Pages: 1 2

 

2008-02-16 14:02:34
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7029|132 and Bush

He had been head of the Government Accounting Office since 1998, and was a voice against unrestrained government spending and entitlement explosion.
Walker was a regular, and respected, witness on Capitol Hill, testifying on issues ranging from how to rein in the spiraling U.S. debt to the turmoil in Iraq. Last September, Walker told Congress the Iraqi government was “dysfunctional.”

    Under Walker’s leadership, the GAO filed suit against Vice President Richard Cheney, seeking details on meetings he held early into the Bush administration on input from private groups on energy policy. After a federal court ruled GAO could not force Cheney to provide the information, GAO decided not to appeal the ruling, angering many Democrats.

    Walker repeatedly urged Congress to waste no time in reforming massive government programs, such as health care for the elderly, which will grow significantly as the U.S. population ages.

    “The picture I will lay out for you … is not a pretty one and it’s getting worse with the passage of time,” the blunt-talking Walker told Congress more than once.
Basically he was a fiscal thorn in the side of both parties, which isn’t a bad thing to have around Washington. Here’s an interview he gave to Glenn Beck back in January. It’s scary stuff.


He’s leaving GAO to head up a foundation that focuses on fiscal restraint and sounding the alarm about the federal debt.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-02-16 14:34:42
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6957|Global Command
Key people bail when they are not being listened to.

Many people sound off about 2012 being some world changing event.

Four years from now.




It may be then for the first time in history we have 7 billion people with no established currency or form of trade. A genocidal world wide recession.


I'm not saying I think it is going to happen, I'm saying all of the chess pieces are moving into place to make it happen and people like this guy are being ignored in channels so they, as righteous crusaders for what they deem to be a noble service to their country speak now so that this madness may be averted.

Think about it; a One World Government will not be accepted until the one world we know is demanding change all at once.

They have to destroy our society to rebuild it in their own image.
2008-02-16 15:00:07
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6833|North Carolina
I think the solution to this is 3 steps.

1. Privatize Social Security.

2. Slowly phase Social Security out.

3. Legally require big companies (beyond a certain net worth) to provide decent benefits for their workers.  Walmart currently costs America hundreds of billions in government benefits because they refuse to give their employees decent benefits in their own plan.  Our reliance on government aid has allowed corporations to steal from taxpayers, essentially.
2008-02-16 19:28:19
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7029|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

3. Legally require big companies (beyond a certain net worth) to provide decent benefits for their workers.  Walmart currently costs America hundreds of billions in government benefits because they refuse to give their employees decent benefits in their own plan.  Our reliance on government aid has allowed corporations to steal from taxpayers, essentially.
And I had always thought you preferred the role of government to be small. Forcing successful companies to do more than unsuccessful companies is asinine (And against everything this country was founded on). If Wal-Mart was such a horrible place to work they wouldn't have 1.3 million employees. Wal-Mart gets people OFF of welfare. Maybe you shouldn't think so narrow minded in your quest to criticize all thing corporate.

[google]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=304084752225299825&hl=en[/google]



Going off topic now . Point is that we keep putting our heads in the sand with irresponsible spending. Shame.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-02-16 19:50:26
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6833|North Carolina
Whoa...  do you own Walmart stock or something?

Watch "The High Cost of Low Prices" someday.  You'll know what I meant by my suggestion.
2008-02-16 20:04:35
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7029|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Whoa...  do you own Walmart stock or something?

Watch "The High Cost of Low Prices" someday.  You'll know what I meant by my suggestion.
No I don't ... surprised? You are again sounding typically conspiracy-like.

[google]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6648733511396220469&hl=en[/google]

Only if you promise to watch the Walmart episode of Bullshit.

