjoy the fact that corporations and Republicans are frequently credited with creating the link between wealth and power. Goodness knows the rich never had more influence than the poor, until Bush was elected.
I enjoy the fact that corporations and Republicans are frequently credited with creating the link between wealth and power. Goodness knows the rich never had more influence than the poor, until Bush was elected.
Congratulations! You win the coveted combined non sequitur and post hoc ergo propter hoc awards.
Keep up the good work!
Post by: Paddy on September 04, 2007, 07:00:16 AM
Quote
Who is talking about "unrestrained and unaccountable" capitalism? Is there such a thing? No, there isn't. It is an abstraction created by leftist idealogues to belittle capitalism and freedom.
Capitalism is always restrained: restrained by threat of lawsuits from damaged consumers, restrained by binding contracts, and restrained by the market place. And it is accountable to those as well.
Capitalism is always restrained: restrained by threat of lawsuits from damaged consumers, restrained by binding contracts, and restrained by the market place. And it is accountable to those as well.
And you win the Whopper of the Year Award. I would have answered earlier, but it took me this long to stop laughing. Corporate capitalism has a long and well documented history of fraud, corruption, bribery, environmental destruction. and human rights violations.
Thanks for the belly laugh, though.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 04, 2007, 08:31:44 AM
Quote
Who is talking about "unrestrained and unaccountable" capitalism? Is there such a thing? No, there isn't. It is an abstraction created by leftist idealogues to belittle capitalism and freedom.
Capitalism is always restrained: restrained by threat of lawsuits from damaged consumers, restrained by binding contracts, and restrained by the market place. And it is accountable to those as well.
Capitalism is always restrained: restrained by threat of lawsuits from damaged consumers, restrained by binding contracts, and restrained by the market place. And it is accountable to those as well.
And you win the Whopper of the Year Award. I would have answered earlier, but it took me this long to stop laughing. Corporate capitalism has a long and well documented history of fraud, corruption, bribery, environmental destruction. and human rights violations.
Thanks for the belly laugh, though.
I notice people laugh at what they don't understand.
No system is immune to ill-doing. You claim capitalism is unrestrained. I pointed out it is not unrestrained, even in its purest form. It is always restrained by the forces I mentioned. The fact that occasionally corporations play the role of ill-doer does not obviate the basic thesis.
And I haven't seen any other system that avoids all the ills you describe. On the contrary, all other systems produce far more of them, while failing to deliver prosperity to its citizens.
So, laugh away...
Post by: Manedwolf on September 04, 2007, 09:11:58 AM
Once upon a time, miracle-tonic salespeople used to travel the country. They knew that even if their tonic was proven to be alcohol and water and they were run out of town, people a few towns away wouldn't have heard of them.
Now, a company can't make a single mis-step either in sloppiness or greed without news of it spreading across the internet instantly, chasing consumers everywhere away from the brand.
Post by: cordex on September 04, 2007, 09:40:26 AM
So you are positing that lowering costs in any industry does not benefit anyone? That would be news to most economists.
Are you saying that the whole industry will be made to meet the minimum requirements or just a select group?Quote from: The Rabbi
Hypocrisy? You decide.
Quote from: The Rabbi
Ah, the dreaded "hypocrisy" charge. The last sin in modern society. You can forgive anything but not hypocrisy.
I'm not again' more trade, nor am I again' drivers with Mexican licenses delivering the stuff I buy from Mexico. I might be again' selective enforcement of safety and vehicular standards. I don't care if they're applied at the higher or lower level, I just feel they should be relatively equal.
Post by: Paddy on September 04, 2007, 09:50:52 AM
Quote
No system is immune to ill-doing. You claim capitalism is unrestrained. I pointed out it is not unrestrained, even in its purest form. It is always restrained by the forces I mentioned. The fact that occasionally corporations play the role of ill-doer does not obviate the basic thesis.
And I haven't seen any other system that avoids all the ills you describe. On the contrary, all other systems produce far more of them, while failing to deliver prosperity to its citizens.
And I haven't seen any other system that avoids all the ills you describe. On the contrary, all other systems produce far more of them, while failing to deliver prosperity to its citizens.
Apparently then, you agree that restraint is a necessary component, to both capitalism and government?
And apparently, your claim is that there is sufficient restraint on capitalism by lawsuit, contracts, and the marketplace, to maintain corporate integrity? That is your assertion?
Post by: The Rabbi on September 04, 2007, 11:01:57 AM
Quote
No system is immune to ill-doing. You claim capitalism is unrestrained. I pointed out it is not unrestrained, even in its purest form. It is always restrained by the forces I mentioned. The fact that occasionally corporations play the role of ill-doer does not obviate the basic thesis.
And I haven't seen any other system that avoids all the ills you describe. On the contrary, all other systems produce far more of them, while failing to deliver prosperity to its citizens.
And I haven't seen any other system that avoids all the ills you describe. On the contrary, all other systems produce far more of them, while failing to deliver prosperity to its citizens.
Apparently then, you agree that restraint is a necessary component, to both capitalism and government?
And apparently, your claim is that there is sufficient restraint on capitalism by lawsuit, contracts, and the marketplace, to maintain corporate integrity? That is your assertion?
Pretty much that's it, yeah.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 04, 2007, 12:56:06 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 04, 2007, 01:12:52 PM
Rabbi for President in '08!
Oh, yeah. That's a winner.
We already got one guy from TN running. Vote for him instead. Better yet, send money.
Post by: longeyes on September 04, 2007, 03:53:55 PM
Quote
Everyone loves the free market as long as they're free to set all the prices and exclude whoever.
Where's the faith in capitalism people?
Where's the faith in capitalism people?
I want to see how welcome American trucks and drivers are in the heart of Mejico, how welcome American entrepreneurs are. Free market capitalism is not about the U.S. being everyone else's economic bitch.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on September 04, 2007, 04:14:02 PM
I want to see how welcome American trucks and drivers are in the heart of Mejico, how welcome American entrepreneurs are. Free market capitalism is not about the U.S. being everyone else's economic bitch.
They don't dare leave the truck or they will be driving back on the hubs or their their tires will be replaced maypops.
Then wait for the accident scams. People hitting their brakes in front of trucks and feigning whiplash for cash. Unless things have change down there, when you get in an accident, you have to hang around until a judge decides who is at fault and the matter is settled (or just give the hombre some money real quick) or do the cash and dash.
Post by: De Selby on September 04, 2007, 05:17:55 PM
Quote
Everyone loves the free market as long as they're free to set all the prices and exclude whoever.
Where's the faith in capitalism people?
Where's the faith in capitalism people?
I want to see how welcome American trucks and drivers are in the heart of Mejico, how welcome American entrepreneurs are. Free market capitalism is not about the U.S. being everyone else's economic bitch.
Are you serious? You actually think that NAFTA is just a free gift to the Mexicans, who are enjoying protected jobs and economic status now because of it?
Not only are American corporations and investments welcome in Mexico, they are cleaning up the competition. Check out the stats:
http://www.usembassy-mexico.gov/eng/trade_info.html
American capital rules in Mexico-so much so that the Mexicans are generally up in arms about free trade, and consider the current relationship to be one that ruins the unprotected Mexican economy for the benefit of US profit margins.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 04, 2007, 05:25:49 PM
Nice response though. Shows Thomas Sowell's assertion that two parties do not trade unless they both will benefit.
Post by: Paddy on September 04, 2007, 07:56:02 PM
Quote
Not only are American corporations and investments welcome in Mexico, they are cleaning up the competition.
Translation= The bastards are exporting (what should be American) jobs, exploiting already impoverished Mexican labor, and reaping the benefits in the form of consumer dollars from the Americans they screwed in the first place. These are Bush's corporate pals, and he's giving them a superhighway and free access for Mexican trucks.
Yeah, there needs to be more restraint. A lot more, in the form of import tariffs.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 05, 2007, 02:58:34 AM
Quote
Not only are American corporations and investments welcome in Mexico, they are cleaning up the competition.
Translation= The bastards are exporting (what should be American) jobs, exploiting already impoverished Mexican labor, and reaping the benefits in the form of consumer dollars from the Americans they screwed in the first place. These are Bush's corporate pals, and he's giving them a superhighway and free access for Mexican trucks.
Yeah, there needs to be more restraint. A lot more, in the form of import tariffs.
Wow, class warfare right here on APS. You forgot to mention the proletariat.
They are exporting jobs that cannot be done profitably in AMerica anymore, looking out for the interests of their shareholders, the owners of the company.
The are exploiting Mexican workers by offering wages and salaries far in advance of what had been available, with far better working conditions.
They are reaping the benefits of consumer dollars because consumers in the U.S. are happy to be paying 30% less for an item than they had been.
Post by: Paddy on September 05, 2007, 08:16:18 AM
Quote
Wow, class warfare right here on APS. You forgot to mention the proletariat.
"Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
"Class warfare" was a term (accusation) used by George H.W. Bush (the aristocrat George I) in the 1988 election, against Michael Dukakis. It was used again by George W. Bush (George II, heir to the throne) in the 2000 election against algore-which is laughable because they're both members of the aristocracy.
It continues in use by the bourgeoisie Rush Limbaugh, who apparently considers it some kind of pejorative.
We did all this crap over 100 years ago starting with the Grange movement of the mid 19th century, where the farmers brought monopolistic, corrupt railroads under control. Progress continued with the rise of the labor unions limiting child and sweatshop working conditions and bringing wages into parity. The Sherman Anti Trust Act began to curb industrial monopolies. It was exercised vigorously by Theodore Roosevelt and reaffirmed and strengthened under Woodrow Wilson.
Then the greed of the financiers imploded the stock market in 1929, screwing the common man again. FDR took a number of steps that increased and consolidated federal power (not all of which I agree with, btw), the result of which brought us into the prosperity of the 1950's, unprecedented economic growth, and a vital middle class.
The current effort to aggregate wealth and power in the hands of a few was announced by George H.W. Bush with his 'New World Order' speech. Thank God he only served one term. Corporate globalism became the vehicle by which to achieve world dominance. Clinton did nothing to quash the trend, and GWB has accelerated it to the max.
