A flat tax applies the same percentage to everyone.  A graduated tax taxes different income groups at different rates.  Right now, the higher your income, the larger percentage you pay (after exclusions, deductions, loopholes).  Again, I'll vote later.

Flat tax.  That way when you don't make alot you aren't taxed alot and when you make the big bucks you have to pay.  There would be no loopholes or deductions...just a flat tax rate.

Nonexistent.

Flat tax applied to WAGES ONLY!
Capital gains of all types should fall under a different system.

A system where everyone pays the same reguardless of income.  Everyone pays X amount of dollars a month wheather they make 10,000 a month or 1,000 a month (of course unemployed like always get a break.)

A system where everyone pays the same reguardless of income.  Everyone pays X amount of dollars a month wheather they make 10,000 a month or 1,000 a month (of course unemployed like always get a break.)


No, since the Reagan administration people on collecting unemployment compensation pay taxes
on their unemployment.  As for the unemployed getting a break, go find someone losing their
house because of downsizing, outsourcing, and wage reduction how lucky they are not to have to
pay taxes.

A system where everyone pays the same reguardless of income.  Everyone pays X amount of dollars a month wheather they make 10,000 a month or 1,000 a month (of course unemployed like always get a break.)

What about capital gains? 

I support a graduated income tax favoring working and middle incxome families with no loopholes for the rich. 

I also think the cap on FICA (Social Security tax) should be eliminated, favor capital gains tax on everything BUT the sale of everything but a last home, and an inheritance tax on anything over $2 mil, also graduated.

Why is there a cap on it anyway?  Hubby always hits it in May/June, which is nice for us, but I would think the gov't could "help" SS if it wasn't there.  I mean, hubby only pays for 5-6 months, and there are probably millions who make more than he does, they could probably fund it quite well if everyone paid the entire year and there wouldn't be the "Social Security will run out of money by 20##"


I don't know the history of it, but you can guess who opposes either raising the limit or eliminating it. ;)

It is time to take government out of retirement.  I want to make social security OPTIONAL.  Thier is no reason we pay that much in taxes so the government can blow it and waste it and tell us we need to raise the age to recieve social security, lower benefits, or raise taxes to keep it going.  I could do so much more with that money then the fricking government can wasting it on unemployment and medicaid.  What are we at now, like 65% of all taxes collected going to social programs like medicaid and others forms of useless welfare?

It is time to take government out of retirement.  I want to make social security OPTIONAL.  Thier is no reason we pay that much in taxes so the government can blow it and waste it and tell us we need to raise the age to recieve social security, lower benefits, or raise taxes to keep it going.  I could do so much more with that money then the fricking government can wasting it on unemployment and medicaid.  What are we at now, like 65% of all taxes collected going to social programs like medicaid and others forms of useless welfare?


Military still sucks up most of it. close to 50%

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

33% for social programs, but that also includes education.

so social programs take up about half of what you think they do.

My grandparents, the straight ticket republicans, didn't believe in social security either.  It didn't effect my grandfather so much since he died at 71, and was still working when he did.  But  there was my
grandmother, 67 years old with her house and no income.  When social security began you had to
sign in, and not believing in it, my grandfather didn't.  Luckily my grandmother had a daughter and a
son to take care of business, and she found out what she had thrown away. I shudder to think what would have happened to her if she was childless and at the mercy of some of the scum out there posing as caring individuals.  She'd have lost everything and her last years would have been a horror.  Social Security is one of the best  things going.  You will find that out at some time in the future GW.  I've heard your song before from too many people who changed their tune.

It is time to take government out of retirement.  I want to make social security OPTIONAL.  Thier is no reason we pay that much in taxes so the government can blow it and waste it and tell us we need to raise the age to recieve social security, lower benefits, or raise taxes to keep it going.  I could do so much more with that money then the fricking government can wasting it on unemployment and medicaid.  What are we at now, like 65% of all taxes collected going to social programs like medicaid and others forms of useless welfare?


Medicare and Social Security are "useless welfare"?  What can one say to such a reactionary statement?  Get a soul dude.  Read your bible.  get some social responsibility, and get with the idea that what you think of as you own accomplishments were the result of opportunities that you were given because other people fought for them. 

Medicare and Social Security are "useless welfare"?  What can one say to such a reactionary statement?  Get a soul dude.  Read your bible.  get some social responsibility, and get with the idea that what you think of as you own accomplishments were the result of opportunities that you were given because other people fought for them. 

Social Security privitization is just a ploy to make us all dependent.  That's right dependent, but not dependent on a government we democratically elect, rather, dependent on the whims of the STOCK MARKET.  You know what happens when  Big Business gets news it doesn't want to hear...PANIC ON WALL STREET! SELL SELL SELL!  So, Grandma and Grandpa, don't vote for any politician, or support any policy, Corporate America doesn't like, for if you do, THERE GOES YOUR NEST EGG!  Muah-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Private 401K-type accounts instead of social security is one GIANT LEAP toward corporate fascism and total subversion of the power of the people. 
Remember, Joe Sixpack with his mutual funds doesn't get to "play" the stock market like the big boys.  His portfolio is at their mercy!  Remember Enron!  When things start to go wrong for the billionaires, the connive or they strong arm the smalltime investors into saving billionaire bacon by sacrificing their little stashes of shares to the Money God!

Are there problems with Social Security. Yes, it needs to be restructured and re-invigorated, but it would be very foolish to hand the wealth of the people over to the vagaries of Big Business.

In New Hampshire the state motto is "Live Free or Die".  But for many I believe the motto should reflect what they really want,  "Live for Free, or Die" .  Yes, we have to watch the bureaucrats closely, but if you want roads, schools,
hospitals, a free and open society, well guess what, it costs.  You don't like paying for schools, well alot of people without cars are paying for roads, don't like paying for elderly, well they paid for you.  Whether you like it or not you do derive benefits from taxes that others don't, and others derive benefits that you don't.  I have known to many people who complained and said the same thing about paying for social security.  Worked under the table and did
what they could to circumvent the tax, then one day the got sick and the program they vilified was there to help them out.  One day you will be old, you will take advantage of it , and you will be glad it is there.

In New Hampshire the state motto is "Live Free or Die".  But for many I believe the motto should reflect what they really want,  "Live for Free, or Die"


Should be "Tax Free New Hampshire--Beer, Butts, Bets, and Booze." 
;D

Should be "Tax Free New Hampshire--Beer, Butts, Bets, and Booze." 
;D


Good one!!!!!!!!!!! (and hits the nail on the pointy little head)

In New Hampshire the state motto is "Live Free or Die".  But for many I believe the motto should reflect what they really want,  "Live for Free, or Die" .  Yes, we have to watch the bureaucrats closely, but if you want roads, schools,
hospitals, a free and open society, well guess what, it costs.  You don't like paying for schools, well alot of people without cars are paying for roads, don't like paying for elderly, well they paid for you.  Whether you like it or not you do derive benefits from taxes that others don't, and others derive benefits that you don't.  I have known to many people who complained and said the same thing about paying for social security.  Worked under the table and did
what they could to circumvent the tax, then one day the got sick and the program they vilified was there to help them out.  One day you will be old, you will take advantage of it , and you will be glad it is there.


While you and I, and others realize that what we have accomplished in our lives, and the everyday things we take for granted are the result of the efforts of many people, and of community, our neocon friends view much of this as creeping socialism, and want to kill it.  I guess they will maintain the roads they use out of their own pocket.  For them, its not about practicality, and serving common needs, its about ideology.  Call it creepy conservatism.

While you and I, and others realize that what we have accomplished in our lives, and the everyday things we take for granted are the result of the efforts of many people, and of community, our neocon friends view much of this as creeping socialism, and want to kill it.  I guess they will maintain the roads they use out of their own pocket.  For them, its not about practicality, and serving common needs, its about ideology.  Call it creepy conservatism.

The Cons like to point to reforms and call them "socialism."  I don't care what they're called.  We've got a job to do.  Liberals are too nice.  We need to be as ruthless as Steven Moore and the Club for Growth.  The difference is, we don't have to lie!

Do you mean it should be an option to contribute or an option to receive it?


He must mean contributing, since receiving it is already optional.  ;)

I don't know the history of it, but you can guess who opposes either raising the limit or eliminating it. ;)


The history of it was that it was a PENSION FUND that was to pay out retirement benefits to workers who paid into it.  The more you make (and thus pay into SS), the higher your retirement benefit.

The retirement benefit has a "maximum amount payable" and as such, there is a "maximum contribution", the "cap".

The idea of removing the "cap" basically changes the system from a PENSION FUND to another WELFARE SCHEME.  If we want welfare then do it through the already-established channels of tax-and-spend on welfare.

We keep at this "tax everyone to death" and "redistribute the money" thing and we'll recreate the disaster that was Communism.

Last year I made $256,000 and paid $67,000 in taxes.  I'd sure as heck like to know where all these loopholes are that I'm getting.

The history of it was that it was a PENSION FUND that was to pay out retirement benefits to workers who paid into it.  The more you make (and thus pay into SS), the higher your retirement benefit.