Forcing a certain company to offer benefits and other to not is fucked up. And you know that. The government should not dictate unfair rules. Not too mention it would only create layoffs.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-02-16 20:07:31
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6833|North Carolina
Let me ask this then...  do you agree that we should phase out Social Security?
2008-02-16 20:07:54
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7029|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Let me ask this then...  do you agree that we should phase out Social Security?
Fuck yea..lol.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-02-16 20:09:09
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6833|North Carolina
If we phase it out without forcing the private sector to adhere to some basic level of benefits, you can be sure that our standard of living will fall quite dramatically in the ensuing decades....
2008-02-16 20:10:54
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7029|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

If we phase it out without forcing the private sector to adhere to some basic level of benefits, you can be sure that our standard of living will fall quite dramatically in the ensuing decades....
Well SS is losing money now. I'll put any private pension plan against social security. Social Security is an absolute joke. At least in terms of returns.

It won't matter much.. Like the man says, come 2040 we will barely have enough to pay the interest we owe. Forget about financing a military or social security.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-02-16 20:17:40
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6833|North Carolina
I'm just saying the only logical option left is to legally require a certain level of benefits provided to employees when they work for a larger company.  Think of it as akin to labor rights.

By the way, labor rights in this country are a joke when compared to much of the rest of the First World.  Surely, a last ditch policy such as this is the least we can do to pick up the slack.
2008-02-16 20:33:07
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6957|Global Command
Private SS is the way as long as there is a mandate to carry it and no back up if you opt out.
2008-02-16 20:37:32
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7029|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

I'm just saying the only logical option left is to legally require a certain level of benefits provided to employees when they work for a larger company.  Think of it as akin to labor rights.

By the way, labor rights in this country are a joke when compared to much of the rest of the First World.  Surely, a last ditch policy such as this is the least we can do to pick up the slack.
Wow.. you just don't get it. You said you liked Ron Paul's idea of smaller government? You are suggesting the exact opposite. It's not the governments place to tell a company what type of benefits they should offer. What's next?

The role of government should be limited. You have claimed to be against the government controlling the marketplace. I guess not.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-02-16 20:38:36
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6833|North Carolina

ATG wrote:

Private SS is the way as long as there is a mandate to carry it and no back up if you opt out.
Why not go further?  Privatize and then phase it out.  I think the government has proven time and time again that it's better at setting standards than it is at running programs.

The private sector would likely provide benefits to its constituents better than the government can, but the only catch is that the government must mandate a base level of benefits that are to be provided.  We can't let the market clear this completely by itself, because with the current situation, they'd just lowball everyone until most industries would only employ illegals.
2008-02-16 20:42:47
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6833|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm just saying the only logical option left is to legally require a certain level of benefits provided to employees when they work for a larger company.  Think of it as akin to labor rights.

By the way, labor rights in this country are a joke when compared to much of the rest of the First World.  Surely, a last ditch policy such as this is the least we can do to pick up the slack.
Wow.. you just don't get it. You said you liked Ron Paul's idea of smaller government? You are suggesting the exact opposite. It's not the governments place to tell a company what type of benefits they should offer. What's next?

The role of government should be limited. You have claimed to be against the government controlling the marketplace. I guess not.
Ending Social Security altogether would reduce the government tremendously.  That's smaller government than any major candidate supports.

I believe in smaller government than the current one, but I also don't trust corporations.  It is naive to think that the market can handle this alone.  If we handed all of the power over to the private sector, we'd be screwed.

I like a lot of what Paul stands for, but I only meet him about halfway.  I DO NOT believe in pure free market economics, and I never will.   Pure capitalism devolves into a corporate communism where corporations have all the power.  We've already fallen too far toward that direction.  What we need now is limited but forceful government.

The government should be a regulatory body, not a welfare state.  Part of that regulation should involve making sure corporations don't abuse their power too much.
2008-02-16 20:53:18
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7029|132 and Bush

Do you have any idea of the scale of influence your "regulatory committee" would have on forcing some businesses to provide benefits and others not. Seriously?.. just let it marinate in you skull for a bit. If a company wants to remain successful they need to offer incentives in order to compete with other companies for quality/skilled labor. If the company can afford to offer better benefits they will.


