JavaFox

An excerpt from Ann Coulter's Slander:

"Liberals have been wrong about everything in the last half-century.

They were wrong about Stalin (praised in the New York Times and known as "Uncle Joe" to Franklin Roosevelt). They were wrong about Reagan (won the Cold War and now polling as the greatest president of the twentieth century). They wre wrong about the Soviet Union (defeated by the twentieth century's greatest president) They were wrong even about their precious "Abraham Lincoln brigade" in the Spanish Civil War (the disgorging of Soviet archives proves that the Lincoln brigade was part of 'a rigidly controlled Soviet operation'). They were wrong about Nicaragua (communist dictatorships in Latin America turned out not to be 'inevitable revolutions,' after all). They were wrong about welfare (since overhauled by Republicans to notable success). They were wrong about crime (Giuliani's achievement is evident in the number of candidates who promise tpo continue his policies). They were wrong about social security (now bankrupt). They were wrong about the Civil Rights Act (which was never going to be used as an instrument of discrimination against whites). They were wrong on the sexual revolution (witness the explosions of AIDS, herpes, chlamydia, hepatitis B, and abortion).

It is not an accident that, today, the left's single biggest cause is 'global warming.' This time, conservatives won't be able to prove them wrong for a thousand years."


Discuss.

ByteMe

I dunno, with as much $hit as liberals seem to be able to spew... maybe I sould start supporting them.

Highwood

Great idea, this fourm needs the perspective of a red neck liberal.

Smoothdrive

Reagan won the cold war ?? When the F#ck did that happen ?? nobody won the cold war..the Russians just proved the wiser of the 2 and stopped the foolish race with the US.

Greatest President of the century = Reagan ?? yeah right dream on..maybe he fooled you Americans with his acting but nobody else bought it.

PS wonder if that winning the cold war and Global warming is connected

__________________
GA-7VRXP, AMD2000+, 256MB PC-2700 DDR, Radeon 8500LE, 2x Maxtor 740 (40GB) stripe set, AGNeovo X-150.

fornicatarachnid

merry

The Russians proved the weaker - economically, then they crumbled politically. Don't bet too much on communist nostalgia, this is common when things don't go that good and people start to starve. Don't make them communists, just nostalgics.

As my mum used to say: 'Ah, the good old Stalin days... We were young...'

Don't know if Reagan won the cold war... It is said that his military policy (starwars etc.) put a too big a challenge on Soviet economy, not able to support military development needs. Out here in the East we didn't get a lot of info, but communist propaganda was very active on the 'down with the neutron bomb' edge of the wooden tongue - and not a word on starwars, which possibly meant the latter gave them gastritis.

Anyway, it's never that obvious who wins a war - the mudjahedins used to be 'freedom fighters' in their time, didn't they... And WWII, the British won and the Germans lost, right?

As for the liberals...

I'm not sure what the term actually means. I guess that people acting for a change have always been rated 'liberals' - until they made it and became conservative. Like the Whigs in England.

If you read the whole excerpt, you will see many odd things, like They were wrong even about their precious "Abraham Lincoln brigade" in the Spanish Civil War and They were wrong on the sexual revolution - the same 'They"? And was FD Roosvelt wrong about Nicaragua?

People who claim change are bound to be wrong most of the time, because most possible solutions are wrong - look again at Eastern Europe. It's much easier to see than to foresee. But it's them who push, and some of them do push forward.

__________________
There is a war between the ones who say there is a war
and the ones who say there isn't.
~~Leonard Cohen

JavaFox

As far as the last fifty years are concerned, the term "liberal" generally means someone that is to the left of the political spectrum. This generally means a "Democrat" in America. Liberalism has little, if anything, to do with wanting change, though. Look at the actions of the Democrats as of late. They didn't want to change taxes or the tax system. They didn't want to reform welfare. And Liberals aren't interested in reforming Social Security.