The retirement benefit has a "maximum amount payable" and as such, there is a "maximum contribution", the "cap".

The idea of removing the "cap" basically changes the system from a PENSION FUND to another WELFARE SCHEME.  If we want welfare then do it through the already-established channels of tax-and-spend on welfare.

We keep at this "tax everyone to death" and "redistribute the money" thing and we'll recreate the disaster that was Communism.

Last year I made $256,000 and paid $67,000 in taxes.  I'd sure as heck like to know where all these loopholes are that I'm getting.

Yeah, well, I didn't ask.  But while we're on the subject, you should be grateful for the fact that you are materially better off than 99.9% of the human race.  67K is a small price to pay for not living in an anarchy like Liberia or Somalia.  In a place like interior Congo, you don't have to worry about coughing up 67K to the government, because there isn't one.  However, all the money you save would go into fortifying your home and person agains marauding guerrillas and feral bands of starving children.  And please, spare me the tax gripes, Mr. 189K Net!
Have a nice day!
:)

Who says he isn't?  I'm sure he works his butt off to live like he does.  I know MY husband sure as heck does.
Well, everyone keeps harping on how the "rich" get "all the tax cuts".  Since he's "better off than 99.9% of the human race", I guess that would make him "rich".  Are the "rich" not allowed to gripe about how much we pay in taxes and how they are spent?  I'll have to make a mental note of that...::)

Not to get too personal here, but millions work their butts off greasing the wheels of civilization and make jack squat.  Furthermore, Americans with more material wealth than 99.9% of the human race are allowed to gripe, it's a free country.  However, those of us with a more broad-minded perspective will find their griping a tad perverse and narcissistic.

So, when does it stop being "perverse and narcissistic"?  At 40%?  50%? The tax rates for the "rich" keep increasing, while the tax rates for the "poor" are pretty much static.  One of the basic tenets of our great country is that everyone is supposed to be equal, so why aren't we treated equally when it comes to taxes?

Equal in that we have no aristocratic lineage.  The Framers certainly had no anarco-syndicalist scheme of abolishing money in mind.
However, if we keep going with our current trends in taxation, such as abolishing the estate tax, we will allow families to amass such gargantuan fortunes that we will have a de facto aristocracy.  I'm not talking about people like LyricBoy, pulling down six figures and living comfy, I mean centimillionaires and billionaires.  The Bush family would like to see families like theirs rich enough to just buy the political system and pass it around like royalty in days of old.

Graduated.  In theory, the "flat tax" rate is a good idea, but I have a problem with the question "okay, so what %?"  Hubby and I are in the highest bracket, which we can afford, but if you apply that % to a low-income family, they probably could barely afford to live.  On the flip side, if everyone was taxed at a lower %, it would amount to millions of dollars less that the government would have and would plunge our country even deeper into deficit.


That is why most reasonable "Flat Tax" proposals have a minimum taxable income included into it.

If I remember right, the plan proposed by Steve Forbes had the tax exclude the first $35,000 of a person's income.  That means that if you earn below $35k, you pay nothing.  Above $35k, a person paid a fixed rate, with NO deductions.  This would prevent rich people from "hiding" their income.  It makes the rich pay for most of the expenses, yet does not penalize them for being successful.  It also helps the poor by not taxing them at all.

If I remember right, the first $35k of each PERSON was exempt.  It no longer had married couples combined.  So for a married couple, they could collect $70k without taxes.

Also, do not confuse "Flat Tax" with a "Poll Tax".

In a Flat Tax, everybody pays the same PERCENTAGE.  For example, Sales Tax is a "Flat Tax", because it does not change due to a person's income.

A "Poll Tax" is when everybody pays the same AMMOUNT.  For example, most states charge a "Recycling Fee" on tires.  This fee is fixed, and does not care how big or what kind of tire is being recycled, the fee is the same.

I am in support of a Flat Tax, I am opposed to a Poll Tax.

What about capital gains? 


Myself, it depends on what is done with the Capitol Gains.

I think if the money is reinvested within a reasonable time (say 30-60 days), it should not be taxed.

For example, if you liquidate your IRA to invest in Bonds, it should not be taxed during the transfer.  The same if you withdraw stocks in order to re-invest in a different stock.  I also think that it should be exempt if it is being used to buy real estate.

If it is just being liquidated to take the money, then it should be taxed.  In this way, it encourages expansion of the economy and savings.  I like to see money in use and in circulation.  When the money stagnates, the economy stagnates.  Also a lot of people are afraid to sell their stocks, even when they start to drop in value because of the Capitol Gains taxes.  30-60 days will allow these people a chance to "catch their breath", and consider their options instead of blindly moving money around.

I don't know the history of it, but you can guess who opposes either raising the limit or eliminating it. ;)


The reason there is a cap on FICA, is because there is a cap on how much you can withdraw from it.

I agree with this, because it is not fair to make somebody pay FICA above and beyond the ammount they are eligable to withdraw.

On the reverse, I remember a poll about 5 years ago, which showed that most people $1 million and more that are eligable to recieve SSI never apply for it.  So the richest people often never even try to collect it.  When you have that much money and residual income, the little ammount that SSI pays is normally not worth bothering with.

Knowing the hastles often associated with SSI, could you imagine Bill Gates trying to collect SSI?  How about Barbara Streisand?

Military still sucks up most of it. close to 50%


Yes, but Military is also one of the largest employers of the Federal Government.

For example, when I was at both Seal Beach and Mare Island Naval Stations, the civilian employees far outnumbered the number of military on the base.

Add to that, the cost of dependent care.  There are more dependents then there are military members.  And those dependents need housing, schools, health care, and other facilities.

When you see the military budget, only about half of that is actual weapons development and purchases.  Half of that is employment for civilians (clerks, doctors, truck drivers, teachers, etc), housing and care for military families, and military pay.

Yes, but Military is also one of the largest employers of the Federal Government.

For example, when I was at both Seal Beach and Mare Island Naval Stations, the civilian employees far outnumbered the number of military on the base.

Add to that, the cost of dependent care.  There are more dependents then there are military members.  And those dependents need housing, schools, health care, and other facilities.

When you see the military budget, only about half of that is actual weapons development and purchases.  Half of that is employment for civilians (clerks, doctors, truck drivers, teachers, etc), housing and care for military families, and military pay.


...and there are alot of people working for the Military Equipment manufacturers and their suppliers, too.

Equal in that we have no aristocratic lineage.  The Framers certainly had no anarco-syndicalist scheme of abolishing money in mind.


Ohhh, we are back to the framers again.

Let's not forget, the framers had *NO* belief in income taxes.  For almost 100 years, the Government only raised taxes through import and export tarrifs, and on excise taxes.  In fact, the Government had almost no power to either raise, or to spend money.  Some of that came about in the 19th century, but mostly in the 20th century.

Anybody who knows Davey Crocket's famous address to Congress knows this.  Add to that that Mr. Crockett was an Andrew Jackson Democrat, the forerunner of the current Democratic Party.

So if you once again go by the "intent of the framers", we should have almost no Socialist type programs at all.  But this is not that time, so we have made some allowances.  Our nation is no longer Agrarian, where most people were largely self-sufficient.

For those interested, here is the speach given by Davey Crockett to Congress:

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living.

"I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett said: "Several years ago, I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless. . . . The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done. A bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We rushed it through.

"The next summer, when riding one day in a part of my district. I saw a man in a field plowing. I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but rather coldly.

" 'You are Colonel Crockett. I shall not vote for you again.' "

"I begged him tell me what was the matter."

"'Well Colonel, you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. You voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown.

" 'Certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury,' I replied."

"'It is not the amount, Colonel, it is the principle. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man. . . . You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

" 'You have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people.'

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. . . . You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men--men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people."

**********

As a side note, the proposal was expected to pass.  After this speech, it failed passing.

The history of it was that it was a PENSION FUND that was to pay out retirement benefits to workers who paid into it.  The more you make (and thus pay into SS), the higher your retirement benefit.

The retirement benefit has a "maximum amount payable" and as such, there is a "maximum contribution", the "cap".

The idea of removing the "cap" basically changes the system from a PENSION FUND to another WELFARE SCHEME.  If we want welfare then do it through the already-established channels of tax-and-spend on welfare.

We keep at this "tax everyone to death" and "redistribute the money" thing and we'll recreate the disaster that was Communism.

Last year I made $256,000 and paid $67,000 in taxes.  I'd sure as heck like to know where all these loopholes are that I'm getting.


Of course I know all  that.  I'm just not familiar with the reason for the currant cap, which I think is far to low.

Taxes on the highest incomes have been coming down over the last few decades.  Meanwhile, taxes on working and middle class people have been going up and services, like public transportation, have been eroded.

And frankly, if I made $256k I would consider $67k a reasonable tax for all the services on which I would rely.  As to loop holes, I guess your financial guy isn't very bright or you don't have many deductions.  But the real issues is not with people in your range, which is at the upper reaches of the middle class.  The real issue is with the multi-millions earned by CEOs and corporations, some of which pay NO taxes.  But I, and I'll bet just about everybody else on this board would like to have $189k net income.

