Metro Jacksonville

European settlers founded the US, initially for economic reasons and later to escape religious persecution in their homelands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_colonization_of_the_Americas#List_of_European_colonies_in_the_Americas

The American system has strong roots derived from modifications of the old European system.

Are there things from Europe that we may incorporate in our own system today that could improve the direction of our own country? The kneejerk response would be: "hell no, the US is the greatest nation in the world and we invent our own solutions"

Well, certainly Europe is leading the way in sustainable growth, and economic security for its people.  This very well may be the key to structural changes we need in our own system. Why re-invent the wheel with American short range thinking, when European long-range thinking has been tried and true.

Something we might want to emulate here in the US without the intrinsic fear of real change:


Europe's Quiet Revolution


by Steven Hill, RootsActionon August 15, 2011.


The overarching challenge in the world today is: how do we advance the institutions and practices capable of enacting a desirable quality of life for a burgeoning global population of 6.5 billion people?  And how do we accomplish that in a way that does not burn up the planet in a Venus atmosphere of our own creation?  That is a tall order to fill, yet it is the defining task of the 21st century.

RootsAction is calling for a bold jobs plan to address poverty.

More than anywhere else, Europe has fostered the types of innovations that point the way forward for the world to meet these challenges. Europe's brand of "social capitalism" is better suited for the 21st century than  America's "Wall Street capitalism" because it has developed itself on several major fronts.

* Real family values:  healthcare and supports for families and workers.  European nations score at the top on social and health indicators, with Europeans today enjoying universal health care for all, generous retirement pensions, an average of five weeks paid vacation (compared to two in the U.S.), paid sick leave, paid parental leave, kiddy stipends (about $200 per month for children's needs), affordable childcare (Americans pay at least six times more for child care), low-cost higher education (in some countries it's free), and a shorter work week with comparable wages for their workers. Social spending in Europe runs 35 percent per capita above that in the United States; even in Greece, which has been beset by debt troubles recently, people still have more of these supports than most Americans.

European nations are rated by the World Health Organization as having the best health care systems in the world, yet they don't all use a British or Canadian style single-payer system. Some have single-payer, but others like France and Germany employ private nonprofit insurance companies as the backbone of their health care systems. As a result they spend only about half the amount (per capita) as the United States, which has a for-profit system, to provide universal coverage, even as 47 million Americans, many of them children, don't have any health care except a hospital emergency room. Despite spending far more money, U.S. health care is ranked 37th in the world -- just ahead of Cuba and Kuwait. Even European nations like Croatia, with far less wealth than America, provide health care for all, truly a damning indictment of the American for-profit system.

Environmental sustainability, readying for global warming. Europe is leading in preparing for global warming, with widespread deployment of conservation practices and "green design" in everything from skyscrapers, homes and automobiles to low wattage light bulbs, motion sensor lights and low flush toilets. Europe has moved forward aggressively with renewable energy technologies like solar, wind and sea power, as well as efficient mass transit, high speed trains and more. In the process, Europe has created hundreds of thousands of new green jobs. As a result of this transformation toward sustainability, the average European uses half the electricity of the average American, and it takes 40 percent more fuel to drive a mile in an American car compared to a European vehicle. Europe has reduced its "ecological footprint" (the per capita amount of the earth's capacity that a population consumes) to half that of the United States for the same standard of living.

Economic power.  The typical knock against Europe by American critics has been that these levels of support for workers, families, communities and the environment make the European economies weak and sclerotic, likened to a sick old man. However, this turns out to be a myth promoted by U.S. ideologues and their media accomplices. Even after the economic collapse of 2008, Europe has the largest economy in the world, producing nearly a third of the world's gross domestic product, almost as large as the United States and China combined. It has more Fortune 500 companies than the U.S. and China combined, and some of the most competitive national economies in the world, according to the World Economic Forum. The E.U. is now the largest trading partner with both the U.S. and China.

The US prides itself on its vibrant small-business sector, but Europe's economy actually has more small businesses than the U.S. that provide two-thirds of Europe's jobs, compared to less than half the jobs in the United States. So much for red tape supposedly strangling the European economy. Despite sovereign debt difficulties in a handful of countries, Europe's economy is hardly weak or sclerotic. And Europe is hardly socialist, indeed it is firmly capitalist, but it is a different kind of capitalism -- social capitalism rather than Wall Street capitalism.

Economic democracy. Practices like codetermination, works councils, co-operatives, public-private partnerships and a vibrant small-business sector are fostering a greater degree of economic democracy in Europe. Codetermination, first pioneered by Germany, allows workers at major corporations to elect their own representatives that sit side by side with stockholder representatives on corporate boards of directors. It also includes worker-elected works councils in most workplaces, which give workers a great deal of input and consultation at the shop floor level. Imagine if Wal-Mart were required by law that allow its workers to elect 50 percent of its board of directors â€" that's what Germany does. It's hard for Americans to even conceive of such a notion, yet many European nations employ some version of this as standard operating procedure.

Europe in effect has reinvented the corporation, yet across the Atlantic we know hardly anything about it. Critics like Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky criticize corporations and capitalism as if they operate the same everywhere, when in fact they don't. The impact of codetermination has been immensely significant, and yet it has not hurt Europe's economy; indeed various studies have shown that these practices have helped the economy.

Robust political democracy. After centuries of kings and dictators, Europe has forged pluralistic political institutions and electoral methods like proportional representation, public financing of campaigns, free media time for campaigns and universal voter registration that have produced the most representative democracies in the world at the national level (at the European Union level, which is relatively new and still in formation, it's a different story).  These modern practices have fostered inclusiveness, participation, multiparty representation and policy based on broad public support and consensus-building. Europe's robust political democracies ensure that politics rule over economics, instead of the other way around, ensuring that the benefits of its prosperous social capitalism are broadly shared.

One American myth says that "Europeans pay more taxes than Americans" for this social capitalism. But for their taxes, Europeans receive a seemingly endless list of supports and services for which Americans must pay extra, via out-of-pocket fees, premiums, deductibles, higher tuition and other charges, in addition to their taxes.

For example, many Americans are paying escalating health care premiums and deductibles, while Europeans receive health care in return for a modest amount deducted from their paycheck. Other Americans are saving tens of thousands of dollars per child for their college education, yet European children attend for free or nearly so. Millions of Americans are scraping to save the amount they will need for retirement beyond Social Security, but the European public retirement systems are much more generous, paying out twice as much per individual as U.S. Social Security. Many Americans pay extra for child care (at least six times what Europeans pay), or self-finance their own parental leave after a birth, but Europeans receive all of these and more -- in return for paying their taxes. When you sum up the total balance sheet â€" taxes paid as well as out-of-pocket -- it turns out that many Americans pay out as much as or more than Europeans, but we get a lot less for our money.

Properly understood, Europe's economy, political democracies, social support system and environmental vision are all components of its well-designed social capitalism -- an ingenious framework in which a capitalist economy has been harnessed to finance environmental as well as economic sustainability. In addition, the economic engine finances a social system that better supports families and employees in an age of globalized capitalism that threatens to turn most people into internationally disposable workers. Even the continent's conservative political leaders agree that this is the best way; indeed European conservatives are for the most part to the left of the Democratic Party in the U.S.

The transatlantic differences between the American and European ways is not a mere coincidence, but rather a direct result of basic differences in key economic, political and media/communication institutions and infrastructure that have been quietly incubating and developing in the post-World War II period. Taken together these differences in "fulcrum institutions" -- the crucial institutions on which everything else pivots -- are the keys to understanding the striking divergence between the European way and the American way.

*****Ironically, the land of "We, the People" still does not trust the people all that much*******, and its aging fulcrum institutions elect governments that fail to produce policy supported by a majority of Americans. Judging by the timid positions of President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats, this seems unlikely to change much, even if Democrats miraculously took back the House and held on to the Senate and presidency in 2012.

Consequently, the advances of the 21st century in political, economic, media and social organization will continue to take place in Europe, not America. Despite the short-term debt crises in some of the E.U. member states, if we are to survive the 21st century then Europe must step up its global leadership. Part of that process must involve spotlighting its fulcrum institutions â€" economic, environmental and political -- as the basis for a new development model that offers hope to the world.

In short, if the European Way didn't exist, we would have to invent it.  In this make-or-break century beset by a worldwide economic crisis, global warming and new geopolitical tensions, the European model has the greatest potential to carry the world forward.

Join the call for bold solutions to poverty.

Political writer Steven Hill's (www.Steven-Hill.com) latest book is "Europe's Promise: Why the European Way is the Best Hope in an Insecure Age" (www.EuropesPromise.org).
 

