Government Doesn’t Work? This Is Why.

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
Another example of the Conservatives/Right Wingers tying to kill government, and or are totally incompetent in running it.

source: msnbc.msn

Industries paid for top regulators' travel
Heads of product safety agency took trips from manufacturers, lobbyists


By Elizabeth Williamson

updated 3:56 a.m. ET, Fri., Nov. 2, 2007

The chief of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and her predecessor have taken dozens of trips at the expense of the toy, appliance and children's furniture industries and others they regulate, according to internal records obtained by The Washington Post. Some of the trips were sponsored by lobbying groups and lawyers representing the makers of products linked to consumer hazards.

The records document nearly 30 trips since 2002 by the agency's acting chairman, Nancy Nord, and the previous chairman, Hal Stratton, that were paid for in full or in part by trade associations or manufacturers of products ranging from space heaters to disinfectants. The airfares, hotels and meals totaled nearly $60,000, and the destinations included China, Spain, San Francisco, New Orleans and a golf resort on Hilton Head Island, S.C.

Notable among the trips -- commonly described by officials as "gift travel" -- was an 11-day visit to China and Hong Kong in 2004 by Stratton, then chairman. The $11,000 trip was paid for by the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory, an industry group based in an office suite in Bethesda whose only laboratories are in Asia.

The CPSC says that at the time, the group had no pending regulatory requests. But since then the fireworks group has urged the commission to adopt its safety standards, an idea that is still pending, according to an organization newsletter.

Intensified criticism
Consumer groups and lawmakers intensified their criticism of the CPSC this summer after several highly publicized recalls of Chinese-made toys that contained hazardous levels of lead. Critics have long charged that the agency has become too close to regulated industries, opting for "voluntary" standards and repeatedly choosing not to take legal action against businesses that refuse to recall dangerous products.

Government-wide travel regulations state that officials from agencies such as the CPSC should not accept money for travel from nonfederal sources if the payments "would cause a reasonable person . . . to question the integrity of agency programs or operations."

But CPSC officials defend the industry-paid trips as a way for the agency to be in contact with manufacturing officials and hear their concerns despite a limited travel budget. Commission spokeswoman Julie Vallese said the agency's counsel and its ethics officers conducted "a full conflict-of-interest analysis" of the trips and stand behind their decisions.

"The mission of the agency and the benefits to consumer safety are two factors that are taken into consideration in approving gift travel," she said. Reports of the trips are submitted to the Office of Government Ethics, she added.

Several ethics experts and lawyers say the two administrators' travel records, some of which they reviewed at the request of The Post, suggest a conflict of interest.

"This is a blatant violation of the ethics code," said Craig Holman, an expert on governmental ethics law for the nonprofit consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. The rules allow nonfederal sources to pay for trips, "but not if you're a private party with business pending before the agency," he said.

Differing travel patterns
The agency's travel patterns during the Bush administration, detailed in internal agency documents, differ from those of the Clinton era. Ann Brown, who served as chairman from 1994 to 2001, traveled only at the expense of the agency or of media organizations that sponsored appearances where she announced product recalls, according to the documents.

"We hated to have an industry pay for our staff for anything," said Pam Gilbert, a lawyer who was executive director of the agency under Brown.

The records show that Nord and Stratton repeatedly accepted gift travel for events from industries subject to CPSC enforcement. In February 2006, the Toy Industry Association provided Nord with rail fare, two nights in a hotel, meals -- and even $51 to pay her Union Station parking bill -- to attend the American International Toy Fair in New York, one of the industry's biggest product exhibitions.

Joan Lawrence, the association's vice president who oversees toy safety, said that "I have heard some enforcement officials say that they consider attending vital" because "they are able to see new products before they hit retail shelves" and suggest safety improvements. She added that "approximately 50 percent of the CPSC budget is used for children's products."

But Lawrence could not say why, given the importance of the event and the industry, the agency did not pay for its own travel. "If they came up with the money, that's okay," she said. "The educational component, of course, is our priority, and that's why we pay for the chairman."

Vallese, the CPSC spokeswoman, said Nord gave two speeches at the meeting, toured "new toy exhibits," watched "product demonstrations" and participated in "product safety discussions."

In a presentation to a trade group of product regulators and manufacturers last year, Nord said the agency was "working aggressively" to limit deaths from residential fires and carbon monoxide poisoning, according to an account published on the group's Web site. She noted that "fuel-fired heating equipment" is linked to more than 300 deaths a year.