Myself, it depends on what is done with the Capitol Gains.

I think if the money is reinvested within a reasonable time (say 30-60 days), it should not be taxed.

For example, if you liquidate your IRA to invest in Bonds, it should not be taxed during the transfer.  The same if you withdraw stocks in order to re-invest in a different stock.  I also think that it should be exempt if it is being used to buy real estate.

If it is just being liquidated to take the money, then it should be taxed.  In this way, it encourages expansion of the economy and savings.  I like to see money in use and in circulation.  When the money stagnates, the economy stagnates.  Also a lot of people are afraid to sell their stocks, even when they start to drop in value because of the Capitol Gains taxes.  30-60 days will allow these people a chance to "catch their breath", and consider their options instead of blindly moving money around.


Much of this is already built into the capital gains tax system that we have.  For example, you sell your home at a profit and buy a more expensive one - no capital gains tax.  The same is true of IRA rollovers.

Interesting history lesson Mushroom.  As you say, though, times have changed.  The income tax is now part of the Constitution, so whether the original contained it is not the point.  Now lets fast forward in history to the 1930's.  19th century style capitalism was in a state of collapse.  1/3rd of our people werre unemployed.  Both fascism and communism were becoming increasingly popular as demigog extremists advocated radical solutions to our downward spiral.  FDR's alphabet soup of social programs saved the system by making it a slight bit more humane for the average joe.  The "economic royalists" hated his guts and saw him as a traitor to his class, but he pulled their chestnuts out of the fire, at least long enough to get into what really saved the system, and their butts, WWII.  For most of us, returning to the anti-union, laizzie faire 19th of cutthrout capitalism would be a disaster.  In fact, capitalists would hate it.  They HATE competition, as even Adam Smith recognized in The Wealth of Nations.

My point is that neocons threaten the working & middle class at their peril.  At some point it will be "the last dance".

I'm almost ashamed to post my little gripe.  I just would like to not pay in.  My husband is a teacher, I'm a secretary.  Our combined income is around $45,000.  We have to pay basically because we "make too much money for a married couple."  Granted, we don't have to pay a whole lot, but when you only have that little to play with, whatever you have to pay may as well be $1million.

Interesting history lesson Mushroom.  As you say, though, times have changed.


I am very well aware of the change too.  :)

For the first 150 years, we were largely an agrarian agriculture.  In fact, the reason of the founding of the colonies in the first place was to provide raw materials, and to make another source of finished goods from England.

Since around the time of the Civil War, we changed from Agriculture to an industrial nation.  The change from horse drawn and ship based transportation required the birth of Railroad companies, and the modern Corporation.  In addition, the steam engine made manufacturing to expensive for a single family, which required small partnerships to expand to corporations.

This is when Unions were mostly needed.  It was a rapid shift which we were not fully ready for.  A person could get by with a small wage when he/she grew almost all of their own food.  But living in a city, that was impossible.  And the growing size of suburbs made it harder for the farmers to bring their produce to town, which in turn made the current "middlemen" of food distributors (and the Railroads) even more money.

Our urban style of living now REQUIRES a "safety net" for people who fall on hard times.  I have never denied that need.  Short of the Amish people, I doubt there is any sizeable community that can survive on it's own without Federal Help at one time or another.

I am also anti-union, and also a supporter of some unions.  I was a mine worker, and support that union because it helps injured miners and their families, and also helos ensure mine safety.  Oil drillers, ore smelters, timbermen, almost any dangerous job has my support as long as the union remembers it is there to help the members, NOT to gouge the employers and enrich themselves.

Even Professional Athletes had a need for a union at one time.  A look at the infamous "Black Socks" scandal shows how that is.  But in today's era of milti-million dollar salaries, do you see that changing back to the "bad old days?"  I sure don't.  Seeing Oral Herschiser whining during the last strike made me ill.  Here is a man who makes more in one month then I will in my entire life, saying how he is being abused.

Unions for fair wages and safe working conditions I have never protested.  Unions who take care of their employees has always had my support.  But the system is broken when multi-millionaires cry about being "taken advantage of", cities are crippled when their Public Transit is shut down every 3 years because of strikes for more money, and entire system (like food sales) is shut down because of what should be minimum wage jobs have transformed into careers (like LA during the grocery workers strike).

Times have changed.  Industrialization has made great changes both to the nation and to the world.  Institutions (like unions and corporations) have been created to meet this change.  As a life-long worker, I appreciate that.  Our system is not perfect, I doubt there is a perfect system out there.  I think more then raising taxes, reduceing the "loopholes" that the rich use to reduce their taxes would be of the largest benefit.

Add to that that Mr. Crockett was an Andrew Jackson Democrat, the forerunner of the current Democratic Party.


**********




Crockett split with Jackson over the question of Indian removal, and because he believed Jacksons Crew were under the thumb of the wealthy, slave, owning planters.  There was a shift in the ideals of the Democratic Party after the turnabout of the ideals of the Republican Party. We all realize that the Republican party is no longer the party of Lincoln, and the Democrats are no longer the Democrats of Jackson. 

Times have changed.  Industrialization has made great changes both to the nation and to the world.  Institutions (like unions and corporations) have been created to meet this change.  As a life-long worker, I appreciate that.  Our system is not perfect, I doubt there is a perfect system out there.  I think more then raising taxes, reduceing the "loopholes" that the rich use to reduce their taxes would be of the largest benefit.

The sweatshop labor that used to be exploited in the U.S. is now exploited throughout the third world.  Take your "Workers of the World Unite" and "Union Yes" signs to Central Park, and you'll be chuckled at as quaint.  Take the same message to Jakarta, and you'll be shot dead within a week.  The industrialists are up to their same old 19th century tricks, they're just doing it out of reach of American labor and environmental laws. 
If business loves its "global economy" so, we need to respond with a global labor movement.  "Workers of the World Unite!"  Sounds right to me!

The sweatshop labor that used to be exploited in the U.S. is now exploited throughout the third world.  Take your "Workers of the World Unite" and "Union Yes" signs to Central Park, and you'll be chuckled at as quaint.  Take the same message to Jakarta, and you'll be shot dead within a week.  The industrialists are up to their same old 19th century tricks, they're just doing it out of reach of American labor and environmental laws. 
If business loves its "global economy" so, we need to respond with a global labor movement.  "Workers of the World Unite!"  Sounds right to me!


That is how they do it, and that is why I try to be careful when I make purchases. I don't want my 13 year old wearing anything made my children younger than him. U.S. companies are abandoning the American worker, not because of labor costs, but because of the greed of ceo's who spend more on themselves at Christmas than they do on on workers benefits all year.  They believe that any company success is their own personal success, not the success of the people who get up and do the work everyday.  They go to other countries because they can get people who are desperate, and they squeeze. I have even heard the argument that sending a child to work at a young age was a "cultural thing"(pardon me while I replaster the roof that I just hit).  Sending children into the Lowell/Lawrence mills was not cultural, sending children into the Pennsylvania coal mines was not cultural, pulling children out of school to work the cotton/tobacco fields was not cultural.  The life of migrant workers today in America is not cultural. The ceo's of these companies are not any better than Fricke, Rockefeller, and there ilk. Anyone who has benefited from an education who refuses to see the corelation in these matters has been asleep at the controls.  Hopefully they will wake up before the train wreck, but I'm not so sure that is going to happen.

So are you guys saying the so-called "sweatshop" workers would be better off without the opportunities provided by their employers?

So because welfare support is non-existant in a country, and people with no job get no money at all and will basically starve, then it's OK for global companies to export jobs to these places where they can get people to work for subsistence wages or less because they're desperate?  Plus, a lot of the time labour cost is so far down the list of expenses that they could afford to pay a living wage at the local rates without making a noticeable dent in their overhead, but I guess the screw-'em-down-as-far-as-you-can mentality is the one that climbs to the top of the corporate ladder :-(

SPlus, a lot of the time labour cost is so far down the list of expenses that they could afford to pay a living wage at the local rates without making a noticeable dent in their overhead.


There are many things that make corporations work as they do.  Taxes, supplies of raw materials, land value, and transportation are big ones.

Recently, there has been a large emigration of Corporate Headquarters FROM California.  They are not going overseas, but to places like Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.  In doing so, they found they are better off then they were in California.

Myself, I understand "living wage" better then most here I am sure.  In the last year, I basically moved to a 3rd world location with a 3rd world income.

In LA, I was making $26 an hour, and going broke.  This is because of the cost of living out there.  Here in Alabama, I make $10 an hour, and live better then I ever have before.  This is because everything costs so much less out here.

Myself, I am not worried about "sweatshop" jobs being exported.  Why whould we pay somebody minimum wages to make clothes?  I would rather see that job in someplace like Mexico or Malaysia, and instead have the people making Cars, or Computer software, or even building cars.  And remember, the wages payed there is normally abouve the national levels.  It is not our fault because of one reason or another (low industrialization, low education, repressive government) that their standard of living is below ours.  But by starting industries, their incomes WILL go up.  It is the same situation the South was in after the Civil War after all.  All agriculture and no industry.

