High unemployment does not always fit the supply and demand for labor. Just look at the hospital strikes in the early 80’s. High unemployment yet the labor market could not fill the demand for skilled hospital labor. The large companies having multinational operations are better equipped for union strikes, like the auto makers for example. But the largest number of large employers in the United States are the government and utilities. The Taff-Hartley Act itself proves the power is with the workers. The law is to reduce the union power and that was my point, the union is there to protect the management. But most people don’t realize that fact. What has been going on in Europe and has been rapidly expanding here in the States in the last thirty years is labor leasing. The big aircraft manufacturers for example use more lease labor than direct labor today. Leased labor is none union labor. The big unions, mostly government, have been able to keep the leased labor out of the work force. But that getting close to changing. When that happens the balance of power will be with the companies. What the worker has on his side is the labor laws. So maybe the system will not be too much out of balance. Point being. I do not like minimal wages. But for these reason I would have to vote for minimal wages.Minimal wages are what we've got! Lois
And at the same time wages are being kept artificially low, institutions that fail through their own iincompetence or criminal behaviour are being kept alive through equally artificial bailouts.
How is it a free market system when labour isn’t being sold for its actual value and companies that have clearly failed don’t disappear.
And at the same time wages are being kept artificially low, institutions that fail through their own iincompetence or criminal behaviour are being kept alive through equally artificial bailouts. How is it a free market system when labour isn't being sold for its actual value and companies that have clearly failed don't disappear.This is a facetious, rhetorical question I'm assuming, right Fuzz?
And at the same time wages are being kept artificially low, institutions that fail through their own iincompetence or criminal behaviour are being kept alive through equally artificial bailouts. How is it a free market system when labour isn't being sold for its actual value and companies that have clearly failed don't disappear.What don’t you have in the none-free market countries? 7-11’s and other fast food outlets. Hurray for the free market system. But is it all the free market system? Milk, eggs and other products are price controlled by the government. Milk for example is set at a price by the government, then the government guarantees it will buy all the milk from the farmer even if it has to throw it away. What this did was to help protect the small dairy farmer and milk processors from being taken over by the larger ones. In my lifetime the store shelves have never been out of milk and eggs. Point being, are the wages artificially low and should the government be involved in wages like they are in the price of milk? Let me tell you a story about minimum wage. Small towns across America lost their downtown business when the minimum wage went to $1.15. The wages for stores in small towns were mostly in the $0.25 to $0.35 range. Downtown's became rows of empty store fronts. Nobody seem to listen to the needs of the small towns. What the small towns wanted was a different wage levels for rural areas. But that would have move business from the cities to the smaller towns and the big towns would not let that happen. What you have happening now in places like New York City and San Francisco is the cost of living much higher. So they want to repeat history and screw the small towns all across America so they can keep their high rents and tax base in the large cities. The argument is that the McDonnell’s and other fast foods can afford the cost. But that does not help what is left of the small town business. Most little town have never recovered from minimum wage laws of the past and you want to hit them again. So you should ask yourself. Is this what you want, America to be a land of big cities and fast food? Shouldn't we protect the small towns like we protect the small dairy farmer?
Let me tell you a story about minimum wage.Oh god please don't...
Small towns across America lost their downtown business when the minimum wage went to $1.15. The wages for stores in small towns were mostly in the $0.25 to $0.35 range. Downtown's became rows of empty store fronts. Nobody seem to listen to the needs of the small towns.No that was because of the advent of automobile styled shopping. The introduction of plazas and malls with large parking lots and new fangled Super-markets and Strips. That's why Main St. partially and sometimes temporarily dried up. Not to mention the buildings were primarily 2-3 Stories that were built between 1800-1900. So the businesses that relocated to new digs on the edge of town or the main highway through town joined with other new novel businesses. They had no problem staying in business and paying wages.
What the small towns wanted was a different wage levels for rural areas. But that would have move business from the cities to the smaller towns and the big towns would not let that happen.Where did you learn this?