Makers of that equipment are represented by the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association, for which Stratton, Nord's predecessor, was a guest speaker at two annual meetings. In 2003 Stratton spoke at the group's meeting on Hilton Head Island in South Carolina. In 2005, he spoke at its annual meeting in Orlando.

The meetings drew more than 300 manufacturers' representatives and spouses for seminars, a dinner dance and golf. While the association's manufacturers are regulated by three other government agencies, its vice president, Joseph Mattingly, said he could not recall paying for any attendees from those agencies.

Stratton said: "My view was we needed to engage industries and not only tell them what we expected but also to learn what they were thinking. . . . You can't do that sitting in the ivory tower at the CPSC."

The records also detail several trips that were paid for by lawyers who represent manufacturers in product liability lawsuits.

In February, for example, Nord accepted more than $2,000 in travel and accommodations from the Defense Research Institute to attend its meeting in New Orleans on "product litigation trends," according to her report. The institute is made up of more than 20,000 corporate defense lawyers. In 2004, Stratton attended the group's meeting in Barcelona, at a cost to the group of $915 for his hotel room.

'Cordial and accommodating'
They are the biggest government agency that would have impact on the stuff that we do," said Steve Coronado, a former chairman of the group's product liability committee, which has 3,000 members. "They've been very cordial and accommodating and gracious," he said of the agency's past three chiefs.

Coronado said that Nord was the group's main presenter in New Orleans and that she briefed 1,000 lawyers about "what their processes and procedures are, rules and regulations changes." He added: "I don't think it was a very politically oriented presentation." A CPSC spokesman did not respond to a request for direct comment by Nord on this trip and others.

Coronado said Brown, the Clinton-era agency chairman, also spoke to the group. But agency records of her non-CPSC-financed travel do not list that trip, suggesting that it was not paid for by the lawyers group. Gilbert, the former CPSC executive director, called DRI's contribution toward Stratton's hotel bill in Spain "amazing."

Stratton said the group "wanted to know where the CPSC was going on various product issues, and they wanted to know what the companies [the lawyers represented] could expect, what the government was thinking in regard to their issues." He said lawyers who sue companies over product-related injuries never invited him to speak.

Stratton gave a general defense of his more than 25 trips, which included a trip to China that the Toy Industry Association paid $8,000 to help finance. "Everybody wants to see the chairman," he said. The fireworks group that paid for a separate China trip did not respond to an e-mailed request for comment about its contacts with the CPSC.

Some say the commission's approach to gift travel points to a Bush administration philosophy that favors engaging corporations in policymaking that affects them. "This administration apparently has taken the position that speaking and appearing before the regulated community, even where there are enforcement matters pending, does not create the appearance of a conflict," said Kenneth Gross, an ethics lawyer at Skadden, Arps.

Different lines
"These are difficult and subjective lines to be drawn," he said. "Prior administrations have drawn that line in a different place."

Nord was a corporate lawyer at Eastman Kodak before her appointment. Stratton led Lawyers for Bush in his home state of New Mexico during the president's 2000 campaign and co-founded the Rio Grande Foundation, which advocates limited government and supports free-market economic principles.

The CPSC refused a request to review copies of internal documents related to several trips or its internal gift-travel regulations. But the records document a pattern of travel that varies from the stated habits of top officials at four other regulatory agencies.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, for example, "does not accept host-paid travel reimbursements or in-kind payments from any organization regulated by the agency," said spokesman John Heine. Food and Drug Administration rules likewise do not permit outside travel payments from regulated companies, organizations "engaged in any lobbying activities" or those that receive "more than ten percent of their income from a corporate source," among other restrictions.

The Federal Communications Commission bans travel paid for by regulated companies or others with business before the agency, for officials from division heads upward, according to spokesman Clyde Ensslin.

F. Gary Davis, who helped establish the Office of Government Ethics in 1978 and served as its general counsel and deputy director until 2000, said the government-wide regulations were imposed "to ensure that there is no appearance of impropriety when you're dealing with a prohibited source." He said that it is conceivable that some of the CPSC's industry-sponsored trips were justified but that in those cases, the agency should be prepared to make its decision-making records available.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company
 
Another example of the Conservatives/Right Wingers tying to kill government, and or are totally incompetent in running it.

source: msnbc.msn

Industries paid for top regulators' travel
Heads of product safety agency took trips from manufacturers, lobbyists


By Elizabeth Williamson

updated 3:56 a.m. ET, Fri., Nov. 2, 2007

The chief of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and her predecessor have taken dozens of trips at the expense of the toy, appliance and children's furniture industries and others they regulate, according to internal records obtained by The Washington Post. Some of the trips were sponsored by lobbying groups and lawyers representing the makers of products linked to consumer hazards.