When it comes to cheap clothing, toys, and items like that I welcome those jobs moving to other country.  And I am sure none of you are complaining when you go and buy them.

I'm almost ashamed to post my little gripe.  I just would like to not pay in.  My husband is a teacher, I'm a secretary.  Our combined income is around $45,000.  We have to pay basically because we "make too much money for a married couple."  Granted, we don't have to pay a whole lot, but when you only have that little to play with, whatever you have to pay may as well be $1million.


I hear ya sister, and that's just my point.  Working and middle class people are getting the shaft while corporations and the really rich get a free ride.

I am very well aware of the change too.  :)

This is when Unions were mostly needed.  It was a rapid shift which we were not fully ready for.  A person could get by with a small wage when he/she grew almost all of their own food.  But living in a city, that was impossible.  And the growing size of suburbs made it harder for the farmers to bring their produce to town, which in turn made the current "middlemen" of food distributors (and the Railroads) even more money.

Our urban style of living now REQUIRES a "safety net" for people who fall on hard times.  I have never denied that need.  Short of the Amish people, I doubt there is any sizeable community that can survive on it's own without Federal Help at one time or another.

I am also anti-union, and also a supporter of some unions.  I was a mine worker, and support that union because it helps injured miners and their families, and also helos ensure mine safety.  Oil drillers, ore smelters, timbermen, almost any dangerous job has my support as long as the union remembers it is there to help the members, NOT to gouge the employers and enrich themselves.

Even Professional Athletes had a need for a union at one time.  A look at the infamous "Black Socks" scandal shows how that is.  But in today's era of milti-million dollar salaries, do you see that changing back to the "bad old days?"  I sure don't.  Seeing Oral Herschiser whining during the last strike made me ill.  Here is a man who makes more in one month then I will in my entire life, saying how he is being abused.

Unions for fair wages and safe working conditions I have never protested.  Unions who take care of their employees has always had my support.  But the system is broken when multi-millionaires cry about being "taken advantage of", cities are crippled when their Public Transit is shut down every 3 years because of strikes for more money, and entire system (like food sales) is shut down because of what should be minimum wage jobs have transformed into careers (like LA during the grocery workers strike).

Times have changed.  Industrialization has made great changes both to the nation and to the world.  Institutions (like unions and corporations) have been created to meet this change.  As a life-long worker, I appreciate that.  Our system is not perfect, I doubt there is a perfect system out there.  I think more then raising taxes, reduceing the "loopholes" that the rich use to reduce their taxes would be of the largest benefit.


Once again, I agree with some of this and disagree with some of it.  Like any institution, unions can and have become corrupt Hoffa's teamsters for example.  And I agree that closing tax loopholes is a great idea.  Unions are suppose to be demopcratic organizations that try to protect their members not from justice but from capricious and arbitrary treatment.  And to get the best wages and benefits they can  for their members.  None of which would be offered by employers becuase of their good will or ultruism.

So are you guys saying the so-called "sweatshop" workers would be better off without the opportunities provided by their employers?


The sweatshop workers would be better off being paid a living wage.  Why are there some who cannot grasp the concept of fair pay is fair play?

And to get the best wages and benefits they can  for their members.  None of which would be offered by employers becuase of their good will or ultruism.


Well, that partially depends on the need for the employee, and the current demand for those skills.

I know in the computer field, benefits come and go.  There are times when I have had no benefits available.  Then at other times (especially when the industry is running hot) that I have had outstanding benefits packages available.  It often demands on the skill level and dificulty of the job.

Right now, I have no benefits.  But I also work for a small family-owned corporation, with a total of 10 employees (that includes the owner and 3 members of his immediate family).  With such a small company, it would be prohibitive for him to offer benefits to us.

Also, quite often skilled employees are subcontracted for projects.  I know for example the Boeing Corporation has relatively small IT departments for a company it's size.  It contracts a vast majority of that to smaller companies.  This gives them the flexability to adapt quickly for large projects, and to replace people who leave with a quick phone call.

I have no problem with people trying to get the most they can from an employeer.  But unions now are often becomming almost exploitive in their demands.  When a beginning-level stock clerk at a grocery store makes $18 an hour with full benefits and a vacation package, something is wrong with the system.  But employers bend over and take it because a strike can cripple them.

But once again, we have pulled away from the main topic.  We seem to do that a lot.   ;D

The sweatshop workers would be better off being paid a living wage.  Why are there some who cannot grasp the concept of fair pay is fair play?


But a living wage where?

In LA, a "Living Wage" is around $20 an hour.  Here in Alabama, a living wage is around $5 an hour.

In many 3rd world countries, "Living Wages" are in the area of $5-20 a DAY.  Putting jobs that pay above that can actually insert an inflationary effect to the local economies, making things worse for the people who do NOT have those jobs.

If wages were so bad, you would not have people lining up for the jobs.  When an economy is depressed, even a poor paying job is better then no job at all.  Hopefully, the country itself will build a wider economic base and pull out of that situation.  But that takes time, and nothing can make an immediate change without severe disruption.

This is similar to the problems the US faced pre and post Civil War.  With crop prices on the decline, they had to industralize quickly to both make enough jobs to keep people employed, and to provide the ability to change raw materials to manufactured goods. 

So are you guys saying the so-called "sweatshop" workers would be better off without the opportunities provided by their employers?

Oh, PUHHLEEEZE!!!
That's like saying the slave ought to be grateful to the master for providing three hots and a cot.  I don't mean to offend anyone, I mean this as pure sardonic satire as warranted by the outrageousness of the above comment:  "Oh, yazza, massah, we sho' be grateful fo' yo' hospitality!"



It is not our fault because of one reason or another (low industrialization, low education, repressive government) that their standard of living is below ours.  But by starting industries, their incomes WILL go up.  It is the same situation the South was in after the Civil War after all.  All agriculture and no industry.


Not our fault?  Ohhh, yessuh it is!  I explained in an earlier thread about the the effects of European colonialism and now global capitalism upon the conquered.  Colonialism destroyed the self-sustaining indiginous cultures that evolved over several thousand years, and replaced them with artificial borders, forced revision of social order, forced alteration of agricultural and hunting practices, introduction of destructive, polluting, and enslaving manufacture, deliberate destruction of ancestral cultural traditions and survival skills by way of missionary and imperial imposition, mass die-offs via war, disease, famine, and sometimes intentional genocide...and I'm just getting warmed up here.  The colonial age got started in the 15the century, and pooped out in the 1960s.  It's still dying out now.  At the same time colonialism was in its last gasps, exploitation by the global capitalist class---that is imperialism without imperial governance---was gaining in strength exponentially.
Don't try to tell me that the plight of nations from Mexico to Ethiopia to Vietnam is all the fault of them lazy foreigners who lack yankee ingenuity.  I ain't buying that for a nanosecond!
::) ::) ::)

Oh, PUHHLEEEZE!!!
That's like saying the slave ought to be grateful to the master for providing three hots and a cot.  I don't mean to offend anyone, I mean this as pure sardonic satire as warranted by the outrageousness of the above comment:  "Oh, yazza, massah, we sho' be grateful fo' yo' hospitality!"


So what is the solution?  Let them continue either working subsistance farming, or scrapeing by in an urban slum?

Do we pay them US wages?  Then you will hear screams both from other people in the local economy because of the inflationary effects of this, or from US workers who think the jobs should have been kept here.

I remember about 5 years ago, 60 Minutes did a good story on a GM plant in Mexico.  It is one of the ones that people complained were paying "slave wages".  They actually looked at the average income of the region, and discovered that they made almost 30% more then the average income for that region.  How can it be a slave wage, when they are in the upper 50% regionally?

But a living wage where?

In LA, a "Living Wage" is around $20 an hour.  Here in Alabama, a living wage is around $5 an hour.

In many 3rd world countries, "Living Wages" are in the area of $5-20 a DAY.  Putting jobs that pay above that can actually insert an inflationary effect to the local economies, making things worse for the people who do NOT have those jobs.

If wages were so bad, you would not have people lining up for the jobs.  When an economy is depressed, even a poor paying job is better then no job at all.  Hopefully, the country itself will build a wider economic base and pull out of that situation.  But that takes time, and nothing can make an immediate change without severe disruption.

This is similar to the problems the US faced pre and post Civil War.  With crop prices on the decline, they had to industralize quickly to both make enough jobs to keep people employed, and to provide the ability to change raw materials to manufactured goods. 


What I am talking about is American companies that go into a very poor country and hire children at 9-10-11 years old have them working 10-12 hour days, in the name of company profits.  Nike doesn't make anything in the USA.  It has been caught employing child laborers in poor countries, paying them next to nothing. They can afford to hire their parents at a living wage so that the family can subsist on the salary of the parent, but they don't. They wages they pay make it necessary for the whole family to work just to eat.  People line up for the jobs, with their children, because it is that or no home, and begging for food.  It is our national disgrace that companies based here exploit people that way.  If the living wage in that country is $5 an hour pay them that, BUT THEY DON'T.  They do not pay the people in those countries the living wage of that country.  They pay the people in those countries less than subsistence wages making it necessary for the whole family to work.

