9/06/2006

Still "Smokin' - Five Years Later
























































Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the Taliban have increased suicide attacks, borrowing tactics from militants in Iraq. The escalation in the Taliban insurgency has stoked bitter fighting. More than 1,600 people, mostly militants, have died across Afghanistan in the past four months.

Bush Fails to deliver. Read More:

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

The point is that George Bush is a failure as a President. His sole has always belonged to big business and Oil. to think that he has ever had one ounce of concern for the general public is delusional.

CW said...

Anon:

You are just another socialist patsy blabbling emotion at the expense of common sense. The fact that Bush works well with big bussiness and big oil is a sure sign that he does care about the general public. If there were no profits, there would be no jobs -- or we'd be working within the loser model of economics made popular by your beloved socialist in the Soviet Union. Have you ever really stopped and thought about what you are saying and how you are being misled by the socialist on the blog and in the mainstream media?

Not a Socialist said...

CW,
As usual, you are full of it.
As corporate profits rise, jobs are being cut not added. Why don't you read a newspaper once in a while before you open your yap!

cw said...

NAS:

You are a socialist. You are advocating something other than a total, free-market economic system. That is a move toward socilaism and therefore it is socialism. What be ashamed of being called what you are? What would you prefer to be called? Colectivist, communist, Marxist?

Cato said...

Bush may be a failure but not because of supposed ties to "Big Oil" and all that nonesense. It's his socialaist policies (neocons are socialists in "Republican" clothing; only difference between "Republicans" and "Democrats" these days is that "Republicans" are willing to use the stick in their hand to beat up other people around the globe. But they will also spread wealth like it's the Marshall Plan all over again and wreck the future of our own citizens just like the "Democrats". The parties are for all purposes indistinguishable in other words.).

Not a Socialist said...

CW,
If your definition of socialism is
"advocating something other than a total, free-market economic system.",that would make Sheila Harsdorf just about every President in the last century and even Nixon a socialist. Read some history and see some of the policies he supported.

Before you go calling everyone who doesn't agree with your extremist and ignorant veiws a Socialist, go get an education on the subject.

AndyRand said...

CATO:
I thought the "not a dimes worth of difference" argument went away with George Wallace.
In a sense I agree thay are both the same but not because they are socialists but because they are both bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists. We for sure have the best government money can buy. Ralph Nadar hits the nail on the head here. I'd have voted for him if I didn't think it would make Bush a shoe in.

not a socialist:
I agree with your agrument but aren't you getting a little personal and mean toward CW?

not not a socialist said...

"a little personal and mean toward CW"???

You're kidding, right?

Or are you recommending a group hug?

AndyRand said...

Just thought I'd try to instigate a little civility. Group hugs are optional:-)

I think there may be one too many
Not a Socialists. But what do I know?

Cato said...

Andy,

This year, vote FOR people not againt them.

The parties are indistinguishable at this point. There are cosmestic differences but looking at the issues there is nothing different. They are arguing over insignificant things if you really think about it, since the so-called progressives have won and the Republic is dead.

AndyRand said...

CATO:
Now you're really confusing me.
Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Norquist
Progressives? You're not using OTBL are you?
I did vote FOR Kerry. We'd be a whole lot better off if he'd won.
I don't think I can vote for Hillary.
She's s corporate sell out.

Cato said...

Andy, you said:

"I'd have voted for him if I didn't think it would make Bush a shoe in."

You voted against Bush.

Kerry would have done NOTHING different from Bush other than talk more.

Yes, Bush, Cheney et al are "progressives."

http://www.newamericancentury.org

Neoconservatives were disillusioned progressives. Basically what did it is foriegn affairs. On domestic affiars you can't tell the difference, but on foriegn affairs they like to carry a big stick. What happened was these neocons discovered what everyone knows: liberalism (international liberalism, i.e., the UN) does not work without a realist base. They then went so far as to say that realist policies -- which include the use of force to accomplish goals -- should be used to further liberal ends. It's why the likes of Christopher Hitchens approved of the Iraq war. It was to help Iraqis. That's why I am against it, because it's not to help Americans. Iraqis should not matter to the government of the United States if the government is just and good and pure.