Your idea would completely reshape the marketplace and favor special interest (even more). The idea is to take control away from the corrupt.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-02-16 21:00:54
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6833|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Do you have any idea of the scale of influence your "regulatory committee" would have on forcing some businesses to provide benefits and others not. Seriously?.. just let it marinate in you skull for a bit. If a company wants to remain successful they need to offer incentives in order to compete with other companies for quality/skilled labor. If the company can afford to offer better benefits they will.


Your idea would completely reshape the marketplace and favor special interest (even more). The idea is to take control away from the corrupt. Capiche?
No need to get defensive....   Your assumption is incorrect when it comes to unskilled jobs like working at Walmart.  You're also leaving out the illegal immigrant factor.  Plenty of skilled industries hire illegals.  Some of them get busted, but a lot of them don't.   Usually, the government doesn't bother busting these companies until they hire thousands of illegals, and people can't ignore it anymore.

So, currently, we have a labor market in many areas where NO benefits are provided by large companies because the illegals aren't in any position to demand them.   So, the only way some industries are going to have better benefits is to better enforce immigration laws OR to go the route I mentioned.

Since it is very unlikely that we will consistently or effectively enforce immigration laws in the near future, my suggestion is to remove the government's role in providing programs and instead use it to enforce programs that the private sector would provide.

I'm sure when the idea of a 40 hour work week was first devised, people like yourself were screaming that labor reforms would kill businesses, but instead, we ended up with a better working environment and a better standard of living.   Nowadays, we are ready for a new area of reforms -- company benefits -- namely healthcare.
2008-02-16 21:15:09
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7029|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Do you have any idea of the scale of influence your "regulatory committee" would have on forcing some businesses to provide benefits and others not. Seriously?.. just let it marinate in you skull for a bit. If a company wants to remain successful they need to offer incentives in order to compete with other companies for quality/skilled labor. If the company can afford to offer better benefits they will.


Your idea would completely reshape the marketplace and favor special interest (even more). The idea is to take control away from the corrupt. Capiche?
No need to get defensive....   Your assumption is incorrect when it comes to unskilled jobs like working at Walmart.  You're also leaving out the illegal immigrant factor.  Plenty of skilled industries hire illegals.  Some of them get busted, but a lot of them don't.   Usually, the government doesn't bother busting these companies until they hire thousands of illegals, and people can't ignore it anymore.

So, currently, we have a labor market in many areas where NO benefits are provided by large companies because the illegals aren't in any position to demand them.   So, the only way some industries are going to have better benefits is to better enforce immigration laws OR to go the route I mentioned.

Since it is very unlikely that we will consistently or effectively enforce immigration laws in the near future, my suggestion is to remove the government's role in providing programs and instead use it to enforce programs that the private sector would provide.

I'm sure when the idea of a 40 hour work week was first devised, people like yourself were screaming that labor reforms would kill businesses, but instead, we ended up with a better working environment and a better standard of living.   Nowadays, we are ready for a new area of reforms -- company benefits -- namely healthcare.
You are clouding the water. That doesn't work here. Obviously when discussing the role of government the laws that are currently in place need to be enforced for it to be successful. Simply shifting the topic to illegal immigration will not help to promote your idea of government controlled industry, Comrade. You think that because we are not enforcing one law that by creating new laws we will resolve an issue? It is just going to further perpetuate the problem.

What do you mean the 40 hour work week? There is no such law that enforces this. Here is a crazy idea I think you should embrace. Find a job that suits you. By forcing government control upon a company you hand over control to the corrupt and inept (even more so). It's a ridiculous idea that ends in less jobs. It forces companies to discriminate against hiring less skilled labor and ends up making everyone pay the price. It essentially strips your freedom to choose.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-02-16 21:25:25
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6833|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

You are clouding the water. That doesn't work here. Obviously when discussing the role of government the laws that are currently in place need to be enforced for it to be successful. Simply shifting the topic to illegal immigration will not help to promote your idea of government controlled industry, Comrade. You think that because we are not enforcing one law that by creating new laws we will resolve an issue? It is just going to further perpetuate the problem.