Oh, PUHHLEEEZE!!!
That's like saying the slave ought to be grateful to the master for providing three hots and a cot.  I don't mean to offend anyone, I mean this as pure sardonic satire as warranted by the outrageousness of the above comment:  "Oh, yazza, massah, we sho' be grateful fo' yo' hospitality!"

Oh, my god, you're right.  Shame on me, all this time I've been advocating slavery; what kind of a monster am I?  Thanks to you I've seen the light, though, and I'm going to mend my ways.  You know what I'll do?  I'm going to start my own company.  I don't know how, exactly, but it'll be BIG and HUGELY SUCCESSFUL and I'll have ALL THESE GREAT JOBS to export with sweet benefits and huge salaries and all the poor foreign people will think I'm a great guy and Bono will come and give me a hug and OTHER companies will see what I'm doing and they'll say, "Wow!  Paying people more than you have to!  Why didn't WE think of that?"

Oh, wait, never mind.  I'm not smart like you; I don't know how to distribute wealth without worrying about building it first.  I think I'll just sit here at my wonderful magic box and tell other people how to run their business instead.

Claude & Mushroom,

My point is that the so-called "Third World" is f**ked from centuries of colonial exploitation, capitalist exploitation, and in some cases, communist exploitation. 
Those self-sustaining, organic indigenous cultures are gone, and they ain't never coming back.
What is the answer?  Some of the greatest minds in the world are trying to figure that out, and I sure ain't one of the world's greatest minds! 
I do know that the answer to "Third World" problems is not working their fingers to the bone for Nike and watching all the wealth they produce line American pockets.  The answer is not privatizing all public utilities and handing over control of the seed bank to Monsanto and the water supply to Coca-Cola.  It is not sinking into inextricable debt so the World Bank and the IMF own your sorry @ss!
Anybody who thinks international corporations go to the Third World for any reason other than the land and people are more easily exploited is as naive as a newborn baby.  Corporations will never do right by developing nations.
The first part of the answer has to do with an end to corporate exploitation.  When you're in a hole, stop digging.  I don't pretend to know all the answers beyond that.

I disagree with this, but when in a foreign country, the corporation is the same as a regular citizen, they are required to follow the laws of that country.  If hiring 9-10-11 year olds is legal, there is no legal reason they shouldn't...morally is a different story.  I do have to say, though, that the alternative "careers" (drug dealing, prostitution, crime)are less desirable than working in a garment factory. 


You make some great points.

Myself, I look at most of these countries as we were 100-160 years ago.  We were starting to shift our economies from agrarian to industrial, and this made huge political and social changes.  The problem with most of the 3rd world is the lack of industrial capacity.  So in many ways, they are repeating our past problems.

Unlike Maxwell, I would NOT condemn them to trying to stay agrarian.  That only ensures that they will stay locked in a cycle of poverty.  On the world marketplace, the payback for raw materials (unless you are lucky enough to have something like Gold, Oil, or Gems) is nowhere near as high as that for manufactured goods.

Who is to blame for this is pointless to me.  Since most of these nations left colonializm behind a century ago or more, it is pointless to place all of the blame on Europe.  In many cases, the revolutions that took over these nations tended to drag these nations backwards instead of forwards.  Laos, Belgan Congo, Afganistan, even China.  They all were taken over (often many times) by groups that favored isolationism and a return to "the past" instead of looking to a new future.

Other nations at the same time have flourished however, moving from 3rd world to world leaders.  One good example of this is Japan.  In less then 100 years, they went from backwards isolationist agrarian culture to become a world leader in manufacturing - 2 different times!

Currently, one of the nations who needs jobs the most is India.  And because English is one of their many "official languages", they are taking advantage of the need for call center personnel and programmers.  And as you point out, the loss of these jobs by them moving back to the US would be a HUGE blow to their economy.

As I have mentioned before, most of the work like this that is exported is the bottom-of-the-rung "scutt work".  They get the first level of calls for companies like AOL, Dell, Compaq, and other computer companies.  So while these companies export a lot of their work, all of their "Corporate Customers" get tech support from right here in the US.  This is because the corporate world buys many more computers then home users do.  So just like the GM Wiring Harness factories in Mexico.  I do not care if some of the bottom-level work is done oversees, they are welcome to that.  But the main parts (like GM cars themselves) are made here in the US, by US employees.

Unlike Maxwell, I would NOT condemn them to trying to stay agrarian.  That only ensures that they will stay locked in a cycle of poverty.  On the world marketplace, the payback for raw materials (unless you are lucky enough to have something like Gold, Oil, or Gems) is nowhere near as high as that for manufactured goods.
I didn't condemn anybody. I analyzed  the effects of colonial history and capital exploitation.

Who is to blame for this is pointless to me.  Since most of these nations left colonializm behind a century ago or more, it is pointless to place all of the blame on Europe.  In many cases, the revolutions that took over these nations tended to drag these nations backwards instead of forwards.  Laos, Belgan Congo, Afganistan, even China.  They all were taken over (often many times) by groups that favored isolationism and a return to "the past" instead of looking to a new future.
Many nations in the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia were colonial well into the 20th century, some into the 1960s, and a few are today.  It's not as simple as saying, "Oh, well, Europe is bad because they colonized."  I know a lot of Lefties have that simplistic point of view.  I don't.  I don't pretend all was find and dandy before colonialism either. 
Post-colonial revolutions, dictatorships, and chaos are indeed a legacy of colonialism.  "Western" powers still do manipulate politics and instigate warfare throughout the world in order to better exploit labor and natural resources.  You can see this in places such as Central America and Indochina.
Remember, all six-plus billion members of the human race could never afford a lifestyle even approaching the level of consumption and comforts enjoyed by the North America and Europe.  The planet does not have the natural resources or ecological capacity to sustain that.  Period. 

Other nations at the same time have flourished however, moving from 3rd world to world leaders.  One good example of this is Japan.  In less then 100 years, they went from backwards isolationist agrarian culture to become a world leader in manufacturing - 2 different times!
BINGO!  Japan resisted European colonialization.  Just like Japan of old, 16th century India was much wealthier and more advanced than Europe.  Militarily, they couldn't beat the Brits, so began 200 years of poverty, oppression, famine, war, and filth.  Not so for old Edo!

Currently, one of the nations who needs jobs the most is India.  And because English is one of their many "official languages", they are taking advantage of the need for call center personnel and programmers.  And as you point out, the loss of these jobs by them moving back to the US would be a HUGE blow to their economy.
A bare knuckes fight for resources, worker against worker!  That's the way the Bosses like it!  This is more rank capitalist exploitation.  Don't you buy that corporate propaganda saying we're making nicey-nice with Mumbai, and we Americans don't need those silly jobs anyway!  Sheep!

As I have mentioned before, most of the work like this that is exported is the bottom-of-the-rung "scutt work".  They get the first level of calls for companies like AOL, Dell, Compaq, and other computer companies.  So while these companies export a lot of their work, all of their "Corporate Customers" get tech support from right here in the US.  This is because the corporate world buys many more computers then home users do.  So just like the GM Wiring Harness factories in Mexico.  I do not care if some of the bottom-level work is done oversees, they are welcome to that.  But the main parts (like GM cars themselves) are made here in the US, by US employees.
Oh, so now computer engineering and accounting are "bottom rung scutt work," too.  Holy Moly, how much corporate poisoned Kool-Aide are you folks gonna drink?

How many out there, while in school, took a course on the labor in America?  It is obviously needed. In schools corporate leaders like Rockefeller and Ford are idolized. How many of you know who Asa Philip Randolph was? How many know of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, Homestead, and the Bread and Roses strike?  I'm sure I know who does and who doesn't.  If you get up and go to work to pay your bills, feed, clothe, and care for yourself and/or your family these bits of history should be mandatory.  If you want to discuss labor issues it is imperative.

Oh, so now computer engineering and accounting are "bottom rung scutt work," too.  Holy Moly, how much corporate poisoned Kool-Aide are you folks gonna drink?


I am not talking of Engineering.  By far, most of the computer work exported to India is call center work.

Have you ever done such work?  I have.  It is mind-numbing brain-dead work.  You do not even have to know anything about the  World Net, and at an intoernal call-center for Hughes Aerospace.  I worked at Hughes both before and after this as a "Field Service Technician".  Both times, we would look down at the "phone monkeys".  Most got the job with no actual experience, learning everything they needed to know by reading out of a book.  I know at Hughes, most of them simply reset oasswords for people who had forgotten them.

And most call centers are broken down in several levels of assistance.  The India centers are almost all "1st Tier" service.  They are the pint of first contact for HOME users.  For all of them, more complex problems and Corporate users are referred to call centers here in the US.