AndyRand said...

CATO:

I guess that why a good conservative like Bill Clinton resisted the calls of these neo con "progressives" to go to war with Iraq in 1998?
Yes, I believe Bill Kristol's father was a dissillusioned idealist. But that doesn't make him a progressive.
You have to be the only person on the planet to consider him to be one.

To call Bill Krisol a progressive puts the icing on the moral upside down fruitcake for me. It's ludicrous. (nothing personal).

If we applied your just and good and pure principles to state government, I think there'd be arm guards stripping you of your MN earned wages on the Hudson Bridge. There's not a country on earth that could live in the kind of isolation you advocate.

Cato said...

No there wouldn't be. And if there was I wouldn't cross the border. Most ludacris thing I've heard in a long time...

Yes or no:

Were necons were "liberals" (common American usage of the word) at one time?

Are liberals (common American usage of the word) are progressives?

It's really not that hard to fathom. Consider the MASSIVE social programs GWBush has put forth. More than Clinton. He spends more federal funds illegally on education than Clinton did. AND he has a "Republican" controlled legislature. You would think -- if the Republicans had one conservative value left in them -- that the oppisite would be true. With two branches controlled you think they would cut socialist programs and pork out. No. Expanded to epic porportions.

You see the Conservatives came to power in 1994. Some of these people were neocons though. The truer conservatives who signed that Contract with America? They abided by it even it's spirit. Part of it was term limits. Many stepped down. Others stayed. Who stayed? People like Tom Delay and his socialist ilk.

Look at the federal domestic descretionary spending (SS, Medicare, schools, pork etc). It's all clearly there. GWBush has done more for the liberal (common American usage of the word) agenda than Clinton could ever hope to have done.

AndyRand said...

CATO:

Tom Delay a socialist? Come on. I cannot fathom this kind of thinking.
More and more of what you are calling
social programs are being privatized.
Whose administering Soc. Sec. private companys in Maryland who pay telephone operators who can bearly speak english, (and many of them are native born) If there's more money spent on "social" programs ( which I don't believe) it going to those whose companies are cozy with the administration to get contracts to perform duties formerly performed by civil servants. I don't know where you come up with this stuff. Tom Delay a socialist. Man, I can't wait to tell my liberal (common American usage) friends this one. They'll think you're off you rocker.

Cato said...

I do not care if they think I am off my rocker; I know they are blind.

Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government: Fiscal Year 2005: Analytical Perspectives and Historical Tables table 8.7 —OUTLAYS FOR DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS: 1962–2009

Bush more than DOUBLED the spending increases of Clinton. In fact, in 1994, there was actually a decline in descretionary spending. It was the only time in Bush's or Clinton's reign this happened, but Bush has been consistently making huge socialist spending increases. The facts of the matter are there for all to see. Descretionary spending under Bush increased 40% in his first five years (same source as above)hile Clinton's was 1.9% of the total (only Reagan has done better in modern times, while Bush has the most increases of all recent Presidents).

"Just a little more" is all you want right? Seriously with Bush socialists should be constantly orgasming over his policies. He has done so much to further put this country into debt, to increase entitlement and descretionary welfare spending and to expand the welfare state than any other President in recent times (Kennedy on) what's not to like? A little war? So what, it was to help the less fortunate; they weren't even stupid Americans we were helping, it was foriegners! EVERYTHING about this neocons screams progressive/socailist/"liberal".

Bush is a socialist who is in love with Wilson.

AndyRand said...

So now the war is a discretionary program? To help the poor Bektel's and Halliburton's of the country?
I will check your source later. Frankly, I don't believe you. Not that you are a liar, but I don't think that I can agree with the way you define social and discretionary programs.

AndyRand said...

BTW,
I mentioned your calling Delay a socialist to my liberal friend. I don't think I ever got a stranger look from him. I can't wait till I inform him that Bush is a Socialist, I'll bet he'll bust a rib over that one.