The argument is that the McDonnell’s and other fast foods can afford the cost. But that does not help what is left of the small town business. Most little town have never recovered from minimum wage laws of the past and you want to hit them again.You live in a fantasy land Mike. If small towns don't have a reason to exist, they lose population and shrivel. All the other prices in the small town go up too. I have never seen a small town that still has hardware stores with 1950s prices. Or gasoline, electricity, appliances, cars, or food at 1950s prices. So what's the problem? Are you proposing we have quarantine zone cities that can seal off from the real world and live in idyllic 1950s type economies?
You live in a fantasy land Mike. If small towns don't have a reason to exist, they lose population and shrivel. All the other prices in the small town go up too. I have never seen a small town that still has hardware stores with 1950s prices. Or gasoline, electricity, appliances, cars, or food at 1950s prices. So what's the problem? Are you proposing we have quarantine zone cities that can seal off from the real world and live in idyllic 1950s type economies?Vyazma, Where do you think your food comes from? The cities. Are the cities supplying the lumber, coal, fuel and other resources? These items come from all across America and the people supplying these items live in small towns. Yes, small town have a reason to exist. What I have read on the wage issues has been related to the big cities where the cost of living is higher. The rent for a house in a small town might be $3-600 dollars. The same house in New York City might rent for $2-3,000. AMERICA IS MORE SMALL TOWN THAN WE THINK http://www.newgeography.com/content/00242-america-more-small-town-we-think In 2000, slightly more than one-half of the nation’s population lived in jurisdictions --- cities, towns, boroughs, villages and townships --- with fewer than 25,000 people or in rural areas. I realize that we are not living in the 1950’s. But if we do not learn from our past then we make the same mistakes over and over. I think the reason we are here today is that Obama messed with the cost of living numbers. He kept the cost of food and energy out of the new adjustments for a time. When questioned why they did that, the White House said that the food was now based upon protein values and not price. Therefore the cost of food had not increased. That people on food stamps could buy chicken instead of steak and it would have the same protein value. I think that is where this problem started. It stopped the food stamps, social security payments and wages from going up with the cost of living. I agree that the wage needs to go up. But that does not fix the problems. The system for keeping the wages up with the inflation is the problem that needs to be fixed and put back in place. Tell me what happens to that worker who get a wage increase, but then gets laid off, unemployment runs out, there is no work the be found and he is now on food stamps. Tell me how one person on food stamps can live on $189.00 per month or $6.30 per day. Note, when Obama took office, it was $200/mo. Obama lowered the food stamp amount. Only 63 percent of working-age Americans have a job or are actively looking for one -- the lowest share of the population participating in the labor force since 1978. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/18/unemployment-number-one-problem_n_4807365.html I think we are on the same page, I just think the wage part is just one part of a bigger problem.
And at the same time wages are being kept artificially low, institutions that fail through their own iincompetence or criminal behaviour are being kept alive through equally artificial bailouts. How is it a free market system when labour isn't being sold for its actual value and companies that have clearly failed don't disappear.This is a facetious, rhetorical question I'm assuming, right Fuzz? Yes, I don't really see any free market systems in the world, just different ways of controlling people so that a very few at the top of the system can compete to see who makes it to trillionaire status first...before the ecological collapse that will probably take us all with it.
And at the same time wages are being kept artificially low, institutions that fail through their own iincompetence or criminal behaviour are being kept alive through equally artificial bailouts. How is it a free market system when labour isn't being sold for its actual value and companies that have clearly failed don't disappear.This is a facetious, rhetorical question I'm assuming, right Fuzz? Yes, I don't really see any free market systems in the world, just different ways of controlling people so that a very few at the top of the system can compete to see who makes it to trillionaire status first...before the ecological collapse that will probably take us all with it. Amen. I was hoping you didn't think I was being snarky there. That was my way of agreeing with you. Peace.
