Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

not 95% of Americans - 95% of American WORKERS -

Posted By: Amanda on 2008-10-31
In Reply to: You give me a direct answer. You dodge it like he does. - sam

From Barackobama.com/taxes:

Obama’s Comprehensive Tax Policy Plan for America will:
Cut taxes for 95 percent of WORKERS and their families with a tax cut of $500 for WORKERS or $1,000 for WORKING couples.

Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.

Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.

Dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class Americans to do their own taxes in less than five minutes without an accountant.



Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Yesterday IBM laid off American workers but kept Indian workers, SM
and I'm sure they don't make chump change. Looks like we are becoming Zimbabwe! Thank O for that.
Larger-Than-Life Corporate Salaries are Unfair to Average American Workers. see article.

Commentary: Larger-Than-Life Corporate Salaries are Unfair to Average American Workers


Date: Friday, April 14, 2006
By: Judge Greg Mathis, BlackAmericaWeb.com



Despite slower-than-anticipated growth and lower-than-expected profits, many corporations have generously rewarded their leaders, while simultaneously reducing lower-level staff salaries and benefits in an attempt to control costs. This disturbing practice only serves to further widen the gap between America’s wealthy few and its working class and clearly demonstrates just how little this country values its workforce.


At a time when most American workers are struggling to make basic ends meet and worrying how they’ll manage to save enough for retirement, many of this country’s corporate chief executives are stuffing their pockets with larger-than-life compensation packages that include high base salaries, stock options and ample pension plans. In 2004, the average chief executive’s salary at a large company was more than 170 times that of the average worker’s pay. Last year, executive salaries grew 25 percent, while that of the average American worker grew only 3.1 percent. 




Even when a company struggles, their CEOs are still rewarded. For example, the current CEO of a global manufacturing firm received over $11 million in compensation last year, despite the company’s $3.4 billion revenue loss, an 11-percent drop in stock value and a staff reduction of 17,000 workers. There are similar stories at corporations across the country. While worker pensions are frozen and many are asked to do without raises, CEOs manage to earn their multi-million dollar bonuses.


It’s no surprise that CEOs are cleaning up. Consider this: Corporations often use compensation committees to set their executive salaries. Many of these committees use outside consultants to help guide the process. These consultants are often already contracted to do other work for the company. The conflict of interest here is obvious: The consultant won’t upset the CEO -- and risk losing other contracts -- by setting a more realistic, performance based pay model.


Many corporate CEOs are, in short, getting over, and it is a slap in the face of every American worker. While it is understood that executive salaries would greatly exceed that of the average worker’s, there is no logical argument to explain why the growth rate between the two is so dramatically different. To protect its workforce, corporate America must ensure worker’s salaries grow at rates that keep pace with the cost of living, while slowing the rate of growth of CEO salaries. Corporate boards must stop rewarding CEOs with multi-million dollar bonuses. It is unacceptable for a company to lay off thousands of workers and then turn around and pay an executive for a job well done.


As a country, we often ask our government to think about the needs of the average American, and rightly so. However, if America is to truly prosper, the corporations that feed our local economy must also consider and respect the well-being of average worker.


---


Judge Greg Mathis is national vice president of Rainbow PUSH and a national board member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.


I was brought up Buy American made products, keep American jobs.
Always bought American made cars and bought products from companies where my family was employed. Now look at America? We are definitely connected all around the world.

My feeling? Obama states he wants to start from the poor upward. Not the other way around like it has been for quite awhile. That to me does not necessarily mean just in America, but around the world by taking the poorest countries and working upward so America's pay wages and everything else will be so low and comparable to the poorest countries. After all, we are now connected together.

Cannot wait to see what will happen with the Swine flu this fall with the second wave and what it will do to the economy of all the countries combined at once.
Any child born to American parents is an American -
I am sorry, but I respectfully disagree with you - any child born to American parents is an American even if they are born overseas. The birth has to be registered with the United States, but they are still an American even if they are born in the foreign hospital.

I have 2 cousins who were born in Japan and they have no problems at all being "American".
Okay, WORKERS.
30-40% of WORKERS don't pay income taxes. Is that better? And only recently has he started saying workers. No one was ever counting children or people who did not work. Of course, you realize, you are classifed as a "worker" if you work one day a year, right?

The same question...if he is going to give a tax cut or break or whatever he wants to call it for 95% of WORKERS...30-40% of whom do not pay federal income taxes NOW...HOW is he going to do that without cutting someone a check. How else is he going to get the money to them? Please explain.
Especially the power workers

God bless those people who came all the way down there, slept in their trucks in stifiling weather (because the media and gawking politicians hogged all the hotels that were left) and helped string line and get our power back on.  They are heros, as well as all those who donated time and goods.


On the other hand, SHAME on the people from Indiana who printed up a bunch of Katrina T-shirts and had the nerve to come down there to sell them!  Those who survived Katrina need no darn T-shirt proclaiming they did!


Instead of cutting the workers' pay, they should
cutting THEIR pay. After all, they're the ones who aren't doing their jobs very well (if at all). Same with AIG - they get the cash, and then give their company *pets* huge *retention* checks. (Yeah, right. Sounds like a big fat bonus, to me.) The big companies' CEOs just don't get it. They want more money, more money, more money, and no matter how you cut it, bailout or no bailout, the one who loses is the little guy. There's no way they're going to completely restructure and retool if they get the money, they'll just keep on doing like they're doing. The Big Three need to die a natural death, no more artificial life support or resuscitation measures - DNR, DNI !!! Then, let a NEW, leaner-meaner-greener American car industry be born in their place. Same goes for the banks. And the insurance companies. And healthcare (mis)management. Let the sick and the weak ones die, and healthier ones grow in their place. Kind of like the forests. If wildfires are prevented for too long a time, the forest gets choked with dead/sick trees and overcrowding, and when a fire finally does roar through (like at Yellowstone in the late 1980's), it's a WHOPPER. Same thing is happening in American business right now.
Union Workers

How does your husband feel about voting out in the open; no more secret ballots?  That's quite audacious!