Anonymous said...

Andy:

"I don't think I can vote for Hillary. She's a corporate sellout."

Please provide details on her selling out.

Thanks.

AndyRand said...

Meeting with her "constituant" Ruppert
Murdock. As far as I know he's not even a citizen.

Anonymous said...

Andy:

That's it? That's all you got?

My dear sir - you must know that politics makes strange bedfellows.

If Mrs. Clinton is pragmatic enough to accept some campaign money raised on her behalf by Mr. Murdock, good for her. Sounds like Murdock is the sellout, not Mrs. Clinton. She is doing the networking that all good politicians need to do in order to make progress in this polarized country. Smart.

She and her husband have done more for progressive causes by being pragmatic, by reaching out, and by finding common ground, than any other democrat with their pristine liberal credentials.

Admit it. You, like so many others in this country, write her off only because she is a strong-willed woman and you can't handle that. Your male ego issues are your failing. Not hers.

Too bad. Mrs. Clinton is a good leader and could put this country back on track. Narrow-minded femphobic people like you will never give her the chance.

Your loss.

AndyRand said...

Anon:

"She and her husband have done more for progressive causes by being pragmatic, by reaching out, and by finding common ground, than any other democrat with their pristine liberal credentials."

You're right. Bill Clinton brought 8 years of prosperity to this county.

"Admit it. You, like so many others in this country, write her off only because she is a strong-willed woman and you can't handle that. Your male ego issues are your failing. Not hers."

Wrongo sluethboy! I've worked under many fine women with no problem.

I will even admit she's an exellent hardworking Senator. She also has has created an ocean of animosity form the other side that will never dissapate. If you want another Republican President, nominate Hillary, it's a sure bet.

" Narrow-minded femphobic people like you will never give her the chance."

This doesn't deserve a response.

cato said...

Bush increased 12% on domestic desretionary spending each year. I can't find the numbers right now but I will later. I know for his first term it was somewhere around 12% annual increases so that's well over 40% total increase in that time. Not including the war. But even then if you ask me it is a liberal goal since there was NO legitament reason to goto war. The only "reasons" now given are how "better off the Iraqis are" as if they should matter tothe government of the United States.

AndyRand said...

CATO:
if

"Bush increased 12% on domestic desretionary spending each year."

Why would so many people in the public sector be so upset with him. You'd think they'd be dancing in the streets with a 12% annual increase. If there's redistribution going on it's going to the thousands of government contractors that are feeding at that trough.
Example:
Money designated to "clean up" New Orleans is subcontracted, and sub-sub contracted, and sub-sub-sub contracted with each consectutive company taking it's cut until the work is finally accomplished by illegal immigrants who never get paid. If you ask me government is good for business, the way Bush and the Republicans dole out tax money, and bad for the tax payer. But the OTBLers always point their deformed index finger at teachers and the like.

As for the war. Almost everybody sees that as a mistake. Now they're trying to save face just like Vietnam.
But, to say we have no legitimate interest in stability in the Middle East is equal nonsense. If the whole world erupts in war, why do you think the U.S. could avoid involvement. What kind of Fairy Dust has been sprinkled on you?

Anonymous said...

Andy:

You said: "She also has has created an ocean of animosity from the other side that will never dissipate."

Did she "create" the animosity against her or did Rush Limbaugh and the right-wing slime machine take care of that?

If it was the latter, then we progressives are in a sorry state to allow the slimeballs to decide who we nominate as our leaders.

Who do you think Rush will allow us to nominate in 2008? I can't want to find out which Democrat he likes. Then I can get on board with that candidate.

So you are saying that we can only back a middle-of-the-road "electable" candidate for President. Maybe someone like Kerry. He was electable until he lost the election. Poor choice on our part.

Bush had an ocean of animosity against him in 2004 but somehow found a way to win. Maybe Republicans are just better at this game than we are.

Democrats write off the good candidates and then wonder why we have no one to back.