The records document nearly 30 trips since 2002 by the agency's acting chairman, Nancy Nord, and the previous chairman, Hal Stratton, that were paid for in full or in part by trade associations or manufacturers of products ranging from space heaters to disinfectants. The airfares, hotels and meals totaled nearly $60,000, and the destinations included China, Spain, San Francisco, New Orleans and a golf resort on Hilton Head Island, S.C.

Notable among the trips -- commonly described by officials as "gift travel" -- was an 11-day visit to China and Hong Kong in 2004 by Stratton, then chairman. The $11,000 trip was paid for by the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory, an industry group based in an office suite in Bethesda whose only laboratories are in Asia.

The CPSC says that at the time, the group had no pending regulatory requests. But since then the fireworks group has urged the commission to adopt its safety standards, an idea that is still pending, according to an organization newsletter.

Intensified criticism
Consumer groups and lawmakers intensified their criticism of the CPSC this summer after several highly publicized recalls of Chinese-made toys that contained hazardous levels of lead. Critics have long charged that the agency has become too close to regulated industries, opting for "voluntary" standards and repeatedly choosing not to take legal action against businesses that refuse to recall dangerous products.

Government-wide travel regulations state that officials from agencies such as the CPSC should not accept money for travel from nonfederal sources if the payments "would cause a reasonable person . . . to question the integrity of agency programs or operations."

But CPSC officials defend the industry-paid trips as a way for the agency to be in contact with manufacturing officials and hear their concerns despite a limited travel budget. Commission spokeswoman Julie Vallese said the agency's counsel and its ethics officers conducted "a full conflict-of-interest analysis" of the trips and stand behind their decisions.

"The mission of the agency and the benefits to consumer safety are two factors that are taken into consideration in approving gift travel," she said. Reports of the trips are submitted to the Office of Government Ethics, she added.

Several ethics experts and lawyers say the two administrators' travel records, some of which they reviewed at the request of The Post, suggest a conflict of interest.

"This is a blatant violation of the ethics code," said Craig Holman, an expert on governmental ethics law for the nonprofit consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. The rules allow nonfederal sources to pay for trips, "but not if you're a private party with business pending before the agency," he said.

Differing travel patterns
The agency's travel patterns during the Bush administration, detailed in internal agency documents, differ from those of the Clinton era. Ann Brown, who served as chairman from 1994 to 2001, traveled only at the expense of the agency or of media organizations that sponsored appearances where she announced product recalls, according to the documents.

"We hated to have an industry pay for our staff for anything," said Pam Gilbert, a lawyer who was executive director of the agency under Brown.

The records show that Nord and Stratton repeatedly accepted gift travel for events from industries subject to CPSC enforcement. In February 2006, the Toy Industry Association provided Nord with rail fare, two nights in a hotel, meals -- and even $51 to pay her Union Station parking bill -- to attend the American International Toy Fair in New York, one of the industry's biggest product exhibitions.

Joan Lawrence, the association's vice president who oversees toy safety, said that "I have heard some enforcement officials say that they consider attending vital" because "they are able to see new products before they hit retail shelves" and suggest safety improvements. She added that "approximately 50 percent of the CPSC budget is used for children's products."

But Lawrence could not say why, given the importance of the event and the industry, the agency did not pay for its own travel. "If they came up with the money, that's okay," she said. "The educational component, of course, is our priority, and that's why we pay for the chairman."

Vallese, the CPSC spokeswoman, said Nord gave two speeches at the meeting, toured "new toy exhibits," watched "product demonstrations" and participated in "product safety discussions."

In a presentation to a trade group of product regulators and manufacturers last year, Nord said the agency was "working aggressively" to limit deaths from residential fires and carbon monoxide poisoning, according to an account published on the group's Web site. She noted that "fuel-fired heating equipment" is linked to more than 300 deaths a year.

Makers of that equipment are represented by the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association, for which Stratton, Nord's predecessor, was a guest speaker at two annual meetings. In 2003 Stratton spoke at the group's meeting on Hilton Head Island in South Carolina. In 2005, he spoke at its annual meeting in Orlando.