I am not talking of Engineering.  By far, most of the computer work exported to India is call center work.
I am.  They are already outsourcing so-called "white collar" jobs.  Not a lot yet, but they're working on it.
Have you ever done such work?  I have.  It is mind-numbing brain-dead work.  You do not even have to know anything about the  World Net, and at an intoernal call-center for Hughes Aerospace.  I worked at Hughes both before and after this as a "Field Service Technician".  Both times, we would look down at the "phone monkeys".  Most got the job with no actual experience, learning everything they needed to know by reading out of a book.  I know at Hughes, most of them simply reset oasswords for people who had forgotten them.
Yes, I've done call center work. 
So, you called them "phone monkeys."  They weren't human beings with thoughts, feelings, families, and lives as complex as yours.  The fact that they had lower "job skills" and earned less money, made them were sub-human to you and your co-workers.  That's what we're taught.  Define everybody but what job he does and how much money he makes.  I'm not blaming you because the attitude is culturally programmed.  In order to realize all workers have common interest, we need to eradicate such career snobbery.

And most call centers are broken down in several levels of assistance.  The India centers are almost all "1st Tier" service.  They are the pint of first contact for HOME users.  For all of them, more complex problems and Corporate users are referred to call centers here in the US.

Some of these companies are toying with charging customers MORE to to talk to an American service worker.  Nice, huh?

So, you called them "phone monkeys."  They weren't human beings with thoughts, feelings, families, and lives as complex as yours.  The fact that they had lower "job skills" and earned less money, made them were sub-human to you and your co-workers.  That's what we're taught.  Define everybody but what job he does and how much money he makes.  I'm not blaming you because the attitude is culturally programmed.  In order to realize all workers have common interest, we need to eradicate such career snobbery.


Is that any worse then your claims about Christians?  Or Republicans?  Or Conservatives?

The term "Phone Monkey" os fairly common in the computer tech industry.  Telephone support is the BOTTOM rung of support, normally run by people with little to no technical skills.

When I applied for AT&T World Net, I took a 20 question test, which had such questions as "A modem is needed to connect to the Internet: True/False".  There was a typing test, where you have to type 20 words per minute.  My 7 year old son can hunt-and-peck that many words.

These are normally people with little to no computer skills.  All the answers they need are written in a book that they read from.  Whenever I have to call these people, I try to shortcut their system by telling them that I have already done the basic troubleshooting and need advanced help.

When I needed help when my DSL quit last year, it was a 4 day battle to even get a tech to my house.  They wanted me to do things like remove my Network Card (it was built into the motherboard - a concept they could not quite grasp), change my windows from XP Pro to XP Home (because their book did not cover Pro), even remove the modem from my computer (she could not grasp the concept that I still used the modem for sending/recieving faxes).  I finally insisted that they refer me to 2nd Tier support, where the KNOWELDGEABLE tech there helped me reduce the problem to a bad DSL modem within 5 minutes.

2nd and 3rd Tier support is NOT staffed by "Phone Monkeys".  They are always experienced professionals, with a lot of knowledge and understanding of what the problems are.  1st Tier is invariably minimum-wage people, who read out of a book and have almost no real-world experience with the products, short of what they learned on the job.

One advantage of sending the 1st tier off-shore, is that the higher tiers of support are normally increased.  1st Tier can do basic things, like reset passwords, give information to help them install the software and configure e-mail.  That can ask basic questions like "Do you have a modem?"  But for more complex problems, the calls are referred to 2nd tier, which is in the US.

I know these people are human.  I refer to them as a group, much like people refer to mechanics as "Grease Monkeys", or a REAL Landscaper might refer to somebody with a lawn service as a "Lawnmower Jockey".  You can call it snobbery, but us "Field Techs" who actually work with the computers and deal with the users one-on-one and face-to-face tend to look down on them, because they are largely unskilled, and often give bad or wrong information.

Just today, I had to tell a customer that her computer was infected with multiple virus, and that is why she could not connect to the internet.  But AOL had told her the problem was her Modem.  Of course, AOL did not physically look at her computer.  But they were AOL, so obviously they were right, while I was wrong.  I called a number I have for AOL 2nd Tier support here in the US, and had that technician explain to her on the phone that the virus she had also prevents internet connectivity.

So please, before you complain because I call these unskilled workers as "Phone Monkeys", think about how you talk to people with differing political views.  We have feelings, and families too.

2nd and 3rd Tier support is NOT staffed by "Phone Monkeys".  They are always experienced professionals, with a lot of knowledge and understanding of what the problems are.  1st Tier is invariably minimum-wage people, who read out of a book and have almost no real-world experience with the products, short of what they learned on the job.
I know these people are human.  I refer to them as a group, much like people refer to mechanics as "Grease Monkeys", or a REAL Landscaper might refer to somebody with a lawn service as a "Lawnmower Jockey".  You can call it snobbery, but us "Field Techs" who actually work with the computers and deal with the users one-on-one and face-to-face tend to look down on them, because they are largely unskilled, and often give bad or wrong information.

So please, before you complain because I call these unskilled workers as "Phone Monkeys", think about how you talk to people with differing political views.  We have feelings, and families too.


You do not do yourself proud with this one.

Oh, my god, you're right.  Shame on me, all this time I've been advocating slavery; what kind of a monster am I?  Thanks to you I've seen the light, though, and I'm going to mend my ways.  You know what I'll do?  I'm going to start my own company.  I don't know how, exactly, but it'll be BIG and HUGELY SUCCESSFUL and I'll have ALL THESE GREAT JOBS to export with sweet benefits and huge salaries and all the poor foreign people will think I'm a great guy and Bono will come and give me a hug and OTHER companies will see what I'm doing and they'll say, "Wow!  Paying people more than you have to!  Why didn't WE think of that?"

Oh, wait, never mind.  I'm not smart like you; I don't know how to distribute wealth without worrying about building it first.  I think I'll just sit here at my wonderful magic box and tell other people how to run their business instead.


You might think this is funny, but I bet you also think of yourself as a Christian.  Where do you think you would be in a world of unbridled capitalism?  Where would you be without a Fair Labor Standards Act, or a National Labor Relations Act, and much more? 

Fact is, that when it comes to the 3rd world, the wealth being built comes here, it doesn't stay there.  At best it is exploitation plain and simple.  In some cases it is vertual slavery.

My guess is that you have never been to a 3rd world country, except maybe to a 4 star resort hotel.

I disagree with this, but when in a foreign country, the corporation is the same as a regular citizen, they are required to follow the laws of that country.  If hiring 9-10-11 year olds is legal, there is no legal reason they shouldn't...morally is a different story.  I do have to say, though, that the alternative "careers" (drug dealing, prostitution, crime)are less desirable than working in a garment factory. 

Another point is that, while the working conditions in these factories are less than desirable by our standards, they are usually pretty darned good compared to "local" factories.  The problem is that the media has "exposed" some of the few "bad ones" so now everyone thinks ALL of them are bad.

The question I have for everyone is...if the wages and working conditions are soooo bad, then why are these people lining up for the jobs?  Obviously, the money they would make is more than they were making previously or they wouldn't be doing it.  As mushroom pointed out, at many of these plants, the workers are making 30% (or higher) more than the average wage of that particular area.  Likewise, the conditions must not be "too bad" either.

Another thing I'm confused about is people complain that jobs are being taken overseas, then complain that the overseas workers are not paid "a living wage"...if the workers were paid a "living wage" would it be okay then?  Think about this...let's say all companies brought their factories and call centers BACK to the US.  What would happen to the economies in the countries these were located do then?  They'd be worse off than they are now.


Some years ago I visited Equador, and we had dinner in a fast food chicken joint.  I little girl, maybe 8 years old, came begging at the window for some food.  Her parants were dead, and her grandparants were sick and hungry.  We bought her a few bucks worth of food, which she wrapped up, but did not eat.  She was hungry, she said, but her grandparants were more hungry.  We bought her more food.  I hope she found a job in one of those great Nike sweat shops.  She MIGHT still be alive.  All praise Nike, all praise Wall-Mart.  Ain't capitalism great?

How many out there, while in school, took a course on the labor in America?  It is obviously needed. In schools corporate leaders like Rockefeller and Ford are idolized. How many of you know who Asa Philip Randolph was? How many know of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, Homestead, and the Bread and Roses strike?   I'm sure I know who does and who doesn't.  If you get up and go to work to pay your bills, feed, clothe, and care for yourself and/or your family these bits of history should be mandatory.  If you want to discuss labor issues it is imperative.


I know of all these, and the Patterson Silk strike (my great grandfather was a Wobbly), and Homestead, and the lynching of Westly Evert in his WWI uniform, and Joe Little, and may other fights.  I stress these events when I teach US history because they are part of the tradition of 1776,  and they are the history of most of us.  Woody Guthrie did a very simple tune about this, and Pete Seeger has done many, glorifying our REAL heros: "New dirt fallin, new dirst fallen, on a new-made casket, way over in that union buring ground".