And at the same time wages are being kept artificially low, institutions that fail through their own iincompetence or criminal behaviour are being kept alive through equally artificial bailouts. How is it a free market system when labour isn't being sold for its actual value and companies that have clearly failed don't disappear.What don’t you have in the none-free market countries? 7-11’s and other fast food outlets. Hurray for the free market system. But is it all the free market system? Milk, eggs and other products are price controlled by the government. Milk for example is set at a price by the government, then the government guarantees it will buy all the milk from the farmer even if it has to throw it away. What this did was to help protect the small dairy farmer and milk processors from being taken over by the larger ones. In my lifetime the store shelves have never been out of milk and eggs. Point being, are the wages artificially low and should the government be involved in wages like they are in the price of milk? Let me tell you a story about minimum wage. Small towns across America lost their downtown business when the minimum wage went to $1.15. The wages for stores in small towns were mostly in the $0.25 to $0.35 range. Downtown's became rows of empty store fronts. Nobody seem to listen to the needs of the small towns. What the small towns wanted was a different wage levels for rural areas. But that would have move business from the cities to the smaller towns and the big towns would not let that happen. What you have happening now in places like New York City and San Francisco is the cost of living much higher. So they want to repeat history and screw the small towns all across America so they can keep their high rents and tax base in the large cities. The argument is that the McDonnell’s and other fast foods can afford the cost. But that does not help what is left of the small town business. Most little town have never recovered from minimum wage laws of the past and you want to hit them again. So you should ask yourself. Is this what you want, America to be a land of big cities and fast food? Shouldn't we protect the small towns like we protect the small dairy farmer? The problem isn't the minimum wage, it's the way that wealth has been distributed more and more over the last 40 or so years. Productivity has greatly increased and so have profits, but the amount of money paid to employees has stagnated. Big box chains like Walmart have worked to aggressively expand market control while just as aggressively working to deny any collective bargaining that will limit the amount of profit going to the top. So you have Walmart employees working for $8 an hour on a casual basis which limits their benefits being forced to use social services in many states to make up the difference while the Walton children now sit on an $80 billion dollar fortune. Walmart is also skilled at getting municipalities to provide tax breaks and utilities so that local businesses simply can't compete. They aren't able to force their employees to accept wages that aren't liveable, they can't get their products made at such low prices as Walmart who largely sources from places like China where people can be making less than $1 an hour and they don't get the tax breaks. In fact local businesses are helping to pay for companies like Walmart and others to come into their communities and out-compete them. So the problem isn't wages being too high, it's the creation of an non-competing sector of the market that sucks all the wealth out of communities in addition to Wall Street practices that also siphon vast amounts of money into investment instruments that have questionable value, including derivatives and before the MBSs that had such a high level of default making them toxic. Plus all the mergers that increased stock value for the upper levels of corporations while resulting in layoffs, loss of overall value and competition as the market becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. This isn't free market behaviour and it's going on at a fundamental level globally, most of us are becoming de facto slaves at the same time the ecological base we need to survive is being destroyed in the mad rush of a few to reach astronomical heights of wealth. Trickledown is a myth and we're all paying the price.
And at the same time wages are being kept artificially low, institutions that fail through their own iincompetence or criminal behaviour are being kept alive through equally artificial bailouts. How is it a free market system when labour isn't being sold for its actual value and companies that have clearly failed don't disappear.This is a facetious, rhetorical question I'm assuming, right Fuzz? Yes, I don't really see any free market systems in the world, just different ways of controlling people so that a very few at the top of the system can compete to see who makes it to trillionaire status first...before the ecological collapse that will probably take us all with it. Amen. I was hoping you didn't think I was being snarky there. That was my way of agreeing with you. Peace. Not at all, sometimes my sarcasm may not come across clearly.