The FF did not establish a 'classless society'; neither did they envision the rise of a new aristocracy. The largely agrarian 1700's allowed most Americans economic self sufficiency, growing or making almost everything they needed. Industrialization and the rise of corporations instead created a state of economic dependency, with people beholden for employment, goods, and services. Exploitive abuses by corporations in turn gave rise to the consolidation of government power.
So, yeah, if you want to call a struggle for freedom, independence and economic prosperity (for all, not just a few) 'class warfare', go ahead.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 05, 2007, 09:42:23 AM
The eternal struggle of the proletariat against the running dogs of capitalism.
But that would give the game away.
Post by: Balog on September 05, 2007, 09:47:08 AM
I, for one, will welcome our neocon overlords.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS66v0poUQY
Post by: Paddy on September 05, 2007, 10:09:28 AM
Quote
could call it:
The eternal struggle of the proletariat against the running dogs of capitalism.
But that would give the game away.
The eternal struggle of the proletariat against the running dogs of capitalism.
But that would give the game away.
I guess you missed the point. This corporate globalist war against the middle class will lead to the election of another populist president, who will once again aggregate government power to reign in the multinationals.
None of the Republican candidates even come close to the definition of 'populist'; they're just a bunch of rich white men. That leaves the Dems; I'll let you figure out who's closest to filling the bill.
We'll see how smug you are then.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 05, 2007, 11:46:45 AM
There is no "corporate globalist war." There is no "reigning in the multi-nationals."
These things aren't real, except on hyperventilating left-wing (or right-wing, depending) discussion boards and blogs.
The middle class is largely employed by said corporations, who could not function without them, in turn. Corporations are largely responsible to their shareholders, who are largely middle class people.
Post by: thebaldguy on September 05, 2007, 02:03:12 PM
I notice a lot of requests coming from Mexico are not equal to both the US and Mexico; they generally seem to benefit Mexico at our cost. Check out their immigration policies for example.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 05, 2007, 02:39:30 PM
Quote
could call it:
The eternal struggle of the proletariat against the running dogs of capitalism.
But that would give the game away.
The eternal struggle of the proletariat against the running dogs of capitalism.
But that would give the game away.
I guess you missed the point. This corporate globalist war against the middle class will lead to the election of another populist president, who will once again aggregate government power to reign in the multinationals.
None of the Republican candidates even come close to the definition of 'populist'; they're just a bunch of rich white men. That leaves the Dems; I'll let you figure out who's closest to filling the bill.
We'll see how smug you are then.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 05, 2007, 08:09:06 PM
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 05, 2007, 08:31:06 PM
Riley, you surprise me on this thread.
By 1929, the evil financiers recognized a market out of control, and were getting out. It was the greed of the uneducated investors that created a bubble market. The "evil financiers" had gone to the sidelines by then.
The same thing happened in 2000. I heard tons of people from all walks of life talking about their great stock picks. I knew enough from my commodity trading days to realize that the markets had reached unrealistic peaks. And I got out.
"FDR took a number of steps that increased and consolidated federal power (not all of which I agree with, btw), the result of which brought us into the prosperity of the 1950's, unprecedented economic growth, and a vital middle class."
You're kidding, right? FDR's articifical manipulation of the economy prolonged the Depression. His make-work programs paid unemployed people to do government work, and those workers were paid with the tax dollars of those who could pay taxes.
The Depression ended because of one tried and true economic boost: war.
Yes, WWII put the US budget into the red, but it also generated revenues that would continue into the 1950's.
WWII also created new products and technologies which we were able to export around the world, thus creating new jobs.
Post by: longeyes on September 05, 2007, 08:36:08 PM
Quote
There is no "corporate globalist war." There is no "reigning in the multi-nationals."
These things aren't real, except on hyperventilating left-wing (or right-wing, depending) discussion boards and blogs.
The middle class is largely employed by said corporations, who could not function without them, in turn. Corporations are largely responsible to their shareholders, who are largely middle class people.
These things aren't real, except on hyperventilating left-wing (or right-wing, depending) discussion boards and blogs.
The middle class is largely employed by said corporations, who could not function without them, in turn. Corporations are largely responsible to their shareholders, who are largely middle class people.
The problem is that large corporations are inherently incompatible with and inimical to political liberty. We knew that long, long ago, back in the "trust-busting" epoch. You are not talking about idealized, "classical" capitalism when you talk about large corporations, national or multi-national. They are feudalistic in structure, unresponsive to their employees and largely indifferent to their stockholders (when they are public). The idea that "competition" makes up for all their other delinquencies is, in my opinion, naive.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 06, 2007, 02:00:19 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 06, 2007, 02:37:30 AM
Quote
There is no "corporate globalist war." There is no "reigning in the multi-nationals."
These things aren't real, except on hyperventilating left-wing (or right-wing, depending) discussion boards and blogs.
The middle class is largely employed by said corporations, who could not function without them, in turn. Corporations are largely responsible to their shareholders, who are largely middle class people.
These things aren't real, except on hyperventilating left-wing (or right-wing, depending) discussion boards and blogs.
The middle class is largely employed by said corporations, who could not function without them, in turn. Corporations are largely responsible to their shareholders, who are largely middle class people.
The problem is that large corporations are inherently incompatible with and inimical to political liberty. We knew that long, long ago, back in the "trust-busting" epoch. You are not talking about idealized, "classical" capitalism when you talk about large corporations, national or multi-national. They are feudalistic in structure, unresponsive to their employees and largely indifferent to their stockholders (when they are public). The idea that "competition" makes up for all their other delinquencies is, in my opinion, naive.
Inimical to political liberty? I'd love to see that one fleshed out.
But you might want to pitch that one to the CEOs of:
Sunbeam
Enron
Eastern Airlines
American Telephone & Telegraph
Chrysler
And a host of other big corporations no longer with us due to uncompetitiveness, changes in the market place they couldn't adapt to, or management that wasn't responsive to shareholders.
Post by: Jamisjockey on September 06, 2007, 03:31:01 AM
Competition is great, until you are the one having to compete with someone from another country who will do the job for a quarter of what you are paid to do it.
Thats not really competition.
Thats not really competition.
Driving trucks that aren't held to the same standards, and drivers taking meth to stay awake for 4 days at a time.
Post by: Paddy on September 06, 2007, 06:49:28 AM
Quote
"Then the greed of the financiers imploded the stock market in 1929, screwing the common man again."
Riley, you surprise me on this thread.
By 1929, the evil financiers recognized a market out of control, and were getting out. It was the greed of the uneducated investors that created a bubble market. The "evil financiers" had gone to the sidelines by then.
Riley, you surprise me on this thread.
By 1929, the evil financiers recognized a market out of control, and were getting out. It was the greed of the uneducated investors that created a bubble market. The "evil financiers" had gone to the sidelines by then.
Economists have proffered a number of reasons for the 1929 crash, but 'the greed of the uneducated investors that created a bubble market' isn't one of them.
Keynes said it was lack of demand for goods and services that stifled investment
Friedman (and later Bernanke) blamed the low money supply-ie the Federal Reserve should have printed more money. Bernanke went on to say it was the gold standard system-the link of currency to gold-that prevented such an increase in the money supply.
Hayek claims the expansion of the money supply during the 1920's created an unsustainable credit driven boom.
The widely accepted cause however, is simply overproduction and underconsumption. The economy produced more that it consumed because consumers did not have enough money. Why? There was a huge
unequal distribution of wealth. in 1929 the top 0.1% of Americans had a combined income equal to the bottom 42%. That same top 0.1% of Americans in 1929 controlled 34% of all savings, while 80% of Americans had no savings at all.
During the 1920's individual worker output increased significantly, but wages increased very little. The result was that corporate profits skyrocketed. A few people had most of the money. The problem was exacerbated by the 'conservative' Coolidge administration who favored business and the wealthy. They reduced income and inheritance taxes (any of this sound familiar?)
So yeah, it was the greed of the financiers and the industrialists that caused the Great Depression. The common man used all his yearly income to buy basics; he didn't have the money to speculate in the stock market.
As for 2, a bunch of stupid people invested huge sums in companies that produced nothing, had no income or profits. They simply gambled on increasing stock prices of companies with no underlying fundamentals.
Quote
"FDR took a number of steps that increased and consolidated federal power (not all of which I agree with, btw), the result of which brought us into the prosperity of the 1950's, unprecedented economic growth, and a vital middle class."
You're kidding, right? FDR's articifical manipulation of the economy prolonged the Depression. His make-work programs paid unemployed people to do government work, and those workers were paid with the tax dollars of those who could pay taxes.
The Depression ended because of one tried and true economic boost: war.
You're kidding, right? FDR's articifical manipulation of the economy prolonged the Depression. His make-work programs paid unemployed people to do government work, and those workers were paid with the tax dollars of those who could pay taxes.
The Depression ended because of one tried and true economic boost: war.
The economy began expansion about 1938, well before our entry into WWII. The expansion stopped about 1945, before the end of the war.
I know that FDR is the Great Satan of modern 'conservatives', none of whom lived through the Depression. and have no idea of the hunger and poverty of the time. Talk to some old timers who were actually there, and you'll have a new perspective. Anyway the demonization of FDR isn't the point of this thread. We can start a new one to villify him, if you like.
Post by: longeyes on September 06, 2007, 07:30:16 AM
Post by: Paddy on September 06, 2007, 07:47:37 AM
This is not the stuff of the Founding Father's visions.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 06, 2007, 09:00:58 AM
Did someone sniff a "socialist?" I've run my own small business, worked for years for a small corporation and several more years for a large multi-national conglomerate. To discriminate among levels of capitalistic enterprise is not "socialist," it's to recognize that different size entities with different operating modes are different breeds of cat and have very different impacts on society. Yes, large corporations are alien to our concepts of political liberty. They are hierarchical in structure. The Founding Fathers had little to say, as far as I know, about economic systems but we can be sure they weren't thinking of the economic nation-states we now call multi-national corporations. Anyone who believes these corporations aren't one of the big issues for people who want to retain their liberties is, again, being naive. Scale makes all the difference. I am not saying that all corporations, large or small, are "evil," that they don't provide useful services and haven't revolutionized modern commerce, but I am saying that they do not provide a template for rational self-governance and have already shown that they are a de facto government unto themselves.