The meetings drew more than 300 manufacturers' representatives and spouses for seminars, a dinner dance and golf. While the association's manufacturers are regulated by three other government agencies, its vice president, Joseph Mattingly, said he could not recall paying for any attendees from those agencies.

Stratton said: "My view was we needed to engage industries and not only tell them what we expected but also to learn what they were thinking. . . . You can't do that sitting in the ivory tower at the CPSC."

The records also detail several trips that were paid for by lawyers who represent manufacturers in product liability lawsuits.

In February, for example, Nord accepted more than $2,000 in travel and accommodations from the Defense Research Institute to attend its meeting in New Orleans on "product litigation trends," according to her report. The institute is made up of more than 20,000 corporate defense lawyers. In 2004, Stratton attended the group's meeting in Barcelona, at a cost to the group of $915 for his hotel room.

'Cordial and accommodating'
They are the biggest government agency that would have impact on the stuff that we do," said Steve Coronado, a former chairman of the group's product liability committee, which has 3,000 members. "They've been very cordial and accommodating and gracious," he said of the agency's past three chiefs.

Coronado said that Nord was the group's main presenter in New Orleans and that she briefed 1,000 lawyers about "what their processes and procedures are, rules and regulations changes." He added: "I don't think it was a very politically oriented presentation." A CPSC spokesman did not respond to a request for direct comment by Nord on this trip and others.

Coronado said Brown, the Clinton-era agency chairman, also spoke to the group. But agency records of her non-CPSC-financed travel do not list that trip, suggesting that it was not paid for by the lawyers group. Gilbert, the former CPSC executive director, called DRI's contribution toward Stratton's hotel bill in Spain "amazing."

Stratton said the group "wanted to know where the CPSC was going on various product issues, and they wanted to know what the companies [the lawyers represented] could expect, what the government was thinking in regard to their issues." He said lawyers who sue companies over product-related injuries never invited him to speak.

Stratton gave a general defense of his more than 25 trips, which included a trip to China that the Toy Industry Association paid $8,000 to help finance. "Everybody wants to see the chairman," he said. The fireworks group that paid for a separate China trip did not respond to an e-mailed request for comment about its contacts with the CPSC.

Some say the commission's approach to gift travel points to a Bush administration philosophy that favors engaging corporations in policymaking that affects them. "This administration apparently has taken the position that speaking and appearing before the regulated community, even where there are enforcement matters pending, does not create the appearance of a conflict," said Kenneth Gross, an ethics lawyer at Skadden, Arps.

Different lines
"These are difficult and subjective lines to be drawn," he said. "Prior administrations have drawn that line in a different place."

Nord was a corporate lawyer at Eastman Kodak before her appointment. Stratton led Lawyers for Bush in his home state of New Mexico during the president's 2000 campaign and co-founded the Rio Grande Foundation, which advocates limited government and supports free-market economic principles.

The CPSC refused a request to review copies of internal documents related to several trips or its internal gift-travel regulations. But the records document a pattern of travel that varies from the stated habits of top officials at four other regulatory agencies.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, for example, "does not accept host-paid travel reimbursements or in-kind payments from any organization regulated by the agency," said spokesman John Heine. Food and Drug Administration rules likewise do not permit outside travel payments from regulated companies, organizations "engaged in any lobbying activities" or those that receive "more than ten percent of their income from a corporate source," among other restrictions.

The Federal Communications Commission bans travel paid for by regulated companies or others with business before the agency, for officials from division heads upward, according to spokesman Clyde Ensslin.

F. Gary Davis, who helped establish the Office of Government Ethics in 1978 and served as its general counsel and deputy director until 2000, said the government-wide regulations were imposed "to ensure that there is no appearance of impropriety when you're dealing with a prohibited source." He said that it is conceivable that some of the CPSC's industry-sponsored trips were justified but that in those cases, the agency should be prepared to make its decision-making records available.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company

If you think that this only applies to the Right side of the isle, you're delusional. This shit has been going on all the time. Truman made his name exposing corruption in the contracts that were issued during the US build-up to WW II. Clinton had scandals, most notably Henry Cisneros, the Secretary of HUD.

This is why government should not have much power. Only if you have a power, can you abuse it.

No checked government can be tyrannical.

Don't look to a government, look to each other.
 
Last edited:
If you think that this only applies to the Right side of the isle, you're delusional. This shit has been going on all the time. Truman made his name exposing corruption in the contracts that were issued during the US build-up to WW II. Clinton had scandals, most notably Henry Cisneros, the Secretary of HUD.

This is why government should not have much power. Only if you have a power, can you abuse it.