Vyazma, Where do you think your food comes from? The cities. Are the cities supplying the lumber, coal, fuel and other resources? These items come from all across America and the people supplying these items live in small towns. Yes, small town have a reason to exist.If they have a reason to exist and everyone in the town is happy that's great. I explained why Main St. USA died off. Did you want to refute my reasons? It sure as heck wasn't minimum wage. Try Wal-Mart. They don't have any problems paying minimum wage. How did Wal-Mart do for Main St? The Model T? The Great Highway? That's why Main St. died. But Main St. is making a comeback I see in some places. For those who have good business models and can pay a decent wage. Trouble is lot's of folks want to defend the poor business man and all of his hardships with labor and regulations. Never mind the fact that he's trying to peddle some crappy item or service that the people don't want or are not satisfied with. Get it through your head...a successful business person with a good product and business model never has trouble paying the bills. Ever! That goes for Pop's Five and Dime Store on Main, or Wal-Mart out on Highway 61. That's how America works. It don't work by worshipping every two-bit business at the altar of capitalism.
Let’s try a little thought experiment:
I hadn’t heard much about [strike]these two industrialists[/strike] this currency speculator until a few years ago and now [strike]they’re[/strike] he’s identified by many as one of the most significant threats to [strike]democracy[/strike] liberty in America and environmental survival globally. [strike]They have[/strike] he has billions of dollars to play with and [strike]have[/strike] has created or supported some of the most extreme far [strike]right[/strike] left think tanks and organizations. [strike]They’re[/strike] he’s largely behind [strike]Citizens United[/strike] Democracy Alliance which allows the wealthy to decide political races, [strike]the Tea Party[/strike] the Occupy Movement and much more.
Just how dangerous [strike]are[/strike] is [strike] the Koch Brothers[/strike] George Soros?
The only difference between the Koch Brothers and George Soros is their politics. That and the fact that George Soros is a convicted felon.
The Koch Brothers are not even the largest political donors. They are 59th. Here are 18 unions, their place on the list and how much they donate to political causes who are well ahead of the Koch Brothers.
2.) American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $60,667,379
4.) National Education Assn $53,594,488
7.) Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $44,478,789
8.) United Auto Workers $41,667,858
9.) Carpenters & Joiners Union $39,260,371
10.) Service Employees International Union $38,395,690
11.) Laborers Union $37,494,010
12.) American Federation of Teachers $36,713,325
13.) Communications Workers of America $36,188,135
14.) Teamsters Union $36,123,209
16.) United Food & Commercial Workers Union $33,756,550
20.) Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union $31,313,097
23.) AFL-CIO $30,938,977
32.) National Assn of Letter Carriers $26,106,359
39.) Plumbers & Pipefitters Union $23,886,248
42.) Operating Engineers Union $23,036,848
43.) International Assn of Fire Fighters $22,963,260
46.) Sheet Metal Workers Union $22,372,978
59.) Koch Industries $18,083,948
Political causes are also not the recipients of the largest amount of money from the Koch Brothers. They donate much more to arts, education, and medical research. Here’s just a sample:
New York-Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell: $15 million
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center: $25 million
The Hospital for Special Surgery: $26 million
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center: $30 million
Prostate Cancer Foundation: $41 million
Deerfield Academy: $68 million
Lincoln Center’s NY State Theater: $100 million
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: $139 million
I believe the Kochs, George Soros and any union should be allowed to donate any money they want to any group, political or otherwise, even if I disagree with their politics. But then again, I’m not a fascist like those who think the Kochs shouldn’t be free to give away their money as they see fit. Of course, those people hate the First Amendment and that pesky freedom of association.
And if you really want to see how stupid and horrible the vitriolic hatred that blinds the left really is, when the Koch Brothers gave a $100 million donation to a hospital, the party of tolerance, the NAACP and the local SEIU (which gives far more money to political causes than the Kochs). protested!
Stay classy liberals!
Let's try a little thought experiment: I hadn't heard much about [strike]these two industrialists[/strike] this currency speculator until a few years ago and now [strike]they're[/strike] he's identified by many as one of the most significant threats to [strike]democracy[/strike] liberty in America and environmental survival globally. [strike]They have[/strike] he has billions of dollars to play with and [strike]have[/strike] has created or supported some of the most extreme far [strike]right[/strike] left think tanks and organizations. [strike]They're[/strike] he's largely behind [strike]Citizens United[/strike] Democracy Alliance which allows the wealthy to decide political races, [strike]the Tea Party[/strike] the Occupy Movement and much more.I guess that's true if you think the Bush Presidency had any real democratic credibility. I don't.