Well, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are among the biggest liberals out there, so I guess personal resume doesn't mean much to political ideas.
Corporations are hierarchical. The Catholic Church is hierarchical. The military is hierarchical. The bureaucracy is hierarchical. So freaking what? You haven't explained how "corporations" are a threat to our way of life. And btw I own a corporation. Two shareholders, me and my wife. I guess we're a threat too.
Post by: longeyes on September 06, 2007, 09:01:36 AM
But then unlike our current President they didn't cry on God's shoulder while throwing a sop to corporate cronies whose vision of the noble life can be expressed with a spreadsheet.
Post by: longeyes on September 06, 2007, 09:10:15 AM
Quote
Well, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are among the biggest liberals out there, so I guess personal resume doesn't mean much to political ideas.
Corporations are hierarchical. The Catholic Church is hierarchical. The military is hierarchical. The bureaucracy is hierarchical. So freaking what? You haven't explained how "corporations" are a threat to our way of life. And btw I own a corporation. Two shareholders, me and my wife. I guess we're a threat too.
Corporations are hierarchical. The Catholic Church is hierarchical. The military is hierarchical. The bureaucracy is hierarchical. So freaking what? You haven't explained how "corporations" are a threat to our way of life. And btw I own a corporation. Two shareholders, me and my wife. I guess we're a threat too.
And... I don't want a corporate state. I don't want a religious state. I don't want a military state. I don't want a bureaucratic state. I think you grasp my ideas a little better than you let on, Rabbi.
All large, top-down entities are a danger to individual liberty when they are unchecked. I'll stand by that. Corporations are treated as "individuals," a piece of dubious logic that came out of the era that gave us the Federal Reserve and the Federal income tax, if I remember correctly. Corporations are efficient engines of production, and they've certainly produced a great consumer society. The question remains, is a great consumer society also a moribund citizen society? Some of us might wonder about that, looking around today at America.
By the way, I also own a corporation. So what?
I saw first-hand what happens when a small, efficient, responsive "family-style" corporation was swallowed by a global entity with too many VPs making six-figure salaries who had never been near "the firing line." I'll bet a lot of us have.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 06, 2007, 11:52:34 AM
Quote
So what?
Exactly. So what if we have corporations? So what if we have a Catholic Church? So what if we have a military? Just because they are organized a certain way does not make them threats to Democracy and The American Way of Life. Any more than the organization of the Baptist Sunday School Board or The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations in America makes them a threat.
If you had a point it has long since eluded me. I have asked repeatedly what makes corporations evil and a threat. You have failed to give a coherent answer.
I have pointed out that I own a corporation. I will assume (even though you didnt say so) that you don't consider my corporation a threat to America. So what is the difference between my corporation and GE? Size? At what size does a corporation become a threat? Why?
You can't answer these questions because your theory is crackpot. They are found distributed on the windshields of cars in the Wal Mart parking lot, or found on tin-foil hat wearing discussion boards.
Post by: Paddy on September 06, 2007, 01:06:46 PM
Quote
I have pointed out that I own a corporation. I will assume (even though you didnt say so) that you don't consider my corporation a threat to America.
Your corporation (C corp or S corp) is a Mom & Pop, not a multinational, multibillion $ enterprise.
Quote
So what is the difference between my corporation and GE?
Your corporation cannot borrow without your personal guarantee. Your corporation does not sell equity stock or issue bonds to raise capital. Your corporation is not regulated by the SEC, Sarbanes Oxley etc. Your corporation does not spend millions$ to lobby congress, to buy politicians and favorable legislation. Your corporation does not have tens of thousands of employees to screw out of their pensions because you didn't fund them. Your corporation is a corporation in name only.
Quote
At what size does a corporation become a threat? Why?
See above.
Post by: Paddy on September 06, 2007, 01:21:32 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 06, 2007, 01:28:05 PM
The potential to do harm isn't recognized as a threat or a crime. At least, not by sensible people. We all have the potential to do harm. It's what we do, what we actually do, that matters, not what some crackpot idjit on the internet says we might possibly be able to one day maybe think about potentially doing.
What, exactly, does a typical major corporation do that is so terribly wrong? So far, all you've said is that they spend their own money as they see fit, as is their (and anyone's) prerogative. All you've really said is that they act in their own interest instead bending over and taking it in the arse for everyone else's benefit.
Oh, and please continue to ignore all the beneficial things our major corporations do for us, for our country, and for the world. It helps to illustrate your prejudices and ignorance. Really, who needs affordable goods, or a job, or an economy that makes us the world's lone superpower free to plot our own destiny?
Post by: Paddy on September 06, 2007, 01:39:24 PM
Quote
The potential to do harm isn't recognized as a threat or a crime.
I thought that's why 'we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here'. We've been engaged in a war, spent hundreds of billions $, suffered thousands of casualties, because of a potential to do harm.
Quote
At least, not by sensible people.
Exactly.
As for the rest of your post, it's just more of the same arrogant, libertarian style 'I'll do what I want' as though you live in a vacuum.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 06, 2007, 01:44:39 PM
Quote
So what is the difference between my corporation and GE?
Your corporation cannot borrow without your personal guarantee. Your corporation does not sell equity stock or issue bonds to raise capital. Your corporation is not regulated by the SEC, Sarbanes Oxley etc. Your corporation does not spend millions$ to lobby congress, to buy politicians and favorable legislation. Your corporation does not have tens of thousands of employees to screw out of their pensions because you didn't fund them. Your corporation is a corporation in name only.
Quote
At what size does a corporation become a threat? Why?
See above.
OK. So one stock I own is called Epolin (epln). The make near-infrared dyes. It has about 20 employees and is run by a 75 year old Jewish chemist in N.J. The company borrows money without his guarantee. It issues stock. It abides by Sarbanes-Oxley (the dumbest piece of legislation to come down the pike since McCain-Feingold). Etc.
And this little company is a threat how exactly?
And my corporation is not a corporation in name only. It has exactly the same benefits and laws that any other one does. I could issue stock, raise capital, etc.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 06, 2007, 01:46:42 PM
Quote
The potential to do harm isn't recognized as a threat or a crime.
I thought that's why 'we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here'. We've been engaged in a war, spent hundreds of billions $, suffered thousands of casualties, because of a potential to do harm.
It always comes back to Iraq for this guy.
A. Wars are not usually fought as punishments for crimes.
B. Saddam covered both bases by having done us wrong and showing potential to harm us.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 06, 2007, 02:02:59 PM
Quote
The potential to do harm isn't recognized as a threat or a crime.
I thought that's why 'we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here'. We've been engaged in a war, spent hundreds of billions $, suffered thousands of casualties, because of a potential to do harm.
Quote
At least, not by sensible people.
Exactly.
As for the rest of your post, it's just more of the same arrogant, libertarian style 'I'll do what I want' as though you live in a vacuum.
Character A asks "Why'd you do that?"
Character B responds "Because it was going to fall onto the floor."
Character A replies "But it didn't fall on the floor. You caught it."
Character B smiles and says "But it would have fallen if I hadn't caught it."
Saddam didn't merely posses the potential to threaten the US and others, he had been actively threatening and attacking us for years. He promised to continue doing so for as long as he was able to. He sought, both in appearance and in fact, to increase his ability to harm the US, and he repeatedly threatened to use any increased capability against us. Most everyone agreed that he was a disaster waiting to happen. Saddam was the proverbial ball that would inevitably fall onto the floor. We caught that ball before it fell, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have fallen had we failed to act.
At worst, all a corporation has is the potential to harm the US. Sure, a given corporation might (or might not - I think you overestimate the destructive potential latent in our companies) be able to hurt the US. But the simple fact remains that there isn't a single corporation out there is going to hurt us. Those few that do hurt a small subset of the population are so rare as to be the exception that proves the rule - and they are punished accordingly for their crimes.
There's a difference between what actually happens (or what is obviously and inevitably going to happen) versus what might possibly happen under some far-fetched imaginary scenario. Anything could happen, but only a few things ever do happen.
Post by: longeyes on September 06, 2007, 02:06:36 PM
That's right.
And the reason, Rabbi, if you've been reading closely, is that the structure of a corporation is inherently non-representative. As large corporations influence and control more and more of not only our political life but our social and cultural life such issues become HUGE. I'm sorry if you don't see the repercussions all around you. Large corporations are dangerous in the way big government is dangerous: control a man's livelihood, directly or indirectly, and you make him a de facto slave.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 06, 2007, 02:21:32 PM
Name for me any corporation that controls anyone's livelihood. Any such arrangement, which you accurately describe as slave labor, is illegal. Corporations offer jobs. They don't force anyone to do anything against their will. Most of us find it to our advantage to take one of those jobs, but we do so freely because it benefits us. But if it isn't to your advantage to work for Corporation X, don't. There are plenty of alternatives.
Corporations are some of the the most representative, free, and egalitarian organizations ever conceived by man. Anyone is free to participate or not as he likes, to any degree he is willing and able to commit to. Unlike citizens of a government, any shareholder of any corporation is free to opt out if he chooses, or to opt in further if he chooses, or to take over the whole thing if he's able, or even to act out in competition against the corporation.
Post by: Paddy on September 06, 2007, 02:32:02 PM
Quote
So, just because a corporation is large and capable, it is inherently evil?
Nobody said that.
Quote
Oh, and please continue to ignore all the beneficial things our major corporations do for us, for our country, and for the world. It helps to illustrate your prejudices and ignorance. Really, who needs affordable goods, or a job, or an economy that makes us the world's lone superpower free to plot our own destiny?
Another kneejerk leap of 'logic'. We would probably not have the prosperity we do today without the corporate structure. The problem is with the way that structure is being used and directed. This widespread corporate fraud, bogus financials, capitalizing expenses, off-balance-sheet loans to partnerships owned by officers and boardmembers, etc. is a more recent phenomenon.