Todd Palin is a card-carrying union guy, too.


 


And why did the union workers
walk off the job?  That's right.  For better benefits, health care, retirement and working conditions which ALSO benefited non-union workers, even those scabs who went in and did the jobs.  Thanks to Ronald Reagan, the Great (NOT!) the unions have lost their teeth in the ability to even strike and thus to bargain.  Ole Ronnie got employers the "right to permanently replace workers."   Read up on the history of unions.  Ever watch the movie "Jimmy Hoffa?"  Yes he made deals with criminals i.e. the mafia but he did much to help workers too.  Ultimately he paid with his life.  Union/non-union is sort of like arguing democrat/republican.  Those for/against don't want to hear any side other than their own.
What? The workers work for nothing?
That's news to me. I thought the workers got paid.
But you see which auto workers are
handouts, and the workers are not complaining about their jobs. I am talking about the ones mentioned recently in the news here in the Southeastern US. Those workers are making(including all their benefits) around $35 an hour. The unionized big 3 workers making $70+ an hour for the same work. Is that contract worth that much?
I took it as we are unskilled workers
sent overseas and basically there is nothing that can be done about it. This has been going on for years, but to be called unskilled? We need to now be better educated for other work opportunities in the United States. So I might as well pack it in and go back to school to do something else, even though I have an AA degree with Medical Transcription skills and schooling.
Here is an article about the poll workers. sm
It is from the Boston Globe. They only give a brief description. There was more discussion on it in one of the grassroots forums.

Apparently,the poll workers did have permission to be there, and the NH GOP told them to stand their ground.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2008/01/obama_and_paul.html
AAMT is not a workers' union.
x
I might have to if your man gets elected. Maybe we'll be co workers nm
x
Here's hoping Chicago workers' sit-in and

good things to come.  As Bank of America acquires Merrill-Lynch (whose CEO has the utter gall to request a $10 million bonus pay-out after the ML sell-out) they are refusing credit to Republic Windows and Doors out of Chicago after receiving $15 billion in TARP funds.  The workers are fighting back to recover the pay and benefits they have already earned and their governor is backing them up.  Now that's what I'm talkin' about !


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aw5QzWC86Vl8&refer=home


unemployed auto workers' pay
per their contract, if unemployed they receive FULL pay. The loss would be benefits, but they get full pay for not working if they are laid off. That should give them time for re-education.
Most employers are cutting workers because they want
Money-money-money-money-
money-money-money-money-
money-money-money-money-money-money-money-money-
money-money-money-money-money-money-money-money!
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Maybe they should tax offshore workers doing OUR work.

Right on! If we workers made more money, we'd

I think you misunderstand government workers
The people who are getting the benefits are not really the people with constituents (they're not members of congress). These are the ones who work for the federal government, like people who work for the dept of agriculture, for the VA, for the dept of state, etc.
NYC using fed millions to fight sick WTC workers. sm
Shame on them. Looks like the articles by the Daily News is finally getting them some much needed attention.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/438101p-369136c.html
she said her experience was w/ minimum wage workers
she said it herself what they were paid - minimum wage -duh
then why were you referring to "minimum wage" workers
I never said I'm for giving them a handout...don't know where that's coming from. I was just pointing out the quality of employee you get when you pay minimum wage...why would you refer to minimum wage if you paid them well and didn't pay min wage? I wouldn't expect to get the most reliable people if I were paying minimum.
I said typical minimimum wage workers

I paid well above minimum wage...I guess reading my post it looks like I paid minimum.  That was my mistake.


I refer to minimum wage workers because...
This type of work normally paid minimum wage.  I, however, did not...
Please comment on the OP...about minimum wage workers
x
By all means give the union workers a pay cut S/M

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ocwage_05092008.htm 


Going way down the page you will find the median pay for medical transcriptionists is approximately $15.02 per hour.  This being the case, if you are one of those fortunate enough to be making $20 or more per hour, I assume you will be recommending a pay cut for yourself and all others who are making more than the median in order to bring pay more in line with other workers.  Translated that means leaving more in the coffers for the big CEOs.  I don't know whether some of you are BDD or what.


The practices of healthcare workers do need work - sm

Healthcare workers fail to take the time with patients to discuss disease prevention and health promotion.   


If you are going to give money to re-educate the auto workers....... sm
then it would follow that money should be given to sustain and re-educate the people in other industries (MT comes to mind) that are suffering because of big suit mismanagement and jobs going overseas. What about the thousands upon thousands of other displaced workers in the public sector that have lost their jobs? Will they need to be re-educated as well? Will there be jobs available to them, even if they are re-educated?