No checked government can be tyrannical.

Don't look to a government, look to each other.

Truman was a democrat, democrats are willing to check governmental power. Where was the oversight during the first six years of the Bush/republican regime?

Clinton's scandals were republican witch hunting expeditions. Henry Cisneros plead guilty to a misdemeanor count of lying to the FBI, and was fined $10,000, an investigation that was actually a waste of tax payer’s money. The prosecutor continued to investigate long after and found nothing. The republicans had Clinton under constant investigation and actually tired to handcuff his administration during the time he wanted to kill Bin Laden (Wagg the Dog). Besides democrats don’t hate the government. Clinton didn’t prevent his cabinet from appearing in front of the senate.

Government is accountable. If we don’t like what is going on, we can vote the bums out. When a corporation is doing something wrong, who are you going to talk to about the issue, the help desk in India? As a consumer of their product, you could never have the CEO or board removed. Business or more specifically big business is answerable to no one other than profits, and profits don’t serve the general public good per se, they serve the investors.
 
Truman was a democrat, democrats are willing to check governmental power. Where was the oversight during the first six years of the Bush/republican regime?

Clinton's scandals were republican witch hunting expeditions. Henry Cisneros plead guilty to a misdemeanor count of lying to the FBI, and was fined $10,000, an investigation that was actually a waste of tax payer’s money. The prosecutor continued to investigate long after and found nothing. The republicans had Clinton under constant investigation and actually tired to handcuff his administration during the time he wanted to kill Bin Laden (Wagg the Dog). Besides democrats don’t hate the government. Clinton didn’t prevent his cabinet from appearing in front of the senate.

Government is accountable. If we don’t like what is going on, we can vote the bums out. When a corporation is doing something wrong, who are you going to talk to about the issue, the help desk in India? As a consumer of their product, you could never have the CEO or board removed. Business or more specifically big business is answerable to no one other than profits, and profits don’t serve the general public good per se, they serve the investors.

A: I did not use Truman as a party example, but as an example of the legacy of corruption ini government. But if you want to make it an issue, the scandal he uncovered was during the Roosevelt adminstration, and that administration heavily considered discontinuing the investigation.

B: You are right. Divided government is better than undivided government. No arguement there.

C: There were other scandals during Clintons presidency, as there are in any presidency. I did not mention them in any specific criticism of Clinton, but that one just came to mind.

D: Show some evidence that anybody tried to keep Clinton from pulling the trigger. It just isn't true. Many a mofo in the government wanted that bastard greased for the 1st WTC attack.

D: Indeed Dems tend not to hate government. They, just like many repubs love it. It is a means to power and money. Just look at the fortunes of many of our former presidents. However, they tend to frustrate the ability of individuals to exercize thier own liberty. I am against that. We did not fight, suffer and die to get rid of one Massa just to replace him with another.
 
A: I did not use Truman as a party example, but as an example of the legacy of corruption ini government. But if you want to make it an issue, the scandal he uncovered was during the Roosevelt adminstration, and that administration heavily considered discontinuing the investigation.

B: You are right. Divided government is better than undivided government. No arguement there.

C: There were other scandals during Clintons presidency, as there are in any presidency. I did not mention them in any specific criticism of Clinton, but that one just came to mind.

D: Show some evidence that anybody tried to keep Clinton from pulling the trigger. It just isn't true. Many a mofo in the government wanted that bastard greased for the 1st WTC attack.

D: Indeed Dems tend not to hate government. They, just like many repubs love it. It is a means to power and money. Just look at the fortunes of many of our former presidents. However, they tend to frustrate the ability of individuals to exercize thier own liberty. I am against that. We did not fight, suffer and die to get rid of one Massa just to replace him with another.

"... and that administration heavily considered discontinuing the investigation."

But didn’t, if you know history, it was a democratic congress. Again, FDR DID NOT order his officers to not appear in front of the investigation committees.

Let me address Clinton. You deal in speculation about Clinton, yet you make excuses for Bush facts. During Clinton, three die in the first WTC attack and that was it under his watch. Republicans talked a big game about democratic security. Under Bush, he was in the office less than a year and 3000 people die. Facts!

Bottom line, this administration is inept at government, because they hate government. How can you govern what you hate.
 
"... and that administration heavily considered discontinuing the investigation."

But didn’t, if you know history, it was a democratic congress. Again, FDR DID NOT order his officers to not appear in front of the investigation committees.