Whoo-boy.

cato said...

I think the US could nuke aggressors since we have enough to do so. We do not need to get involved in wars half a world away. This government should care about Americans first and only.

I know -- why are you not dancing in the streets about how much Bush spends on (illegal) welfare? You ought be. But people are sheep and those who love a grotesquely large government think Republicans are all evil buisnessmen when theyu are really Democrats with different faces

AndyRand said...

Anon:

"Did she "create" the animosity against her or did Rush Limbaugh and the right-wing slime machine take care of that?"
You're right here. I agree.

"So you are saying that we can only back a middle-of-the-road "electable" candidate for President. Maybe someone like Kerry. He was electable until he lost the election. Poor choice on our part."

I thought Kerry was a good candidate. Rove duped the Religious right to think Bush would sponsor their agenda. That's how he won.

I think Rush wants Hillary. That's why I don't.

cato said...

BTW andy,

The Federal government is required by law to contract with buisneses thatsubcontract with "minority buisnesses". I beleive it is 10% of money must goto minority-run subcontractors, regardless of whether or not that is a wasteof our money and someone else could do it cheaper.

I'd like to see a list of who was sub-sub-sub-contracted by whom. Thanks.

cato said...

Edit: for construction at least.

Off The Wire said...

Concerning Rupert Murdoch, David Brock in his book The Republican Noice Maching has extentisve background info on Murdoch's political financing. Read on:

"Murdoch, who has poured millions into the coffers of the Republican Party, had an odd business model-he operated the Post at a heavy loss as a way of buying influence in American political, financial, and media circles to further extend the reach of his commercial holdings. Twenty-five years after Murdoch took control, the New York Post is still a money-loser, unable to support itself through circulation or advertising. It doesn't quite have the respect of the journalism world; but by virtue of being published in the media capital of the world, it can't help but affect the media ether. (He applies the same model in Washington, where The Weekly Standard, which pays editors Kristol and Fred Barnes well into six figures, costs him more than $1 million per year to underwrite.)
The Post is a force in New York politics, running hit pieces on Democrats, cheerleading for Republicans, and publishing a motley crew of uniformly conservative columnists-who frequently and without irony bash competing publications for bias-including Steve Dunleavy, John Podhoretz (son of Norman), disgraced former Clinton adviser and FOX News "analyst" Dick Morris, and Deborah Orin, who doubles as the Post's Washington bureau chief. (At normal newspapers, reporters and editors may move on to roles as columnists but don't typically play both parts simultaneously."

Read more at this link:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Propaganda/Republican_Noise_Machine.html

Anonymous said...

Andy:

You said:

"I think Rush wants Hillary. That's why I don't."

Well, that pretty much sums it up doesn't it? You made your decision based on what Rush wants. That's sad. Very sad.

Apparently, you can't think for yourself and just pick the best candidate for the job. You have to wait around to see who Rush is going to slime and then you run away (run away!) from him/her.

Poor progressives. We are doomed to everlasting pergatory as long as we are afraid to embrace our true standard bearers - simply because of what the right-wing slime machine says.

Andy, I'm waiting for a response that shows me you have some backbone against the slime machine. So, let's see it.

AndyRand said...

anon,

Given what Off the Wire just reported about Rupert Murdoch, I feel all the more justified in not supporting Hillary.
As far as letting Rush determine who the Democrats nominate. I guess I could say that you are just falling into his trap. It's not only Rush that wants Hillary. It's my opinion that the Republicans would just love to have her as their opponent so they can tear her apart.
I think she'd do more good continuing to be a Senator. I'd like to see Edwards nominated. I think he can reach out to the other side without selling out his Democratic principles.
Please let me be entitled to my opinion on this, as I am fine with you having yours.

Anonymous said...

Andy:

Sorry, you want to be "entitled to your opinion" but not without taking one last cheap shot against Mrs. Clinton - stating that she has "sold out her democratic principles" based on nothing more than you have gleaned from Rush.

Still, very sad.