Maybe that's what all those re-education centers all over America are for. hmmmmmmm
Workers walk off job rather than read McCain script.
Some three dozen workers at a telemarketing call center in Indiana walked off the job rather than read an incendiary McCain campaign script attacking Barack Obama, according to two workers at the center and one of their parents.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/dozens_of_call_center_workers.php
For crying out loud. His target group IS workers
are so low that they come up not owing tax at the end of the year, then it would not be possible to give them a tax cut or a tax credit, unless it is a refundable tax credit. So far, you have not provided any evidence that Obama is proposing a REFUNDABLE tax credit. As a matter of fact, why do you supposed he call this tax credit "Making WORK pay." The credit will zero out at zero tax liability unless it is a refundable tax credit. Again, it seems like you cannot produce any evidence that this is the case. Or can you? What about the socialist question with regard to progressive tax reform proposals only being socialist at Obama's hands, an no other president in history since 1913, including the 7 republicans who raise the top income bracket rates to as high as 63% to 94%, as opposed to Obama, whose intent is to restore that rate back to 39.6% as it was in 2000 when Bush took office?
proposed tax policies which include granting rebates to most US workers.

That statement jumped out at me.


 


New Bush rule makes it easier to hire foreign workers

Dec 10, 8:43 PM EST


Administration changes to farm worker hiring afoot


By SUZANNE GAMBOA
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) -- As it prepares to leave office, the Bush administration is moving to make it easier for U.S. farming companies to hire foreign field workers, which farmworker groups say will worsen wages and working conditions.


Farm groups said that changes to the H2A visa program, used by the agriculture industry to hire temporary farm workers, were posted on the Labor Department's Web site at midnight Tuesday but have since been taken down.


Labor Department spokesman Terry Shawn said whatever was posted wasn't the final version of the new rule, which Shawn said would be released Thursday and published in the Federal Register on Dec. 18.


The Bush administration published a proposed version of the new rule last Feb. 13 and received nearly 12,000 public comments, Shawn added. The next version will be a final rule and can take effect 30 days after publication. Some of its provisions would take effect in mid-January and others later in the year, the farmworker groups said.


Farm worker advocates and the United Farm Workers union said the version that appeared on the Web site would lead to a flood of cheaper workers.


"The government has decided to offer agriculture employers really low wages, low benefits, no government oversight to bring in foreign workers on restricted visas and thereby convince them they should do this instead of hiring undocumented workers," said Bruce Goldstein, executive director of Farmworker Justice, a group that advocates for farmworkers.


The changes in the posted version would drop a requirement that an employer get the Labor Department to certify it faces a worker shortage before it can get visas for foreign workers; instead, employers would be allowed to simply attest in writing to a shortage. That version of the new rule also would change the method for calculating wage minimums for workers and relieve employers of a requirement to recruit in states or communities where other employers already are hiring farm workers, Goldstein said.


But Assistant Labor Secretary Leon Sequeira said Wednesday evening the agency is not dropping the obligation to obtain certification, which is required by law.


Paul Schlegel, American Farm Bureau public policy director, said many of the changes will make the program a little less burdensome for employers. He said existing laws prevent employers from hiring foreign workers if the jobs can be filled by U.S. workers.


"My members want to make sure they have a legal supply of labor," said Schlegel, who added that he had not reviewed all the proposed changes.


The rule changes are a part of a pattern of last-minute regulatory changes being rushed into effect by the Bush administration before President-elect Barack Obama's Jan. 20 inauguration.


The effect is to make it harder for Obama to change course on some policies favored by Republicans and the business community.


"We are hopeful that the Obama administration would recognize the utter mistake and unfairness of this proposal," Goldstein said. Congress has a procedure for reversing the rules, he said.


Many of the last-minute changes by the Bush administration have come in the area of public lands and the environment, including easing regulations on mining waste and allowing handguns in national parks. Another pending rule would grant greater leeway to railroads to transport hazardous materials through densely populated areas.


How are Americans going
if they keep being divided and separated? Liberals need to talk to conservatives, libertarians to progressives, etc. Without the exchange, liberals are just going to sit around saying "Bush is bad, this and this were lies" and conservatives "We love Bush, liberals are bad." Ho hum.

Exchange, debate, and yes even arguing are the very spirit of America in a political forum. Good debate makes you keep your facts straight and forces you to really define your beliefs to yourself as well as others. Information for good or bad is exchanged - people learn things they won't learn otherwise from just a bunch of nodding heads.

Who really wants the forums restricted to same-view postings?
*95% of Americans are going to get a
much "phonier" than that! That is just a dribble of a long line.
Many Americans were against the war.....
but their voice didn't count. AND I know of NO ONE who does not support our troops.
What gets MOST AMERICANS

Madame,


Nobody here -- or anywhere else that I know of -- thinks that welfare is "new."  What IS NEW is the road to socialism that this country is on at breakneck speed.  What IS NEW is the "redistribution of wealth" mentality -- taking the hard-earned incomes of working middle class and giving it to those WHO DO NOT WORK IN THE FORM OF "TAX REBATES," even though they DO NOT PAY TAXES.  This is IN ADDITION TO the existing welfare programs, food stamps, Section 8 housing, etc.  The middle class are SICK AND TIRED of being TAXED TO DEATH TO SUBSIDIZE LOSERS.  And that goes DOUBLE FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS. 


Why are Americans so angry?

Why Are Americans So Angry?


by Ron Paul
by Ron Paul






SaveSave  EmailEmail  Printer-friendlyPrinter-friendly  ViewView  


Before the U.S. House of Representatives, June 29, 2006


I have been involved in politics for over 30 years and have never seen the American people so angry. It’s not unusual to sense a modest amount of outrage, but it seems the anger today is unusually intense and quite possibly worse than ever. It’s not easily explained, but I have some thoughts on this matter. Generally, anger and frustration among people are related to economic conditions; bread and butter issues. Yet today, according to government statistics, things are going well. We have low unemployment, low inflation, more homeowners than ever before, and abundant leisure with abundant luxuries. Even the poor have cell phones, televisions, and computers. Public school is free, and anyone can get free medical care at any emergency room in the country. Almost all taxes are paid by the top 50% of income earners. The lower 50% pay essentially no income taxes, yet general dissatisfaction and anger are commonplace. The old slogan “It’s the economy, stupid,” just doesn’t seem to explain things.