Conservatives (Republicans) are the only ones with new ideas regarding those programs. Republicans came up with workfare which was a success. Republicans see the short-comings of the Social Security program and came up with privatization. Republicans came up with school vouchers. Republicans came up with the flat tax. Whether you agree with those ideas or not, recent history shows that Republicans are the ones responsible for new ideas, not liberals.

reno

Bill clinton cashed a 100 dollar check from Hemp Growers of America
Pat Buchannon cashed a 250 dollar check from Pro-Choice Doctors of Florida

But then again...Republicans gave 313 billion dollars in no-interest loans and merger grants to big business during Bush senior's term.

Republicans came up with welfare reforms, which put 20 million American children homeless and hungrey out on the streets and saved American taxpayers 112 million over the course of 3 years.

Republicans promote mergers and mass layoffs, giving companies like GE, Ford, and Proctor and Gamble billions of dollars to "cover relocation costs" while the companies fire thousands of workers and move to mexico where they pay fat mexican bitches 1.45 an hour for the same work a bluecollar worker did for an annual income of $34,000.

Republicans! Don't ask what you can do for your country, ask what your country did to you!

I hate democrats too...consumer advocates all the way! Nader!

JavaFox

That's a fascinating figure, reno! So we went from 230,000-462,000 (composite of statistics from US Census Bureau, G.A.O., and The Urban Institute) homeless in 1990 to 20,000,000 in 2002? That's astounding! So the significant welfare reform bills passed in 1996 led to 20,000,000 homeless children today? That's weird considering that the National Coalition for the Homeless estimates only 2,000,000 homeless persons in 1999.

Next!

That is a fallacy. It is foreign labor that allows companies to pay Americans the wages that they do. Think about it. What costs less? One American worker making $20 an hour and one Mexican making $5 an hour, or two American workers making $15 an hour? If other countries didn't have cheap labor, American companies would only operate in the US, and lower wages of American workers to keep costs down.

merry

This is rather confusing for me. Afaik, liberalism is a doctrine promoting the individual, as oposed to social doctrines, which value the community. I always thought liberals are right wing - but then this right/left thing is also confusing.

Starting in the XIX-th century, left wing was the name of so called progressists, which - at least in some countries - were the liberal parties (sometimes called 'reds'), oposing the big 'agricultural' parties, which were conservatists. Later, with the industrialization, liberal parties came to power, leaving the left wing to socialists, social democrats and such. Communists still claim they are 'progressists', suggesting their doctrine is a natural evolution from older, obsolete doctrines, like liberalism.

The term 'liberal(ism)' comes from the latin word for freedom, and indeed liberalism values the individual, therefore individual freedom (not only economically), while socialists (from social, society) the group - in spite of the individual. Social programmes are funded by taxes, which are paid by individuals in favor of the whole society.

My understanding of the text you quoted was that 'liberals' were possibly the militant organizations and such, like Green Peace, maybe.

I see myself as a liberal, and definitely right wing - so that you can understand my confusion.

Are 'socials' also called liberals in other English speaking countries, England or other?

__________________
There is a war between the ones who say there is a war
and the ones who say there isn't.
~~Leonard Cohen

JavaFox

As I said earlier, merry, the term "liberal" has come to mean any person whose ideology is left of center. Liberal policies are typically ones that increase governmental oversight and involvement or promote social programs. Socialists and Communists are considered, typically, far-left liberals.

David

Bah I am a registered libertarian. I personally cant stand the democrate party and thier beliefs. Read the communiest manofesto and then look at democrate policy today ,you might be supprized how simmular they are.On the subject of walefare : Freaken people get off your lazy ass and work. I dont like paying for your messups.

skastel

As far as greatest president goes, shouldn't we go with someone who did something good for the most amount of people? FDR brought us out of the depression, and carried the nation through a world war and died doing it. C'mon people Regan? He might have been a likeable movie star, but he wasn't exactly a good statesman, by the end of his career he couldn't remember much of anything, "I don't recall" sound familiar?
FDR may have purposely got us into WWII or me have not, there are quite a few controversies surrounding his presidency, but all the greats had conflicts and controversey. He was no different.
Liberals, democrats, who cares about politics, government should work for the people not the big business. FUCK politics, and most of all FUCK politicians, they are nothing but whores. They can be bought and sold and replaced. Unfourtunately I don't have an alternative, and no one can simply fix the system, the coruption that runs our government is inherit in our system. It's not going away and we don't have a saviour to fix it.