Tell that to the Greeks

maybe you didn't actually read it, civil--the greeks were not overlooked.

we should look at europe for clues on how our society is going to evolve. any country that does'nt look at another for good ideas is a country destine for failure...i just hope the usa learns its lessons from out past and know not to do that again...we don't have a great record of learning from our past which is why we are where we are today.

QuoteOne American myth says that "Europeans pay more taxes than Americans" for this social capitalism. But for their taxes, Europeans receive a seemingly endless list of supports and services for which Americans must pay extra, via out-of-pocket fees, premiums, deductibles, higher tuition and other charges, in addition to their taxes.

Yet, Cameron seems to think that British society is quite broken and needs to be fixed.  I think he might know better than any of us about this stuff, as far as England is concerned, at least. Government programs leading to austerity and needing to raise tuition?  Riots?  Uh....no thanks.

It's easy to focus on strengthening the social safety net when you don't have to expend much on a national defense.  I'd be more than happy to see the US follow Europe's model to enlightenment, but then who would be the world's police force?  China?

If Europe would lift its freight and defend itself, the US would have ample resources to tend to our needs at home.  IMHO.

this 'world's police force' nonsense is just that:  nonsense.  most ov our 'policing' is really just interfering--usually so someöne here can make some profit.

i'm not saying our military hasn't done any good in the world, but the idea that we're 'the world's police force' is the height ov misplaced arrogance.

Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on August 17, 2011, 06:20:20 PM
this 'world's police force' nonsense is just that:  nonsense.  most ov our 'policing' is really just interfering--usually so someöne here can make some profit.

i'm not saying our military hasn't done any good in the world, but the idea that we're 'the world's police force' is the height ov misplaced arrogance.

It's not really nonsense nor arrogance, it's pretty much fact.  When someone is being bullied  they come looking to the US first. 

I'm not saying we haven't taken ourselves where we weren't wanted or needed to be, but no doubt the World looks to us to come to the rescue before NATO, or any EU country.   

Military engagement or Natural Disaster we are their first call.

Quote from: stephendare on August 17, 2011, 08:03:28 PM

Quote from: Gators312 on August 17, 2011, 07:28:19 PM

Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on August 17, 2011, 06:20:20 PM
this 'world's police force' nonsense is just that:  nonsense.  most ov our 'policing' is really just interfering--usually so someöne here can make some profit.

i'm not saying our military hasn't done any good in the world, but the idea that we're 'the world's police force' is the height ov misplaced arrogance.

It's not really nonsense nor arrogance, it's pretty much fact.  When someone is being bullied  they come looking to the US first. 

I'm not saying we haven't taken ourselves where we weren't wanted or needed to be, but no doubt the World looks to us to come to the rescue before NATO, or any EU country.   

Military engagement or Natural Disaster we are their first call.

In our sphere of interest perhaps.

But its a bit of an exaggeration to say that we do this for the world.  We actually dont.

Stephen,

What country is responsible for the most policing then?

When it comes to foreign aid who is giving the most? 

In my opinion, it is a bit of an exaggeration to say we only help in our sphere of interest.  At some point you can not be everything to everyone. 

I am sure ALL countries are limited in their efforts outside of their sphere of interest. 

So I guess we all agree that the US doesn't respond to every "911" call the World makes, and that wasn't what I was trying to insinuate.   But some Countries do more than most.   

I'm not going to argue whether or not we're involved in the world.  Those facts speak for themselves.

What I will argue is that even if we weren't so involved, our military spending is at a level - still - as though we were.  We are paying to maintain and increase our globally deployed military force.  Of all the countries in the world, of which Europe IS NOT one, our one country accounts for nearly half of all military-related spending. 

That's a lot of money to prop up the empire and could give those of us who pay attention the impression that we're still very much engaged militarily with the world.  As its police force in presence if not in hot action.

Quote from: Jimmy on August 17, 2011, 10:25:29 PM
I'm not going to argue whether or not we're involved in the world.  Those facts speak for themselves.

What I will argue is that even if we weren't so involved, our military spending is at a level - still - as though we were.  We are paying to maintain and increase our globally deployed military force.  Of all the countries in the world, of which Europe IS NOT one, our one country accounts for nearly half of all military-related spending. 

That's a lot of money to prop up the empire and could give those of us who pay attention the impression that we're still very much engaged militarily with the world.  As its police force in presence if not in hot action.

Jimmy, you said: I'd be more than happy to see the US follow Europe's model to enlightenment, but then who would be the world's police force?  China?

So you think our role is absolutely necessary? As if we are stuck spending so much on national defense?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/0b7ea9b398bc3d1defb7852c62eb50e3.png)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Or that the increase since 1962 is justified:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/InflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG/500px-InflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG)

Now, don't get me wrong.............I love the military system for taking care of its people with guaranteed vacations, guaranteed healthcare, guaranteed raises etc. It's the only economic system in America with a social conscience, except for the way they randomly put people in harms way during war ;)

But really do we absolutely need this bloated system when our country is in decline? And I do not mean: "let's take their benefits away" like right-wingers have advocated for public sector workers based on their own decline in the private sector.

Quote from: FayeforCure on August 18, 2011, 07:59:41 AM

Quote from: Jimmy on August 17, 2011, 10:25:29 PM
I'm not going to argue whether or not we're involved in the world.  Those facts speak for themselves.

What I will argue is that even if we weren't so involved, our military spending is at a level - still - as though we were.  We are paying to maintain and increase our globally deployed military force.  Of all the countries in the world, of which Europe IS NOT one, our one country accounts for nearly half of all military-related spending. 

That's a lot of money to prop up the empire and could give those of us who pay attention the impression that we're still very much engaged militarily with the world.  As its police force in presence if not in hot action.

Jimmy, you said: I'd be more than happy to see the US follow Europe's model to enlightenment, but then who would be the world's police force?  China?

So you think our role is absolutely necessary? As if we are stuck spending so much on national defense?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/0b7ea9b398bc3d1defb7852c62eb50e3.png)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Or that the increase since 1962 is justified:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/InflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG/500px-InflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG)

Now, don't get me wrong.............I love the military system for taking care of its people with guaranteed vacations, guaranteed healthcare, guaranteed raises etc. It's the only economic system in America with a social conscience, except for the way they randomly put people in harms way during war ;)

But really do we absolutely need this bloated system when our country is in decline? And I do not mean: "let's take their benefits away" like right-wingers have advocated for public sector workers based on their own decline in the private sector.

You are so right Faye.  I think you have hit upon another plank for the democrat platform this election... Raise taxes... and cut defense spending.  If you can come up with a few more we can put em all together and send them to the DNC and get this rolling...

My point Stephen is it seems to be all talk and no action.  dems talk about raising taxes... yet do not... same with defense spending.  What specifically should be cut?  For example... do we really need a nuclear carrier in Mayport?  It will be quite expensive to duplicate everything located at Norfolk... dredge the basin... just so we can have one here.  Even the democrat representatives of the state and area support the carrier.

Which bases or weapons programs should be cut?  The ones in someone elses district?  Is Pelosi and Reid willing to shut down bases in their districts?  How about shipbuilders and aerospace manufacturers?  Bases overseas?

It is political Stephen... just pointing out what you already know...

No one playing the blame game???  Did you read what you just wrote??  I wonder what bases in Nevada and San Francisco should be closed?  Any suggestions?  How about Florida?

Which ones should we cut?  These are but a few... but you get the point... I hope.

http://www.floridadefense.org/documents/ERAU/Contracts%20monitor/Florida%20Defense%20Contracts%20Monitor%20-%20March%202010.htm

QuoteX5, LLC, Fort Walton Beach, Fla., was awarded on March 25 an $18,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity firm-fixed-price contract.  This contract is for research and development, science & engineering and related logistical and administrative support services for all engineering reach and development center laboratories and other local Corps entities.  Work is to be performed in with an estimated completion date of March 31, 2014.  Bids were solicited via the Federal Business Opportunities Web site with four bids received. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ERDC Contracting Office, Vicksburg, Miss., is the contracting activity.

QuoteHellfire Systems, LLC, Orlando, Fla., was awarded on March 24 a $268,750,936 firm-fixed-price contract for fiscal 2010 option exercise for a total quantity of 3,955 HELLFIRE II missiles.  Work is to be performed in Orlando, Fla., with an estimated completion date of Sept. 30, 2013.  One bid was solicited with one bid received. U.S. Army Contracting Command, AMCOM Contracting Center Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity.

QuoteTeledyne Scientific and Imaging, LLC, West Palm Beach, Fla., was awarded on March 19  a $6,763,839 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency program that will revolutionize the underlying technologies for unmanned sensor systems.  This effort seeks to emulate the mammalian visual pathway by implementing advanced models and algorithmic emulations of the entire visual pathway from retina to the visual cortex.