Just how dangerous [strike]are[/strike] is [strike] the Koch Brothers[/strike] George Soros?The Kochs are part of the climate change denial movement which is one of the most dangerous influences on the planet today, again what is Soros doing that comes close to that?
The only difference between the Koch Brothers and George Soros is their politics. That and the fact that George Soros is a convicted felon.Which is going to have a significant effect on things they do and don't support...like climate change denial and refusal to allow any real restrictions on environmental controls that will impact their personal profit. Which downloads the cost to the rest of society. And just because they haven't been convicted yet doesn't mean the Kochs aren't as dirty as they come, including allegations of bribes, violating trading restrictions with Iran, price fixing and ignoring environmental regulations.
The Koch Brothers are not even the largest political donors. They are 59th. Here are 18 unions, their place on the list and how much they donate to political causes who are well ahead of the Koch Brothers.How relevant is that when the effect of what they're doing can be seen to have a negative effect across the system and can be as serious as placing a governor in a position to violate the rights of citizens in the interests of the Kochs?
Political causes are also not the recipients of the largest amount of money from the Koch Brothers. They donate much more to arts, education, and medical research. Here's just a sample: New York-Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell: $15 million M.D. Anderson Cancer Center: $25 million The Hospital for Special Surgery: $26 million Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center: $30 million Prostate Cancer Foundation: $41 million Deerfield Academy: $68 million Lincoln Center's NY State Theater: $100 million Massachusetts Institute of Technology: $139 millionGreat and now you can trot out all the donations made by tobacco companies over the years, the positives don't erase the negatives and can often be used to cover them.
I believe the Kochs, George Soros and any union should be allowed to donate any money they want to any group, political or otherwise, even if I disagree with their politics. But then again, I'm not a fascist like those who think the Kochs shouldn't be free to give away their money as they see fit. Of course, those people hate the First Amendment and that pesky freedom of association.I don't, the 1st. Amendment wasn't written for the age of modern communication when it can cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars or even a billion dollars to run a successful political campaign. The American political system doesn't work in a democratic fashion any longer because of the corrupting effect of deep pockets buying votes and entire parties. If it has any hope the US system is going to have to get back to the basics of choosing the best people based on their qualities, not the wealth of their patrons.
And if you really want to see how stupid and horrible the vitriolic hatred that blinds the left really is, when the Koch Brothers gave a $100 million donation to a hospital, the party of tolerance, the NAACP and the local SEIU (which gives far more money to political causes than the Kochs). protested! Stay classy liberals!The only vitriol I'm detecting here is yours.
Those Unions represent 10s of thousands of people. So divide the amount donated by the number of members.
The Koch brothers represent two people.
Plus you don’t see unions wasting their money donating to Arts and Science like the Koch Brothers.
Hmnnn I wonder why? Because they can’t afford to.
The Kochs actively fight unions. Obviously the unions have to counter this.
What’s more important, the needs of millions of workers who are seeing their living standards lowered or the ability of the Kochs to donate
millions of dollars to a museum?
How is this not criminal activity on the Kochs part when you consider the likely damage this does to many peoples lives and their futures.
http://www.polluterwatch.com/koch-industries
Pollution: The Political Economy Research Institute ranks Koch Industries as the tenth worst air polluter in the U.S. in their Toxic Release Inventory. CARMA reports that Koch releases about 200,000 tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide annually. Koch Industries has a long record [PDF] of environmental crimes and violations, including, but not limited to: A $1.7 million fine by the EPA and $500 million commitment to correct pollution violations in seven states Millions of gallons of spilled oil from Koch pipelines throughout the past decade A $25 million settlement with the U.S. government in 2001 after falsifying extraction records for oil collected on Native American and federal land A $20 million settlement in 2000 for falsifying documents relating to a major release of the carcinogen benzene A 1996 explosion that killed two teenagers due to a leaking Koch gas pipeline While David Koch, a victim of prostate cancer, has donated millions to cancer research institutions and is a member of the National Cancer Advisory Board, Koch Industries subsidiary Georgia-Pacific is actively working to downplay the dangers of formaldehyde, a known carcinogenAnd as I posted above, climate change denial puts all our future at risk, people like the Kochs may be working to deprive us of everything in the long term. It's the greatest rip-off in history.