__________________
Barton 2800+ @ 1998Mhz (12x166)
Radeon 9700 Pro
ASUS A7N
1 GB Corsair Low Latency PC3200 (2-2-2-5)
SBLive! 5.1
WD 80GB JB
Samsung DVD 16x+/12x-/2.4x Dual Layer
Lite-On CD-R/RW 48x12x48x

JavaFox

I have a lot of respect and admiration for the Libertarian Party. I don't agree with their take on borders, or with their "let's allow everything!" stance on narcotics, but the LP strikes me as a party that has some of their priorities straight. And anyone that's for strict interpretation of the Constitution is an ally, as far as I am concerned.


I'd disagree about FDR. FDR did not bring us out of the Depression, WWII did. FDR did a lot for the morale of America and some of his creations --like the SEC-- are very noble and useful. But, for the most part, FDR took Keynesian economics a little too far, and created some unsustainably large social programs (Social Security). People, I think, give him too much credit sometimes.

I will not say that I think Reagan was the greatest president this country has ever seen, because --to be honest with you-- I don't know enough about his policies. But what I do know is this: Reagan, through various initiatives --SDI or "Star Wars" certainly being a significant one-- made the US so competitive that the Soviet regime (one that had vowed to "bury [our] country!") collapsed. Reagan also reformed and greatly decreased the amount of money Americans paid for taxes. Do you realize that, prior to Reagan, people paid 50-70% of their income in taxes? That is obscene! Reagan's brand of supply-side economics --since dubbed "Reaganomics"-- was responsible for an 8% drop in inflation. As interest rates plummeted six points under Reagan, private wealth enjoyed a yummy 8% jump. It is estimated that eight million new jobs were created because of the economic boosts of Reagan. The end of the Cold War led to huge cuts in Defense and military budgets that led to the economic boom that most liberals attribute to Clinton. The list goes on. Whether or not Reagan was our best president is debatable, but he was one fuckin' good president.

If the government was only concerned with making a buck, there would never be a law restricting business (Bush just passed a massive Corporate Responsibility law). The SEC would never be sent to probe any company (which it does), and there would be no anti-trust legislation (there is). And, best of all, if money TRULY controlled the government to the extent that you think it does, Republicans would completely overrun and control the government, as they have --on hand-- $85,583,073 to the Democrats' $45,494,745.

Besides, in a capitalist society, what's so wrong with helping --at least some of the time-- big businesses? For example, when the capital gains tax is cut, it really only directly benefits companies, not you and I. But capital gains cuts are beneficial for everyone! When they are cut, you will see higher wages and more jobs. It's called the "trickle-down effect."

reno

So 20,000,000 is an exaggeration, well...

That's based on homeless people observed in emergency shelters, free kitchens and the like, and usually only includes adult males in 32 major cities in America (shelters are overfilled, and underfunded). All the homeless people in Chicago (esitimated at 20 percent, as homeless by non-leasee or non-owner status is defined) can't fit into the few homeless shelters now can they?

One can expect monthly rent of a small trailer or moderate apartment to be around 500-700 in cities below 150,000 in population...and prices are MUCH higher in metropolitan areas in general, but if former welfare cases are now working on $6.00 an hour, 40 hours a week, how can they possibly afford not only the downpayment (usually two months rent) for the home, or pay for their home, food, clothing, transportation and insurance?

About 31.1 million people were poor in 2000, 1.1 million fewer than in 1999 again according to the US census... How many of these people do you figure can afford a trailer or apartment, let alone a home, in the highly concentrated metropolitan areas they generally live in? Some estimates, such as those used by Clinton in the early 90's estimated anywhere from 7,000,000 to 4% of the total population were without shelter. That an excerpt from the National Coalition for Homelessness.

read this then

and this

finally, this

Many of those not included in homelessness statistics are those that reside in hotels, communities (four people to an apartment), and even more interesting, according to the National Coalition for Homelessness, 1 in 5 homeless people in 29 major cities had a full or part-time job.