The 'privatization' of war, including the transfer of untold billions to 'contractors', and the lack of accountability for their activities is a new phenomenon.
The revolving door between government and corporations, where top level personnel regularly interchange, is a new phenomenon.
The massive 'outsourcing' of labor to third world countries is a new phenomenon.
Breaches of contractual obligations to pay employee pensions are a new phenomenon.
And it goes on and on. And the so-called 'restraints', the threat of lawsuits, contractual obligations, and the marketplace aren't doing much to bring integrity, accountability, or even compliance with those obligations.
Post by: Paddy on September 06, 2007, 02:44:00 PM
Quote
Corporations are some of the the most representative, free, and egalitarian organizations ever conceived by man.
That one line alone would get you to the finals in "Last Comic Standing".
Post by: longeyes on September 06, 2007, 03:03:56 PM
Corporations are a two-edged sword, and in that they resemble many of the blessings of modern civilization. It's up to us how that sword swings.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 06, 2007, 04:11:43 PM
Inimical to liberty.
That's right.
And the reason, Rabbi, if you've been reading closely, is that the structure of a corporation is inherently non-representative. As large corporations influence and control more and more of not only our political life but our social and cultural life such issues become HUGE. I'm sorry if you don't see the repercussions all around you. Large corporations are dangerous in the way big government is dangerous: control a man's livelihood, directly or indirectly, and you make him a de facto slave.
That's right.
And the reason, Rabbi, if you've been reading closely, is that the structure of a corporation is inherently non-representative. As large corporations influence and control more and more of not only our political life but our social and cultural life such issues become HUGE. I'm sorry if you don't see the repercussions all around you. Large corporations are dangerous in the way big government is dangerous: control a man's livelihood, directly or indirectly, and you make him a de facto slave.
As the Headless One pointed out. This might win least in touch with reality post of the week.
The Catholic Church is hierarchical. The Catholic Church controls vast amounts of money and real estate. The Catholic Church is inherently non-representative. And the Catholic Church influences a lot of public life.
I guess teh Catholic Church is dangerous and needs to be stopped too.
Post by: grampster on September 06, 2007, 05:24:51 PM
Yin and yang, I suspect.
In reading history regarding the US of A, one will find if it were not for Capital, corrupt as it was, much of our national infrastructure would never have been built.
Many of the advances in perhaps every field, would have been stultified. Read a history of the building of the trans continental railroad for example. After doing so, one would agree that if this project were to be attempted today, it would never, ever be completed. Probably never even get off the ground because of government interference and massive communication network that would expose the corruption and brutality that would be needed to construct the railroads.
Someone recently said (I think it was Rudy G) that during WWII, if we needed to secure our borders, it could be completed in 90 days, fence and all. Yet today, it takes 12 years to build a runway at an airport in Philedelphia.
Post by: longeyes on September 06, 2007, 06:55:09 PM
Quote
As the Headless One pointed out. This might win least in touch with reality post of the week.
The Catholic Church is hierarchical. The Catholic Church controls vast amounts of money and real estate. The Catholic Church is inherently non-representative. And the Catholic Church influences a lot of public life.
I guess teh Catholic Church is dangerous and needs to be stopped too.
The Catholic Church is hierarchical. The Catholic Church controls vast amounts of money and real estate. The Catholic Church is inherently non-representative. And the Catholic Church influences a lot of public life.
I guess teh Catholic Church is dangerous and needs to be stopped too.
Headless ones stick together, I see. I really don't wish to get sucked into what will become a fruitless discussion of comparative religion and the social repercussions of various theological platforms, even though it should be obvious to everyone on this forum that values--and that includes religious values--dictate the nature of the world you're likely to inhabit. But, hey, let's go by your own description of the Catholic Church and stipulate for the sake of this thread that it's accurate. Would you wish to live in a Catholic theocracy? And if you did do you think that you'd have the America you seem to prize?
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 06, 2007, 07:01:48 PM
Post by: longeyes on September 06, 2007, 07:38:28 PM
But in fact we do live in a "theocracy," Serape'd One. The "God" is consumerism and the corporations are the priest class. You'll see the same blank eyes in the millions of tv-addled addicts.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 06, 2007, 07:50:02 PM
Post by: Paddy on September 06, 2007, 07:56:19 PM
Quote
I think Rabbi's point is that the Catholic church shares much in common with a large, multi-national corporation. Yet we don't live in a Catholic theocracy. That's the point.
I don't quite get the connection; it's vague as are many of Rabbi's points. However, the Catholic church has almost nothing in common with a large, multi-national corporation. The Catholic church:
Has no profit motive
Has no shareholders to appease
Does not spend millions lobbying governments
Has little or no effect on local economies or environments
Does charitable works all over the globe
(and probably more stuff I don't remember right now)
all of which don't apply to large multinationals.
So what's yer point again???
Post by: The Rabbi on September 07, 2007, 02:45:27 AM
I think Rabbi's point is that the Catholic church shares much in common with a large, multi-national corporation. Yet we don't live in a Catholic theocracy. That's the point.
Right. It would seem obvious that the mere existence of one kind of governing structure does not necessitate corruption of everything else. Which seems to be what Longeyes is pushing.
He sounds like someone laid off in a merger/acquisition and is bitter about it. It certainly isn't rational.
Post by: longeyes on September 07, 2007, 05:25:26 AM
Longeyes' point was about being able to think and act for oneself. When marketing entered the world corporations became quasi-religious organizations as well as feudal states. The link is mind-control.
What Longeyes witnessed, about fifteen years ago, was a multi-natioinal conglomerate transforming, in a matter of just a few years, a prosperous publishing company with a lot of esprit de corps being killed by the greed, ignorance, and top-down "management" of people whose every move was governed by bean-counters who understood nothing about the very business they'd bought into.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 07, 2007, 06:10:46 AM
Longeyes will need to explain how, although a large number of men served in the hierarchical US military in WW2 (and since) amazingly they were able to think for themselves afterwards. Ditto with Catholics who have devoted themselves usually for a lifetime to the hierarchical church and yet often are staunch independents.
And Longeyes will need to explain how one corporate screw-up endangers the existence of America or what the relevance of his one experience to this thread is.
Post by: roo_ster on September 07, 2007, 06:39:58 AM
Post by: Paddy on September 07, 2007, 06:42:47 AM
And you know very well your coy obfuscations are simply attempts to dance around the point, which I'll restate once again: It is not the existence of the corporate structure that is the problem (you seem to be stuck on this). It is the corrupt, unregulated, unaccountable manner in which it is being used that is the problem.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 07, 2007, 07:24:39 AM
Rabbi, your misdirected focus is not unlike that of the native American Indians watching the U.S. Cavalry ride up and thinking only of the pretty shiny beads they're bringing.
And you know very well your coy obfuscations are simply attempts to dance around the point, which I'll restate once again: It is not the existence of the corporate structure that is the problem (you seem to be stuck on this). It is the corrupt, unregulated, unaccountable manner in which it is being used that is the problem.
And you know very well your coy obfuscations are simply attempts to dance around the point, which I'll restate once again: It is not the existence of the corporate structure that is the problem (you seem to be stuck on this). It is the corrupt, unregulated, unaccountable manner in which it is being used that is the problem.
I am trying hard to understand Longeyes' point. Currently it seems to be that "corporations are evil because they are just so gosh darn big. And did I ever tell you what a corporation did to me once?"
That just isn't cutting it.
On to your point:
Corrupt: There are millions of corporations out there, ranging in size from 123Shoot Inc (my own, with 2 owners) to GE. They employ untold millions worldwide. What percentage of corporations are "corrupt"? What does "corrupt" mean in this context? If it means cutting the best deal for the company, that's what they're their for.
Unregulated: There are dozens of Federal agencies in the U.S. alone writing thousands of regulations every year that govern corporations. Take a look at the CFR someday. Additionally there are regulators in every state of the union. Further there are regulators in every country that corporation does business. Corporations get fined periodically and get reviewed and inspected constantly by enforcement arms of those regulators. If corporations are unregulated, what would your idea of regulated be?
Unaccountable. Corporations are accountable to the regulators over them (see above). Corporations are accountable to their shareholders, who can and do oust management periodically. Corporations are accountable to the legal system and lawsuits brought by individuals, other companies, and government itself.
What would your idea of accountability be beyond any of that?
Yes, I guess for people who feel disenfranchised, corporations look like big scary monsters. The reality is rather different.
But let's say, for argument's sake, that your point and Longeyes' point is correct (whatever those points might be), how does the corruption and unaccountability of corporations threaten the American Way of Life? And if it does, how has the American Way of Life managed to exist this long, despite over 100 years' of large corporations in the country?
Post by: longeyes on September 07, 2007, 08:28:57 AM
The corporate paradigm is inherently non-representative and non-democratic. Applied increasingly to our society as a whole as a "model" it leads to exactly what we see around us today: rogue government and rogue large-scale businesses.
I think you get my point. It's clear and simple enough. You just don't want to, Rabbi.
I've said that big corporations are a two-edged sword, responsible for both good and ill.
Post by: auschip on September 07, 2007, 10:28:37 AM
Quote
The corporate paradigm is inherently non-representative and non-democratic.
Joining the conversation late (and possibly to my own detriment), but I would disagree with that statement (at least with regard to publicly traded corporations). A corporation is representative, in that the shareholders hire their representatives. It might even be said, that a publicly held corporation is also a representative democracy, in that a group of shareholders can band together to oust their representative if that person isn't doing what they should (provided they have enough votes).
Post by: The Rabbi on September 07, 2007, 11:18:55 AM
The corporate paradigm is inherently non-representative and non-democratic. Applied increasingly to our society as a whole as a "model" it leads to exactly what we see around us today: rogue government and rogue large-scale businesses.
I think you get my point. It's clear and simple enough. You just don't want to, Rabbi.
I've said that big corporations are a two-edged sword, responsible for both good and ill.
I dont see your point. I have questioned you about it numerous times. I have offered summations what I think you are saying. Obviously I have gotten it all wrong.