Some say it’s the war, yet we’ve lived with war throughout the 20th century. The bigger they were the more we pulled together. And the current war, by comparison, has fewer American casualties than the rest. So it can’t just be the war itself.


People complain about corruption, but what’s new about government corruption? In the 19th century we had railroad scandals; in the 20th century we endured the Teapot Dome scandal, Watergate, Koreagate, and many others without too much anger and resentment. Yet today it seems anger is pervasive and worse than we’ve experienced in the past.


Could it be that war, vague yet persistent economic uncertainty, corruption, and the immigration problem all contribute to the anger we feel in America? Perhaps, but it’s almost as though people aren’t exactly sure why they are so uneasy. They only know that they’ve had it and aren’t going to put up with it anymore.


High gasoline prices make a lot of people angry, though there is little understanding of how deficits, inflation, and war in the Middle East all contribute to these higher prices.


Generally speaking, there are two controlling forces that determine the nature of government: the people’s concern for their economic self-interests; and the philosophy of those who hold positions of power and influence in any particular government. Under Soviet Communism the workers believed their economic best interests were being served, while a few dedicated theoreticians placed themselves in positions of power. Likewise, the intellectual leaders of the American Revolution were few, but rallied the colonists to risk all to overthrow a tyrannical king.


Since there’s never a perfect understanding between these two forces the people and the philosophical leaders and because the motivations of the intellectual leaders vary greatly, any transition from one system of government to another is unpredictable. The communist takeover by Lenin was violent and costly; the demise of communism and the acceptance of a relatively open system in the former Soviet Union occurred in a miraculous manner. Both systems had intellectual underpinnings.


In the United States over the last century we have witnessed the coming and going of various intellectual influences by proponents of the free market, Keynesian welfarism, varieties of socialism, and supply-side economics. In foreign policy we’ve seen a transition from the founder’s vision of non-intervention in the affairs of others to internationalism, unilateral nation building, and policing the world. We now have in place a policy, driven by determined neo-conservatives, to promote American “goodness” and democracy throughout the world by military force – with particular emphasis on remaking the Middle East.


We all know that ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas, even when supported naďvely by the people, will have bad results. Could it be the people sense, in a profound way, that the policies of recent decades are unworkable – and thus they have instinctively lost confidence in their government leaders? This certainly happened in the final years of the Soviet system. Though not fully understood, this sense of frustration may well be the source of anger we hear expressed on a daily basis by so many.


No matter how noble the motivations of political leaders are, when they achieve positions of power the power itself inevitably becomes their driving force. Government officials too often yield to the temptations and corrupting influences of power.


But there are many others who are not bashful about using government power to do “good.” They truly believe they can make the economy fair through a redistributive tax and spending system; make the people moral by regulating personal behavior and choices; and remake the world in our image using armies. They argue that the use of force to achieve good is legitimate and proper for government – always speaking of the noble goals while ignoring the inevitable failures and evils caused by coercion.


Not only do they justify government force, they believe they have a moral obligation to do so.


Once we concede government has this “legitimate” function and can be manipulated by a majority vote, the various special interests move in quickly. They gain control to direct government largesse for their own benefit. Too often it is corporate interests who learn how to manipulate every contract, regulation, and tax policy. Likewise, promoters of the “progressive” agenda, always hostile to property rights, compete for government power through safety, health, and environmental initiatives. Both groups resort to using government power – and abuse this power – in an effort to serve their narrow interests. In the meantime, constitutional limits on power and its mandate to protect liberty are totally forgotten.


Since the use of power to achieve political ends is accepted, pervasive, and ever expanding, popular support for various programs is achieved by creating fear. Sometimes the fear is concocted out of thin air, but usually it’s created by wildly exaggerating a problem or incident that does not warrant the proposed government “solution.” Often government caused the problem in the first place. The irony, of course, is that government action rarely solves any problem, but rather worsens existing problems or creates altogether new ones.


Fear is generated to garner popular support for the proposed government action, even when some liberty has to be sacrificed. This leads to a society that is systemically driven toward fear – fear that gives the monstrous government more and more authority and control over our lives and property.


Fear is constantly generated by politicians to rally the support of the people.


Environmentalists go back and forth, from warning about a coming ice age to arguing the grave dangers of global warming.


It is said that without an economic safety net – for everyone, from cradle to grave – people would starve and many would become homeless.


It is said that without government health care, the poor would not receive treatment. Medical care would be available only to the rich.


Without government insuring pensions, all private pensions would be threatened.


Without federal assistance, there would be no funds for public education, and the quality of our public schools would diminish – ignoring recent history to the contrary.


It is argued that without government surveillance of every American, even without search warrants, security cannot be achieved. The sacrifice of some liberty is required for security of our citizens, they claim.


We are constantly told that the next terrorist attack could come at any moment. Rather than questioning why we might be attacked, this atmosphere of fear instead prompts giving up liberty and privacy. 9/11 has been conveniently used to generate the fear necessary to expand both our foreign intervention and domestic surveillance.


Fear of nuclear power is used to assure shortages and highly expensive energy.


In all instances where fear is generated and used to expand government control, it’s safe to say the problems behind the fears were not caused by the free market economy, or too much privacy, or excessive liberty.