Through Koch Industries and their family foundations, the Koch brothers are premier financiers to organizations that deny, skepticize or belittle the significance of global warming. Compared to ExxonMobil, which spent $10.2 million on skeptic groups from 2005-2008, Koch Industries dwarfed their contribution with a $31.6 million effort. More than $5.6 million went to the Americans for Prosperity Foundation (founded and chaired by David Koch), over $2.2 million to the Heritage Foundation and over $1.2 million the Cato Institute (co-founded by Charles Koch, chaired by David Koch). The Koch family foundations have contributed over $55 million since 1997, more than half of which was spent after 2005. Source: Greenpeace Report Koch Industries is a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and part of ALEC's Energy, Environment and Agriculture task force. Through ALEC, Koch works with state legislators to distribute anti-environmental model bills across the country that delay policy solutions to climate change, block clean energy, prevent EPA from regulating coal pollution, fasttrack coal mining projects and other dirty energy initiatives. Koch's support for ALEC is unique; Charles Koch helped bail ALEC out during financial trouble in the late 1990s; Koch lobbyist Mike Morgan has severed on ALEC's private enterprise board for over a decadeIf they truly cared about anything beyond their own interests would they be spending tens of millions of dollars to deny science in a model that was taken directly from the pages of the tobacco denial manual? The Kochs are dangerous not to just to the interests of people alive today, they're working hard to deprive future generations of many if not all of their rights.
I guess it’s my fault for thinking members of this forum wouldn’t resort to special pleading or that their hatred would be so blinding.
Those Unions represent 10s of thousands of people. So divide the amount donated by the number of members. The Koch brothers represent two people.So, suddenly, it's not about the amount of money, but the number of people? Novel way to move the goal post. So by using your logic, if we increase the number of Koch Brothers to union level, it suddenly becomes OK in your book. And you conveniently left out the individual billionaire currency speculator, George Soros who donates huge sums to left-wing causes. The hypocrisy is strong with this one. ;-)
Plus you don't see unions wasting their money donating to Arts and Science like the Koch Brothers. Hmnnn I wonder why?Hmmm, I wonder why you consider arts and science a waste? Besides, unions don't waste their money. They waste their members' money. AT least the Kochs are throwing away their own money! Typical liberal activity: Spend other peoples' money while complaining that individuals are free to spend their money as they see fit!
Because they can't afford to.Oh they could afford it. Just look at the amounts they currently spend. They just choose to spend it on politics.
The Kochs actively fight unions. Obviously the unions have to counter this.As is each side's right. It's called freedom of speech.
What's more important, the needs of millions of workers who are seeing their living standards lowered or the ability of the Kochs to donate millions of dollars to a museum?False dilemma fallacy on your part. And they don't just donate to museums. They donate to hospitals too. But if you bring that up, it would put a huge crack in the big lie that only those on the left care about the medical needs of others. And you can't have that, now can you?
So, suddenly, it's not about the amount of money, but the number of people?Yes it is about the amount. The amount of money donated per person. I thought you would have understood that simple concept.
Hmmm, I wonder why you consider arts and science a waste?Why? Does that really intrigue you? :lol: I consider it a waste for a Union to spend their money on arts and sciences. All of their efforts should go for political actions and lawyers.
Besides, unions don't waste their money. They waste their members' money. AT least the Kochs are throwing away their own money! Typical liberal activity: Spend other peoples' money while complaining that individuals are free to spend their money as they see fit!No. No. Union officials are elected member-representatives of the members. It's the whole union's money. The whole union decides what to do with the money.