What is "rogue government" and "rogue large-scale business"? Can you define, reasonably, any one of those words in this context?
Your argument, as I understand it now, is that the existence of large corporations has had a deleterious effect on American life. But you cannot articulate why or how this has happened. Nor could you address the fact that we had criminal activity in government long before we had corporations. One obviously doesn't cause the other.
Your views appear to be snow men: substantial at first glance but melt away under a strong light of inquiry.
Post by: longeyes on September 07, 2007, 01:44:20 PM
That's just one example.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 07, 2007, 01:46:15 PM
I can't articulate the deleterious impact of large-scale corporations? Who's behind the massive wave of illegal immigration to America? A combination of big corporations combined with the rogue Government I spoke of. The vast majority of Americans oppose this influx; yet it goes on. And on. And on.
That's just one example.
I had no idea that middle level managers of large scale corporations were trying to immigrate here illegally. Heck, I thought most of them were born here.
That's just one example.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 07, 2007, 02:03:05 PM
Quote
I think Rabbi's point is that the Catholic church shares much in common with a large, multi-national corporation. Yet we don't live in a Catholic theocracy. That's the point.
I don't quite get the connection; it's vague as are many of Rabbi's points. However, the Catholic church has almost nothing in common with a large, multi-national corporation. The Catholic church:
Has no profit motive
Has no shareholders to appease
Does not spend millions lobbying governments
Has little or no effect on local economies or environments
Does charitable works all over the globe
(and probably more stuff I don't remember right now)
all of which don't apply to large multinationals.
So what's yer point again???
Oh, it has church-members to appease. And I wouldn't say they don't lobby governments, although you could be right. Also, corporations are very frequently involved with charity work.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 07, 2007, 02:41:58 PM
longeyes, it might help you to know that Rabbi is anti-enforcement on the immigration issue.
That would be an incorrect summation of my position.
My position is that I am pro-freedom. I think people need to be allowed to live where they want and work where they want, regardless of national origin. We punish people who commit crimes, not people who are working and raising families. Further, the gov't has no business interfering in the relationship between employer and employee.
And if we were not discussing Hispanics I suspect I everyone here would agree with me.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 07, 2007, 02:50:27 PM
Post by: wmenorr67 on September 07, 2007, 03:59:28 PM
longeyes, it might help you to know that Rabbi is anti-enforcement on the immigration issue.
That would be an incorrect summation of my position.
My position is that I am pro-freedom. I think people need to be allowed to live where they want and work where they want, regardless of national origin. We punish people who commit crimes, not people who are working and raising families. Further, the gov't has no business interfering in the relationship between employer and employee.
And if we were not discussing Hispanics I suspect I everyone here would agree with me.
I don't agree with you. I don't care what country you come from. If you want to live, work or go to school in the United States of America do so legally or get out.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 08, 2007, 04:24:17 PM
longeyes, it might help you to know that Rabbi is anti-enforcement on the immigration issue.
That would be an incorrect summation of my position.
My position is that I am pro-freedom. I think people need to be allowed to live where they want and work where they want, regardless of national origin. We punish people who commit crimes, not people who are working and raising families. Further, the gov't has no business interfering in the relationship between employer and employee.
And if we were not discussing Hispanics I suspect I everyone here would agree with me.
I don't agree with you. I don't care what country you come from. If you want to live, work or go to school in the United States of America do so legally or get out.
Good. So you support legislation allowing unrestricted immigration of non-criminals for working purposes here.
We're agreed.
Post by: grampster on September 08, 2007, 06:11:54 PM
(Note: I am a noisy advocate for border security. I believe our borders and our ports should be as impervious to illegal crossing or entry as is possible. I also am an advocate of having immigrants come here. I just want to know who they are and what they can add to the pot when the come.)
I wonder why all the angst about large corporations. They are not social institutions per se. They exist to make money. If they make money, usually a lot of the rest of us live fairly well, all things considered. If I had my choice between large government and large corporations, I'll take the corporations. If I don't like what they are doing, I can usually avoid them with no deleterious effect. Try not paying your taxes and see what happens.
Post by: Bogie on September 08, 2007, 06:52:16 PM
You're bitching about bureaucracies.
In the case of the megacorp, you've got a lot of folks who are (a) covering ass; and (b) doing whatever will safely bring a profit in the next quarter, so that they can move onto a better job with that on their resume.
In the event of -serious- wartime, much of this tends to go out the window, since people are working toward a common goal, instead of every man for himself.
After the next batch of bad guys comes across the border (and at least part of them will be in the country illegally), you're gonna see one helluva fence mobilization program.
And I don't see why folks are blaming the Mexican trucker thing on Bush... Isn't this Clinton's stuff, finally come home to roost?
Post by: Paddy on September 08, 2007, 07:29:52 PM
Quote
That would be an incorrect summation of my position.
My position is that I am pro-freedom. I think people need to be allowed to live where they want and work where they want, regardless of national origin. We punish people who commit crimes, not people who are working and raising families. Further, the gov't has no business interfering in the relationship between employer and employee.
My position is that I am pro-freedom. I think people need to be allowed to live where they want and work where they want, regardless of national origin. We punish people who commit crimes, not people who are working and raising families. Further, the gov't has no business interfering in the relationship between employer and employee.
Does that position spring from an altruistic or commercial motive, Rabbi?
Post by: The Rabbi on September 09, 2007, 04:03:05 AM
Quote
That would be an incorrect summation of my position.
My position is that I am pro-freedom. I think people need to be allowed to live where they want and work where they want, regardless of national origin. We punish people who commit crimes, not people who are working and raising families. Further, the gov't has no business interfering in the relationship between employer and employee.
My position is that I am pro-freedom. I think people need to be allowed to live where they want and work where they want, regardless of national origin. We punish people who commit crimes, not people who are working and raising families. Further, the gov't has no business interfering in the relationship between employer and employee.
Does that position spring from an altruistic or commercial motive, Rabbi?
And why do you try to make a distinction between "altruistic" and 'commercial"? Or do you think that economics is a zero sum game where there are always winners and losers?
Post by: Paddy on September 09, 2007, 06:01:36 PM
Quote
It springs from my belief that capitalism is the best form of economy and limited government is the best form of gov't.
That's OK, but they need to operate independently, not collusively, as they do now.
Quote
And why do you try to make a distinction between "altruistic" and 'commercial"? Or do you think that economics is a zero sum game where there are always winners and losers?
I don't get the relationship of those two sentences. Anyway is it allowed to use the term 'zero sum game' without crediting Rush?
No, economics (I presume you really mean industry, or enterprise) is most assuredly not a zero sum game. It's not necessary for someone to lose in order for someone else to win. If it were, economic growth couldn't happen.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 10, 2007, 02:57:01 AM
Post by: Paddy on September 10, 2007, 08:13:09 AM
Sep 10 08:59 AM US/Eastern
34 Killed, 150 Injured in Mexico Dynamite Truck Explosion
PIEDRAS NEGRAS, Mexico (AP) - A truck carrying explosives for the mining industry exploded after running into another vehicle in northern Mexico, killing at least 37 people, a federal police official said Monday.
The two cars collided Sunday evening on a highway in Coahuila state, near the town of Sacramento, Luis Horacio de Hoyos said.
Soldiers, police, emergency officials, nearby residents and reporters were on the scene when the vehicle suddenly caught fire, igniting the truck full of explosives.
Maximo Alberto Neri Lopez, a federal police official, said 37 people were killed and 150 were injured. He said the explosion left a 3-meter by 15-meter crater in the concrete.
De Hoyos said three newspaper reporters from the city of Monclova were among the dead.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RIK0BG0&show_article=1
Post by: Bogie on September 10, 2007, 08:36:11 AM
I'm still not understanding... NAFTA happened under Clinton's watch. He signed it.
Now, is Bush an evil genius mastermind, or an idiotic patsy?
Can't be both. Y'all hate him so much that you can't even think of a reason why.
Sad.
Post by: longeyes on September 10, 2007, 08:38:28 AM
Post by: longeyes on September 10, 2007, 08:43:38 AM
Bush is neither a patsy or an evil genius, he's a terminally immature man who can't see reality for what it is. This is why he deludes himself about what he is doing to America while crying on God's shoulder.
I see no strength in this man, and I can't respect him. He's seriously hurting America with his border policies. And he refuses to fight the counter-jihad war the way it should be fought. We will never get anywhere with the policies we're using. I have yet to hear an explanation of why we're not fighting this war to win.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 10, 2007, 09:00:30 AM
Who needs suicide bombers from the Middle East when you can have Mexican truck drivers with a few too many cervezas under the belts?
And who needs suicide bombers when you can have drunk drivers here in the U.S?
I fail to see the relevance of the story to, well, anything.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on September 10, 2007, 09:09:03 AM
Who needs suicide bombers from the Middle East when you can have Mexican truck drivers with a few too many cervezas under the belts?
And who needs suicide bombers when you can have drunk drivers here in the U.S?
I fail to see the relevance of the story to, well, anything.
I'd bet my next weeks paycheck there are a whole lot more drunken Mexican truck drivers than American truck drivers. Have you ever been to Mexico and seen their attitudes towards drinking and driving?
We have thousands of Mexicans (mostly illegal) around here and they bring the same attitudes up here with them.
Post by: longeyes on September 10, 2007, 09:21:18 AM
Quote
I fail to see the relevance of the story to, well, anything.
You could have stopped after "I fail to see."
You don't want to look at the cultural issues involved. Driving drunk is a sport of choice with the machismo-inclined. You can choose to ignore or deny this reality, but it remains. Have we heard any statistics about accidents and drunk driving in Mexico? I know, I know, all cultures are "equal." No, they're not.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 10, 2007, 09:47:34 AM
Quote
I fail to see the relevance of the story to, well, anything.
You could have stopped after "I fail to see."
You don't want to look at the cultural issues involved. Driving drunk is a sport of choice with the machismo-inclined. You can choose to ignore or deny this reality, but it remains. Have we heard any statistics about accidents and drunk driving in Mexico? I know, I know, all cultures are "equal." No, they're not.
