An article well worth reading (about a Republican author!!)

[Sibling Chatty]

http://www.alternet.org/stories/74389/?cID=815264#c815264

Author David Cay Johnston:  We have created in the United States, largely in the last thirty years, a whole series of programs -- a few of them explicit, many of them deeply hidden -- that take money from the pockets of the poor and the middle class and upper middle class and funnel it to the wealthiest people in America. And among the biggest recipients of these subsidies are the wealthiest family America, the Waltons; George Steinbrenner; Donald Trump; a whole host of healthcare billionaires. And these are policies that either have not been reported on or the news reporting on them generally has not informed people about what they really are.

The big "American Dream" has always been attainable, theoretically, by working your way through college.

Johnston says:

Between 1945 and the election of Ronald Reagan, we had a government that was focused on creating and nurturing the middle class. When I was a young man, I was able to go to college only because it was free. It didn't matter that I didn't have any money -- my dad was a 100 percent disabled veteran, and I went to work when I was ten years old and full time since I was thirteen -- because it was free.

Today, the cost of a college education, a state college education, is about $10,000 a year. The average income of the bottom half of taxpayers -- that's not families, that's taxpayers -- is about $15,000. Think you can go to college if two-thirds of your income would have to go to college? I don't think so.

IS our government being used? Yes.

Has it been hijacked by the wealthy, for the wealthy? Yes

OK, so what can we do?

[ivor]

This is exactly the reason why I don't like such a powerful central government.  If we didn't have a powerful central government and a state decided to start taxing too much or ruining the state's economy by over spending you could simply move to another state.  If enough people move out of the state they'll really start struggling and have to lower taxes and quit spending so much.  The states would balance each other out by competition.  We can't do that with an ultra powerful central government.

Think we live in a free market economy?  Check this out.  The inflation figures for oil are derived from the price of West Texas Intermediate Crude (WTI).  The data is sampled on the Tuesday of every month during the week or the thirteen day.  Watch the price before and after that Tuesday.  You'll see that the price is almost always lower before and higher after.  This is how far our government goes to get money out of your pocket.  There's no telling how much money is involved to manipulate the markets that much.

Get ready for a plunge in the stock market tomorrow as the world markets went into the toilet because they know our "stimulus" plan is a crock of carp.     I'm thinking we're on the road to economic collapse, not just a depression, before the end of the year.  The rest of the world will come out much quicker because they aren't in nine trillion dollars of debt.

[Sibling Chatty]

Yeah, Bush has pulled another chunk of the same old same old out as if it were a diamond, not another piece of Cheney.

I don't know if decentralization to the states would help that much. You're forgetting that a huge number of people CANNOT just "move to another state". Having the flexibility to do that comes with having a fairly decent income and having a WAY to move.

Look at the Michigan influx into Texas in the 80's. The young and mobile/financially able to go left. Now, there are huge chunks of Michigan's cities that are ghost towns. The poor, the elderly and the disabled are left. They deserve a chance to live, right?

The still-working automakers can't just up and quit their jobs. Their skills MIGHT transfer to other work, but how will they find it? Blue collar jobs don't get filled on Monster.com, they get filled by a body in the office filling out paperwork. So, you quit the job you have to go search of the one you might not get? Not with a family, not with obligations...

More power to the states would devolve automatically if there were no way for the Federal govt to force these asinine unfunded mandates on the states. THAT is within reach, IF people get off their asses and VOTE for Congress persons that aren't already corrupt insiders.

Get rid of the insiders government. Get rid of the K Street control.

We need a VIABLE third party, but then we need to kill off the Mainstream Media to do it. We're living in a country of sheeple.

http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/11/26/the-open-source-party-proposal/

I can no longer do what I used to do. No strength, no resources. But, we have to do something.

Pushing for Cheney's impeachment seems to be my prime motivator right now. A sign to the plutocrats that they aren't invincible. A sign to the world that we're not completely cowed...

But, I see the economy crashing, and I hear the "We TOLD you Big Government doesn't work" catcalls from the very ones that chose to destroy the whole thing with their greed. I'm just too weak to be effective anymore.

[ivor]

A diamond to the rich but a terd to the poor. 

If you can build a car, most likely you can build anything else. 