It’s easy to generate fear, fear that too often becomes excessive, unrealistic, and difficult to curb. This is important: It leads to even more demands for government action than the perpetrators of the fear actually anticipated.


Once people look to government to alleviate their fears and make them safe, expectations exceed reality. FEMA originally had a small role, but its current mission is to centrally manage every natural disaster that befalls us. This mission was exposed as a fraud during last year’s hurricanes; incompetence and corruption are now FEMA’s legacy. This generates anger among those who have to pay the bills, and among those who didn’t receive the handouts promised to them quickly enough.


Generating exaggerated fear to justify and promote attacks on private property is commonplace. It serves to inflame resentment between the producers in society and the so-called victims, whose demands grow exponentially.


The economic impossibility of this system guarantees that the harder government tries to satisfy the unlimited demands, the worse the problems become. We won’t be able to pay the bills forever, and eventually our ability to borrow and print new money must end. This dependency on government will guarantee anger when the money runs out. Today we’re still able to borrow and inflate, but budgets are getting tighter and people sense serious problems lurking in the future. This fear is legitimate. No easy solution to our fiscal problems is readily apparent, and this ignites anger and apprehension.


Disenchantment is directed at the politicians and their false promises, made in order to secure reelection and exert power that so many of them enjoy.


It is, however, in foreign affairs that governments have most abused fear to generate support for an agenda that under normal circumstances would have been rejected. For decades our administrations have targeted one supposed “Hitler” after another to gain support for military action against a particular country. Today we have three choices termed the axis of evil: Iran, Iraq or North Korea.


We recently witnessed how unfounded fear was generated concerning Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction to justify our first pre-emptive war. It is now universally known the fear was based on falsehoods. And yet the war goes on; the death and destruction continue.


This is not a new phenomenon. General Douglas MacArthur understood the political use of fear when he made this famous statement:



“Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it.”


We should be ever vigilant when we hear the fear mongers preparing us for the next military conflict our young men and women will be expected to fight. We’re being told of the great danger posed by Ahmadinejad in Iran and Kim Jung Il in North Korea. Even Russia and China bashing is in vogue again. And we’re still not able to trade with or travel to Cuba. A constant enemy is required to expand the state. More and more news stories blame Iran for the bad results in Iraq. Does this mean Iran is next on the hit list?


The world is much too dangerous, we’re told, and therefore we must be prepared to fight at a moment’s notice regardless of the cost. If the public could not be manipulated by politicians’ efforts to instill needless fear, fewer wars would be fought and far fewer lives would be lost.



Fear and Anger over Iraq


Though the American people are fed up for a lot of legitimate reasons, almost all polls show the mess in Iraq leads the list of why the anger is so intense.


Short wars, with well-defined victories, are tolerated by the American people even when they are misled as to the reasons for the war. Wars entered into without a proper declaration tend to be politically motivated and not for national security reasons. These wars, by their very nature, are prolonged, costly, and usually require a new administration to finally end them. This certainly was true with the Korean and Vietnam wars. The lack of a quick military success, the loss of life and limb, and the huge economic costs of lengthy wars precipitate anger. This is overwhelmingly true when the war propaganda that stirred up illegitimate fears is exposed as a fraud. Most soon come to realize the promise of guns and butter is an illusion. They come to understand that inflation, a weak economy, and a prolonged war without real success are the reality.


The anger over the Iraq war is multifaceted. Some are angry believing they were lied to in order to gain their support at the beginning. Others are angry that the forty billion dollars we spend every year on intelligence gathering failed to provide good information. Proponents of the war too often are unable to admit the truth. They become frustrated with the progress of the war and then turn on those wanting to change course, angrily denouncing them as unpatriotic and un-American.


Those accused are quick to respond to the insulting charges made by those who want to fight on forever without regard to casualties. Proponents of the war do not hesitate to challenge the manhood of war critics, accusing them of wanting to cut and run. Some war supporters ducked military service themselves while others fought and died, only adding to the anger of those who have seen battle up close and question our campaign in Iraq.


When people see a $600 million embassy being built in Baghdad, while funding for services here in the United States is hard to obtain, they become angry. They can’t understand why the money is being spent, especially when they are told by our government that we have no intention of remaining permanently in Iraq.


The bickering and anger will not subside soon, since victory in Iraq is not on the horizon and a change in policy is not likely to occur.


The neoconservative instigators of the war are angry at everyone: at the people who want to get out of Iraq; and especially at those prosecuting the war for not bombing more aggressively, sending more troops, and expanding the war into Iran.


As our country becomes poorer due to the cost of the war, anger surely will escalate. Some of it will be justified.


It seems bizarre that it’s so unthinkable to change course if the current policy is failing. Our leaders are like a physician who makes a wrong diagnosis and prescribes the wrong medicine, but because of his ego can’t tell the patient he made a mistake. Instead he hopes the patient will get better on his own. But instead of improving, the patient gets worse from the medication wrongly prescribed. This would be abhorrent behavior in medicine, but tragically it is commonplace in politics.


If the truth is admitted, it would appear that the lives lost and the money spent have been in vain. Instead, more casualties must be sustained to prove a false premise. If the truth is admitted, imagine the anger of all the families that already have suffered such a burden. That burden is softened when the families and the wounded are told their great sacrifice was worthy, and required to preserve our freedoms and our Constitution.


But no one is allowed to ask the obvious. How have the 2,500 plus deaths, and the 18,500 wounded, made us more free? What in the world does Iraq have to do with protecting our civil liberties here at home? What national security threat prompted American’s first pre-emptive war? How does our unilateral enforcement of UN resolutions enhance our freedoms?