Let me address Clinton. You deal in speculation about Clinton, yet you make excuses for Bush facts. During Clinton, three die in the first WTC attack and that was it under his watch. Republicans talked a big game about democratic security. Under Bush, he was in the office less than a year and 3000 people die. Facts!

Bottom line, this administration is inept at government, because they hate government. How can you govern what you hate.


Yeah, he didn't, but it was only because he saw no political gain from it. If he did, he would have. And, he also bucked the agreement on only running for two terms. That ended with the constitutional amendment barring more than two elected terms of presidency.

And you should suspect governments, the same way you should suspect fire. You tend to need both, but if you don't keep either one in check, it will consume you.
 
Yeah, he didn't, but it was only because he saw no political gain from it. If he did, he would have. And, he also bucked the agreement on only running for two terms. That ended with the constitutional amendment barring more than two elected terms of presidency.

And you should suspect governments, the same way you should suspect fire. You tend to need both, but if you don't keep either one in check, it will consume you.


Yeah, he didn't, but it was only because he saw no political gain from it. If he did, he would have. And, he also bucked the agreement on only running for two terms. That ended with the constitutional amendment barring more than two elected terms of presidency.

How do you determine what Roosevelt was thinking as far as his political gain? What are you basing this on? We were in a world war, of course he would want to continue his strategies, which many historians credit toward our victory in World Wars II. Bush supporters have floated the idea of suspending elections under “emergencies”. If Bush could run again, he wouldn’t win. I myself don’t think there should be a limit on how long the president could serve. If people are stupid enough to keep electing the same person, then the people’s will has been served. You see how the tied has turned against the Bush administration despite their fear mongering.
 
How do you determine what Roosevelt was thinking as far as his political gain? What are you basing this on? We were in a world war, of course he would want to continue his strategies, which many historians credit toward our victory in World Wars II. Bush supporters have floated the idea of suspending elections under “emergencies”. If Bush could run again, he wouldn’t win. I myself don’t think there should be a limit on how long the president could serve. If people are stupid enough to keep electing the same person, then the people’s will has been served. You see how the tied has turned against the Bush administration despite their fear mongering.

Good question. Roosevelt's Undersecretary of War wrote that suspending the committee would be in the "public's best interest". Only after Truman publicly stated that the committee was "100 % behind the administration" and the public popularity of the committee came to Roosevelt's attention, did he ten embrace it. This is from a book "Roosevelt, a war within a war".
Doesn't this sound familiar to what's going on now ?
And it was by no means only Roosevelt who won WW II. His trusted advisors and the amount of raw materials the US had at it's disposal, as well as the backing of the American public and the natural defences that oceans on both sides of you afforded that won the war. The Atomics were just icing on the cake that shortened the war.
 
...And it was by no means only Roosevelt who won WW II...

If Ronald Reagan was responisble for bringing down the Soviet Union.


Good question. Roosevelt's Undersecretary of War wrote that suspending the committee would be in the "public's best interest". Only after Truman publicly stated that the committee was "100 % behind the administration" and the public popularity of the committee came to Roosevelt's attention, did he ten embrace it. This is from a book "Roosevelt, a war within a war".

The Atomics were just icing on the cake that shortened the war.

I don’t know what history you have been reading. My 89 year old dad is a witness to what was going on at that time, as a Sergeant in a segregated unit. Japan vowed to fight to the last old man, women and child if their homeland was invaded. This could have cost, some say over 2 million or more lives, on both sides. The Atomic Bomb was seen as the lesser of two evils and a way to force the Japanese leadership to surrender. In hindsight, it was a terrible thing, but 60 million people had die in WWII and no one was in the mood for a protracted Japanese invasion.


So why weren’t there any internal or ethical checks and why was it not politically expedient in the Bush administration and republican congress to investigate the looting of the people’s money? You know why, because republicans hate the people’s government and strive to have private business interests that are unaccountable to the needs of the electorate, the people. They are only accountable to profit. Do we have to go around and around for you to understand this?

source: The Nation.com

editorial | posted April 24, 2003 (May 12, 2003 issue)

War Profiteering

Even before US troops arrived in Baghdad, looting broke out--in Washington. While Republicans in Congress and their allies in the media yammered about the need to silence dissent and "support the troops," corporations with close ties to the Bush Administration were quietly arranging to ink lucrative contracts that would put them in charge of reconstructing Iraq. Bechtel's contract, worth up to $680 million, to rebuild Iraqi roads, schools, sewers and hospitals drew a lot of media attention, but it was chump change compared with the deal greased through by Vice President Cheney's old oil-services firm, Halliburton. The Army Corps of Engineers told Representative Henry Waxman that a Pentagon contract awarded without competition to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) to fight oilwell fires is worth as much as $7 billion over two years. The Halliburton subsidiary has been authorized to take profits of up to $490 million.