I have not fallen into Rush's trap. You have. You let the right-wingers decide who you think is electable.

I, on the other hand, determine this for myself.

Well, get ready to salute your new commander in chief - President McCain - because that is what you are going to get.

Senator McCain is nothing more than a neocon in sheep's clothing, and that is who you will get because you don't know how to stand up for real progressives.

Let me know what Rush says tomorrow on talk radio.

Thanks.

AndyRand said...

Geeze Anon,

For the most part, I'm probably on your side. Now I'm getting it from both sides.
I haven't listened to Rush himself for probably 8-10 years. I guess we agree on one thing. If Democrats don't find a solid candidate we'll be looking at president McCain.
I didn't know my one vote was powerful enough to tilt the election though.

You know there is this process called primarie that we go through in presidential elections.
Much closer to the 04 elections Howard Dean was the shoe in candidate. A lot can happen in 2 years. You seem to have everything decided. Here's something you might contemplate. Hillary hasn't even announced that she's running for president.

AndyRand said...

CATO: said
"I'd like to see a list of who was sub-sub-sub-contracted by whom. "

I have to admit the sub- sub - sub
contracting is heresay. I don't doubt it happened though and if I took the time to dig could probably find some examples.

you said:

"The Federal government is required by law to contract with buisneses thatsubcontract with "minority buisnesses". I beleive it is 10% of money must goto minority-run subcontractors, regardless of whether or not that is a wasteof our money and someone else could do it cheaper."

I'll agree the "minority contracting" is a well intentioned policy gone astray, not so much because it wastes money but because unscrupulous people create fake "minority businesses" by putting token minorities into executive posistions simply to get these contracts. That a fraud and a sham, the companies are actually owned by white businessmen.
I think in this instance you're right that govenment shouldn't be doling out contracts on the basis of race.

You said:

"I think the US could nuke aggressors since we have enough to do so. We do not need to get involved in wars half a world away. This government should care about Americans first and only."

This is ridiculous. It's about as simply minded as Bush thinking he'd overthrow Saddam and Iraqi's would be greeting us with flowers. You think Nuking blocks of nations just because we can will be the end of it? These countries aren't going to evaporate, they'll still be there, and we will have unforseen consequences to deal with if this ever happen. For one, if we Nuked China, we don't even have manufacturing capabilities to create the goods we currently buy from them. That's only one small potential fallout from such an action.
As I said, Nuking everyone is ridicoulous.

AndyRand said...

Anon,

I just realized you're accusing me of saying something I never intended.
you said:
"Sorry, you want to be "entitled to your opinion" but not without taking one last cheap shot against Mrs. Clinton - stating that she has "sold out her democratic principles" based on nothing more than you have gleaned from Rush."

I said:

"I'd like to see Edwards nominated. I think he can reach out to the other side without selling out his Democratic principles."

I didn't even mention Hillary try to imply anything negative about her by saying that.

However:

Maybe you are not aware that there is a brewing division between the DLC Democratic Leadership Council, who Hillary is aligned with and the DNC Democratic National Committee lead by Howard Dean who is seeking grass roots democratic support while the DLC is sucking up to big corportate contributors just like the Republicans. Thus Hillary's meeting with Rupport Murdock that has many upset.

Cato said...

Andy, I never said "should" nuke foriegn aggressors. Don't pretend I did.

Of course the "sub-sub-sub-contractors" is hearsay. I can hear someone like Ray Nagin saying it right after he tells People to shut the f up because it's been 5 years and New York still has a big hole in the ground, and looking on a junkyard full of busses reminesces how he didn't do a damn thing to help the people of New Orleans... but I digress. It is hearsay.

And finally as for the contractors you are paranoid. What the hell are ytou talking about? Please show me an example. Here is mine: Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña. Federal government moneies are mandated by law to be sub contracted out. THe case involving state politics about the same issue led to the minority % being thrown out; there was no direct evidence of past descrimination on the part of the city of Richmond against blacks in regards to contracting for contruction. Anyway, you have two things to show me. Sub-sub-sub-contracting and any evidence to support your claim of shell minority buisnesses.