You still havent explained the relevance.
Oh yeah, all Mexicans are drunk drivers who can't be trusted on our roads.
Nah, no stereotyping there.
Post by: Bogie on September 10, 2007, 09:51:30 AM
Post by: longeyes on September 10, 2007, 10:34:37 AM
I guess you're trying to argue that there are no meaningful cultural differences. Odd, because Mexicans themselves would firmly disagree. As for me, I know what I see around me. Drunk driving among illegals is rampant here.
Of course the people who hope to profit from the Mexican truck invasion don't care. Maybe when their own sons and daughters wind up in the morgue they will.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 10, 2007, 10:50:20 AM
Stereotype? Do you read the news, Rabbi?
I guess you're trying to argue that there are no meaningful cultural differences. Odd, because Mexicans themselves would firmly disagree. As for me, I know what I see around me. Drunk driving among illegals is rampant here.
Of course the people who hope to profit from the Mexican truck invasion don't care. Maybe when their own sons and daughters wind up in the morgue they will.
I guess you're trying to argue that there are no meaningful cultural differences. Odd, because Mexicans themselves would firmly disagree. As for me, I know what I see around me. Drunk driving among illegals is rampant here.
Of course the people who hope to profit from the Mexican truck invasion don't care. Maybe when their own sons and daughters wind up in the morgue they will.
There are certainly meaningful cultural differences.
But I don't think drunk driving is a positive value there.
And if it is, so what?
What was your point again??
Post by: Paddy on September 10, 2007, 10:54:31 AM
If everyone were in pursuit of the same goals as Rabbi (prosperity, etc.) he may have a point. But this is a different world. Everyone is not after the same thing. Terrorists want to come here to kill us and create as much havoc and destruction as possible.
And while Rabbi bemoans any government interference with commerce, he's happy to endorse the U.S. government's subsidy of this highway. He fails to acknowledge the obvious inferiority and corruption of the entire Mexican system.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 10, 2007, 11:11:18 AM
It may be hopeless, longeyes. Rabbi believes in the absolute superiority of an economic system operating free of all government regulation. In his view, this is the way to peace, prosperity and an increased standard of living for all. He considers national sovereignty and borders a barrier to that goal. He considers our point of view xenophobic and without merit.
If everyone were in pursuit of the same goals as Rabbi (prosperity, etc.) he may have a point. But this is a different world. Everyone is not after the same thing. Terrorists want to come here to kill us and create as much havoc and destruction as possible.
And while Rabbi bemoans any government interference with commerce, he's happy to endorse the U.S. government's subsidy of this highway. He fails to acknowledge the obvious inferiority and corruption of the entire Mexican system.
If everyone were in pursuit of the same goals as Rabbi (prosperity, etc.) he may have a point. But this is a different world. Everyone is not after the same thing. Terrorists want to come here to kill us and create as much havoc and destruction as possible.
And while Rabbi bemoans any government interference with commerce, he's happy to endorse the U.S. government's subsidy of this highway. He fails to acknowledge the obvious inferiority and corruption of the entire Mexican system.
Those would be inaccurate statements of my views.
But they sure explain a lot about your posts.
Post by: longeyes on September 10, 2007, 12:10:48 PM
I think the point is that capitalism requires a human face, it requires honest dealing and a belief in certain moral values. All that is lacking in certain people both north and south of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Post by: Paddy on September 10, 2007, 03:23:31 PM
Post by: Bogie on September 10, 2007, 08:12:58 PM
I'd fill it full of gnarsty stuff, explosives at the middle, and dial the cell phone when it looks like a good time...
Bad guy wouldn't even need to be in the country. Wouldn't even need to have the stuff clear customs. Imagine what a container full of rad waste being blown up off LA would do...
Not the radiation problems... The violence in the traffic jams would kill more folks...
Post by: Paddy on September 11, 2007, 07:15:56 AM
Quote
More likely a Chinese container.
Exactamente. Aboard a Mexican truck. You don't think the Golden Brick Road will be carrying only Hecho en Mejico crap, do you? Au contraire, mi amigo. Check out the Mexican deep water ports at Lázaro Cárdenas and the plans for Punta Colonet, meant to replace both Los Angeles and Long Beach ports.
This will be an open artery into this country from anywhere in the world, nonstop through Mexico.
Post by: longeyes on September 11, 2007, 07:35:25 AM
No, we're not in Kansas any more, and Kansas ain't Kansas, either.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 11, 2007, 09:03:13 AM
Well, it is poetically apt that Mexico become the metaphorical syringe to feed the American addiction for consumer goods.
No, we're not in Kansas any more, and Kansas ain't Kansas, either.
No, we're not in Kansas any more, and Kansas ain't Kansas, either.
Yeah, shame on all those consumers for wanting stuff. Sheesh. The nerve of some people.
Post by: Paddy on September 11, 2007, 10:13:52 AM
Quote
Yeah, shame on all those consumers for wanting unlimited neverending amounts of cheap imported third world stuff without which their lives would be bleak and devoid of any meaning whatsoever. Sheesh. The nerve of some people.
Fixed it for you.
Post by: longeyes on September 11, 2007, 02:04:37 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 11, 2007, 02:11:22 PM
When your need for toys exceeds your love of country and awareness of what it takes to survive, the only thing you are really consuming is yourself, Rabbi.
When you start making judgements on consumers' preferences and then blowing it up into something it isn't, you lose what little relevance you had.
Post by: Paddy on September 11, 2007, 02:32:22 PM
But it's coming.
Post by: drewtam on September 11, 2007, 02:50:57 PM
I think your throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Drew
Post by: longeyes on September 11, 2007, 03:13:13 PM
Post by: longeyes on September 11, 2007, 03:17:11 PM
Quote
Why do you guys tie legal immigrant cultural woes, illegal immigration woes, and less regulated international shipping policies?
I think your throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I think your throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Maybe I'm tired of drinking bathwater and being told it's from Olympian wells?
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 11, 2007, 05:35:47 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 11, 2007, 05:38:51 PM
What exactly is this thread about?
About six pages too long.
Post by: Paddy on September 11, 2007, 06:44:51 PM
This thread is about the NAFTA Superhighway deniers (like Rabbi).........
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57175
The NAFTA Superhighway is taking shape as the Trans Texas Corridor
http://www.corridorwatch.org/ttc/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Texas_Corridor
and dissolves whatever miserable shred is left of U.S. Border 'security'.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 12, 2007, 03:33:58 AM
I do deny it will result in the end of civilization as we know it.
Post by: longeyes on September 12, 2007, 05:35:19 AM
Quote
I've never denied the NAFTA superhighway. I am pretty sure it does exist, at least in plans.
I do deny it will result in the end of civilization as we know it.
I do deny it will result in the end of civilization as we know it.
You're right, it won't, now do you want the grande or super-grande chimichanga?
American civilization has changed markedly, in all ways, since the Reagan amnesty of some 20 years ago. People who have experienced the metamorphosis at close range can tell you whether the change was positive. What I can tell you, as someone who has lived in the California "test bed" most of my life, is that California, once great, is in serious decline and likely to become a "Little Venezuela." You are seeing the creation of plantation economics up close here. If you are really ready to write off California as part of America, fine, but ponder carefully before you do because this process is not going to stop with California.
Post by: Bogie on September 12, 2007, 06:48:13 AM
And before that, it was the Irish...
Post by: The Rabbi on September 12, 2007, 07:13:47 AM
Campers, I seem to recall that about 60 years ago, people were highly upset about "those Italians."
And before that, it was the Irish...
And before that, it was the Irish...
And the Chinese (The Yellow Peril).
And the Germans. etc etc.
Post by: auschip on September 12, 2007, 07:18:43 AM
Quote
I've never denied the NAFTA superhighway. I am pretty sure it does exist, at least in plans.
I do deny it will result in the end of civilization as we know it.
I do deny it will result in the end of civilization as we know it.
You're right, it won't, now do you want the grande or super-grande chimichanga?
American civilization has changed markedly, in all ways, since the Reagan amnesty of some 20 years ago. People who have experienced the metamorphosis at close range can tell you whether the change was positive. What I can tell you, as someone who has lived in the California "test bed" most of my life, is that California, once great, is in serious decline and likely to become a "Little Venezuela." You are seeing the creation of plantation economics up close here. If you are really ready to write off California as part of America, fine, but ponder carefully before you do because this process is not going to stop with California.
I don't want the Chimichanga today, but I do think I might head over to get some Pho (In little Vietnam as a matter of fact). I did have a breakfast taco this morning though.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 12, 2007, 07:24:08 AM
Yes, America has changed in 20 years since Reagan. In the 1980s it had changed remarkably from the 1960s. The 1960s were nothing like the 1940s.
Your point again was what exactly?
Post by: Paddy on September 12, 2007, 09:01:37 AM
Campers, I seem to recall that about 60 years ago, people were highly upset about "those Italians."
And before that, it was the Irish...
And before that, it was the Irish...
And the Chinese (The Yellow Peril).
And the Germans. etc etc.
They immigrated here legally. They established permanent residences and business. They didn't return to their countries of origin to vote. They didn't send most of their earnings back to those countries. They learned English, they were pround that their children were Americans, etc. et yada. They came here to become Americans. That used to mean something.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 12, 2007, 09:16:37 AM
Look up "paper son" sometime.
They learned English, after a generation or two.
They certainly sent money home. My great-grandfather did so regularly.
blah blah...falling on deaf ears....blah blah....
Post by: Paddy on September 12, 2007, 09:51:31 AM
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
"Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope he will learn English, but that he has got to learn it. Let the immigrant who does not learn it go back. He has got to consider the interest of the United States or he should not stay here. He must be made to see that his opportunities in this country depend upon his knowing English and observing American standards. The employer cannot be permitted to regard him only as an industrial asset.
"We must in every way possible encourage the immigrant to rise, help him up, give him a chance to help himself. If we try to carry him he may well prove not well worth carrying. We must in turn insist upon his showing the same standard of fealty to this country and to join with us in raising the level of our common American citizenship.
