theloniusfleabag

Dear Toro and August1991, What I am saying is that the US, under Bush, is doing the things that take a country in the direction of bankruptcy, and are not taking any steps in the other direction. Sure, August, the gov't retains the ability to tax...but this one not only refuses, but is cutting taxes instead.

Dear August1991, That should be dictated by the markets, if corn were not profitable in a 'fair' market, farmers would produce something else. Besides, should Canada simply give up competing on every product the US trades unfairly in? Perhaps those softwood lumber producers should simply find other jobs...from... http://www.northern-crops.com/crops/crops.htm#corn Corn grows all over the world, but evidently 'Taber corn' (from southern Alberta) is one of the best.

Dear August1991, What of those that vote according to the will of the majority of their constituents? Shall they go the way of Kilgour and Kindy? What of those that ignore the majority will of the constituents? This statement is, again, patently absurd and typical of Canadian 'pseudo-democracy'. That is the most asinine thing I have read in a long time. I am not saying it might not have been true 1% of the time, but 99% of the time, Afghani drugs (opium and hashish) enter N. America, until recently, pretty much straight across for arms.

Dear Sparhawk, That is the second biggest problem. The first one is... I am pretty sure they wouldn't. I would be in favour of both.

Dear Toro, I meant it not as a practical influence, but as a 'faith' one. The 'greenback' is the reserve currency of the world, (especially in black markets) but only because (lately) of faith in it's value. Indeed, but should the EU iron out it's wrinkles, that won't be an issue. Mind you, the Pound Sterling lost it's place on the throne, without grevious harm to the UK, but the USA is in a bit of a different position.

Dear Argus, I don't think you have to go that far back, just 50 yrs or so. There is also a difference with what youdescribe as 'coddled and protected'. It is not a sheltering from (bad) influence, but rather from responsibility. In most families nowadays, both parents work, leaving Madonna, "Puff Daddy" and pop culture (television, mostly) to be their moral influences, and have coupled that with countless 'cop-out' excuses why their actions 'aren't their fault'.

Dear Sparhawk, At the end of a stressful day, a relaxing smoke keeps me from killing. Seriously, though, it is not only addictive but 'habit forming' (I believe there is a difference, and cigarettes have both). Billions in tax revenue, nothing more. If it were a simple case of 'personal freedoms', it would have been deemed a dangerous and 'defective' (by choice) product that would have been taken off the market. That is the claim pushed by the tobacco companies, and it is not challenged by the gov't because of the enormous tax revenues.

Dear Leader Circle, While greasy fast food may be addictive to some, grease it is not considered an 'additive to enhance addiction'. ('Rotten Ronnie's' always gives me a stomach ache...if I ever go there again perhaps that's what I'll ask for)Were they to experiment with adding ammonia to enhance the 'kick' of the euphoric high from the grease, then they might be dancing in the lawsuit category...a link from a tobacco study... http://www.ash.org.uk/html/regulation/html/additives.html

Dear Toro, Just conjecture, really, if whopping (and growing) budget and trade deficits can't be seen as 'evidence'. From...http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm From...http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/ from...http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/quagmire/ The 'action-reaction' sequence costs are enormous and unrecoverable, and are akin to 'drilling another hole in a leaky boat to let the water out'.I'll have to finish this later, but I shall be alluding to how they have geared their economy to only live off the 'gravy' of international markets, keeping the head offices in the US while outsourcing everything else they can, and relying solely on 'consuming'. Also, and probably the biggest threat, and danger, is China and it's rapidly expanding growth, and it's enormous 'resource buying power'. much more to follow...

Dear August1991, You are correct, to a degree, but it lessens consumer buying power, and affects the GDP negatively. That is why the second graph is misleading. One cannot ride the numbers (or sales commisions) of a 'loss leader' by increasing volume. (not a perfect analogy, I admit) As I said, . Bush could tax it in, but he chooses not to. The longer he goes this way, the higher the tax rate to recoup the expenditures will be. It is, in my opinion, already too late to consider that as the only solution. I believe that this was a response to your claim that Toro is right, it should eventually render a currency worthless. It is very similar to simply printing more 'scrip', if you can't back it up, you might as well try to use "Monopoly Money" at the store.

Dear Montgomery Burns, I don't see 5% ownership as worrisome, it is not enough to have 'policy control', unless you see it as 'the thin end of the wedge'. Apart from 'fair and balanced' being laughable, I read from all of those news stations regularly. I am not sure how much further right CNN could go... when the invasion of Iraq happened, CNN was 'beating the war drum' the loudest, and I eventually got tired of the blatant 'pro-US propaganda' that filled up the hours between the minutes of actual news. If Fox is considered by some to be 'fair and balanced', they should be somewhere in the middle...yet I can't see how there could be any room to stand 'further right' of it...