These questions aren’t permitted. They are not politically correct. I agree that the truth hurts, and the questions are terribly hurtful to the families that have suffered so much. What a horrible thought it would be to find out the cause for which we fight is not quite so noble.


I don’t believe those who hide from the truth and refuse to face the reality of the war do so deliberately. The pain is too great. Deep down, psychologically, many are incapable of admitting such a costly and emotionally damaging error. They instead become even greater and more determined supporters of the failed policy.


I would concede that there are some – especially the die-hard neoconservatives, who believe it is our moral duty to spread American goodness through force and remake the Middle East – who neither suffer regrets nor are bothered by the casualties. They continue to argue for more war without remorse, as long as they themselves do not have to fight. Criticism is reserved for the wimps who want to “cut and run.”


Due to the psychological need to persist with the failed policy, the war proponents must remain in denial of many facts staring them in the face.


They refuse to accept that the real reason for our invasion and occupation of Iraq was not related to terrorism.


They deny that our military is weaker as a consequence of this war.


They won’t admit that our invasion has served the interests of Osama Bin Laden. They continue to blame our image problems around the world on a few bad apples.


They won’t admit that our invasion has served the interests of Iran’s radical regime.


The cost in lives lost and dollars spent is glossed over, and the deficit spirals up without concern.


They ridicule those who point out that our relationships with our allies have been significantly damaged.


We have provided a tremendous incentive for Russia and China, and others like Iran, to organize through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. They entertain future challenges to our plans to dominate South East Asia, the Middle East, and all its oil.


Radicalizing the Middle East will in the long term jeopardize Israel’s security, and increase the odds of this war spreading.


War supporters cannot see that for every Iraqi killed, another family turns on us – regardless of who did the killing. We are and will continue to be blamed for every wrong done in Iraq: all deaths, illness, water problems, food shortages, and electricity outages.


As long as our political leaders persist in these denials, the war won’t end. The problem is that this is the source of the anger, because the American people are not in denial and want a change in policy.


Policy changes in wartime are difficult, for it is almost impossible for the administration to change course since so much emotional energy has been invested in the effort. That’s why Eisenhower ended the Korean War, and not Truman. That’s why Nixon ended the Vietnam War, and not LBJ. Even in the case of Vietnam the end was too slow and costly, as more then 30,000 military deaths came after Nixon’s election in 1968. It makes a lot more sense to avoid unnecessary wars than to overcome the politics involved in stopping them once started. I personally am convinced that many of our wars could be prevented by paying stricter attention to the method whereby our troops are committed to battle. I also am convinced that when Congress does not declare war, victory is unlikely.


The most important thing Congress can do to prevent needless and foolish wars is for every member to take seriously his or her oath to obey the Constitution. Wars should be entered into only after great deliberation and caution. Wars that are declared by Congress should reflect the support of the people, and the goal should be a quick and successful resolution.


Our undeclared wars over the past 65 years have dragged on without precise victories. We fight to spread American values, to enforce UN resolutions, and to slay supposed Hitlers. We forget that we once spread American values by persuasion and setting an example – not by bombs and preemptive invasions. Nowhere in the Constitution are we permitted to go to war on behalf of the United Nations at the sacrifice of our national sovereignty. We repeatedly use military force against former allies, thugs we helped empower – like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden – even when they pose no danger to us.


The 2002 resolution allowing the president to decide when and if to invade Iraq is an embarrassment. The Constitution authorizes only Congress to declare war. Our refusal to declare war transferred power to the president illegally, without a constitutional amendment. Congress did this with a simple resolution, passed by majority vote. This means Congress reneged on its responsibility as a separate branch of government, and should be held accountable for the bad policy in Iraq that the majority of Americans are now upset about. Congress is every bit as much at fault as the president.


Constitutional questions aside, the American people should have demanded more answers from their government before they supported the invasion and occupation of a foreign country.


Some of the strongest supporters of the war declare that we are a Christian nation, yet use their religious beliefs to justify the war. They claim it is our Christian duty to remake the Middle East and attack the Muslim infidels. Evidently I have been reading from a different Bible. I remember something about “Blessed are the peacemakers.”


My beliefs aside, Christian teaching of nearly a thousand years reinforces the concept of “Just War Theory.” This Christian theory emphasizes six criteria needed to justify Christian participation in war. Briefly the six points are as follows:



  1. War should be fought only in self-defense;
  2. War should be undertaken only as a last resort;
  3. A decision to enter war should be made only by a legitimate authority;
  4. All military responses must be proportional to the threat;
  5. There must be a reasonable chance of success; and
  6. A public declaration notifying all parties concerned is required.

The war in Iraq fails to meet almost all of these requirements. This discrepancy has generated anger and division within the Christian community.


Some are angry because the war is being fought out of Christian duty, yet does not have uniform support from all Christians. Others are angry because they see Christianity as a religion as peace and forgiveness, not war and annihilation of enemies.


Constitutional and moral restraints on war should be strictly followed. It is understandable when kings, dictators, and tyrants take their people into war, since it serves their selfish interests – and those sent to fight have no say in the matter. It is more difficult to understand why democracies and democratic legislative bodies, which have a say over the issue of war, so readily submit to the executive branch of government. The determined effort of the authors of our Constitution to firmly place the power to declare war in the legislative branch has been ignored in the decades following WWII.