But! (in 1995) The top 1% of America's richest own 38.5% of America's total wealth...compared to Canada's 17%...or the UK's 22%...Japan has 25% of their total wealth spread amongst their top 5% richest...so Republicans since 1983 have helped their rich friends go up from 33 percent of the money to almost 40 percent! while the bottom 40% of America holds .2 percent of the wealth! Yay Republican bastards Reagen and Bush!

Oh, and most of the companies you say need to move to Mexico to stay competitive and keep wages up for the remaining bluecollar workers...give me a break! We had a local chemical company in Milwaukee that laid off thousands...after making 500 million dollars in PROFIT while paying $34,000 a year average salaries with benefits over their last three years until they moved to mexico, where their stock shot up 20% and netted them a total of 1.2 billion in profits for the next three years. MOSTLY due to decreased health and environmental regulations in Mexico.

Think Java, you may have to pay American workers 15 bucks an hour as opposed to 1.40 for mexicans...but American health and environment regulations compliance costs are more than twice that of Mexicos...so of that 1.2 billion dollars, 1 billion of it was gained through much less severe regulation, and 200 million was gained by putting over 10,000 workers out of the jobs they held for 15 years. Most moves come from the pressure of stockholders that want stock prices raised, and guess what! Competitiveness has NOTHING to do with it! You justify moving business to Mexico, even though it puts hundreds of thousands out of jobs, AND increases profit margins for handfuls of CEO's and stockholders, because you think you're protecting blue-collar workers? HA! Our local Precision Twist Drill plant recently shutdown and relocated because profit margins weren't within 2% of projections! Over 250 people in our small town of 7000 lost their $16 an hour with benefits jobs to mexicans so the corporation could make an extra 2% profit. Most of those people laid off two years ago still can't find jobs, are are working in jobs at less than half the pay and no benefits. But that's GOOD for them, RIGHT?

Don't even get me started on the living conditions of those mexicans who work pitiful wages and grueling hours. If creating extremely-low wage jobs in mexico continues, how will the people who make $59 dollars a week be able to afford american products? Or should they all just continue running their 13 inch black and white tv for the one hour their car battery will last before it needs to be recharged?

Vote Republican they'll send the country straight back into another recession, unless they start a war, in that case, they'll be heroes!

Argh.

Go to your local college and pick up the book "Crisis in American Institutions" eleventh edition, by Skolnick and Currie. Maybe it'll open your eyes.

reno

Trickle down effect, dumbass reagen-ite. Remember the term voodoo economics? See how well that worked for us? Huh? I'm SURE G/E Needs millions in federal funds to create higher-paying jobs, and I'm sure they will too! Since they are SUCH a benevolent company.

Why not issue a flat-tax, instead of catering to the rich and big business? Because...most of our government consists of wealthy oil moguls, lawyers, doctors, real-estate traders, former big business high-ups, and dweebs who got inheritances. Plus, most of the people they know are extremely wealthy. How would that help the poor rich people?

"We can't pay more than the middle class in taxes! I won't be able to maintain my summer home and my Corvette payment anymore!"

Give me a break.

reno

And ANOTHER THING!

You pay 10 times more for CORPORATE welfare than you do for poverty cases.

In Minnesota (according to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) tax breaks were offered to Northwest Airlines in 1993 that amounted to 558,000 dollar PER JOB. That means, if there were 100 employees across Northwest Airline's crew (which there are many more than that) Taxpayers just paid an extra $55,800,000 to their government to state accounts balanced for that year (even though it would be spread apart many years, taking approximately 5% more from income taxes to cover what the state paid over a ten year period.