"If I could I would have the kind of restriction which would not allow any immigrant to come here unless I was content that his grandchildren would be fellow-citizens of my grandchildren. They will not be so if he lives in a boarding house at $2.50 per month with ten other boarders and contracts tuberculosis and contributes to the next generation a body of citizens inferior not only morally and spiritually but also physically."
Using the motto "America for Americans" for all Americans, whether they were born here or abroad, the former President declared that "the salvation of our people lies in having a nationalized and unified America, ready for the tremendous tasks of both war and peace."
Col. Roosevelt said he came to St. Louis to speak on Americanism to speak of and condemn the use of the hyphen "whenever it represents an effort to form political parties along racial lines or to bring pressure to bear on parties and politicians, not for American purposes, but in the interest of some group of voters of a certain national origin or of the country from which they or their fathers came."
He was equally against the native American of the wrong kind and for the immigrant of the right kind, the former President declared, but the immigrant who did not become in good faith an American "is out of place" in the United States. He said each nation should be judged by its conduct and that the United States should oppose encroachment on its own rights, whether Germany, England, France or Russia be guilty of misconduct.
"I believe in nationalism as the absolute prerequisite to internationalism. I believe in patriotism as the absolute prerequisite to the larger Americanism. I believe in Americanism because unless our people are good Americans first, America can accomplish little or nothing worth accomplishing for the good of the world as a whole."
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.
This is just as true of the man who puts native before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance.
But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.
The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English- Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian- Americans, or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic.
The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American.
Addressing the Knights of Columbus in New York City
12 October 1915
"The effort to keep our citizenship divided against itself," the colonel continued, "by the use of the hyphen and along the lines of national origin is certain to a breed of spirit of bitterness and prejudice and dislike between great bodies of our citizens. If some citizens band together as German-Americans or Irish-Americans, then after a while others are certain to band together as English-Americans or Scandinavian-Americans, and every such banding together, every attempt to make for political purposes a German-American alliance or a Scandinavian-American alliance, means down at the bottom an effort against the interest of straight-out American citizenship, an effort to bring into our nation the bitter Old World rivalries and jealousies and hatreds."
In a Fourth of July speech in 1917, Roosevelt urged the adoption of linguistic uniformity, including a requirement that all foreign-language newspapers published in the U.S. should also include English translations.
Touching on the matter of language, Col. Roosevelt declared that "We must have in this country but one flag, and for the speech of the people but one language, the English language. During the present war all newspapers published in German, or in the speech of any of our foes, should be required to publish, side by side with the foreign text, columns in English containing the exact translation of everything said in the foreign language. Ultimately this should be done with all newspapers published in foreign languages in this country."
Likewise, on 27 May 1918, Roosevelt urged in a speech at Des Moines, Iowa, that English be the sole language of instruction used in American schools.
NEW YORK, Jan. 6. What was the last public statement by Col. Roosevelt was read last night at an "All-American concert" here under the auspices of the American Defense society, of which he was honorary president.
"I cannot be with you and so all I can do is to wish you Godspeed," it read. "There may be no sagging back in the fight for Americanism merely because the war is over.
"There are plenty of persons who have already made the assertion that they believe the American people have a short memory and that they intend to revive all the foreign associations which more directly interfere with the complete Americanization of our people. Our principle in this matter should be absolutely simple.
"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the mans becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American.
"If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American.
"We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one soul [sic] loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people."
Post by: The Rabbi on September 12, 2007, 09:52:12 AM
Post by: Paddy on September 12, 2007, 09:53:11 AM
Quote
blah blah...falling on deaf ears....blah blah..
It's difficult to see and hear when your head's buried in the sand.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 12, 2007, 09:57:44 AM
Quote
We live on a continent whose three countries possess the assets to make it the strongest, most prosperous and self-sufficient area on Earth. Within the borders of this North American continent are the food, resources, technology and undeveloped territory which, properly managed, could dramatically improve the quality of life of all its inhabitants.
It is no accident that this unmatched potential for progress and prosperity exists in three countries with such long-standing heritages of free government. A developing closeness among Canada, Mexico and the United States -- a North American accord -- would permit achievement of that potential in each country beyond that which I believe any of them -- strong as they are -- could accomplish in the absence of such cooperation. In fact, the key to our own future security may lie in both Mexico and Canada becoming much stronger countries than they are today.
No one can say at this point precisely what form future cooperation among our three countries will take. But if I am elected President, I would be willing to invite each of our neighbors to send a special representative to our government to sit in on high level planning sessions with us, as partners, mutually concerned about the future of our continent. First, I would immediately seek the views and ideas of Canadian and Mexican leaders on this issue, and work tirelessly with them to develop closer ties among our peoples. It is time we stopped thinking of our nearest neighbors as foreigners.
By developing methods of working closely together, we will lay the foundations for future cooperation on a broader and more significant scale. We will put to rest any doubts of those cynical enough to believe that the United States would seek to dominate any relationship among our three countries, or foolish enough to think that the governments and peoples of Canada and Mexico would ever permit such domination to occur. I, for one, am confident that we can show the world by example that the nations of North America are ready, within the context of an unswerving commitment to freedom, to see new forms of accommodation to meet a changing world. A developing closeness between the United States, Canada and Mexico would serve notice on friends and foe alike that we were prepared for a long haul, looking outward again and confident of our future; that together we are going to create jobs, to generate new fortunes of wealth for many and provide a legacy for the children of each of our countries. Two hundred years ago, we taught the world that a new form of government, created out of the genius of man to cope with his circumstances, could succeed in bringing a measure of quality to human life previously thought impossible.
Now let us work toward the goal of using the assets of this continent, its resources, technology, and foodstuffs in the most efficient ways possible for the common good of all its people. It may take the next 100 years, but we can dare to dream that at some future date a map of the world might show the North American continent as one in which the people's commerce of its three strong countries flow more freely across their present borders than they do today.
It is no accident that this unmatched potential for progress and prosperity exists in three countries with such long-standing heritages of free government. A developing closeness among Canada, Mexico and the United States -- a North American accord -- would permit achievement of that potential in each country beyond that which I believe any of them -- strong as they are -- could accomplish in the absence of such cooperation. In fact, the key to our own future security may lie in both Mexico and Canada becoming much stronger countries than they are today.
No one can say at this point precisely what form future cooperation among our three countries will take. But if I am elected President, I would be willing to invite each of our neighbors to send a special representative to our government to sit in on high level planning sessions with us, as partners, mutually concerned about the future of our continent. First, I would immediately seek the views and ideas of Canadian and Mexican leaders on this issue, and work tirelessly with them to develop closer ties among our peoples. It is time we stopped thinking of our nearest neighbors as foreigners.
By developing methods of working closely together, we will lay the foundations for future cooperation on a broader and more significant scale. We will put to rest any doubts of those cynical enough to believe that the United States would seek to dominate any relationship among our three countries, or foolish enough to think that the governments and peoples of Canada and Mexico would ever permit such domination to occur. I, for one, am confident that we can show the world by example that the nations of North America are ready, within the context of an unswerving commitment to freedom, to see new forms of accommodation to meet a changing world. A developing closeness between the United States, Canada and Mexico would serve notice on friends and foe alike that we were prepared for a long haul, looking outward again and confident of our future; that together we are going to create jobs, to generate new fortunes of wealth for many and provide a legacy for the children of each of our countries. Two hundred years ago, we taught the world that a new form of government, created out of the genius of man to cope with his circumstances, could succeed in bringing a measure of quality to human life previously thought impossible.
Now let us work toward the goal of using the assets of this continent, its resources, technology, and foodstuffs in the most efficient ways possible for the common good of all its people. It may take the next 100 years, but we can dare to dream that at some future date a map of the world might show the North American continent as one in which the people's commerce of its three strong countries flow more freely across their present borders than they do today.
Post by: Paddy on September 12, 2007, 10:26:33 AM
There is no equivalence. And GWB is damn sure no Ronald Reagan, either.
Post by: drewtam on September 12, 2007, 05:27:49 PM
People who have experienced the metamorphosis at close range can tell you whether the change was positive.
I can tell you that the Mexicans came into Joliet (near Chicago) and built business and are in the process of revitalizing a crap hole of a gang warfare depressed 'urban' area. As far as I can see, they are doing a magnificent job, and are building up that community. More power to 'em. Absolutely freakin' positive change.
Drew
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 12, 2007, 05:41:17 PM
Post by: auschip on September 13, 2007, 05:46:15 AM
I thought the discussion was about illegals, not Mexicans.
Nope, the OP was about Mexican trucks delivering in the US.
Post by: longeyes on September 13, 2007, 06:26:00 AM
From the Los Angeles Times
Not at home with English
A new census report says 43% in the state and 53% in L.A. speak a different language in their private lives.
By Anna Gorman and David Pierson
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
September 13, 2007
Bienvenidos. Huan ying. Dobro pozhalovat.
In California, "welcome" is more of an international affair than ever -- with nearly 43% of residents speaking a language other than English at home, according to data released Wednesday by the U.S. Census Bureau. The trend was even more pronounced in Los Angeles, where more than 53% of residents speak another language at home.
Spanish is by far the most common, but Californians also converse in Korean, Thai, Russian, Hmong, Armenian and dozens of other languages.
The census numbers are likely to fuel a decades-long debate in California over immigrants continuing to use their native tongue. There have been battles over bilingual education, foreign-language ballots and English-only restrictions on business signs.
While immigration is the driving force for the state's linguistic diversity, experts said people often speak another language out of choice rather than necessity.
Some do so to get ahead professionally, while others want to maintain connections with their homelands.
"In this century, there's going to be so much interaction with China, economically, socially and culturally," said Monterey Park real estate agent Lisa Yang, who insists on speaking Mandarin with her U.S.-born daughter, Melissa Hsu, even on the phone.
Yadira Quezada, 30, speaks mostly English at work, where she coordinates an after-school program for elementary students in Los Angeles.
But at home, she speaks only Spanish. She and her husband are fluent in English, but they don't want their four sons to lose their Spanish or to sound like "gringos" when they speak it.