Congress dozes while the treasury is raided. Waxman has done the best job of monitoring the rapidly burgeoning relationship between the federal government run by Dick Cheney and a corporation formerly run by Dick Cheney. He's been asking polite, persistent questions such as, "What is the exact nature of the work that Brown & Root is expected to be asked to perform under the contract?"

But where's the outrage? Where is the leader with the courage to say, as Franklin Roosevelt did during World War II, "I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster"? Democrats in Congress--and Republicans who have not placed their conscience in a blind trust for the duration of the Bush/Cheney years, a group we hope still includes Arizona's John McCain in the Senate and Iowa's Jim Leach in the House--should borrow a page from past wars, when the nation's elected leaders knew what to call businessmen who used hostilities abroad as an excuse to raid the federal treasury. Senator Robert La Follette tagged them as "enemies of democracy in the homeland." During World War II Harry Truman referred to some forms of war profiteering as "treason."

When he heard rumors of such profiteering, Truman got into his Dodge and, during a Congressional recess, drove 30,000 miles paying unannounced visits to corporate offices and worksites. The Senate committee he chaired launched aggressive investigations into shady wartime business practices and found "waste, inefficiency, mismanagement and profiteering," according to Truman, who argued that such behavior was unpatriotic. Urged on by Truman and others in Congress, President Roosevelt supported broad increases in the corporate income tax, raised the excess-profits tax to 90 percent and charged the Office of War Mobilization with the task of eliminating illegal profits. Truman, who became a national hero for his fight against the profiteers, was tapped to be FDR's running mate in 1944.

How about authorizing a contemporary "Truman Committee" to oversee Iraqi war contracts? There's a strong issue here for candidates John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, Bob Graham, Dick Gephardt and all the other Congressional Democrats who would lead their party in 2004 against a President who will be rolling in corporate dough, some of it from companies that profit from war. Voters will respond to a Democrat who is willing to battle the profiteers. Like most Iraqis, most Americans want to see an end to the looting.
 
Last edited:
Thoughtone, you and I both agree that government doesn't always work, but disagree as to why. You think of it along party lines. I do not. I think of it using a non-partisan philisophical one. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the repubs were (and are) up to no good. I also know they are doing this with a Democratic congress. They are both in the same gang. It can only happen when both parties agree. My solution is not to give them the opportunity to be corrupt. Shrink the Federal budget. Put more of the military under state control, as it was up to WW II. Let the states and local government handle more of the peoples business, as the closer you get to home, the more your vote counts.

And, you proved my point about the atomics. As you stated, the invasion of Japan would have cost far more lives, and IMO the right decision was made. By using the bomb, we saved many lives, especially AMerican, according to what you submitted.
 
I know I'm a late-comer to this thread but the title is too good!

the reason unemployment is so high is because the govt refuses to allow the markets to function. Govt creates unemployment, they either put up barriers to prevent businesses from creating jobs or they subsidize people to make it more lucrative not to take jobs.

The more damage the govt does with the stimulus, the more it wants to stimulate. They're trying to put out a fire with gasoline. The bigger the problem gets, the more gasoline they seek to use :smh:
 
I know I'm a late-comer to this thread but the title is too good!

the reason unemployment is so high is because the govt refuses to allow the markets to function. Govt creates unemployment, they either put up barriers to prevent businesses from creating jobs or they subsidize people to make it more lucrative not to take jobs.

The more damage the govt does with the stimulus, the more it wants to stimulate. They're trying to put out a fire with gasoline. The bigger the problem gets, the more gasoline they seek to use :smh:

C/S you hit the mark
 
I know I'm a late-comer to this thread but the title is too good!

the reason unemployment is so high is because the govt refuses to allow the markets to function. Govt creates unemployment, they either put up barriers to prevent businesses from creating jobs or they subsidize people to make it more lucrative not to take jobs.

The more damage the govt does with the stimulus, the more it wants to stimulate. They're trying to put out a fire with gasoline. The bigger the problem gets, the more gasoline they seek to use :smh:

The reason unemployment is so high is because Wall Street and analysts decided to export manufacturing to countries with little or no labor laws, which would pay slave wages.