Many members have confided in me that they are quite comfortable with this arrangement. They flatly do not expect, in this modern age, to formally declare war ever again. Yet no one predicts there will be fewer wars fought. It is instead assumed they will be ordered by the executive branch or the United Nations – a rather sad commentary.


What about the practical arguments against war, since no one seems interested in exerting constitutional or moral restraints? Why do we continue to fight prolonged, political wars when the practical results are so bad? Our undeclared wars since 1945 have been very costly, to put it mildly. We have suffered over one hundred thousand military deaths, and even more serious casualties. Tens of thousands have suffered from serious war-related illnesses. Sadly, we as a nation express essentially no concern for the millions of civilian casualties in the countries where we fought.


The cost of war since 1945, and our military presence in over 100 countries, exceeds two trillion dollars in today’s dollars. The cost in higher taxes, debt, and persistent inflation is immeasurable. Likewise, the economic opportunities lost by diverting trillions of dollars into war is impossible to measure, but it is huge. Yet our presidents persist in picking fights with countries that pose no threat to us, refusing to participate in true diplomacy to resolve differences. Congress over the decades has never resisted the political pressures to send our troops abroad on missions that defy imagination.


When the people object to a new adventure, the propaganda machine goes into action to make sure critics are seen as unpatriotic Americans or even traitors.


The military-industrial complex we were warned about has been transformed into a military-media-industrial-government complex that is capable of silencing the dissenters and cheerleading for war. It’s only after years of failure that people are able to overcome the propaganda for war and pressure their representatives in Congress to stop the needless killing. Many times the economic costs of war stir people to demand an end. This time around the war might be brought to a halt by our actual inability to pay the bills due to a dollar crisis. A dollar crisis will make borrowing 2.5 billion dollars per day from foreign powers like China and Japan virtually impossible, at least at affordable interest rates.


That’s when we will be forced to reassess the spending spree, both at home and abroad.


The solution to this mess is not complicated; but the changes needed are nearly impossible for political reasons. Sound free market economics, sound money, and a sensible foreign policy would all result from strict adherence to the Constitution. If the people desired it, and Congress was filled with responsible members, a smooth although challenging transition could be achieved. Since this is unlikely, we can only hope that the rule of law and the goal of liberty can be reestablished without chaos.


We must move quickly toward a more traditional American foreign policy of peace, friendship, and trade with all nations; entangling alliances with none. We must reject the notion that we can or should make the world safe for democracy. We must forget about being the world’s policeman. We should disengage from the unworkable and unforgiving task of nation building. We must reject the notion that our military should be used to protect natural resources, private investments, or serve the interest of any foreign government or the United Nations. Our military should be designed for one purpose: defending our national security. It’s time to come home now, before financial conditions or military weakness dictates it.


The major obstacle to a sensible foreign policy is the fiction about what patriotism means. Today patriotism has come to mean blind support for the government and its policies. In earlier times patriotism meant having the willingness and courage to challenge government policies regardless of popular perceptions.


Today we constantly hear innuendos and direct insults aimed at those who dare to challenge current foreign policy, no matter how flawed that policy may be. I would suggest it takes more courage to admit the truth, to admit mistakes, than to attack others as unpatriotic for disagreeing with the war in Iraq.


Remember, the original American patriots challenged the abuses of King George, and wrote and carried out the Declaration of Independence.


Yes Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of anger in this country. Much of it is justified; some of it is totally unnecessary and misdirected. The only thing that can lessen this anger is an informed public, a better understanding of economic principles, a rejection of foreign intervention, and a strict adherence to the constitutional rule of law. This will be difficult to achieve, but it’s not impossible and well worth the effort.





July 1, 2006













Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.


My question to pro-war Americans...sm
I have calmed down a lot from my anti-war stance over the past year. However, I do not agree with what is going on in Iraq. I do not think we should have gone in in the first place and the idea of policing that country the way we have is even more proposterous. Before I am labeled not supporting the troops, which is the usual plan of attack against anti-war people, let me explain.

Before we even went into Iraq, I was totally against preemption there and made no bone about it. For the first year and so after entering Iraq, I still made no bone about the fact that I thought the war was the wrong decision and unfounded. I believed the head inspector's assessment that the WMD in Iraq (pre-war) was minimal to nil, and post-war no evidence has proven him wrong.

Also, as for the postwar connecting the dots from al Quada to Saddam, excuse people for being skeptical of taking any of it serious after every other *reason* for the war has dissipiated right before our eyes without the tiniest of an explanation from our administration.

Through it all, I have spoken my piece, written to congressmen, senators, etc., all while sending cards and sending what I could (a few care packages) to soldiers. I have commented to soldiers online who have shared their stories and told them THANK YOU!! for your service, because no matter how opposed I am to the war, I respect our soldiers. They are braver than many and tougher than most and who am I to denigrade a service that I have not performed in myself?

Why is it that a person who opposes the war is seen as anti-military? And I'm not talking about people who will spit on soldiers or have tastless protests at funerals either. When I speak out against the war, I feel that I am speaking up for a soldier, whether his ideals be in the minority or not, whose voice may otherwise not be heard.

I don't find it ironic that more soldiers get on the record for the war; after all, how many people would get on the record (media, print and broadcast) and blast their employer?

Wacthing the news today has me sad, I'm past being mad. I'm saddened at the state of Iraq, and even sadder that Iraq has become America's baby.

And to turn on the TV set today to hear that our base in Japan has been attacked, and more than 80 people dead from a car bomb in Iraq. Russia has something up their sleeves too. Sounds like WW-III is on the horizon.