Our labor movement has become complacant and moribund.  It MUST organize workers here, but also abroad.  Like that little girl in Equador that I refered to above.  When capital was local, we organized locally.  When capital became national, we organized nationally.  Now capital is international.  WE MUST ORGANIZE INTERNATIONALLY.

I know you are educated in labor, I knew the minute I saw Che. What is most troubling to me is the
millions who have benefitted from the labor movement are so quick to tear it down.  People whose
fathers, mothers, grandfather, grandmothers, aunts uncles , walked picket lines, were beaten, spit on,
and murdered.  People whose parents etc, emigrated for a better life, who haven't any compassion for
immigrants coming here for the same reasons.  People who think for some reason it was different for their
people.  Oooohhhh, sometimes I would just like to smack 'em.

I know you are educated in labor, I knew the minute I saw Che. What is most troubling to me is the
millions who have benefitted from the labor movement are so quick to tear it down.  People whose
fathers, mothers, grandfather, grandmothers, aunts uncles , walked picket lines, were beaten, spit on,
and murdered.  People whose parents etc, emigrated for a better life, who haven't any compassion for
immigrants coming here for the same reasons.  People who think for some reason it was different for their
people.  Oooohhhh, sometimes I would just like to smack 'em.


I'm 100% with you on that.  Do you know Utah Phillips?  He does Wobbly songs and stories.  A song he does is "We Have Fed You All for a Thousand years" and thye following line is "yet you meet us still unfed".  Someday...it will be the last dance, and we all, world wide WILL BE FED (that is, feed ourselves through our own labor).

You might think this is funny, but I bet you also think of yourself as a Christian.  Where do you think you would be in a world of unbridled capitalism?  Where would you be without a Fair Labor Standards Act, or a National Labor Relations Act, and much more? 

Fact is, that when it comes to the 3rd world, the wealth being built comes here, it doesn't stay there.  At best it is exploitation plain and simple.  In some cases it is vertual slavery.

My guess is that you have never been to a 3rd world country, except maybe to a 4 star resort hotel.

My favorite part was when you guessed I think of myself as a Christian (I'm an atheist), although frankly I don't know what that would have to do with anything.  The bottom line (I'm thinking of starting a thread about this) is that there are some things that some people dislike with such passion that any logic or question of rights flies out the window.  For some, it's drugs; for others it's, say, pornography.  For you, I'd say it's greed.  And I agree--greed is an unattractive trait, and it's not difficult to make a case that it harms people (although I could say the same thing about virtually anything).  Which I why, when I question whether or not something should be legal, I look at ownership and rights.  Any idiot can support another's right to do something he happens to agree with.  A true believer in freedom, in my opinion, is capable of supporting those rights he may personally find reprehensible.  I've seen no evidence that this would make any sense to you--you have me pegged as a greedy, war-mongering, God-fearing conservative, simply because I disagree with you about what government can and cannot, should and should not, do.

My favorite part was when you guessed I think of myself as a Christian (I'm an atheist)


Sorry I mispegged you.  You sound like a born again.  I would guess then, that you are a follower of Ayn Rand.

Sorry I mispegged you.  You sound like a born again.  I would guess then, that you are a follower of Ayn Rand.

I gotta ask:  what have I ever said that makes me "sound like a born again"? 

While I do admire some of Ayn Rand's work, I definitely wouldn't call myself a "follower" of her -- kinda like the way you won't call yourself a "Communist", I guess.

Is that any worse then your claims about Christians?  Or Republicans?  Or Conservatives?



My wrath is for those who abuse power and those who support those who abuse power.  Most of the people who consider themselves Christiain, conservative, and Republican have seen their standard of living deteriorate under the Republicans who call themselves conservative and Christian. Your middle and working class religious right doesn't see how it's happened since they leaders they follow give them an endless litany of hate propaganda against liberals and Democrats.

For a great insight into this phenomenon, I recommend Thomas Frank's book, What's the Matter with Kansas.

I don't blame Jane Fonda, immigrants, and welfare recipients for the woes of America, thank you very much.

I know of all these, and the Patterson Silk strike (my great grandfather was a Wobbly), and Homestead, and the lynching of Westly Evert in his WWI uniform, and Joe Little, and may other fights.  I stress these events when I teach US history because they are part of the tradition of 1776,  and they are the history of most of us.  Woody Guthrie did a very simple tune about this, and Pete Seeger has done many, glorifying our REAL heros: "New dirt fallin, new dirst fallen, on a new-made casket, way over in that union buring ground".

Our labor movement has become complacant and moribund.  It MUST organize workers here, but also abroad.  Like that little girl in Equador that I refered to above.  When capital was local, we organized locally.  When capital became national, we organized nationally.  Now capital is international.  WE MUST ORGANIZE INTERNATIONALLY.
Amen to that.  I wish I was in a position to do more to this end.  Danoota is right regarding the way our culture ignores the history of the labor movement, which won workers the rights they have been losing for the past 25 years. 
The press is complicit.  When Murdoch or some other corporate paymaster buys out a newspaper, the new owners fire the labor, arts, and cultural staff, and replaces them with business people.  No wonder Americans think Wall Street is their friend.  Instead of the best and brightest young reporters writing stories on real people and how their lives are actually lived, they are down there drooling sheepishly at the stock exchange. 

My wrath is for those who abuse power and those who support those who abuse power.  Most of the people who consider themselves Christiain, conservative, and Republican have seen their standard of living deteriorate under the Republicans who call themselves conservative and Christian. Your middle and working class religious right doesn't see how it's happened since they leaders they follow give them an endless litany of hate propaganda against liberals and Democrats.


Actually, I have found the exact opposite most of my life.

For me, the worst time was from 1993-2000.  And no, I am not just making that up.

i was injured in 1990, after 7 years in the military.  I was able to successfully fight a medical discharge until December 1992.  Because Clinton won the election, the military KNEW that it was going to face huge troop cuts, and they started both denying re-enlistment and cutting out anybody who was not "100%".  I got my walking papers just over a month after the election.  I had recieved 3 extensions, and was expecting the final appeal to be approved.  But that final one was denied, with "no appeals will be considered".

I then applied for a Veterans Training program.  But under Clinton, it has been expanded to accept not just Veterans with no useable job skills (I spent 10 years in the Infantry), but also included laid-off Aerospace workers.  Here were people with college degrees in engineering, getting training in computers.  By the time I was eligable to enter the program (Veterans had to wait 6 months after discharge to apply, Civilians were eligable immediately after being laid-off) the money was gone.

I bounced from job to job over the next 7 years.  3 times I was homeless.  2 companies I worked for went bankrupt.  I saw my expenses going up, but not my income.

Since 2001, my standard of living has improved greatly.  But in no way am I "Rich".  In fact, I am still living below the poverty level.  But I am happy, I have enough to meet my needs, and things are getting better.

I am a Christian.  I am also Conservative and a Republican.  I also make about $13,000 a year.  I work for a great boss, who goes out of his way to help us when we need it.  I also know that by working hard, I will get ahead.

In my posts, you will almost *NEVER* see me useing the slanderous words that you do, unless it is a generalization (and then I normally state that in the post).  You do not see me relating "far left" or "Liberal" with Comunist.  I do not even relate ALL Democrats or Liberals as "fat left".  So can I kindly ask that you show the same respect to me in response?  You may state that "My wrath is for those who abuse power and those who support those who abuse power", but you almost always phrase things so they apply to ALL Christians/Republicans/Conservatives.

Actually, I have found the exact opposite most of my life.

For me, the worst time was from 1993-2000.  And no, I am not just making that up.

i was injured in 1990, after 7 years in the military.  I was able to successfully fight a medical discharge until December 1992.  Because Clinton won the election, the military KNEW that it was going to face huge troop cuts, and they started both denying re-enlistment and cutting out anybody who was not "100%".  I got my walking papers just over a month after the election.  I had recieved 3 extensions, and was expecting the final appeal to be approved.  But that final one was denied, with "no appeals will be considered".

I then applied for a Veterans Training program.  But under Clinton, it has been expanded to accept not just Veterans with no useable job skills (I spent 10 years in the Infantry), but also included laid-off Aerospace workers.  Here were people with college degrees in engineering, getting training in computers.  By the time I was eligable to enter the program (Veterans had to wait 6 months after discharge to apply, Civilians were eligable immediately after being laid-off) the money was gone.

I bounced from job to job over the next 7 years.  3 times I was homeless.  2 companies I worked for went bankrupt.  I saw my expenses going up, but not my income.

Since 2001, my standard of living has improved greatly.  But in no way am I "Rich".  In fact, I am still living below the poverty level.  But I am happy, I have enough to meet my needs, and things are getting better.

I am a Christian.  I am also Conservative and a Republican.  I also make about $13,000 a year.  I work for a great boss, who goes out of his way to help us when we need it.  I also know that by working hard, I will get ahead.

In my posts, you will almost *NEVER* see me useing the slanderous words that you do, unless it is a generalization (and then I normally state that in the post).  You do not see me relating "far left" or "Liberal" with Comunist.  I do not even relate ALL Democrats or Liberals as "fat left".  So can I kindly ask that you show the same respect to me in response?  You may state that "My wrath is for those who abuse power and those who support those who abuse power", but you almost always phrase things so they apply to ALL Christians/Republicans/Conservatives.


I showed this to a friend who is a veteran.  He said you should have come to Massachusetts. 
A call to the offices of Kennedy or Kerry would have done the trick.
He and some of his fellow vets always got results from their offices. That is why they are voting
Kerry.

In my posts, you will almost *NEVER* see me useing the slanderous words that you do, unless it is a generalization (and then I normally state that in the post).  You do not see me relating "far left" or "Liberal" with Comunist.  I do not even relate ALL Democrats or Liberals as "fat left".  So can I kindly ask that you show the same respect to me in response?  You may state that "My wrath is for those who abuse power and those who support those who abuse power", but you almost always phrase things so they apply to ALL Christians/Republicans/Conservatives.


Amen to that.

I for one get tired of being labeled as someone who "hates or gets taught to hate" the left.  I attend church every Sunday and can honestly say that I have never been taught to hate the left or Democrats.  Heck, some of the people in my congregation are Democrats.  I am a born again Christian and a Conservative Republican, but I am that with thought...not blind following.  I know some people do, but so do some democrats so lets not turn it into an us vs them type of thing.

Amen to that.

I for one get tired of being labeled as someone who "hates or gets taught to hate" the left.  I attend church every Sunday and can honestly say that I have never been taught to hate the left or Democrats.  Heck, some of the people in my congregation are Democrats.  I am a born again Christian and a Conservative Republican, but I am that with thought...not blind following.  I know some people do, but so do some democrats so lets not turn it into an us vs them type of thing.


Good suggestion.  We should all focus on ideas and issues, not name calling and blind commitment to ideology.

Actually, I have found the exact opposite most of my life.

For me, the worst time was from 1993-2000.  And no, I am not just making that up.

i was injured in 1990, after 7 years in the military.  I was able to successfully fight a medical discharge until December 1992.  Because Clinton won the election, the military KNEW that it was going to face huge troop cuts, and they started both denying re-enlistment and cutting out anybody who was not "100%".  I got my walking papers just over a month after the election.  I had recieved 3 extensions, and was expecting the final appeal to be approved.  But that final one was denied, with "no appeals will be considered".

I then applied for a Veterans Training program.  But under Clinton, it has been expanded to accept not just Veterans with no useable job skills (I spent 10 years in the Infantry), but also included laid-off Aerospace workers.  Here were people with college degrees in engineering, getting training in computers.  By the time I was eligable to enter the program (Veterans had to wait 6 months after discharge to apply, Civilians were eligable immediately after being laid-off) the money was gone.
And these were changes forced on the VA by the Clinton Administration?  In other words, the VA had no leeway?  Did Clinton cut the military budget in way that forced the armed forces to cut programs and benefits for personnel?  Or did the military choose to place its priorities elsewhere?  I'd have to research this, I don't know off the top of my head.

I am a Christian.  I am also Conservative and a Republican.  I also make about $13,000 a year.  I work for a great boss, who goes out of his way to help us when we need it.  I also know that by working hard, I will get ahead.
Better to have faith in hard work than not, however, at 13K a year (not that I asked), I don't see how you benefit by voting Republican.

In my posts, you will almost *NEVER* see me useing the slanderous words that you do, unless it is a generalization (and then I normally state that in the post).
Whom have I slandered?
 
You do not see me relating "far left" or "Liberal" with Comunist.  I do not even relate ALL Democrats or Liberals as "fat left".  So can I kindly ask that you show the same respect to me in response?  You may state that "My wrath is for those who abuse power and those who support those who abuse power", but you almost always phrase things so they apply to ALL Christians/Republicans/Conservatives.

Again, I only scorn those who use Christianity for personal enrichment and as a political wedge which hurts working class people.  I'm not the one who shows contempt for Christianity.  I believe George W. Bush and his political cronies do show contempt for Christianity when they use the name of Jesus in service of a rich man's agenda.
I have also expressed much disdain for the Democratic party for abandoning the working and middle classes and trying to court Wall Street and the rich.  Even Democrats I hold in utmost respect, such as Dr. Robert Reich, I believe hurt the party in the '90s.  Reich helped Clinton with what he called the "Third Way."  Similar to the "new Democrat" movement, the "Third Way" meant triangulating party and labor interests with corporate interests.  Unfortunately "triangulating with..." came to mean "capitulating to..."  Corporate America does not willingly compromise with anybody, not when it comes to profits.  I'm still a fan of Dr. Reich, though I think his "Third Way" turned out to be the "Wrong Way." 
You won't catch me speaking a kind word about DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe.  A while back, I discussed what I thought were Ted Kennedy's shortcomings.  I had major differences with the Clinton Administration.  Of course, the moment I say something critical about Kennedy or Clinton, the conservatives just pile on with with their hatred.
I believe a lot of the liberal social agenda has been unhealthy.  The rates of divorce, teenage promiscuity, and abortion are very troubling.  The "pornographing" of American youth disgusts me.  The "me and my needs first" mentality as started by the '70s human growth potential movement has degenerated into hedonism and selfishness.  The breakdown of respect among social groups (parents and children, students and teachers, etc.) is partially a result of the dissolution of the old social structures.  This is something the liberal movements of the '60s and '70s fought for.
I must add one caveat here.  This destructive social agenda turned out to be GREAT for business.  Sex sells, "me and my needs" sells, rebellion sells, instant gratification sells!  It took CORPORATE AMERICA to popularly disseminate what LIBERAL, INTELLECTUAL AMERICA started 30 and 40 years ago.

I showed this to a friend who is a veteran.  He said you should have come to Massachusetts. 
A call to the offices of Kennedy or Kerry would have done the trick.
He and some of his fellow vets always got results from their offices. That is why they are voting Kerry.


But the things is, I should not HAVE to get a Senator involved!  I could have gone to Idaho and called my Senator there too (he was a family friend).  But there is something wrong with a system where you have to get a congressman involved in getting something you are already supposed to get.

In fact, this kind of "political favors" is part of the problem IMHO.  SOmebody calls their Senator/Congressman, and they get something.

Maybe I should try that though for my VA benefits.  After over 11 years, the VA still refuses to admit I am disabled.  I see this as the apathy in Government though.  It is almost to the point now that unless you jump over their heads, the beaurocrats refuse to do their jobs.

And these were changes forced on the VA by the Clinton Administration?  In other words, the VA had no leeway?  Did Clinton cut the military budget in way that forced the armed forces to cut programs and benefits for personnel?  Or did the military choose to place its priorities elsewhere?  I'd have to research this, I don't know off the top of my head.


Actually, if my memory serves me right, this was NOT a VA program.  It was actually a program run by the JTPA, a totally different beauracracy then the VA.  *THIS* is why it Clinton was able to open it to everybody.

And since roughly half the military budget is for things like pay and dependents, of COURSE when you make huge budget cuts, personnel are one of the things that has to go.  That is just common sense.  It does no good when you close  military bases to keep all of the personnel on the payroll.  When Tustin and El Toro Marine Air Bases were closed, it put a lot of civilians out of work.

Actually, if my memory serves me right, this was NOT a VA program.  It was actually a program run by the JTPA, a totally different beauracracy then the VA.  *THIS* is why it Clinton was able to open it to everybody.

And since roughly half the military budget is for things like pay and dependents, of COURSE when you make huge budget cuts, personnel are one of the things that has to go.  That is just common sense.  It does no good when you close  military bases to keep all of the personnel on the payroll.  When Tustin and El Toro Marine Air Bases were closed, it put a lot of civilians out of work.

Oh yeah, the Job Training and Partnership Act.  What a fiasco.
Well, they can always close military bases and put people out of work, but they'll never get rid of those multibillion dollar high-tech defense projects for failed military technologies we don't need in the first place.  Better to lay off 1000 hard-working military personnel than see a single McDonnel Douglass exec take a cut in pay!

But the things is, I should not HAVE to get a Senator involved!  I could have gone to Idaho and called my Senator there too (he was a family friend).  But there is something wrong with a system where you have to get a congressman involved in getting something you are already supposed to get.

In fact, this kind of "political favors" is part of the problem IMHO.  SOmebody calls their Senator/Congressman, and they get something.

Maybe I should try that though for my VA benefits.  After over 11 years, the VA still refuses to admit I am disabled.  I see this as the apathy in Government though.  It is almost to the point now that unless you jump over their heads, the beaurocrats refuse to do their jobs.


You shouldn't have to go to a Senator/Congressman for what is due, but sadly that it what has happened. I
might add that none were asked what their party was, they only had to say they were vets.  That is because
in liberal Massachusetts veterans preference means a lot.  Things will be tougher now though, since bush
has pushed through a big cut in veterans services.  They are feeling the pinch already.

I, for one, would rather see my tax $$$ supporting out veterans and their families, and those serving now, than financing non-bid contracts to politically connected oil service companies  ;)