Do you believe that most blacks really can't make it on their own and therefore any black at a high position of power must have been placed there by some malicious-intented white person? It seems to me that is the only reason anyone could hold this view of yours. Perhaps there is some other reason.

Anonymous said...

Workers in America need to start understanding what they are. They are the limited-skilled, human raw material of the production system. They have cheaper components that do the same thing for less all around the world. These workers need to understand that they need to pack up their belongings when the jobs go away in Michigan and move to Georgia or whereever the jobs are. They need to understand that the world stretches beyond North Minneapolis and they should move to were the paychecks are. They need to quit dragging their long list of woes around and get their excuse-filled sorry asses up and moving and go find a job.

It's feel-gooders like AndyRand who talk about the big-hearted, moralistic baloney supposedly impacting the Blacks in our country, when he doesn't actually know anybody who falls into those demographics. The Mexicans (whether legal or illegal) don't seem to have a problem figuring out that they need to get off their ass move about the country to earn a paycheck. Get real and get a job!

AndyRand said...

CATO:
You said this:


"I think the US could nuke aggressors since we have enough to do so. We do not need to get involved in wars half a world away. This government should care about Americans first and only."

I copied and pasted it from your post.
You also said:
"Anyway, you have two things to show me. Sub-sub-sub-contracting and any evidence to support your claim of shell minority buisnesses."

There was s 60mins report on shell minority buisnesses and I believe it was done by Ed Bradley. It was a number of years ago and I don't know if I can find in their archieves. If you don't believe me, you go search the archieves. I saw the report, they talked to the "token" minorities who were used to get contracts. It happened.
So don't accuse me of believing....
" that most blacks really can't make it on their own and therefore any black at a high position of power must have been placed there by some malicious-intented white person? It seems to me that is the only reason anyone could hold this view of yours. Perhaps there is some other reason.

The reason is that it happened and was reported by 60 mins with interviews including those involved.

AndyRand said...

Alright CATO:

Here's the report on sub, sub, sub contracting info. From:
U.S. House representative Henry Waxman.

http://tinyurl.com/mqye8
and
http://tinyurl.com/nzzvd

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1097


http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20060824110705-30132.pdf


"C. Excessive Reliance on Subcontractors
The response to Hurricane Katrina relied heavily on contracts under which private contractors
purchased goods and services from other private contractors. In these contracts, the prime
contractor became, in essence, a middleman, adding a layer of fees to the contract that was often
unnecessary. In some instances, contracts were set up with multiple layers of contractors
between the government and the subcontractor that actually performed the work, vastly
multiplying expenses and complicating oversight."

I don't just pull this stuff out of my ass!

AndyRand said...

Anonmous # whatever:

You said:

"Workers in America need to start understanding what they are. They are the limited-skilled, human raw material of the production system. They have cheaper components that do the same thing for less all around the world"

Spoken like somebody who treats humans as cogs in the machine and probably never did an honest day of manual labor in his life.
I hope everything in your portfolio goes belly up!

AndyRand said...

CATO: On Shell minority businesses:

From the Dept.of Justice.

http://tinyurl.com/hmujf


“Sham joint ventures deprive legitimate minority businesses of a level playing field in seeking contracts,” Mr. Fitzgerald said. “When individuals or companies compete for public contracts they must be honest about describing whether the minority participation is real, and not enter into secret side agreements. If instead they commit fraud, they will face criminal prosecution.

Anonymous said...

Andy:

You are much to emotional to take part in these discussions. Realistically, there is a whole segment of our society that are basically good as cogs for the industrial machinery. You strip away you morality and emotion on the issues involved here and surely you can see the facts.

How many people DO YOU ACTUALLY know in the clg class? What are they doing to improve their situation? So what if they gave some company 20 years of their life and get the heave-ho because of outscourcing. You are one of those "People Before Profits" bleeding hearts that don't understand that a business needs to make a profit to stay in business.