Simple!!!!!
 
The reason unemployment is so high is because Wall Street and analysts decided to export manufacturing to countries with little or no labor laws, which would pay slave wages.

Simple!!!!!

not necessarily, 2 points: when I say 'allow the markets to work', that includes the labor market. One of my opening points was that the govt subsidizes people to make it more lucrative to not take jobs. As long as they extend unemployment, they will extend unemployment

2) This is exactly why the Fed Reserve is suspect, they manipulate the money supply to benefit those who they are "in bed with", for lack of a better word. Follow me, when the money supply rises, the costs of goods, wages & services also rises in relation to the money supply. Thats why the rich get richer & the poor get poorer. IF the money supply is steady, (say backed by a precious metal) Wages, goods, services would also be steady. Therefore no reason to outsource AND multinational corps could never grow to the size they are now because the money supply won't allow them

Thought, The Fed is the Establishment & they use these Fed Res Notes to manipulate us against one another, I know U C it. This sh*t is being done on purpose dawg

Why won't anyone speak up on NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO & these other jacked-up trade agreements?
 
not necessarily, 2 points: when I say 'allow the markets to work', that includes the labor market. One of my opening points was that the govt subsidizes people to make it more lucrative to not take jobs. As long as they extend unemployment, they will extend unemployment

2) This is exactly why the Fed Reserve is suspect, they manipulate the money supply to benefit those who they are "in bed with", for lack of a better word. Follow me, when the money supply rises, the costs of goods, wages & services also rises in relation to the money supply. Thats why the rich get richer & the poor get poorer. IF the money supply is steady, (say backed by a precious metal) Wages, goods, services would also be steady. Therefore no reason to outsource AND multinational corps could never grow to the size they are now because the money supply won't allow them

Thought, The Fed is the Establishment & they use these Fed Res Notes to manipulate us against one another, I know U C it. This sh*t is being done on purpose dawg

Why won't anyone speak up on NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO & these other jacked-up trade agreements?


Bullshit! The markets worked for 50 years prior to the so called Reagan Revolution. Not one market crash from 1928 till 1988 and then all hell broke lose. The Savings and Loan disaster, Black Wednesday of 1992, the Great Recession of 2007.....

Your memory goes back to Clinton, I lived through Reagan!
 
Bullshit! The markets worked for 50 years prior to the so called Reagan Revolution. Not one market crash from 1928 till 1988 and then all hell broke lose. The Savings and Loan disaster, Black Wednesday of 1992, the Great Recession of 2007.....

Your memory goes back to Clinton, I lived through Reagan!

I don't mind you callin' BS but you must explain yourself a lil better. Are you dismissing monetary policy at the Fed as the culprit to outsourcing?

Its interesting you mention Reagan because I view that era as the beginning of corporate welfare (with his expanding of the Dept of Def). IMO, it also saw a more aggressive posture from the Fed Res regarding monetary policy and how it was used to shape the current business landscape.
 
I don't mind you callin' BS but you must explain yourself a lil better. Are you dismissing monetary policy at the Fed as the culprit to outsourcing?

Its interesting you mention Reagan because I view that era as the beginning of corporate welfare (with his expanding of the Dept of Def). IMO, it also saw a more aggressive posture from the Fed Res regarding monetary policy and how it was used to shape the current business landscape.

With all due respect, can't you get it through your skull that policy is the tool of ideology? Economics is not science. The railroads were built from corporate welfare, way before the Fed. Corporate welfare existed in the 1880s when the Supreme Court granted businesses (corporations) human being status.

The Reagan era was just the revival of the corporatist/Ayn Rand/objecionist/libertarian worship ideology that replaced slavery 120 years earlier.
 
With all due respect, can't you get it through your skull that policy is the tool of ideology? Economics is not science. The railroads were built from corporate welfare, way before the Fed. Corporate welfare existed in the 1880s when the Supreme Court granted businesses (corporations) human being status.

The Reagan era was just the revival of the corporatist/Ayn Rand/objecionist/libertarian worship ideology that replaced slavery 120 years earlier.
Until that dumb last sentence you had a perfect post that no one could disagree. The economics is not a science comment was ignorant, but not dumb. I can always forgive people for their ignorance.

Capitalist are never corporatist because capitalism puts any current generation's corporations out business to make way for the more efficient new generation of businesses. Unless they get bailed out of course by Republicans and Democrats.

Ask yourself, would a Libertarian openly give close to a trillion dollars to banks.
 
Back
Top