Here is an interesting news bit... http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle...n=theworld&col=

Dear August1991, Then why would anyone care? Why would Greenspan ever make any statement about it? What about it's direction? Bush needed tax hikes, not tax cuts....I realize you state however, how is it possible to claim "I promise to take in less and less, and promise to spend more and more"? True for you though, that they are in not much of a different position than a bank, stable unless everyone calls in their chits at the same time. But there has to be rules amd limits, or else everyone and their dog could be an international banker.The US is on the brink. I am not hoping for their demise, even as a 'leftist', because I believe that they were once a great nation and can be again. However, they do not now have a 'long term, winning policy', and unless there are some serious fundamental changes, they are one 'serious' war away from collapse. Even one 'phyrric victory' would kill them.

Dear August1991, Sparhawk is quite right, though, no other company could sell something as harmful and get away with it. If 'cornflakes' were practically guaranteed to kill you, but they were allowed to instill additives to make you addicted, how long would they be on the market? (and not just from consumer demand dropping, but from the gov't and health authorities)

Dear August1991, I think you misunderstand. Greenspan knows it, Bush ignores it. Bush, as did Reagan, are using deficit spending as an 'overdraft', and have left out the accomanying stopgaps, such as raising interest rates for the budget deficit (at the risk of strangling the economy), and slashing imports for the trade deficit (Huge trade deficits should cause a devaluation of the dollar, also include interest rate hikes as a remedy for this). The US has done neither because they continue to float along on huge foreign investment. A quote... from...http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Dick_Cheney...t_+_Economy.htm

Dear Canuck E Stan, Thanks for the correction. Wacky dude. I had heard he was also quite a boozer and a jerk to boot, but you know how rumours fly.

Dear Cartman, If everyone keeps believing that the Emperor's New Clothes' are valuable, then there is no need to worry. From the book "Future: Tense, by Gwynne Dyer pg. 130... From the same book, pg.36, However, it seems that the USA has only taken one quote from Dyer's book to heart and adopted it...pg110...

Dear FTA Lawyer, I can explain it, but please don't think I am defending or 'in favour' of it. Sexual consent is meant to be a 'private(s) activity' whereas pornography (or picture taking) is not. That is, a 14 yr old is deemed to be responsible enough to make a choice as to whether or not to have sex, but not responsible enough to make cogent decisions regarding the ramifications of distribution or publication of the act or their bodies. I believe that the '2 yr difference law' should be, at minimum, applied from 14-18 inclusive. (Some of my friends were in University at 17yrs, so they would have seen sex with an older woman, say 30yrs, as a 'big score') I know times are different, but women used to get married at 14, and 18yr olds were called 'old maids' if they were still single. Evidently, Jerry Lee Lewis, at about 40 yrs, married his 13 yr old cousin (though it did cost him some 'prestige'). The question is, how do we best criminalize the sexual exploitation of minors without infringing on their own rights to 'sexual exploration'?

Dear PocketRocket, It is the most powerful seat there is though! That is why it is called 'the throne'! Actually, it is where I get all my best thinking done...mind you, I don't want to see any 'white papers' after they have been 'legislated upon'...I have often thought that the workings of the legislature resembled peristalsis...

Dear PocketRocket, He was made that way, much as Jesus 'got whiter'. Buddha was Indian, but his teachings spread to the orient.

Dear Argus, The law is a bit kooky with regard to age of consent, but there is a quote and link... It seems that the age of consent is meant to have a stipulation that between 14-18, one can only consent to sex with another person within 2 years of the other person. However, as I say, there are all sorts of kooky stipulations. You'll have to read through the link yourself to see them.

Dear Argus, So silly, but so true. Only the Gov't could open a 'Quickie-Mart' and boast they've created thousands of jobs...

Dear eureka, 'John Q. Public' would find out quite easily from the media about what the specifics would be. The Liberals have said they were going to table it twice now, but then shelved it both times. (First time was due to an election, the second I believe is due to only having a minority gov't. ) I think just about every media pundit, journalist and 'blogger' will have a say about this one, from those extolling it to those abhoring it. There will be no dearth of info or opinion on this one, should it come to pass.

Dear Argus, Could anyone say "I have a legitimate interest in your wife because I need to drain my balls'"? Is the taking of something you covet (when there are other ways to be satisfied, though they may be not as gratifying) a form of defence of a 'right'?

Dear Shady, Actually, it is the 'neo-con warmongers' who have become indistinguishable from the 'terrorists'. That is; ignore the law or make up your own when it serves your purpose, declare that anyone that opposes you must be evil, and pretend that you are on the side of 'good'.