Exactly! Coming together as Americans...
and out from under all "labels" is where the answer lies. No one truly believes in Democracy anymore. In days gone by, yes, there would be grousing going up to election, a little grousing after election, then we were all friends again until the next election cycle. All this polarization is ridiculous, and disliking someone strictly on their political stance, and saying silly things like "I have known people like you all my life" and focusing that frustration on one person they don't even know...how silly is that?? I suppose because they can't confront those people in "real life" they come here to unload on strangers. It is truly my way or the highway, and it is that way on BOTH sides. Would it not be wonderful to be Americans first and liberals or conservatives or polka-dotted SECOND?


Native Americans

My ancestors arrived just about in time to fight in the Revolutionary War.  My great-grandfather died fighting in the Civil War.  Yes, he fought for the South.  He was there standing up for what he believed in.  Others were there in WWI and WWII.  Husband #1 a Marine Medic in Korea and husband #2 in Viet Nam.  A nephew headed for Afghanistan in September.  Husband #2's grandmother was a Polish immigrant.  She learned English and that is what was spoken in her home.  He only knows a few Polish words and I guess they are the ones she used when she was plenty angry.


Never once have I heard a Native American complain.  We just beat them in to submission.  I find the Trail of Tears a whole lot more heart-wrenching than the plight of the Mexican citizens.


We, a nation of LEGAL immigrants, had better start standing up for something or we are definitely going to FALL....hard.


It is not that Americans won't do the jobs...
it is really that they will not do them for the wages given. Unfortunately, we expect a cheap food source, which we get. If farmers have to pay Americans to labor away in fields, they will have to pay more than they do and our food costs will go up. I am actually okay with that. Perhaps retail markup will have to go down some, as well. Coming from California, I know what kind of living conditions migrant famers live in (huge amounts of people in subpar housing, etc.) and understand that Americans WILL do the work, but only for a fair amount of pay.
Those crazy Americans....sm
What our Indian and Pakistani counterparts must think, if they haphazardly happen to click onto this board!!!!!!!
And what about the 30% of Americans who rent?
You know, the ones of us who were responsible enough NOT to buy into a rip-off mortgage we knew we couldn't pay?

Do we get stuck with government cheese? Or is Whoopi-dee-doo going to kick in some of her dough to give us an equitable share in this 'idea' of hers?

Face it, if people hadn't been so greedy, trying to buy homes they couldn't afford, goaded on by left-wing Democrats pushing for ridiculous loans for unqualified minorities, we wouldn't have this huge problem right now.

It's the age of ME-ME-ME-NOW-NOW-NOW. And now the whole country's paying for it.
It's so very sad that millions of Americans ....sm
have blinders on for this man.

If you really and truly feel, that you "deserve" Obama as President.....what the heck....go for it.


You are of the "me, me, me" and "take care of me from cradle to grave" generation, that can't think or do anything for themselves, and want the government to "fix everything for them.

Well, go ahead. Vote that socialist in.


You and so many others will be so sick of him and the other democrats in power, that in two years the Republicans will be voted back in Congress.


And then in four years, the way will be clear for a "real" conservative Republican to come to the forefront, and save your sorry a$$ and everyone else that voted Obama in....by voting in someone who isn't JM.


I can wait four years for a "real" Conservative Republican leader, that will take this country back from the democrat-induced financial disasters of the last decades, and failed social programs that are about to come about, should this Obama be voted in.


I can wait for the right leader.



I hope the country can wait four years for that person, as well.







How seriously should Americans take a campaign
Barack Obama was born in the United States and he is going to be your next president. Get over yourself.
Sad that some Americans always want a quick
nm
Yes, this is a sham that Americans are
nm
Speaking of Americans.........
What they all need to do is not come together and accept whatever a president throws out there. Most Americans doesn't have a clue that BIG government is NOT a good thing. They actually believe the government should take care of them, that the government is to make all decisions for this country. No one ever told them that government is not supposed to be involved in their lives and no, it is not my place to sit back and be all one united group that just lets government ram anything and everything down my throat.

If you want to sit back, hold hands, and sing a little tune, then you do that. I do not care for more government; when has government ever solved a problem? Since when has government ever took your money and done something besides blow it? You think your government knows better than you how to spend your money? You think you should be paying income tax in the first place? Anyone who has fallen for "it's patriotic to pay taxes" garbage is the reason this country is where it is to this day. They hand it all over, sit back and say "we should all unite"......and do what? If you want to unite for something, then unite to tell YOUR government enough already. You don't not want more government, more taxes, more social problems, which is exactly what Obama wants. We've got enough social problems and wasted money. You want more? I don't.

You want to come together, then come together to get government out of our lives. But what do you see? Just the opposite. So many Americans are just to used to having someone else tell them how/what to do, they don't think for themselves anymore and they sit quaking in their boots when they hear a candidate that stands up and says enough government, no more government. It scares them to death because all they know is government interference in their lives. They actually believe that is their government's job, to make all their laws and tell them how to live.
I think Americans have the right to buy where they get value for their money --
You can't blame Americans for buying foreign if it is a better value. The American-owned companies need to make it to where buying American is more lucrative than it is now.

I would rather have American if possible - and yes, I drive an American car - BUT it is not because it is American. My budget is based on getting the cheapest and best deal I can...

I know the implications of letting the companies fail - but it is their own poor management that is doing it. The writing has been on the wall for a long time. They knew they were losing out to foreign companies - why not do something about it before they got to this point? Because they want to continue the same practices they have been doing; you know, the ones that were not working! If you let them fail, someone else will come in and pick up the business and make a go of it. That is the way the world works...