Estimated expenditures for national food, shelter, and health services for the poor ranged from 2 to 3 billion dollars per year. The situation in Minnesota was followed by Alabama's taxbreaks to Mercedes, Dofasco Steel getting "help" in Kentucky. And my favorite, Intel (who made a 2.3billion dollar profit in 1993) getting a $114 million tax break bid from Rio Rancho new mexico which consequently forced Rio Rancho to shut down schools and bus kids at their own expense to Albuquerqe schools filled to twice their capacity.

When I think of how screwed up the world is I REALLY want to move to Sweden, supposedly the best country to live in overall.

Highwood

How do liberals justify calling tax breaks corporate welfare?

Tax breaks = government letting a company keep the money it has earned

Welfare = paying some lazy @ss to sit around doing nothing.

JavaFox

That is an absolute fallacy. It is absurd and has no basis in fact. The fact of the matter is the biggest program paid for by federal tax revenue is Social Security. $.23 of every tax dollar went to Social Security in 2001. Medicare, a program that provides medical care for over 40 million elderly Americans and disabled peoples, made up 12% of spending in 2001. Medicaid --health care for the poor accounted for 7% of the 2001 budget. Another category of spending ("Other means-tested entitlements") which includes the Food Stamp program, aid to Puerto Rico, Supplemental Security Income, veterans' pensions and others accounted for 6% of the budget. 48% of your tax money is spent on social welfare programs. That is fact.

Tax breaks offered to Northwest Airlines, Mercedes, Dofasco Steel, and Intel in 1993? Seems to me, reno, that anything that happened during that time period happened under a Democrat's watch, not a Republican's.

That trade off for living in the borderline socialist countries of Europe is that you trade in mobility for a safety net. 80% of the millionares in America are self-made. The richest man in the world is self-made. America's tax structure is such that you can pull yourself up by your own bootstraps and climb the social ladder. That's harder to do in, say, a socialistic country like Canada or much of Europe. Indeed, you'll see that the wealthy in Europe have largely inhereited their wealth. In America, you can BUY good health care if you want to, and you are free to go from middle-class to wealth. In Europe, you receive good health care, but it's harder to move up that ladder. Both systems, to some extent, have their pros and cons, but I --for one-- would much rather have mobility than social healthcare.

JavaFox

If you can't see how the trickle-down effect DOES work, then I cannot help you. Look at how personal wealth climbed under Reagan. But one only needs to look to Asia to see how a the trickle-down effect is a clear economic truth. In an issue of the August 3rd-9th edition of The Economist (consider by most to be a liberal publication) details this phenomenon. In the 60s, Asia's per capita income was less than that of Africa. Since then, there have been great pushes towards expanded exportation and market reform and now, a mere generation or so later, the per capita income of Asia is DOUBLE that of Africa. Poverty has dropped from 67% to 17%, infant mortality is a third of what it used to be, and the life expectancy is up from 41 to 67. Clearly, when businesses is booming, people seem to do well, too. Isn't that weird?

The funny thing is, reno, that the flat tax is a conservative idea. Liberal aren't interested in it. Let the record show that Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes made the flat tax his biggest issue. Liberals argue against the flat tax and portray it as stupid in the media (an infamous CBS News diss of the flat tax inspired veteran reporter Bernard Goldberg to write his bestselling book on the liberal bias of the media).

So give me a break. I am for tax reform.

JavaFox

Ah, the old "hidden homeless" argument, huh? You are a textbook liberal. If someone has a job and a place to live HE IS NOT HOMELESS.

Another thing that people don't think about is the fact that an OVERWHELMING majority of homeless people are homeless because they are addicted to drugs. That is fact. "Society" didn't put them there, they did. And recent studies show that the homeless really aren't interested in rehab.

Well, damn, isn't that an interesting fact? Isn't it also interesting, reno, that in 1999 (according to The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities), the top 1% of the rich PAID 36 percent of income taxes! The rich have more money and are taxed more. So get this: the top 1% of the rich pay for 36% of a budget that is 48% SOCIAL WELFARE. I'm so sick and tired of this "fuck the rich" mentality people have. The fact is, most of the rich in America earned their money and pay their dues in taxes.