For example, if someone worked for my business for 20 years they get a regular paycheck, benefits, a pension plan, etc. They even had the opportunity to further their education at my company's expense -- most don't. Then the time comes and a business decision has to be made to keep the company profitable and these people happened to be on the side of the business that gets cut. They get a severance package, a transferable benefits plan and we feel bad losing a group of dedicated employees. Maybe a corporation has no heart, by those of use making these decisions are making very emotion-filled decisions that truly hurt families and friends we've know for a long time.

What's a company to do? Keep them on and lose money? Do you pay the kid who mows your lawn throughout winter for not mowing? Doubtful.

You actually are not arguing for helping hardworking Americans that have fallen on hard times. Those people will have prepared for the unforeseen and will pick up themselves and move on down the road. You are arguing for the "why me crowd" who want the government to wipe their asses and have the nerve to complain about the toilet paper being too rough. A little help is understandable, but this cronical ass wiping is wrong.

I've worked all my life and paid my way. I've kept my eye on the potential problems that could hit me in the future. I would expect some brief handholding and a couple of hardship tissues if hit with job loss, but I expect it to be my responsiblity to get a job and move on with my life.

You however live in that world philosophical handholders who don't have the stomach to face the facts and know when to tell people to wipe their own asses.

AndyRand said...

Anon:

You said:
"A little help is understandable, but this cronical ass wiping is wrong."

This may surprise you but I agree.
However, People who are parylyzed from the neck down need someone to wipe their ass. People who sit on street corners with gameboys and signs saying
"will work for food" and have no intention of working don't.

The business situation you describe is understandable. But how many CEOs are earning Ten's of billions to run companies into the ground. Take K-mart as an example. That's who I have the beef with.
In the bigger picture, while you as a small business may find it necesary to let workers go the net result of all companies "outsourcing" and laying of to help the bottom line is they are laying off potential customers. You won't have a business without customers and people without jobs are non-customers.

AndyRand said...

Anon,

BTW,

It's chronic not cronical.
I think cronical is some sort of mispelled journal.

AndyRand said...

Anon:

I can't help but comment on this.

"You strip away you morality and emotion on the issues involved here and surely you can see the facts."


This is why I respond so passionately against the ideas you propose. If you've stipped away your morality and your emotion, you've stipped away a part of your humanity. I realize the need for businesses to make a profit, but not at the expense of becoming cold hearted bean counters who can't see value in anything past the next quarter's bottome line.
"Bleeding Heart" fine I'm guilty.
At least I haven't sold a part of my humanity to the devil for a few pieces of silver.
Frankly, you confuse me. On the one hand you seem to have concern for your employees and on the other you decribe them as "human raw material of the production system." If that's the way you see other human beings I can only have pity for you.

Anonymous said...

Pity as in...

commiseration: a feeling of sympathy and sorrow for the misfortunes of others; "the blind are too often objects of pity"
an unfortunate development; "it's a pity he couldn't do it"
compassion: the humane quality of understanding the suffering of others and wanting to do something about it
feel for: share the suffering of
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Pity is an emotion, usually resulting from an encounter with an unfortunate, injured, or pathetic person or creature. A person experiencing pity will often take mercy on the person/creature, giving them aid or money. Many people pity the homeless, orphans, the terminally ill, and victims of rape and torture.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pity

Blake is ambivalent about the emotion Pity. In The Book of Urizen Pity begins when Los looks on the body of Urizen bound in chains (Urizen 13.50-51). However, Pity furthers the fall, "For pity divides the soul" (13.53), dividing Los and Enitharmon, who is named Pity at her birth. Pity defuses the power of righteous indignation and proper prophetic wrath that lead to action. Stevenson asserts: "Pity is a distraction; the soul is divided between it and the action a 'pitiable' state demands. ...
facstaff.uww.edu/hoganj/gloss.htm
---
Maybe these unemployed and underemployed human resources need less pity and more kicks in the ass. I certainly don't need any of your pity. I've been down in my life and I worked my way out. I didn't sit around doing the "woe is me" blues.