QuoteSuffolk Construction, Sarasota, Fla., is being awarded a $19,231,000 firm-fixed-price contract for design and construction of a physical fitness center at Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune. The work provides for design and construction of a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) “Gold” certified physical fitness center.

QuoteGeneral Dynamics â€" Ordnance and Tactical Systems, St. Petersburg, Fla., is being awarded $19,961,049 for delivery order under previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (M67854-05-D-6014) for the Production Lot 3 (PL3) procurement of 20 full rate production Expeditionary Fire Support Systems (EFSS) together with their corresponding basic issue item kits, additional authorization list hardware. The EFSS provides all-weather, ground-based, close supporting, accurate, immediately responsive, and lethal indirect fires.

QuoteLockheed Martin Corp., Simulation, Training and Support, Orlando, Fla., is being awarded an $83,305,442 cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to design, develop, fabricate, integrate, and test the electronic Consolidated Automated Support System. In addition, this provides for the procurement of 14 engineering development models during the system design and development phase of the contract.

QuoteRaytheon Network Centric Systems, St. Petersburg, Fla., is being awarded a $13,680,670 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-08-C-5202) for the design agent and engineering services for the cooperative engagement capability (CEC) system.

QuoteLockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, Orlando, Fla., was awarded a $41,898,184 contract which will provide for the purchase and contractor logistic support of sniper advanced targeting pods to support a foreign military sale customer,

QuoteKaman Precision Products, Inc., Orlando, Fla., was awarded a $46,253,422.83 contract modification which will provide a quantity of 12,994 joint programmable fuze systems.  At this time, entire amount has been obligated.  679 ARSS, Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., is the contracting activity.

I want the candidates to tell me/us... specifically what defense programs they would cut and who will be affected.  I want the candidates to tell me exactly who will get the tax increases and how much it will be... put it into their platform and run on it.  You, me, and everyone else is tired of lip service referring to defence cuts and tax increases in generic and general terms.  EVERYONE wants to cut defense spending... just not in my district.  EVERYONE wants to increase taxes... on that guy over there.

Here are a list of Florida military bases... Which ones should go?

http://militarybases.com/florida/

Air Force Bases (5)
Eglin AFB Valparaiso
Eglin AFB is operated by Air Force Materiel Command and located in Valparaiso, Florida. The air base...

Hurlburt Field Mary Esther
Hurlburt Field is located in Okaloosa County, near Mary Esther, Florida. It serves as a support air ...

MacDill AFB Tampa
MacDill AFB is operated by Air Mobility Command and located in Tampa, Florida. It was established in...

Patrick AFB Brevard
Patrick AFB is operated by Air Force Space Command and located in Brevard County, Florida. It is hom...

Tyndall AFB Panama City
Tyndall AFB is part of Air Education Training and Command near Panama City, Florida. It is home to t...

Army Bases
Camp Blanding Starke
When Camp Blanding, Florida, was founded as a Florida National Guard training camp, no one envisione...

Coast Guard Bases (3)
Air Station Clearwater Clearwater
Known officially as the United States Coast Guard Air Station Clearwater, this base is located in th...

District 7 Miami
The main headquarters of the United States Coast Guard 7th District is located in Miami Florida. The...

ISC Miami Miami Beach
The USCG Integrated Support Command headquarters in Miami provides support duties for the operation ...

Marine Bases
Blount Island Command Jacksonville
The Blount Island Command is part of the United States Marines Corps’ Maritime Prepositioning ...

Navy Bases (11)
AUTEC Complex West Palm Beach
The Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center is a laboratory tasked with the maintaining the nav...

NAS Jacksonville Jacksonville
Naval Air Station Jacksonville is a military air base located in Jacksonville, Florida. It was estab...

NAS Key West Key West
Naval Air Station Key West is a naval air base located in Key West, Florida. Established in December...

NAS Pensacola Pensacola
Naval Air Station Pensacola is a naval base located in Escambia County, near Pensacola, Florida. Est...

NAS Whiting Field Milton
Naval Air Station Whiting Field is one of only two primary pilot training bases of the United States...

Naval Air Warfare Center Orlando
The Naval Air Warfare Center Training System Division, Florida (NAWCTSD) is located in Orlando. The ...

Naval Hospital Jacksonville Jacksonville
The Jacksonville Naval Hospital is located within NAS Jacksonville. It provides both in-patient and ...

Naval Hospital Pensacola Pensacola
The Pensacola Naval Hospital serves the personnel assigned at the Pensacola Naval Air Station and th...

NS Mayport Duval
Naval Station Mayport is a military base located 7 miles east of Jacksonville, Florida at the mouth ...

NSA Panama City Panama City
The Naval Support Activity Panama City in Florida is a research center in Florida aimed at advancing...

Training Center Corry Pensacola
Corry Station Naval Technical Training Center is a military training base located in Pensacola, Flor...

Quote from: stephendare on August 18, 2011, 08:58:00 AM
The above exchange made me think, and so I actually went and looked up the relationship between the EU and the United Nations.

Is the European Union its own government?

Is it considered a 'country' like the United States?

Is it a member of the UN?

Here is the answer from the EU mission at the United Nations in New York's webpage.

I didnt know these answers, so I figured I wasnt the only one.

http://www.eu-un.europa.eu/articles/articleslist_s88_en.htm

Quote
About the EU at the UN
Overview: the European Union at the United Nations
The EU is the single largest financial contributor to the UN system. The 27 EU Member States fund 38% of the UN's regular budget, more than two-fifths of UN peacekeeping operations, and about one-half of all UN Member States' contributions to UN funds and programmes. The European Commission alone contributes more than $1.35 billion in support of UN external assistance programmes and projects.

The EU works with all UN bodies, agencies and programmes across virtually the entire range of UN activities, from development policy and peacebuilding to humanitarian assistance, environment, human rights, and culture.

As an observer within the UN, the EU has no vote as such but is party to more than 50 UN multilateral agreements and conventions as the only non-State participant. It has obtained a special "full participant" status in a number of important UN conferences.

So.  The EU contributes money as a body to the UN.
The EU is not a state (good call, Jimmy)
The EU is not a member of the UN, but this is kind of a grey area.  It is an official observer (China, for example was an official observer until the 90s, until it was accepted into the Assembly)  Since there are formal relations between the EU and the UN, there are a number of joint missions and treaties between them.
Now an Official Observer has about the same status as the delegates from US territories to the House of Representatives.  Puerto Rico for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_Commissioner_of_Puerto_Rico

Quote
The Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico (Spanish: El Comisionado Residente de Puerto Rico) is a non-voting member of the United States House of Representatives elected by the voters of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico every four years. The Resident Commissioner is the only member of the House of Representatives who serves a four-year term.[1]

The Commissioner is allowed to serve on congressional committees, and functions in every respect as a Representative except being denied a vote on the final disposition of legislation on the House floor.

In most other U.S. territories, a similar representative position is styled Delegate.

In some important conferences, the EU is granted full participant status, and does have the right to vote in the proceedings.

I would suspect that this will change if Angela Merkel and Sarkozy prevail and this new Eurozone government idea begins to proceed forward.

Here is the wiki entry on non state Observers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_observers

QuoteIn addition to the current 193 member states, the United Nations welcomes many international organizations, entities, and non-member states (currently only one) as observers. Observer status is granted by a United Nations General Assembly resolution. The status of a Permanent Observer is based purely on practice, and there are no provisions for it in the United Nations Charter.[1]

Observers have the right to speak at United Nations General Assembly meetings, participate in procedural votes, and to sponsor and sign resolutions, but not to vote on resolutions and other substantive matters. Various other rights (e.g. to speak in debates, to submit proposals and amendments, the right of reply, to raise points of order and to circulate documents, etc.) are given selectively to some observers only. So far, the EU is the only international organisation to hold these enhanced powers.[2]

There is a distinction between state and non-state observers. Non-Member States of the United Nations, which are members of one or more specialized agencies, can apply for the status of Permanent Observer state.[1] The non-state observers are the international organizations and other entities.

Non-member observer states are arranged for seating in the General Assembly Hall immediately after the Member States and before the other observers

One note: the EU isn't the only intergovernmental organization that has observer status in the UN by a long shot. Others include Interpol, the Organization of American States, the African Union, and even other European bodies like the Council of Europe, which is bigger but less influential than the EU, and many others.

The EU is the most prominent of the non-governmental observers and sometimes participates in agreements and such while the others usually don't.

BridgeTroll has a point, that no one is willing to cut Defense Spending or any spending for that matter that is within their sphere of interest.

Too many Americans are too busy being pissed off at the other side to see what is really going on. R's & D's succeed when they keep both sides polarized and working against each other.   I think both are truly evil.  They are happy to pit one side against the other knowing the fervor is what keeps the contributions flowing. 

Also both sides of the aisle are greedy crooks for the most part.   

This story I have posted in another thread, but I think it shows where we go wrong with our Defense spending and why it is BOTH parties fault.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003948586_favorfactory14m.html

QuoteTucked away on Seattle's Portage Bay, a sleek, 85-foot speedboat sat idle for years â€" save for an annual jaunt to maintain its engine.

The Navy paid $4.5 million to build the boat. But months before the hull ever touched water, the Navy gave the boat to the University of Washington. The school never found a use for it, either.

Why would the Navy waste taxpayer dollars on a boat that nobody wanted?

Blame it on Sen. Patty Murray and Congressmen Norm Dicks and Brian Baird. All three exercised their political muscle to slip language into a 2002 spending bill to force the Navy to buy the boat from Edmonds shipbuilder Guardian Marine International.

Year after year, the Washington lawmakers did favors for the tiny company, inserting four "earmarks" into different bills to force the Navy and Coast Guard to buy boats they didn't ask for â€" $17.65 million in all. None of the boats was used as Congress intended.

The congressional trio say they were helping Guardian Marine because it had a great product. But each has also received generous campaign donations from the company's three executives, its sole employees: $14,277 to Baird, $15,000 to Murray, and $16,750 to Dicks.

Earmarks are federal dollars that members of Congress dole out to favor seekers â€" often campaign donors. In the process, lawmakers advocate for the companies, helping them bypass the normal system of evaluation and competition.

This can result in earmarks that are wasteful or potentially harmful.

For example, Murray directed $6 million to a Redmond company for high-tech battle gear that the Army had rejected as flawed for its armored-vehicle Stryker Brigade.

Rep. David Wu, D-Ore., directed the Marines to buy $2 million of combat T-shirts from an Oregon company. But they couldn't be used in battle in Iraq due to a subsequent ban on polyester garments that could melt under fire and badly burn the troops.

Until recently, the earmark process was secretive. Congress did not have to publicly reveal the names of companies getting the contracts or those of the sponsoring lawmakers.

The Seattle Times investigated the 2007 defense bill, examining the relationships between who got money in the bill and who gave to lawmakers' campaign funds. Reporters were able to tie nearly half of the bill's 2,700 earmarks to their sponsoring lawmakers.

The Times then built a database of tens of thousands of government records to perform an analysis. It provides an in-depth look at the extent to which these congressional favors and campaign giving go hand in glove.

The Times found:

People who benefit from earmarks generally give money to those who deliver them: Of the nearly 500 companies identified as getting 2007 defense earmarks, 78 percent had employees or political action committees who made campaign contributions to Congress in the past six years.

Though individual contributions are limited by law, people at companies that received defense earmarks gave lawmakers more than $47 million.

The 2,700 earmarks Congress put in the 2007 military spending bill cost $11.8 billion. The Pentagon didn't ask for the money in its budget and, because its budget is capped by law, cuts had to be made to find room for the favors.

Nearly all members of Congress dole out earmarks. Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, an earmark critic, calls the practice "circular fundraising" because of the perception that tax dollars given out as favors come back as campaign donations. "I think that most taxpayers would say that it doesn't pass the smell test," he said.

Winslow Wheeler, formerly a congressional aide who dealt with defense earmarks for years, said no one in Congress asks for campaign donations in exchange for earmarks because they don't have to; everyone understands the process.

"It's not talked about," but if favors are not followed with donations, Wheeler said, "it's noticed â€" you may get a little bit less help the next year."

Murray, Dicks and Baird say emphatically that their favors to defense contractors never come with strings attached. The distinction is critical because soliciting a campaign contribution in exchange for an earmark is a crime.

"People, if they want to support me, they support me," Dicks said. "If they don't want to support me, I still might do their earmark â€" if I thought it was a worthy project."

Earmarking has exploded in the past decade, quintupling from 1996 to 2005, according to the Congressional Research Service.
During "The Season," the first three months each year on Capitol Hill, thousands of favor seekers flood the offices of Congress, asking for earmarks. Appointments stack one on top of the other, tying up staffers for months, as lawmakers winnow through the myriad requests and decide what to buy.

Jack Abramoff, the once-powerful lobbyist convicted of influence peddling, called the process "the favor factory."

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Seattle, who sponsors some earmarks, says that lawmakers find it easier to raise money from people they know from committee work. "I think it's very hard [for the public] not to have the impression that in some way what you do on the committee is some way related to how much money you get."

Officially, the Pentagon opposes earmarks because they circumvent its own efforts to set spending priorities, thoroughly evaluate products and seek competitive bids.

Some military officials, however, eagerly support earmarks that expand their programs. Gerald Darsch, who heads food research at Natick Soldier Systems Center, backed Murray when she set aside money to develop longer-lasting tomatoes and rations, a move that substantially increased his budget.

A senior Army official who fulfills Congress' earmarks said he first learns of them when the defense bill passes. He spoke only if his name was not used.

Often, he said he can't figure them out from the cryptic descriptions in the bill.

"If there's a new mark out there for something we've never seen before, [we go] back to the subcommittee and say, 'Hey, you put an earmark on this line for this amount of dollars. What the hell is it?' Because some of this stuff â€" hell, I've been in the Army for 20 years, and I don't know what some of that stuff is."

Boat gets a lift

The story of how Guardian Marine landed millions of dollars in public funds begins in Edmonds in the late 1990s. Company founder Richard Martinson had developed a "fast patrol boat," a hybrid of a speedboat and a ship, 85 feet long and capable of up to 40 knots, like crossing a sports car with a recreational vehicle.

The plan was to sell the $4 million patrol boat to foreign governments, but Martinson, a former Coast Guard commander, said sales floundered.

Martinson's fortunes brightened not long after he made his first recorded contribution to a congressional campaign in June 1998. He gave $500 to the re-election fund of Dicks, whom he knew when they lived a few doors apart at UW's Terry Hall in the 1960s.

In fall 1999, Dicks and Baird added a line in the defense bill to have the Navy buy Guardian Marine's $4 million boat.

Dicks urged the Navy to assign the boat to the Navy SEALs or other high-speed missions. But the boat was never deployed on any combat missions. It is now in Carderock, Md., "being used to evaluate new and emergent maritime technology," a Navy spokesman said.

Guardian Marine gained another powerful advocate in 2001 in Sen. Murray, who had just become chair of an appropriations subcommittee.

Murray describes herself as a "huge unabashed supporter of the maritime building industry" and boasts that her earmarks have helped to create jobs. She said she remembers hearing the Coast Guard talk about a need for fast boats to chase down drug runners.

Martinson recalls Murray telling him, "Maybe they should look at your boat."

"Senator, it sounds real good to me," Martinson recounts saying. "But remember one thing: You're going to get pushback from these people. The Coast Guard doesn't like any outside entity telling them what they need."

Martinson's prediction came true. Murray "had to work hard to get the Coast Guard to take the boat," he said. "There was a group that was upset because they felt the vessel was shoved down their throat."

Murray added a $4.65 million earmark to the 2002 defense bill and left the Coast Guard no choice about which boat it would buy, specifying in the bill that it had to be "a currently-developed 85-foot fast patrol craft that is manufactured in the United States."

The Coast Guard's mission shifted after Sept. 11, primarily to homeland security.

Murray said she might not have pursued the earmark "if we had been able to look forward and know that Sept. 11 was going to happen."

But the bill actually passed three months after Sept. 11. Before the final vote, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., attacked Murray's earmark.

"The Coast Guard did not request this vessel, does not need this vessel, nor does this vessel meet the Coast Guard's requirements," he said on the Senate floor. "The Coast Guard's resources are already stretched thin and this will only hamper its ability to meet its new challenges since Sept. 11."

The bill passed with all its pork intact.

After several evaluations, the Coast Guard concluded it couldn't use the Guardian boat. It didn't need it to chase drug smugglers because it uses helicopters to do that more easily and safely.

"It's a fine boat for what it is," said Lt. Cmdr. Bill Brewer, who led some of the testing. "It didn't fit well into what the Coast Guard operates."

The Coast Guard gave it to a sheriff's office that uses it to patrol San Francisco Bay.

At the time of McCain's attack, Murray, Dicks and Baird delivered a third earmark for Guardian Marine, having the Navy buy another boat.

The plan was to have the Navy use the Guardian Marine boat in tandem with another test boat called the Sealion. The lawmakers combined the two boats into an $8.4 million earmark; both would be built by Oregon Iron Works.

By joining forces with Oregon Iron Works, its subcontractor, Guardian Marine gained political muscle. From 2001 to 2002, executives of the two companies would give more than $22,000 in campaign funds to members of their local delegations, including $3,000 to Murray.

But even as the third Guardian Marine boat was being assembled, the Navy decided it didn't want it and transferred it to the UW's Applied Physics Laboratory.

UW researchers concluded it would take $750,000 to make it usable. The university tried to get the Navy to take it back. For years, the boat was docked outside the school.

To maintain the boat, staff ran it at full speed once a year. "We're sort of trapped in doing the routine things that need to be done," Russell McDuff, director of the School of Oceanography, said earlier this year.

The Navy recently assigned the boat to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle.

Although none of the three Guardian Marine boats were used as Congress intended, Murray, Dicks and Baird inserted a $4.5 million earmark for a fourth boat in the 2004 defense bill. This time, they said the speedboat was needed to retrieve torpedoes at the Navy base in Keyport, Kitsap County.

The Navy did buy a fourth Guardian Marine speedboat but assigned it to a base in California for evaluation.

In the past four years, executives of Guardian Marine and Oregon Iron Works have given nearly $125,000 in contributions to Congress members.

Baird stands behind the earmarks. "We didn't just say, 'Oh, a company in our district wants an earmark â€" let's get it for them.' We looked at the mission, we looked at the history of the boat, and we looked at the alternatives out there," he said. "And I think that's pretty good work, frankly."

Murray remains a staunch defender of earmarks. She pointed to Insitu, a high-tech company in Klickitat County that makes aerial drones the Army uses for surveillance in Iraq. She said she helps local companies with good products that may be overlooked by the sprawling Pentagon and its faraway bureaucrats who might favor their "buddies" who they "were having drinks with ... on Friday night."

"People tend to talk about earmarks as something that is a bad thing," she said. "I see it as a way to make sure that the tax dollars that are spent are spent in a very wise way."


Changes needed

Congress members from both parties want to loosen the grip of money on politics. One solution, proposed earlier this year in a bill by senior Sens. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., calls for public funding for congressional campaigns.

McDermott supports the idea but says reform won't come soon. "This is a country that worships at the altar of the free enterprise system, and so the Congress is reflective of that culture," he said.

Congress just recently began requiring lawmakers to reveal each earmark they've sponsored, name its beneficiary, and certify that neither they nor their spouse have any financial stake in them.

But such transparency only works if lawmakers feel "some degree of shame" for doling out favors to their backers, Rep. Flake said. "If you're not embarrassed by that, then transparency doesn't help a lot."

Meanwhile, Congress is approving a batch of new earmarks for next year.

Once again, Rep. Wu wants $1.5 million for InSport to sell T-shirts to Marines in Iraq â€" shirts designed to be worn under body armor but not approved for that use.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, recipient of $15,000 in contributions from Microvision executives since 2005, is seeking $1 million for more work on the company's 10 prototypes.

And Rep. Baird still wants to get patrol boats like Guardian Marine's into Coast Guard hands. During a congressional hearing earlier this year, Baird asked an admiral if they could "chat" about "other alternatives that are available on the marketplace" to the Coast Guard's slower, 87-foot patrol boats.

"Might we do that?" Baird asked.

Quote from: stephendare on August 17, 2011, 08:03:28 PM
...the saber rattling between Chile and Colombia? 

QUE? QUE? I believe you are referring to the sabre rattling of Chavez over in Venezuela and his support for Ecuador's revolutionaries and Colombia's swift response.

While I agree with you as far as wars or 'police actions' we are not involved in, I must tell you there is a hell of a US presence in Colombia, ditto UK advisors and Israeli-French aircraft.

The blackhawks I saw pound guerrilla positions night and day didn't come from the EU.

Just wanted to correct any geographical misunderstanding in my homeland.


OCKLAWAHA

I'm not sure if the intent of the OP's message was so much a comparison of 'guns or butter', so much as a call to a more holistic approach to capitalism that balances social responsibility, sustainability, and family values.

Perhaps it only becomes such an argument because of our reluctance to raise tax burdens on the high-income, high-wealth households in order to support a reasonable level of government.

Great article Faye.

Define "high income" and "high wealth" persons that you want to tax.  Then explain what the tax scheme is for those definitions and how much revenue it will generate to the Federal government.  Will that make up the $1.5 Trillion dollar deficit? 

What Faye(and many others) wants is a European style nanny state.  That will be very difficult (read impossible)  with the current Republic. 

And so...

Quote from: NotNow on August 19, 2011, 03:31:33 PM
Define "high income" and "high wealth" persons that you want to tax.  Then explain what the tax scheme is for those definitions and how much revenue it will generate to the Federal government.  Will that make up the $1.5 Trillion dollar deficit? 

we've been basing a ridiculously large part ov our economy on homes, right?  so let's start with people who own $1,000,000.00+ homes--basically, people who consider what most ov us call luxuries to be necessities.

regarding your comment about 'nanny states', what's so terrible about wanting a government that already tells us what to do (and will always do so, regardless ov what the mad tea party would have us believe) do a bit towards taking care ov us, too?  how can a government that does nothing for us expect our loyalty?

Well, I think Warren Buffet offers one definition:

"But for those making more than $1 million â€" there were 236,883 such households in 2009 â€" I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more â€" there were 8,274 in 2009 â€" I would suggest an additional increase in rate."

Warren Buffet is a pretty bright guy, if he's suggesting the wealthy are not paying enough in taxes, maybe we should listen to him.

If you ended the Bush tax cuts for earners in the top 2% you would save $700 billion over the next 10 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11tax.html

If the rich were taxed at the same rates they were half a century ago, they’d be paying in over $350 billion more this year alone, which translates into trillions over the next decade. That’s enough to accomplish everything the nation needs while also reducing future deficits.

http://www.alternet.org/story/150497/why_we_must_raise_taxes_on_the_rich%2C_asap%21?akid=6803.35690.nnFPit&rd=1&t=24

And to completely shore it up, start taxing churches. 

Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on August 19, 2011, 03:52:46 PM

Quote from: NotNow on August 19, 2011, 03:31:33 PM
Define "high income" and "high wealth" persons that you want to tax.  Then explain what the tax scheme is for those definitions and how much revenue it will generate to the Federal government.  Will that make up the $1.5 Trillion dollar deficit? 

we've been basing a ridiculously large part ov our economy on homes, right?  so let's start with people who own $1,000,000.00+ homes--basically, people who consider what most ov us call luxuries to be necessities.

regarding your comment about 'nanny states', what's so terrible about wanting a government that already tells us what to do (and will always do so, regardless ov what the mad tea party would have us believe) do a bit towards taking care ov us, too?  how can a government that does nothing for us expect our loyalty?

OK... how much money would one have to make to qualify for a 1 mill house?  Payments would be about 6k for a 30 year at 6%.  What is the yearly or monthly income to qualify?

Quote from: Diderot on August 19, 2011, 04:05:44 PM
Well, I think Warren Buffet offers one definition:

"But for those making more than $1 million â€" there were 236,883 such households in 2009 â€" I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more â€" there were 8,274 in 2009 â€" I would suggest an additional increase in rate."

Warren Buffet is a pretty bright guy, if he's suggesting the wealthy are not paying enough in taxes, maybe we should listen to him.

If you ended the Bush tax cuts for earners in the top 2% you would save $700 billion over the next 10 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11tax.html

If the rich were taxed at the same rates they were half a century ago, they’d be paying in over $350 billion more this year alone, which translates into trillions over the next decade. That’s enough to accomplish everything the nation needs while also reducing future deficits.

http://www.alternet.org/story/150497/why_we_must_raise_taxes_on_the_rich%2C_asap%21?akid=6803.35690.nnFPit&rd=1&t=24

And to completely shore it up, start taxing churches.

...and this is why Warren Buffett is wrong.  From http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-16/opinion/miron.buffett.wrong_1_income-tax-code-crony-capitalism?_s=PM:OPINION

QuoteIn a recent New York Times op-ed article, Warren Buffett asserts that the super-rich do not pay enough taxes. He suggests that any new budget deal should raise rates on the super-rich, especially on their "unearned" income from interest, dividends and capital gains.

Buffett is wrong. Bad government policies play a major role in generating inappropriately high incomes, but singling out the super-rich is misguided. And the policy Buffett criticizes most -- low tax rates on capital income -- should be expanded, not eliminated.


In 2009, the income earned by the 236,833 taxpayers with more than $1 million in adjusted gross income was about $727 billion. Imposing a 10% surcharge on this income would generate at most $73 billion in new revenue -- only about 2% of federal spending. And $73 billion is optimistic; the super-rich will avoid or evade much of the surcharge, significantly lowering its yield.

Focusing on the super-rich also fosters a counterproductive attitude toward material success. The way to promote a hard-working, entrepreneurial and innovative society is to celebrate great wealth so long as it has been earned by legitimate means. When this is not the case, policy should target the wrongdoing directly, not demonize everyone who hits it big.

Most importantly, singling out the super-rich distracts from the real problem: the myriad policies that make no sense in the first place because they inhibit economic growth and that simultaneously redistribute from low-income households to the middle and upper classes.

The deductibility of home mortgage interest encourages excess investment in housing. High-income taxpayers get the benefits, since low-income taxpayers own little or no housing and do not itemize deductions in any case.

The favorable tax treatment of employer-paid health insurance generates overconsumption of health care and contributes to rising health care costs. The benefits go mainly to middle- and upper-income households, since those without jobs get no employer-provided benefits.

Numerous loopholes for favored industries in the corporate tax code distort the market's investment decisions and reward the well-funded and politically connected.

And it is not just the tax code that harms the economy while favoring the better off.

Excessive licensing requirements, permitting fees, restrictive examinations and other barriers to entry into medicine, law, plumbing, hair styling and many other professions are bad for economic productivity because they artificially restrict the supply of these services. And these barriers redistribute income perversely by raising incomes for those protected and raising prices for everyone.

Crony capitalism -- the special treatment of favored industries like autos -- runs counter to economic efficiency because it protects businesses that would otherwise fail, and it maintains high incomes for executives and shareholders.

The too-big-to-fail doctrine, exhibited most recently in the TARP bailout of Wall Street banks, distorts efficiency by encouraging excess risk-taking. Meanwhile, bailouts generate huge incomes for the lucky few who keep gains in good times and pass losses to taxpayers in bad times.

In contrast to these and other policies, the one Buffett criticizes -- low tax rates on capital income -- is beneficial for the economy, including lower-income households.

Economists agree broadly that an efficient tax system should avoid taxing income, dividends and capital gains to promote savings, investment and growth. Tax rates on capital income should therefore be low or even zero. The U.S. is far from this ideal, especially given the high tax rate on corporate income and the additional taxation at the personal level.

Buffet asserts that taxing capital income has never deterred anyone from investing. Well, then he has never discussed the issue with me or many of my friends.

More importantly, taxing investment returns plays a huge role in what kinds of investments occur, and where, even if it has minor effects on the amounts. These tax-induced distortions in investment choices then reduce economic growth. High U.S. taxation on capital income drives investment overseas.

So raising capital tax rates will not make the super-rich pay their "fair" share; it will encourage capital flight, driving factories and innovation abroad. The rich will still get their high returns, but U.S. workers will have fewer jobs and lower wages.

Buffett errs, most fundamentally, by focusing on outcomes rather than policies. The right question is which policies promote differences in incomes that reflect hard work, energy, innovation and creativity, rather than reward the unethical, the politically connected and the tax-savvy.

In economics, as in sports, we should adopt good rules and insist that everyone play by them. Then we should stand back and applaud the winners.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 19, 2011, 04:11:34 PM
OK... how much money would one have to make to qualify for a 1 mill house?  Payments would be about 6k for a 30 year at 6%.  What is the yearly or monthly income to qualify?

honestly, you've got me there.  i don't know what i was getting at was let's look at expensive, ostentatious items, look at the people who have them (as they obviously have the money to do what they damn well please), and look at what their income is.  if i knew how much money the people who buy million-dollar houses actually have, i would've simply posted that figure.  i'd also probably cry.

QuoteIn economics, as in sports, we should adopt good rules and insist that everyone play by them. Then we should stand back and applaud the winners.

seriously?  someöne actually believes that we should treat what determines whether or not people can afford food and shelter as a game?  that's the most disgusting thing i've heard all year--and i've been subjected to lady gaga songs.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 19, 2011, 04:11:34 PM

Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on August 19, 2011, 03:52:46 PM

Quote from: NotNow on August 19, 2011, 03:31:33 PM
Define "high income" and "high wealth" persons that you want to tax.  Then explain what the tax scheme is for those definitions and how much revenue it will generate to the Federal government.  Will that make up the $1.5 Trillion dollar deficit? 

we've been basing a ridiculously large part ov our economy on homes, right?  so let's start with people who own $1,000,000.00+ homes--basically, people who consider what most ov us call luxuries to be necessities.

regarding your comment about 'nanny states', what's so terrible about wanting a government that already tells us what to do (and will always do so, regardless ov what the mad tea party would have us believe) do a bit towards taking care ov us, too?  how can a government that does nothing for us expect our loyalty?

OK... how much money would one have to make to qualify for a 1 mill house?  Payments would be about 6k for a 30 year at 6%.  What is the yearly or monthly income to qualify?

There are alot of variables but such a person could qualify to buy a million dollar house and only make 250k per year.  Are these the "rich" and "ultra wealthy" we keep hearing about?

Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on August 19, 2011, 04:31:09 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 19, 2011, 04:11:34 PM
OK... how much money would one have to make to qualify for a 1 mill house?  Payments would be about 6k for a 30 year at 6%.  What is the yearly or monthly income to qualify?

honestly, you've got me there.  i don't know what i was getting at was let's look at expensive, ostentatious items, look at the people who have them (as they obviously have the money to do what they damn well please), and look at what their income is.  if i knew how much money the people who buy million-dollar houses actually have, i would've simply posted that figure.  i'd also probably cry.

This is good.  This is exactly what should be part of the discussion.  There are many here who simply want to know what is meant by "rich" or "ultra wealthy".  Are we talking some one who makes 1 mill per year? 2 mill?  If we are going to tax the rich... I want to know what that threshhold is.  Let us all agree on a definition and use it in these discussions.

If you want to tax expensive and ostentatious, may I suggest the Fair Tax?  Wouldn't a tax on consumption be a fair, progressive, and GREEN form of taxation?

Quote from: redglittercoffin on August 19, 2011, 04:18:42 PM
So raising capital tax rates will not make the super-rich pay their "fair" share; it will encourage capital flight, driving factories and innovation abroad. The rich will still get their high returns, but U.S. workers will have fewer jobs and lower wages.

This is an interesting statement to make, given that the tax rate for the highest 2% has fallen significantly since 1960.   Reagan lowered the top bracket to 28% (from an earlier 94% after WWII until JFK dropped it to 70% where it remained until 1982).

(http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/nytimes_taxes_graph.gif)

Let's compare the effect on lower taxes for the top 2% job creators with the outsourcing of U.S.  jobs overseas:

(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/wherejobs.jpg)


Interesting correlation.

When our tax burdens were highest on the top 2%, American manufacturing dominated the globe, and out of the industrial output rose America's middle class, high paying manufacturing jobs that in turn spurred a robust and growing economy that depended little on foreign nations for manufactured goods and services.

In 1965 manufacturing accounted for 53% of the economy, by 1988, after six years of 'trickle down' economics, it accounted for 39 percent, in 2004, just 9 percent.

America may gain access to cheaper products through outsourcing, but it also comes with attendant problems, including a downward pressure on wages. Laid-off manufacturing laborers are largely switching into lower-paying jobs in the service industry.

So no, tax rates do not encourage job creation at home, any more than they discourage them.  The main difference is “the Chinese will work seven days a week for US$0.50 to US$1 an hour with no benefits for social security, health care, vacations, a pension or worker safety. … In America, the going wage would be 10 to 20 times higher including all benefits”


It’s not hard to see why, in order to reduce costs, manufacturing businesses have been abandoning America in droves and fleeing to Asia.

Which brings us back to Faye's article.  Europe's brand of "social capitalism" is resulting in Europe scoring in the top on social and health indicators; moving progressively on  renewable energy technologies; and despite rhetoric suggesting that social programs make the European economies weak and sclerotic, Europe has the largest economy in the world, almost as large as the United States and China combined.

And perhaps the most important lesson from Faye's article is the degree economic democracy in Europe, how many of our large companies would have moved U.S. jobs overseas if workers at major corporations has representatives that sit side-by-side with stockholder representatives on the corporate boards of directors?


Sources:

  http://visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11/03/nytimes-historical-tax-rates-by-income-group/
  http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/04/19/159555/us-corporations-outsourced-americans/
  http://www.thetrumpet.com/?page=article&id=1955

Quote from: NotNow on August 19, 2011, 05:02:17 PM
If you want to tax expensive and ostentatious, may I suggest the Fair Tax?  Wouldn't a tax on consumption be a fair, progressive, and GREEN form of taxation?

Now what you could do is have corporations taxed at the highest possible level. But they could reduce those taxes dramatically: by proving that they have created jobs in any tax year and getting a tax credit for each new position.

There's only one very significant catch: the jobs must be created in the US, not overseas. If employers maintain their current workforce in America, they would also receive a tax credit. If businesses move jobs overseas, their taxes get raised higher depending upon the percentage of their workforce that is offshored.


http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/12930

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2011, 09:37:24 AM

Quote from: Diderot on August 20, 2011, 09:29:32 AM

Now what you could do is have corporations taxed at the highest possible level. But they could reduce those taxes dramatically: by proving that they have created jobs in any tax year and getting a tax credit for each new position.

There's only one very significant catch: the jobs must be created in the US, not overseas. If employers maintain their current workforce in America, they would also receive a tax credit. If businesses move jobs overseas, their taxes get raised higher depending upon the percentage of their workforce that is offshored.


http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/12930

This is exactly how it worked for generations, Diderot.  Until the wealthiest two percent started demanding that they have the right to hire very cheap foreign labor but still be allowed to sell their products in the US at the same prices.

Oh, and if they got their taxes slashed, scouts honor, they would reinvest that money back into the economy.

Supply Side economics has failed utterly and needs to be placed roughly on the dustbin of history as the crackpot theory that it was thought when David Stockman rolled it out in the 80s.

We need to go back to the American Way, and start over.

Yup, even David Stockman is recanting his long-held positions, seeing how disasterous they were for our country after 30 years of unmittigated supply-side economics. Here are some of his most recent statements that other Republicans should do well to take note of:

QuoteThe Republican "no tax increase" position is preposterous; we are collecting less than 15% of GDP in taxes, the lowest since 1950, and spending 24% of GDP.

and

QuoteFinally, the $800 billion defense and security budget is a relic of the Cold War, which ended 20 years ago, and should be cut by $200 billion. We no longer have any industrial state enemies and we have been fired as the world policeman - so it is time to mothball some carrier battle groups, ground some air wings, drastically reduce our troop strength, end the futility of Afghanistan and stop buying multibillion high-tech weapons that we can't afford and don't need.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/29/david-stockman-on-our-quasi-bankrupt-country/

QuoteFinally, the $800 billion defense and security budget is a relic of the Cold War, which ended 20 years ago, and should be cut by $200 billion. We no longer have any industrial state enemies and we have been fired as the world policeman - so it is time to mothball some carrier battle groups, ground some air wings, drastically reduce our troop strength, end the futility of Afghanistan and stop buying multibillion high-tech weapons that we can't afford and don't need.

Wonderful Faye!  We have had at least two Dem presidents and one or two dem majorities during that twenty years.  What?  It just keeps getting bigger?? WTF??

Which battle group Faye?  The mayport battlegroup?  Which airwing?  The one in Reid or Pelosi's district?  Which weapons programs?  Whose district do they come out of?  How many people does this put out of work?  Earlier I posted a whole laundry list of defense contracts worth billion just for Florida.  Which ones of those should be cut?

Which ones should we cut?  These are but a few... but you get the point... I hope.

http://www.floridadefense.org/documents/ERAU/Contracts%20monitor/Florida%20Defense%20Contracts%20Monitor%20-%20March%202010.htm


Quote
X5, LLC, Fort Walton Beach, Fla., was awarded on March 25 an $18,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity firm-fixed-price contract.  This contract is for research and development, science & engineering and related logistical and administrative support services for all engineering reach and development center laboratories and other local Corps entities.  Work is to be performed in with an estimated completion date of March 31, 2014.  Bids were solicited via the Federal Business Opportunities Web site with four bids received. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ERDC Contracting Office, Vicksburg, Miss., is the contracting activity.


Quote
Hellfire Systems, LLC, Orlando, Fla., was awarded on March 24 a $268,750,936 firm-fixed-price contract for fiscal 2010 option exercise for a total quantity of 3,955 HELLFIRE II missiles.  Work is to be performed in Orlando, Fla., with an estimated completion date of Sept. 30, 2013.  One bid was solicited with one bid received. U.S. Army Contracting Command, AMCOM Contracting Center Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity.


Quote
Teledyne Scientific and Imaging, LLC, West Palm Beach, Fla., was awarded on March 19  a $6,763,839 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency program that will revolutionize the underlying technologies for unmanned sensor systems.  This effort seeks to emulate the mammalian visual pathway by implementing advanced models and algorithmic emulations of the entire visual pathway from retina to the visual cortex.

Quote
Suffolk Construction, Sarasota, Fla., is being awarded a $19,231,000 firm-fixed-price contract for design and construction of a physical fitness center at Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune. The work provides for design and construction of a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) “Gold” certified physical fitness center.

Quote
General Dynamics â€" Ordnance and Tactical Systems, St. Petersburg, Fla., is being awarded $19,961,049 for delivery order under previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (M67854-05-D-6014) for the Production Lot 3 (PL3) procurement of 20 full rate production Expeditionary Fire Support Systems (EFSS) together with their corresponding basic issue item kits, additional authorization list hardware. The EFSS provides all-weather, ground-based, close supporting, accurate, immediately responsive, and lethal indirect fires.

Quote
Lockheed Martin Corp., Simulation, Training and Support, Orlando, Fla., is being awarded an $83,305,442 cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to design, develop, fabricate, integrate, and test the electronic Consolidated Automated Support System. In addition, this provides for the procurement of 14 engineering development models during the system design and development phase of the contract.

Quote
Raytheon Network Centric Systems, St. Petersburg, Fla., is being awarded a $13,680,670 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-08-C-5202) for the design agent and engineering services for the cooperative engagement capability (CEC) system.

Quote
Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, Orlando, Fla., was awarded a $41,898,184 contract which will provide for the purchase and contractor logistic support of sniper advanced targeting pods to support a foreign military sale customer,

Quote
Kaman Precision Products, Inc., Orlando, Fla., was awarded a $46,253,422.83 contract modification which will provide a quantity of 12,994 joint programmable fuze systems.  At this time, entire amount has been obligated.  679 ARSS, Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., is the contracting activity.

Here are a list of Florida military bases... Which ones should go?

http://militarybases.com/florida/

Air Force Bases (5)
Eglin AFB Valparaiso
Eglin AFB is operated by Air Force Materiel Command and located in Valparaiso, Florida. The air base...

Hurlburt Field Mary Esther
Hurlburt Field is located in Okaloosa County, near Mary Esther, Florida. It serves as a support air ...

MacDill AFB Tampa
MacDill AFB is operated by Air Mobility Command and located in Tampa, Florida. It was established in...

Patrick AFB Brevard
Patrick AFB is operated by Air Force Space Command and located in Brevard County, Florida. It is hom...

Tyndall AFB Panama City
Tyndall AFB is part of Air Education Training and Command near Panama City, Florida. It is home to t...

Army Bases
Camp Blanding Starke
When Camp Blanding, Florida, was founded as a Florida National Guard training camp, no one envisione...

Coast Guard Bases (3)
Air Station Clearwater Clearwater
Known officially as the United States Coast Guard Air Station Clearwater, this base is located in th...

District 7 Miami
The main headquarters of the United States Coast Guard 7th District is located in Miami Florida. The...

ISC Miami Miami Beach
The USCG Integrated Support Command headquarters in Miami provides support duties for the operation ...

Marine Bases
Blount Island Command Jacksonville
The Blount Island Command is part of the United States Marines Corps’ Maritime Prepositioning ...

Navy Bases (11)
AUTEC Complex West Palm Beach
The Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center is a laboratory tasked with the maintaining the nav...

NAS Jacksonville Jacksonville
Naval Air Station Jacksonville is a military air base located in Jacksonville, Florida. It was estab...

NAS Key West Key West
Naval Air Station Key West is a naval air base located in Key West, Florida. Established in December...

NAS Pensacola Pensacola
Naval Air Station Pensacola is a naval base located in Escambia County, near Pensacola, Florida. Est...

NAS Whiting Field Milton
Naval Air Station Whiting Field is one of only two primary pilot training bases of the United States...

Naval Air Warfare Center Orlando
The Naval Air Warfare Center Training System Division, Florida (NAWCTSD) is located in Orlando. The ...

Naval Hospital Jacksonville Jacksonville
The Jacksonville Naval Hospital is located within NAS Jacksonville. It provides both in-patient and ...

Naval Hospital Pensacola Pensacola
The Pensacola Naval Hospital serves the personnel assigned at the Pensacola Naval Air Station and th...

NS Mayport Duval
Naval Station Mayport is a military base located 7 miles east of Jacksonville, Florida at the mouth ...

NSA Panama City Panama City
The Naval Support Activity Panama City in Florida is a research center in Florida aimed at advancing...

Training Center Corry Pensacola
Corry Station Naval Technical Training Center is a military training base located in Pensacola, Flor...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 22, 2011, 01:42:47 PM

QuoteFinally, the $800 billion defense and security budget is a relic of the Cold War, which ended 20 years ago, and should be cut by $200 billion. We no longer have any industrial state enemies and we have been fired as the world policeman - so it is time to mothball some carrier battle groups, ground some air wings, drastically reduce our troop strength, end the futility of Afghanistan and stop buying multibillion high-tech weapons that we can't afford and don't need.