Nobody is forced to work for American companies, but let's face it: $1.50 an hour for Nike is whole hell of a lot better than $1.50 a day working for the Granja del Gato Blanco, DON'T YOU THINK? Fact is, other countries LOVE it when we relocate to their countries, because it gives them what are --in their mind-- well-paying jobs. If they didn't think so, they wouldn't work for us, and we'd have no interest there. So stop trying to play the "we exploit foreign workers" crap, because they wouldn't work for us if we weren't paying them well.

I'd much rather vote for a Democrat who'll raise taxes, castrate our intelligence and defense communities, acquiesce to foreign powers, fuck an intern, and blame America for every bad thing that happens to it.

reno

I bring up the argument again, how is a mexican making $59 a week going to afford American products? That is the whole argument with NAFTA, create jobs in Mexico so they can buy the American product and keep American companies bristling with prosperity. How is a person, who makes less than $250 a month going to buy a $50 pair of shoes? Or a 1,000 dollar vehicle? Or a $100 bedframe and matress?

================Next topic===================

So...if Larry lawyer makes 1 million dollars this year and pays 300 thousand dollars in taxes (at a rate of 30% income tax)...he's left with 700 thousand dollars before expenses.

Joe schmo the president for some small town insurance firm makes 70,000 dollars this year and at 15% taxes he loses 10500 dollars to taxes and has $59,500 dollars to take pay for his three bedroom house on a 1 acre lot, two vehicles and the rest he can save. With a VERY low payment for a middle class 4 person home of $1,300 per month (not taking into account the interest on his mortgage) he loses another $15,600 and is left with $43,900. $400 dollars worth of food each month...$4800 dollars...now down to $39100. Car payments of $600 per month for both vehicles...$31,900. Full coverage car insurance for two 4 door sedans at age 35 with no speeding tickets...$400 per month...$27,100. Home-owner's insurance of $300 per month...down to $23,500. Property taxes in Wisconsin for 1 acre at %10 of annual income...dwindling to $16,500. Gas, electric, water, phone, $500 a month...now...

Joe is left with $10,500 dollars takehome, a very unrealistic sum with current taxes, but let's just say this is what he makes. Bill, after paying 50 thousand in property taxes, and 75 thousand on his house payment, along with insurance of oh...50 thousand, and all other costs of 125 thousand ends up with the pitiful amount of $400,000.

Gee, those poor rich people! How do they survive on such a pitance?

An upper middle class, white collar worker can be a millionaire after 95 years of saving 100% of what Joe ended up with in take home after expenses. The middle upperclass lawyer example, who made a cool million before expenses and taxes got taxed at twice the rate Joe did, paid unrealistically high fees for insurance and payments and such, but could still be a millionaire in 5 years if he only saves half of the money he made.

But damn that lawyer sure worked hard compared to that lazy insurance bum. Just because the pres has to commute all over his state taking clients and surveying damages and the like while filling out 50 pages of paperwork per client while managing his 15 person firm and maintaining a 350,000 dollar office building doesn't mean he works anywhere near as hard as a defense attorney that takes 40% of the settlement for cases usually solved within a day!

You must have a VERY cushy job to support your political position, very cushy indeed. Or else you're just a masochist.

ByteMe

Reno: it sounds like you want to punish someone for being rich? ever hear the saying " The miserable love company?"

reno

I don't seek to punish the rich, I just want a few simple things...

1) A Flat tax, with rewritten code to remove the loopholes that the rich use to evade taxes (off-shore funds, etc.)

and

2) American business to stay in America.

A flat tax is fair for everyone, whereas our current tax-law caters to those above the upperclass cutoff (annual income of $150,000 or more).

American business staying in America is how we lived for 20 years after the second world war, and we were also the most prosperous country in the world. Our economy did force Russia into decline, but only because it was in our country, not in Mexico.

But see, the rich (and JavaFox) think that these two things punish the rich and poison your mind into thinking that as well.