Oh they could afford it. Just look at the amounts they currently spend. They just choose to spend it on politicsOh ok. If you're the expert I'll defer to you. I'm glad every red cent is spent on politics.
False dilemma fallacy on your part. And they don't just donate to museums. They donate to hospitals too. But if you bring that up, it would put a huge crack in the big lie that only those on the left care about the medical needs of others. And you can't have that, now can you?I don't care where they donate their money. I only care where unions contribute their money. That's what's important to me. Would it really be " a huge crack in the big lie"? Really? Most people know philanthropy comes from all kinds of wealthy people and institutions.
How is this not criminal activity on the Kochs...?Considering it is generally the left that want criminals to be able to vote, why shouldn't the left also want them to be allowed to participate in other political activities? Speaking of criminals, billionaire currency speculator George Soros is a convicted felon. Do you have a problem with him participating when he gives vast amounts of money to influence elections?
The Political Economy Research Institute ranks Koch Industries as the tenth worst air polluter in the U.S.And the U.S. government is the 4th largest polluter. Can we work from big to small and stop the government before we get down to the Kochs at number 10? Or does the government get the same pass you give to George Soros?
I guess it's my fault for thinking members of this forum wouldn't resort to special pleading or that their hatred would be so blinding.Please don’t think that, I do agree with you. Good data you supplied. We have those who cannot see the forest because to many trees are in the way. Everyone’s thoughts have merit, until you try and fit those individual thoughts into the whole picture of what is happening in the world. When all the problems in America are blamed upon a few rich people for realizing the American Dream is really very silly to us old timers. When people think that problems will be solved by passing laws of greed that take from those that have and give to those that have not. Pumping 85B a month into the system has shown that even the Dawes Plan will not work when over regulated. So the whole idea of going after the rich has been proven not to work. Some of the thinking on this site seems to be driven by saving the world. Yet it is these same groups that have stopped the progress that can help cut energy use. Geothermal drilling was stopped because it created earthquakes – untrue. The big increase of the use of coal happened because nuclear was unsafe – now the government want to return to nuclear. Projects across the nation have not moved forward because of these groups. Now look at the wind and solar projects. There is now a problem with the birds. It will not be long until it will take seven to eight years to get a wind permit. All I hear is I don’t like this and I don’t like that. I have never once heard that we should work together and fix the problems. We should work with people who can get things done, people like the Koch Brothers and Walmart to see if we cannot get moving forward on our problems. Where to start. First I would figure out why no matter who is elected, once they get to D.C. they are changed by the ruling system. We need that stopped and full disclosure and we need to get rid of secret judges, laws and courts. Next we need to reduce the power or make the government departments legally liable for their actions. We should get rid of the EPA completely. Not that it is not needed. It is just the government cannot manage the departments it is already operating. Once the departmental mess is cleaned up, then reopen departments like the EPA. Point being the departments like to create laws (regulations). And these laws are Federal laws. We need to keep a balance between State and Federal powers. These department’s law making ability upset the balance and it is against the Constitution for the departments to create laws. Just another form of, "It ain't a tax, it is just a fee." "It ain't a law, it is just a regulation." The Supreme Court system is to keep the system Constitutionally balanced. But the Supreme Court is not able to do its job. For example, Supreme Court system has buried their head in the sand while not hearing drug laws on Marijuana that has kept power with the Federal Government instead of the States. During this time millions of jail hours have been done by the inaction of the Supreme Courts. Thousands of families have been broken up. Yet it takes a peoples movement to start the change in the system. We should be asking ourselves why in over 35 years the Supreme Court would not hear a marijuana case. We know that would have hurt “The War on Drugs". So, the question is, “Who is in control of the Supreme Court system?" Not, how rich are the Koch Brothers. Real power is being able to control the Federal Courts and to have secret courts. Is it those who control the courts that are controlling the economy or the other way around.