"When they say something in English, we act like we don't understand," Quezada said. "We say, 'No entiendo.' "
But she acknowledges that the bilingual world her family has chosen -- mostly English during work and school, mostly Spanish at home -- can be confusing. "I am thinking in English and Spanish at the same time," she said.
Because California has strong ties to Asia and Latin America, some language experts believe the loyalty to native tongues has advantages.
"It really represent huge assets for California in the global economy," said Randy Capps, senior research associate at the Urban Institute, a think tank based in Washington, D.C.
The downside is that many people who speak other languages at home are not proficient in English -- making them more likely to earn low wages and live in poor neighborhoods, Capps said.
Among people living below the poverty line, 56% speak a language other than English in the home, compared with 41% for those above the poverty line, according to the census report.
"Isolation is problematic," said Lane Ryo Hirabayashi, chairman of UCLA's Department of Asian American Studies. "While it reflects the strong ties to the home country, it also suggests that folks in this situation are inherently more cut off from society and less able to participate and take advantage of opportunities here."
And the isolation is also felt by some English speakers living in areas where foreign languages are prevalent. Dental office administrator Mia Bonavita, 39, recently moved from San Diego to Monterey Park, where business at many stores is done in Chinese. Bonavita says the language barrier is difficult.
"I feel like an outsider," she said. "It's difficult to get to know your neighbors."
The linguistic diversity also affects the schools, where educators struggle to meet students' needs.
In the Los Angeles Unified School District, there are more than 265,000 English learners who speak 91 languages. The district has a special translation unit, but must rely on parents and community members for some languages.
Southern California has numerous ethnic enclaves where speaking English is not a necessity, including parts of the San Gabriel Valley, Little Saigon, East L.A. and Koreatown. And some residents there say the lack of English hasn't diminished their lives.
Michael Yang said through an interpreter that he left Taiwan for the U.S. in 1984 and still barely speaks any English. The 58-year-old signed up for classes last year, but quit soon after because he was too embarrassed to learn alongside students a third his age.
Not surprising to some, his lack of English has not hindered his everyday life in the heavily Chinese San Gabriel Valley, he says.
Yang owns a popular video store filled with the latest hits from Asia that serves Chinese speakers almost exclusively. His everyday needs like dining and shopping are done in Chinese businesses and all the websites and newspapers he reads are in Chinese.
On the other end, Atour Jebraiel speaks Assyrian, Armenian, English, bits of Japanese and he's learning Spanish.
The hotel chef from Glendale pledged to speak English well when he emigrated from Iran in 1994. He's accomplished that.
But he said nothing beats speaking his native languages at home with his wife.
"The humor is different in Assyrian and Armenian," said Jebraiel, 42. "I use it in normal life: shopping, conversation with friends and joking around. English is for work, telephone calls and talking to neighbors."
He said it's easy to live in such a way in Glendale, where so many Armenian Americans trace their roots to Iran. "You could speak Armenian here all the time if you wanted to," Jebraiel said. "Everyone shares the same culture."
The data are part of a census report on social, economic and housing characteristics in the U.S. Nationwide, almost 20% of people over age 5 spoke a language other than English at home in 2006.
Some smaller Southern California communities recorded even higher percentages than Los Angeles, including East L.A. (91%), El Monte (83%), Santa Ana (83%), Alhambra (71%), Oxnard (67%), Garden Grove (67%) and Glendale (64%). The statewide percentage of 43% is up slightly from data from a few years ago.
Lisa Yang, 60, was born in China and grew up in Taiwan and moved to the U.S. in 1969. Now fluent in English, she ran an unsuccessful campaign for Monterey Park City Council last year, one in which she said she was able to connect with more voters by being able to switch between Chinese and English.
Yang sent her daughter to a Chinese church in Alhambra to study Mandarin and followed that up with Chinese classes during summer breaks from Stanford.
Hsu, her 24-year-old daughter, said she didn't appreciate the value of the classes when she was young. But since marrying a Taiwanese American man whose family does not speak English, she has relied on her Chinese to communicate with her in-laws.
"My parents forced me to go to Chinese school," she said. "I knew it was because it would be handy in the future. Now I see it's really coming in handy."
She described herself as "mildly fluent" in Mandarin. Most important, "I can order in a restaurant," she said.
anna.gorman@latimes.com
david.pierson@latimes.com
Times staff writers Doug Smith and K. Connie Kang contributed to this report.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 13, 2007, 12:06:10 PM
I thought the discussion was about illegals, not Mexicans.
Nope, the OP was about Mexican trucks delivering in the US.
So, either way, drewtam's comment was off-topic.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 15, 2007, 04:48:08 PM
I would bet that a similar study done in New York c.1920 would reveal the same, maybe even more so.
Post by: grampster on September 15, 2007, 05:15:25 PM
So, Riley and Rabbi. Put it to bed, please. Then delete this thread so it doesn't lay there and tempt people.
Thank you,
Dick
Post by: Paddy on September 15, 2007, 07:54:56 PM
Rabbi, you're still failing to distinguish between legal and illegal in your continuing red herring argument.
But you know that.
Post by: De Selby on September 15, 2007, 08:46:16 PM
Wow, people in California, an immigration center, speak a language other than English very often. The world as we know it must be ending.
I would bet that a similar study done in New York c.1920 would reveal the same, maybe even more so.
I would bet that a similar study done in New York c.1920 would reveal the same, maybe even more so.
You know, I see you keep interjecting facts and factual comparisons into this discussion.
One thing I've come to accept about the "great immigration debate" is that hard data simply do not change people's opinions. Facts are irrelevant as long as we're talking about "invader aliens".
Nice job trying to make some sense of it, anyway.
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 15, 2007, 09:47:49 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 16, 2007, 05:30:31 AM
Nice buzz, eh grampster?
Rabbi, you're still failing to distinguish between legal and illegal in your continuing red herring argument.
But you know that.
Actually the study cited also failed to make the distinction. But so what? Longeyes' point apparantly is that America Is Doomed because people here don't all speak English. I merely point out that during the peak immigration period about 1920 other centers of immigration also had a huge number of people who didnt speak English exclusively.Rabbi, you're still failing to distinguish between legal and illegal in your continuing red herring argument.
But you know that.
As a prediction for the apocalypse it fails miserably. But then, so do all of Longeyes' arguments.
Post by: longeyes on September 16, 2007, 06:37:15 AM
Post by: beaucoup ammo on September 16, 2007, 07:25:44 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 16, 2007, 07:46:11 AM
I don't recall mentioning "apocalypse" but I thought you might like to know what's going on from the true cultural firing line. My view is that we have a huge problem with ILLEGAL immigration and that our growing aversion to assimilation will inevitably fragment the nation and produce serious social strife. When things get bad enough I plan to move to Tennessee and hang out with Rabbi.
OK. And the way to stop illegal immigration is to legalize it. End of problem. Of course I suspect you won't see it that way.
And if you want to hang with seriously white people, try Idaho. We have plenty of hard-working Hispanics here in Nashville.
Post by: DustinD on September 16, 2007, 03:33:25 PM
While I am at it I wish economic discussions where limited to people who could at least pass a high school level economics class if they had to.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 16, 2007, 05:00:28 PM
This forum would be better if people would only bash Libertarians for what Libertarians say, and bash the socialists for what socialists say.
While I am at it I wish economic discussions where limited to people who could at least pass a high school level economics class if they had to.
While I am at it I wish economic discussions where limited to people who could at least pass a high school level economics class if they had to.
Pass high school econ? Heck, I wish we could get people who could spell.
Post by: DustinD on September 16, 2007, 05:09:50 PM
Post by: longeyes on September 16, 2007, 07:30:07 PM
You seem to want to cast me as a racist despite my reiterated statements that culture and values are what matter. No matter. Knocking down straw men of your own creation is a futile and joyless pastime.
Post by: K Frame on September 16, 2007, 07:43:20 PM
Seven pages. This must be the winner for the APS Longest Thread Ever That Didn't Sway Anyone's Views award.
You know, I think you're right, and I think it's time to award the prize...
An all expenses paid thread closing.
Post by: Paddy on September 16, 2007, 07:48:31 PM
I don't recall mentioning "apocalypse" but I thought you might like to know what's going on from the true cultural firing line. My view is that we have a huge problem with ILLEGAL immigration and that our growing aversion to assimilation will inevitably fragment the nation and produce serious social strife. When things get bad enough I plan to move to Tennessee and hang out with Rabbi.
OK. And the way to stop illegal immigration is to legalize it. End of problem. Of course I suspect you won't see it that way.
And if you want to hang with seriously white people, try Idaho. We have plenty of hard-working Hispanics here in Nashville.
Rabbi, you might have a point if you were talking to someone in the Midwest. longeyes lives in California, arguably the most multicultural diverse state in the Union. You can come here with nothing, completely unable to speak English, and the state will provide you with food, clothing and shelter, and in your own language. Espanol? no problemo. Korean, Vietnamese, Mandarin, Chinese, Tagalog, you name it, whatever we got it. And we've got plenty of illegal'hard working Hispanics', too. 'Hard working' doesn't mean 'self sufficient'. They're still tapping food stamps, WIC, free medical, and a host of other freebies provided by the generous people of the State of California.
And you do know why those illegal 'hard working Hispanics' are working, don't you? Because they work cheap and can be manipulated by unscrupulous employers, who know very well they're hiring illegals and breaking the law doing it. (They've nothing to fear, there won't be any enforcement, especially under the Bush admin). These wonderful 'free market' bloodsuckers can hire illegals cheap. They don't have to pay those burdensome benefits Americans might require. And the other legal requirements of payroll taxes and worker's compensation insurance? They pocket those and undercut the competition. Of course, these 'entrepreneurs' withhold $$ under the pretense of 'taxes', but they don't report. They pocket it instead. And if theirillegal employees get out of line, there's always the threat of 'La Migra' to bring them back to compliance.
Go sell your "I'm not anti-enforcement, I'm pro freedom" bs to someone who'll buy it. It's really about indenturing these people to one step above slavery in order to make an illegal buck.