What do you mean the 40 hour work week? There is no such law that enforces this. Here is a crazy idea I think you should embrace. Find a job that suits you. By forcing government control upon a company you hand over control to the corrupt and inept (even more so). It's a ridiculous idea that ends in less jobs. It forces companies to discriminate against hiring less skilled labor and ends up making everyone pay the price. It essentially strips your freedom to choose.
You call it clouding the water, I call it perspective.  As with any issue, it relates to other things at hand.  Illegal immigration is the most relevant external factor here, and it is the premise for why I see this the way I do.

I'm not sure why you insist on implying that I'm a Commie.  I'm more like a Third Way style New Dealer.  I realize the mistakes that were made during FDR's time, but the mistake wasn't in the reforms themselves but in their execution.  We set up a system of welfare for the government to provide when, in truth, the private sector would provide them better.

About the 40 hour thing...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_L … ations_Act

I was referring to how collective bargaining (which was protected by law) allowed many prominent businesses to acknowledge what we consider a typical work week.  It took government initiatives to establish fair labor practices.

Nowadays, it will take a new design of law to extricate us from our current situation in labor practices (in addition to better border security).

If you're concerned about the freedom of choice, then consider how few choices a low skill laborer will have without SS.
2008-02-16 21:28:08
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7190

ATG wrote:

Key people bail when they are not being listened to.
Ya that's the spirit
2008-02-16 21:34:28
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7029|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

You are clouding the water. That doesn't work here. Obviously when discussing the role of government the laws that are currently in place need to be enforced for it to be successful. Simply shifting the topic to illegal immigration will not help to promote your idea of government controlled industry, Comrade. You think that because we are not enforcing one law that by creating new laws we will resolve an issue? It is just going to further perpetuate the problem.

What do you mean the 40 hour work week? There is no such law that enforces this. Here is a crazy idea I think you should embrace. Find a job that suits you. By forcing government control upon a company you hand over control to the corrupt and inept (even more so). It's a ridiculous idea that ends in less jobs. It forces companies to discriminate against hiring less skilled labor and ends up making everyone pay the price. It essentially strips your freedom to choose.
You call it clouding the water, I call it perspective.  As with any issue, it relates to other things at hand.  Illegal immigration is the most relevant external factor here, and it is the premise for why I see this the way I do.

I'm not sure why you insist on implying that I'm a Commie.  I'm more like a Third Way style New Dealer.  I realize the mistakes that were made during FDR's time, but the mistake wasn't in the reforms themselves but in their execution.  We set up a system of welfare for the government to provide when, in truth, the private sector would provide them better.

About the 40 hour thing...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_L … ations_Act

I was referring to how collective bargaining (which was protected by law) allowed many prominent businesses to acknowledge what we consider a typical work week.  It took government initiatives to establish fair labor practices.

Nowadays, it will take a new design of law to extricate us from our current situation in labor practices (in addition to better border security).

If you're concerned about the freedom of choice, then consider how few choices a low skill laborer will have without SS.
Say good by to business, higher unemployment, and greater inflation. So long as we have people like you who think that the solution to our problems is to make it more difficult to do business in the United States the more businesses will continue to ship jobs over seas. It's really that simple. It is extremely awesome that you mentioned collective bargaining. Since that is how a good portion of companies have reached agreements regarding health plans. Without government interference! Illegal immigration needs to be addressed. But forcing a healthcare plan on employers is a weak/counterproductive solution to say the least.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-02-16 21:42:55
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6833|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Say good by to business, higher unemployment, and greater inflation. So long as we have people like you who think that the solution to our problems is to make it more difficult to do business in the United States the more businesses will continue to ship jobs over seas. It's really that simple. It is extremely awesome that you mentioned collective bargaining. Since that is how a good portion of companies have reached agreements regarding health plans. Without government interference! Illegal immigration needs to be addressed. But forcing a healthcare plan on employers is a weak/counterproductive solution to say the least.
If what you say is true about businesses leaving....  then that is truly sad.   I know that there is a lot of outsourcing going on right now, but as far as I can tell, it's not something done so flippantly.  There are a lot of transaction costs in relocating to another country.  I've worked for a lot of companies that produce goods in really poor countries but design them here.   The furniture industry is a good example.  Still, after seeing what crap they have to deal with (like the irregularity of electrical service in Honduras), I have to wonder if it's really all worth it to move so quickly.