If there are not jobs on your side of town, pack a lunch, put some clothes in your nap sack and start walking. there's bound to be something down the road. Pity doesn't buy a baloney sandwich. Hard work does.

AndyRand said...

Anon:

I've savored every morsel of your baloney and it didn't cost me a penny.
Who says there's no free lunch.

Anonymous said...

Where did George bush come from???
OIL!!!

AndyRand said...

Well CATO:

I've given you the info. you requested. Now you're AWOL.
Whazz UP?
I just discovered some info that ties
sub contracting and no bid minority contracts into one pretty little Bush Administration Bow. More later.

Cato said...

I was away.

The alleged misconduct is being prosecuted. One instance is so widespread that it's a "problem"? I don't know how you can walk out your door!

The use of multiple layers of subcontractors really isn't that bad. Considering that the government felt that a job could be completed with 10 dollars and the contractor then could break it down into a two parts both of which could be completed by smaller contractors for 4 dollars, and they then broke it up into two jobs that could be completed for 1.50 the government doesn't "loose" any money, just other people make money (as in if the contractor would have done the work itself you wouldn't whine about it because it was worth 10 dollars and that's what was paid to the contractor. Only because people made money on things do you cry about it). The governmet could I suppose, go find subcontractors to do every part of whatever job and save some money but I think they like macro managment and let the micromangement go to the contractors, considering such administrtation oversight does cost in and of itself those few dollars it would have "saved" had you contracted directly with hundred of little contractors and I guess forbade them from subcontracting.

Better idea: follow the Constitution.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."


With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

-Madison, Father of the Constitution

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

-Jefferson, writer of the Declaration of Independence


There is no constitutional authority for the spending. Granted I acknowledge that about 1% of the population cares. But frankly it disturbs me that people do not. There is no constitutional authority for killing your civilians for dissent either. I could name a host of things but if you say "well, it's for the best even if there is no authority" you get to first what we have today which is approx. 3/4s of the spending having no constitutoinal authority to what will happen. People like you will shrug and say that Big Brother knows best.

Norseman said...

Curt
Atleast youre able to comment openly on this BLOG, I cant say the same for OTBL.

AndyRand said...

CATO said:

"There is no constitutional authority for the spending. Granted I acknowledge that about 1% of the population cares."
I think you're exaggerating I know of 2 rugged individuals in your camp, you and Dr. Bill of OTBL fame. I'm sure your minions number in the hundreds. WOW! One percent is a big stretch!

"The use of multiple layers of subcontractors really isn't that bad. Considering that the government felt that a job could be completed with 10 dollars and the contractor then could break it down into a two parts both of which could be completed by smaller contractors for 4 dollars, and they then broke it up into two jobs that could be completed for 1.50 the government doesn't "loose" any money, just other people make money (as in if the contractor would have done the work itself you wouldn't whine about it because it was worth 10 dollars and that's what was paid to the contractor."

You make this sound all so innocent.
Then why is it being investigated, why is it part of the report on Katrina corruption.
I'll modify my stance slightly in that there may have been some oversight and management required to do the required work. But I content that it's much more likely that contractor after contractor took there cut, and pawned off the work to some else etc. etc. etc. Until you have qualified union construction workers passed over for illegal immigrant that agree to work for a fraction of the union wage and in the end never get paid anything at all.
This creates the oddball scenario of lawyers filing suit against unscrupulous contractors on behalf of illegal immigrant workers who have no legal right to be working here in the first place.
As usual, the lawyers and nobody else will win on this one.

Cato said...

Perhaps it is showboating by legislators trying to cover their own asses.

Andy, I said 1% of the population cares about this issue, and I'm actually quite sure at least that many does. The issue is "spending within the authority granted by the people via the Constitution." I may be exaggerating when I say as little as 1% agrees with me, but I do know I am in a very small minority. But we are bigger than you think; many have unfourtently resigned themselves to the fact that the majority doesn't care about law and order they care about so-called "security" over their liberties and the law.