There used to be plenty of manufacturing jobs in the US.  We invented them after all.  It just wasn't enough for these corporations to make a profit.  They had to make a fortune.

In the pursuit of fortune corporations cried out about wages.  Despite the fact that the people that built the cars were the people that bought the cars, they took all the jobs and they moved over seas.  What they didn't realize is American workers are the most productive workers in the world.  That's the reason why Toyota and Nissan are building cars over here today.

Now I agree it's difficult to move to a different state, it's more likely that the states are going to stay competitive so it won't happen as much as when there's a powerful centralized government.  If the economy stays stable, people make more money and it is easier to move.

To further the interest in giant corporations making tremendous profits they decided that they could no longer afford to make quality products.  Remember when imports used to be junk and American products were quality?  Now the vice versa is true.  When we we're lean and mean, no one could compete with us.

Now there's no manufacturing jobs left, so they turned to technology jobs.  The giant corporations turn to Washington and cried out, "We can't afford to pay these labor rates!"  Just like they did in the '70 and '80s.  Who answered the call, Big government!  Big government has got to go!

[Bruder Cuzzen]

Nine trillion in debt !? holy socks ! I remember when it was one trillion in the mid/ late seventies . I would have thought your government(s) would have started stabilizing the debt back then .

Our government(s) have been working on the debt that Trudeau and the Liberals spent us into back then .

We ( us lowly poor voters ) seem to have it (spending) under control ( I think ) but we still have politicians living high of the hog on our dime .

I believe our debt is slowly shrinking .

Good God , I had no idea your debt was so enormous . I wonder what economists are thinking about this ?
How can ye folks ever get out of that mess ? The yearly interest would wipe out all most of your billionaires .

[Sibling Chatty]

Our billionaires are heavily invested overseas.

They're the ones that put us here. They sold us out, just as if we were already the serf, the peons that they hope to make of us.

[Aphos]

Nine trillion in debt !? holy socks ! I remember when it was one trillion in the mid/ late seventies . I would have thought your government(s) would have started stabilizing the debt back then .

The US national debt rose considerably under Reagan/Bush I.  Under Clinton, they managed to get a handle on it, but by that time it was up to about 4 trillion.  Under Bush II, it has gone ballistic.

And the Republicans CLAIM to be the party of fiscal responsibility.

[Swatopluk]

Would a weaker government be able (or willing for that matter) to stand up to the corporations? I have my doubts about that. State governments are already blackmailed by "you give us subsidies or we go and take our shop somewhere else and you will be blamed for losing the jobs".
Btw, over here most schools/universities are under state control and still essentially free of charge, although stealth fees are now in place in some states, amounting to about 500€/year (maximum). The plans to introduce general fees of up to 2000€/year are fought up to the Supreme Court. Any plan with any chance with those judges has to contain clauses that allow for almost indefinite deferrals of student loans to cover that* (and with no or only marginal interest). The general policy is: it's unconstitutional, if it is a significant hurdle.

*i.e. the paying back starts only when you get/have a job and the rates would be modest (and depend on how much you earn)

[ivor]

A weaker central government has less money to get stupid with.  Besides, if a corporation needs subsidies to survive they need to be out of business.  When corporations get really huge I think taxes should start getting larger to prevent corporate monarchies from forming.  Look at Cabellas and Wal-Mart, they ran so many smaller businesses out.  The tax rate needs to be high enough for large corporations to encourage competition so Mom & Pops can come back.

In a real free market economy there's no one to blame but the corporation for lost jobs.  In a strong economy lost jobs should be reabsorbed quickly.  In a weak economy expect to stand in the unemployment line for a meager pittance that won't pay for your food much less your mortgage.

The US education system is in a shambles.  Colleges and universities are more concerned about profits than education.  Personally I think the big educational institutions put up a huge barrier to entry for new colleges and universities through government regulation.  They did this to reduce competition so they can raise tuition through the roof.  Then they complain about cost and get the government to subsidize them.  Of course the government creates money out of thin air to make sure students can borrow enough money to pay for school.  Lather, rinse, repeat and that's how school became so expensive.

In other words, if you want to make sure something is expensive subsidize it and regulate it.  I'm totally against getting rid of regulation to stop pollution as that cost us more in the end because of corporations putting greed before environmental protection.  Overall it's best if there's the least regulation possible as regulation is a double edged sword.