I think you'll find there are many industries in America that will not move because it isn't worth the inherent costs to do so and still wouldn't be worth it with a relatively minor benefits mandate.   Consider how much less we'd have to tax businesses without SS in place.   If we tax businesses a lot less, surely they can afford to provide minor benefits plans.

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-02-16 21:44:26)

2008-02-16 21:54:14
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7029|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Say good by to business, higher unemployment, and greater inflation. So long as we have people like you who think that the solution to our problems is to make it more difficult to do business in the United States the more businesses will continue to ship jobs over seas. It's really that simple. It is extremely awesome that you mentioned collective bargaining. Since that is how a good portion of companies have reached agreements regarding health plans. Without government interference! Illegal immigration needs to be addressed. But forcing a healthcare plan on employers is a weak/counterproductive solution to say the least.
If what you say is true about businesses leaving....  then that is truly sad.   I know that there is a lot of outsourcing going on right now, but as far as I can tell, it's not something done so flippantly.  There are a lot of transaction costs in relocating to another country.  I've worked for a lot of companies that produce goods in really poor countries but design them here.   The furniture industry is a good example.  Still, after seeing what crap they have to deal with (like the irregularity of electrical service in Honduras), I have to wonder if it's really all worth it to move so quickly.

I think you'll find there are many industries in America that will not move because it isn't worth the inherent costs to do so and still wouldn't be worth it with a relatively minor benefits mandate.   Consider how much we'd have to tax businesses without SS in place.   If we tax businesses a lot less, surely they can afford to provide minor benefits plans.
Of course it's true ( You have got to know this... uh China, India?). Especially in the IT industry (UK included). For the last few decades we have seen a dramatic increase in outsourcing. When we were a nation of producers we were strong. Now.. not so much.

• It has been predicted by the International Data Corporation (IDC) that the global IT-enabled services market will account for revenues of $1.2 trillion by 2006.

• Meta Group estimates that offshore outsourcing will grow by more than 20% annually, increasing it from a $7 billion market in 2003 to a $10 billion market in 2005.

• According to Deloitte Consulting, 2 million jobs will move from the United States and Europe to cheaper destinations in the financial services business alone. The emigration of service jobs across all industries could be as high as 4 million. The consulting firm also forecasts that in the next five years 3/4 of major financial institutions and investment banks will allocate tasks to low labor cost countries and that India will be at the top of the list. Global financial institutions are predicted to invest $356 billion in India for outsourcing projects.

• Forrester Research estimates that 3.3 million U.S. jobs and $136 billion in wages could be moved to such countries as India, China, and Russia by 2015.

• Among the different offshore destinations, India has become the number one location for most companies. In its 2002 report titled, "IT Trends in India," Gartner wrote that the market opportunity for Indian providers would grow to $25 billion by 2005. Gartner also states that, the global BPO market increased by 13% between 1999 and 2000, to $119 billion, and it will reach $234 billion in 2005.
http://www.cyfuture.com/outsourcing-statistics.htm
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-02-16 22:00:33
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6833|North Carolina
Well, I hate to say this, but we can look forward to higher unemployment or a lower standard of living....  or maybe both, given current trends then.

Yeah...  I know you're probably tired of me mentioning it, but that transfer to Toronto in my company is looking real nice right about now.

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-02-16 22:01:20)

2008-02-16 22:04:32
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7029|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Well, I hate to say this, but we can look forward to higher unemployment or a lower standard of living....  or maybe both, given current trends then.

Yeah...  I know you're probably tired of me mentioning it, but that transfer to Toronto in my company is looking real nice right about now.
I think "rock and a hard place" would accurately describe the current economic climate.

It's tough to debate something like this. It's not like I don't want healthcare for everyone..lol.
Xbone Stormsurgezz

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard