 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
alva
|
 |
Republic of Flanders
Sep 2001
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Of course. However the fact remains that the US has too few boots to put on any ground to be able to maintain commitments and take on what must qualify as a 4th world country at the same time as a moderately sized 3rd.
If you don't have the manpower to do it right, maybe regime changes should be passed over. I was and am in favour of getting rid of Saddam, but I don't fancy him being replaced by something worse 5 years from now on account of the US administration radiacally underestimating manpower requirements for subduing a hostile nation. |
They are already on a solution that is called "draft" 
quote:
Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005
The Draft will Start in June 2005
There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.
$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.
The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.
Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.
Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era.
College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.
Even those voters who currently support US actions abroad may still object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a
shelter and includes women in the draft.
The public has a right to air their opinions about such an important decision.
Please send this on to all the friends, parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents, and cousins that you know. Let your children know too -- it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change!
Please also contact your representatives to ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills -- and contact newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
the_ceebs
|
|
quote:
quote:
Yeah, **** the old!
Why not? They're ****ing me and are doing their best to ensure the ****ing will last the rest of my tax-paying life... |
Perhaps the elderly feel that they have a contract with the state. In the past they have paid taxes with the promise that in return they would be supported in old age. If they have a contract then individual politicians shouldn't be able to pander to voters by cutting social security.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:36
|
|
you know that if the draft were to come back there would be riots, and revolt across the nation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
What did any of that have to do with neoconservatives? |
They got us in illegality into the Iraq quirrame and mess.
I than a modest republic who doesnot like military advesztion oversea. We would be better off mine our own bussien and take care of our own people. Cancel the Bush tax cut so we can increase government revencue to help the poor people in our nation. This idear that no taxes to run than government is supid, how are you going to pay fireman and policeman salary.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
1) the State can't be sued without its consent, and the only legal recourse for a "breach of contract" would be suit, so the government is completely within its rights and power to cut those programs
2) any "contract" made is no more legally binding than a compaign promise - made by politician of whom many are not even still in office
3) your logic would mean that a decision of this nature could NEVER be undone, whether or not it was the correct decision
Now, obviously some people will get hurt, but if it is ever to be taken down SOMEONE will have to be hurt down the line. |
That is one of the nice thing about the Islamist legal system the State and the Caph or Sultan could be sue in his own court by than pirate person and have to appear in court to face charges like anybody elso.
Texas Tech sur the Federal Government for not paying the medical bills of people in the medicalcare programming without the Government permin and won in Federal Court.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The man who stayed too long
Don't believe the headline writers -- higher interest rates won't beat inflation. But Alan Greenspan's successor might.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By James K. Galbraith
May 20, 2004 | Alan Greenspan plays the role of economist, on TV especially, better than any public official who ever lived. But that doesn't mean he is one.
Here is a man who spent the first half of his central-banking career fighting an inflation that did not exist. In so doing, the chairman of the Federal Reserve triggered the stock market crash of 1987, the recession of 1990-1991 and a "preemptive strike" on the dead beast in 1994. He had one period of glory, the late 1990s, when by doing nothing for four years he managed to bring on full employment without inflation. This was against the almost-unanimous received wisdom of the "real" economists, it should be said, and for this Greenspan should always be honored.
But then he blew it. He knew that the Internet bubble was getting out of hand. He held the power to do something about it without raising interest rates, but he declined to act. Let me quote myself here, speaking at the White House Conference on the New Economy in early April 2000:
"For its part, and instead of setting off to fight an inflation that is a pure product of academic imaginations, the Federal Reserve Board could control margin lending. Raising margin requirements is the direct approach to a stock bubble, more targeted than raising interest rates and more effective than jawboning the lenders. If a crash comes, sooner or later, a failure to have acted on margins will weigh on the record, and not for the first time."
Instead, just before and even after the Internet crash, Greenspan raised interest rates -- unsettling the markets and hitting hard at presidential candidate Al Gore. It was the wrong policy, attacking an inflation for which by then not a shred of evidence remained. And then, as the markets tumbled, Greenspan did nothing for six months. Only in December -- just as George W. Bush was anointed -- did he begin to cut rates. And while that surely helped soften the slump, allowing consumers to continue to borrow and spend through the Bush years, it came too late to save the "new economy" from a fiasco costing millions of jobs.
Greenspan has done two other key favors for Team Bush. In 2001, he famously spoke against his own convictions, expressed privately to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, that without triggers making them conditional on the vanishing surplus, the Bush tax cuts were "irresponsible." (Now he denies having said this, but there is no reason to believe him.) And in recent weeks he has tried to slit the throat of the Social Security program, calling for benefit cuts while supporting making Bush's tax cuts permanent. John Edwards correctly called this an "outrage" at the time, and John Kerry said, "We're simply not going to do it." But Greenspan is a stalking-horse for the next term of President Bush.
Chairman of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System is truly a wonderful job. Not only is it at the center of power, money, prestige and mystery, but the occupant can do no wrong. He is always praised for the good times, never blamed for the disasters. Nowhere else in American public life is there a position so similar to that of the pope. Or, perhaps, to the president of Mexico, back in the old days: a high priest while in office -- and a complete nonentity as soon as the sash is removed.
Greenspan knows this, of course. For what other reason would he, at 78, choose to linger on in his marble palace? He has survived, after all, the Internet bubble and crash, and four years of stagnation since then. We are in that brief, happy moment that follows the onset of war and that often precedes elections: The country's growth rate is fairly high, and even employment has been rising these past two months. Now, for the first time since Greenspan was last reappointed in 2000, retirement would not imply admission of defeat.
Not only this, but the future isn't rosy. High oil and gas prices are percolating through our structure of costs, generating low-grade but perceptible systemic inflation. The dollar continues to fall against the euro. Meanwhile, China is quite sensibly converting some of its dollars into a strategic petroleum reserve. This and other stockpiling will work to keep oil prices up (always allowing for that promised gift from the Saudis of a few months' price cut just before the election) while further driving the dollar down.
Greenspan is already telling us, as clearly as he ever does, that the Fed will shortly repeat the mistakes of the last oil price shock, back in the 1970s. Faced with inflation -- even just a small amount -- it will raise interest rates. This is called "fighting inflation." The headline writers will say so endlessly, until you almost think it is true. But the effect is just the reverse. As higher rates drain funds from many companies, they will respond by raising their prices even more. Only much later, when the effect of high interest rates is to clobber demand, growth, employment and commodity prices, will inflation finally decrease.
Stock prices rose in 2003 in part because the dollar was falling. Hence U.S. transnational corporations could convert their euro earnings into more dollars, making their earnings look terrific. (No doubt, the administration's cutting the tax rate on dividends also helped.) A rise in rates and the dollar will unravel this effect. And higher rates may also hit the banking sector, depreciating banks' assets (including mortgage-backed securities) while increasing their costs. Will banks respond, as they did in 1994, by increasing their lending? It's doubtful: Pent-up demand for new loans does not appear to be there, as it was 10 years ago.
The outlook, therefore, isn't for another noninflationary boom. It's for stagflation -- the combination of low performance and rising prices some of us dimly remember from the Vietnam War. Thanks to Iraq and his own longevity, Greenspan is now likely to go out on a sour note: the man who stayed too long.
Greenspan will probably retire in 2006, according the arcane rules governing his tenure. But there is one good thing about this reappointment now. It means that President Kerry will be able to place his own man or woman in the job relatively early in his term. But then Kerry will still face the dilemmas Greenspan bequeathed: How to restore the tax system Greenspan helped unravel. How to protect Social Security from the unrelenting Cassandras of whom Greenspan is the ringleader. And how to maneuver between the devil of stagflation and the deep sea of a sinking dollar. |
I hate to tell you we have hight inflateion that isnot being reported at all by the media. The El Paso Time printed than story saying food prices in El Paso went up 33% since january 1 to april of this year. Fuel price went up 25% since january1 of this year. See they donot count food price and fuel prices in the CPI.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
They do count food and gas, it's just that electronics gadgets are going down. |
Read the fine print where they say they exclude violabe food and energy cost which can change real fast. The one thing which every person need is food.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
People can sue the US government too, because there are laws allowing it. However, the very definition of sovereignty implies that you can only be sued without your consent, so this applies to the Caliph as well. |
When you make certain people of political post immuse to legal action is than bad thing. All DA are condinate immuse to false arrest suit. One of the condinate being the DA also will free people whom he found didnot comitee than crime. If than DA doesnot act within the condinate immuse the court can remove that immuse so the wrong parties can sue him.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-05-2004 23:31
. I prefer a more moderate libertarian, like the Cato types you referenced.
They might want you in a couple of years .. I wonder wether you will be very 
or 
to do your 'duty' .
|