Wonderful Faye!  We have had at least two Dem presidents and one or two dem majorities during that twenty years.  What?  It just keeps getting bigger?? WTF??

Which battle group Faye?  The mayport battlegroup?  Which airwing?  The one in Reid or Pelosi's district?  Which weapons programs?  Whose district do they come out of?  How many people does this put out of work?  Earlier I posted a whole laundry list of defense contracts worth billion just for Florida.  Which ones of those should be cut?

Ah, so we are in a status quo because nobody can make the tough decisions and it is so much easier to cut from the elderly, the sick, the disabled and the poor.

penny wise and pound foolish!

No Faye... above are the lists.  Which Florida programs and bases would you cut?  You want to cut defense??  here ya go... just cut and paste a list...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 22, 2011, 03:59:03 PM
No Faye... above are the lists.  Which Florida programs and bases would you cut?  You want to cut defense??  here ya go... just cut and paste a list...

No worries BT......I'm just glad we both agree it needs to be done!

QuoteMilitary spending is 25 percent of the nation's budget, and if the deficit super committee can't agree on a plan, $500 billion will be cut from the Pentagon over 10 years.

http://articles.courant.com/2011-08-19/business/hc-blumenthal-jobs-20110819_1_blumenthal-board-cuts-military-spending

Ah... OK.  So YOU dont want to do it either.  Hilarious... ;D

I want to thank you for nominating me to be the Democratic Senator from the great state of Florida.  (raucous cheers and applause).  As you all know... Americas defense spending is out of control... (wild cheers and applause)  When you elect me to the senate my first order of business will be to cut at least 200 billion dollars from the defense budget... (The crowd goes crazy)... and to set the example the cutting will begin right here at home... (subdued applause, confused looks)  As you know... Florida is home to an astonishing 20 military bases... most of them left over relics from the Cold War.  I will propose we close one from each branch of service... (no applause, an eerie stillness)

From the Airforce... Eglin AFB ( a smattering of boos)
From the Army... Camp Blanding (more boos)
From the Navy... Mayport (getting louder)

C'mon people... we really need to get a handle on this military industrial complex.  So in addition to cutting unneeded bases we will cancel our fair share of defense contracts located in Florida...  Beginning with...

the 280 million dollar contract to produce Hellfire II missiles at Hellfire systems of Orlando.

next up...

the General Dynamics â€" Ordnance and Tactical Systems, St. Petersburg, Fla., contract worth $19,961,049 building Expeditionary Fire Support Systems

next...

Lockheed Martin Corp., Simulation, Training and Support, Orlando, Fla., contract worth $83,305,442 producing the electronic Consolidated Automated Support System.

And finally...

Kaman Precision Products, Inc., Orlando, Fla., contract worth $46,253,422.83 to produce 12,994 joint programmable fuze systems.

This will be tough but I want to lead the way... and with your votes and support... we can DO THIS!

Thank you all for coming and I will see you on the campaign trail... (patriotic music plays and confetti and balloons from the ceiling... the crowd is oddly silent...)

i'm not surprised.  faye's a lot like me--all talk, no action, slightly cuckoo.

bridge, i don't think focusing on florida's the way to do it--that makes it look like we're just moving military dollars out ov florida into other states.  while i don't claim to have the education or the general knowledge to have an opinion on specifically which bases/suppliers/whatever should be cut, i think cuts should be distributed (as) evenly (as possible) across the country.

I think that would be fair also Kuroi.  But the point of this is Faye keeps saying it is republicans fault... the corporations fault... the fill in the blank fault.  When in fact it is the legislators of each state and district (of both parties BTW) who dont want THEIR bases or programs cut.  Cut THOSE programs over there... not these programs over here.

In addition... they talk about cutting defense... but only in very nebulous and general terms.  Almost never specifics.  Why is that??  Because to talk specifics... about their own state... they will never get elected/reelected.  Those bases and programs are civilian jobs.

So the problem isnt just republicans... it isnt just tea partiers... it is ALL of your legislators... with the possible exception of Ron Paul...

Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on August 23, 2011, 03:06:00 PM
i'm not surprised.  faye's a lot like me--all talk, no action.

bridge, i don't think focusing on florida's the way to do it--that makes it look like we're just moving military dollars out ov florida into other states.  while i don't claim to have the education or the general knowledge to have an opinion on specifically which bases/suppliers/whatever should be cut, i think cuts should be distributed (as) evenly (as possible) across the country.

Maybe you should do a google search...........have you ever run for US Congress?

I have: there were 150,000 voters who voted for me!

But I agree with you that we can make across the board cuts in our defense contracts and have the contractors figure out ways to save in their own operations.

Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon should be forced to streamline their operations........we simply cannot afford the bloated contracts that have been awarded.

QuoteGolden decade is ending for defense industry, and stocks
By Jonathan Fahey, Associated Press

NEW YORK â€" The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down, Osama bin Laden is dead, and the federal government is deeply in debt. This spells the end of what was a golden decade for the defense industry.


In the decade since the Sept. 11 attacks, the annual defense budget has more than doubled to $700 billion and annual defense industry profits have nearly quadrupled, approaching $25 billion last year.

Now defense spending is poised to retreat, and so are industry profits. "We're about to go into the downhill side of the roller coaster here," said David Berteau, a defense industry analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

MORE: Cutting defense won't be easy
Congress agreed last month to cut military spending by $350 billion over the next 10 years. The defense budget will automatically be cut another $500 billion over that period if lawmakers fail to reach a deficit-cutting deal by November

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2011/08/Golden-decade-is-ending-for-defense-industry-and-stocks/50000766/1

Quote from: FayeforCure on August 24, 2011, 11:17:47 AM

Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on August 23, 2011, 03:06:00 PM
i'm not surprised.  faye's a lot like me--all talk, no action.

bridge, i don't think focusing on florida's the way to do it--that makes it look like we're just moving military dollars out ov florida into other states.  while i don't claim to have the education or the general knowledge to have an opinion on specifically which bases/suppliers/whatever should be cut, i think cuts should be distributed (as) evenly (as possible) across the country.

Maybe you should do a google search...........have you ever run for US Congress?

I have: there were 150,000 voters who voted for me!

But I agree with you that we can make across the board cuts in our defense contracts and have the contractors figure out ways to save in their own operations.

Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon should be forced to streamline their operations........we simply cannot afford the bloated contracts that have been awarded.

QuoteGolden decade is ending for defense industry, and stocks
By Jonathan Fahey, Associated Press

NEW YORK – The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down, Osama bin Laden is dead, and the federal government is deeply in debt. This spells the end of what was a golden decade for the defense industry.


In the decade since the Sept. 11 attacks, the annual defense budget has more than doubled to $700 billion and annual defense industry profits have nearly quadrupled, approaching $25 billion last year.

Now defense spending is poised to retreat, and so are industry profits. "We're about to go into the downhill side of the roller coaster here," said David Berteau, a defense industry analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

MORE: Cutting defense won't be easy
Congress agreed last month to cut military spending by $350 billion over the next 10 years. The defense budget will automatically be cut another $500 billion over that period if lawmakers fail to reach a deficit-cutting deal by November

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2011/08/Golden-decade-is-ending-for-defense-industry-and-stocks/50000766/1

So... did you run on cutting any Florida bases?  Any Florida based defense contracts?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 24, 2011, 12:20:03 PM
So... did you run on cutting any Florida bases?  Any Florida based defense contracts?

You mean, I can't do what Republicans do and run on:
1. Cut Taxes
2. Small government

That's all I ever hear Republicans talk about besides the customary social issues like abortion, guns and gays and of course some other anti-women issues.

And then get elected to cut disability, medicare, social security, education and unemployment benefits?

So what you are saying is... like most democrats... you talk about cutting defense spending... but just not in my state or district.  The state of Florida thanks you... :)

Quote from: FayeforCure on August 24, 2011, 03:53:42 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 24, 2011, 12:20:03 PM
So... did you run on cutting any Florida bases?  Any Florida based defense contracts?

You mean, I can't do what Republicans do and run on:
1. Cut Taxes
2. Small government

That's all I ever hear Republicans talk about besides the customary social issues like abortion, guns and gays and of course some other anti-women issues.

And then get elected to cut disability, medicare, social security, education and unemployment benefits?

IT's the permanent mantra of the republicans...personally i think that they all forgot that they are'nt the only ones on in the universe and it's not all about them...history will tell the truth and it will scream...."thier way causes mayhem..." the republican party reminds me of the roman empire way back when they were killing anyone that did'nt believe in jesus...lol...i'm sure there are republican leaders along with their preachers that would love to bring back the ole ways...."if they aint like us...killem..."