JavaFox

And I have to remind you again, reno, that the flat tax is a Republican idea. Liberals are the ones oppose to Social Security reform; they are the ones opposed to welfare reform; and they are the ones that ridiculed the flat tax. I am not against the flat tax. House Majority Leader Dick Armey (Republican-TX) is not against the flat tax. Former Republican Presidential candidate Steve Forbes is not against the flat tax. Liberals are.

If American business can't relocate some of its facilities to foreign countries where labor and resources are cheaper, American business will suffer. Jobs will be cut and wages will drop.

I never said I was against the flat tax. Republicans are not against the flat tax either. And neither is Steve Forbes -- a rich man and a Republican. So don't put words in my mouth, or the mouths of conservatives. Conservative came up with the flat tax, you fool.

But I think that you aren't really thinking about what you are saying. Any idea that proposes tax reform is good, in my eyes; the tax system is far too convoluted and complex. A flat tax would eliminate a lot of the tax loopholes that exist. However, think about this: a flat tax of, say, 17%, would lower Larry Lawyer's payment to $170,000 whereas it would place Joe's payment at a hardly different $11,900. How, precisely, does that beneift Joe? Just curious. You're the one championing the poor, but you aren't really making your case and showing how a flat tax would benefit them.

ByteMe

Ok dude, you are starting to annoy me with all these facts and figures. You leave little room to fudge, lead, falseify, lie, etc. This is NOT good conduct for a flame zone. I insist you get with the program or I will be FORCED to take matters into my own hands and beat you severely.

JavaFox

I apologize. I will be sure to don my Liberal Suit next time -- it's the only way I can lie and feel good about myself.

ByteMe

That kinda cuts right to the bone.

lovswr

JavaFox & Reno, you two will never even come to some shaky middle ground of agreement. The problem is you are arguing about the function & responsibilty of a capitalist market system, but you are both using social contructs to support your respective posisitons. However, market systems are not social systems and vice versa.

JavaFox. Everything you said vis a vis the Reagan years (& it happened under Bill Clinton pretty much the same way) is true. Essentially the rich got richer & the rest of us, for the most part, got richer too. The problem is that the rich (defined as the top 0.01% or about 13,000 people) got so much richer, faster, than everyone else, that they skew the #'s.

Reno, you too are correct. We (large American Corps) are in a labor race to the bottom. The problem is that when, say around 45% of the America works for Wal-Mart, our capitalist system will collapse inwards on itself becuase even if everyone who could afford a new Lexus buys one, it still won't be enough people to support such (& other) high end products.

Java..Reno..You two keep debating & come to some kind of middle. Java, you are going to have to left go of economic Darwinism as a social policy. Reno, people don't like to be forced to do things (whether it is for their own good, or the good of society as a whole)..OK you two have your work cut it, so get to compromising'

Malus

With restrictions like minimum wage, most businesses will never come back to America for cheap, manual labor. It's just not profitable.

__________________
quad (FreeBSD/amd64 8-CURRENT): Intel Q6600 - Asus P5E-VM HDMI - 2x2 GB Kingston PC6400 DDR2 Ram - Seagate 320GB 7200RPM HD - 2xSeagate 1TB 7200RPM HD in RAID 1 via ZFS - Lite-On 20x DVD Multi Recorder - Coolermaster Centurion 5

router (FreeBSD/amd64 8-CURRENT): Intel E4500 - Intel D945GCNL - 2 GB PC6400 Mushkin Ram - Lite-On 48x24x48x16 - Seagate 320GB 7200RPM HD - Silverstone SST-SG02-F

wanderer (FreeBSD/i386 7-CURRENT): Lenovo Thinkpad T61p

mini (OS X 10.5): Intel Core 2 Duo @ 1.8Ghz, 4 GB Mushkin PC5400 Ram - Headroom MicroDAC

Portable sound: Rockboxed iPod Video -> Westone UM2's
Not-So-Portable Sound: Headroon MicroDAC -> Singlepower PPX3-SLAM -> Grado RS-1's or Beyerdynamic DT-880's
Very-Not-Portable-Sound: Squeezebox v3 -> Denon AVR-1507 -> B&W 683's & Sunfire HRS-10