King George W still in the news - Politics and War Forum
Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Quoted incase link goes dead.
Original copy too.
By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer Pamela Hess, Associated Press Writer wrote:
15 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The Bush administration built an unprecedented surveillance operation to pull in mountains of information far beyond the warrantless wiretapping previously acknowledged, a team of federal inspectors general reported Friday, questioning the legal basis for the effort but shielding almost all details on grounds they're still too secret to reveal.
The report, compiled by five inspectors general, refers to "unprecedented collection activities" by U.S. intelligence agencies under an executive order signed by President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Just what those activities involved remains classified, but the IGs pointedly say that any continued use of the secret programs must be "carefully monitored."
The report says too few relevant officials knew of the size and depth of the program, let alone signed off on it. They particularly criticize John Yoo, a deputy assistant attorney general who wrote legal memos undergirding the policy. His boss, Attorney General John Ashcroft, was not aware until March 2004 of the exact nature of the intelligence operations beyond wiretapping that he had been approving for the previous two and a half years, the report says.
Most of the intelligence leads generated under what was known as the "President's Surveillance Program" did not have any connection to terrorism, the report said. But FBI agents told the authors that the "mere possibility of the leads producing useful information made investigating the leads worthwhile."
The inspectors general interviewed more than 200 people inside and outside the government, but five former Bush administration officials refused to be questioned. They were Ashcroft, Yoo, former CIA Director George Tenet, former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and David Addington, an aide to former Vice President Dick Cheney.
According to the report, Addington could personally decide who in the administration was "read into" — allowed access to — the classified program.
The only piece of the intelligence-gathering operation acknowledged by the Bush White House was the wiretapping-without-warrants effort. The administration admitted in 2005 that it had allowed the National Security Agency to intercept international communications that passed through U.S. cables without seeking court orders.
Although the report documents Bush administration policies, its fallout could be a problem for the Obama administration if it inherited any or all of the still-classified operations.
Bush started the warrantless wiretapping program under the authority of a secret court in 2006, and Congress authorized most of the intercepts in a 2008 electronic surveillance law. The fate of the remaining and still classified aspects of the wider surveillance program is not clear from the report.
The report's revelations came the same day that House Democrats said that CIA Director Leon Panetta had ordered one eight-year-old classified program shut down after learning lawmakers had never been apprised of its existence.
The IG report said that President Bush signed off on both the warrantless wiretapping and other top-secret operations shortly after Sept. 11 in a single presidential authorization. All the programs were periodically reauthorized, but except for the acknowledged wiretapping, they "remain highly classified."
The report says it's unclear how much valuable intelligence the program has yielded.
The report, mandated by Congress last year, was delivered to lawmakers Friday.
Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., told The Associated Press she was shocked to learn of the existence of other classified programs beyond the warrantless wiretapping.
Former Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made a terse reference to other classified programs in an August 2007 letter to Congress. But Harman said that when she had asked Gonzales two years earlier if the government was conducting any other undisclosed intelligence activities, he denied it.
"He looked me in the eye and said 'no,'" she said Friday.
Robert Bork Jr., Gonzales' spokesman, said, "It has clearly been determined that he did not intend to mislead anyone."
In the wake of the new report, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt, renewed his call Friday for a formal nonpartisan inquiry into the government's information-gathering programs.
Former CIA Director Michael Hayden — the primary architect of the program_ told the report's authors that the surveillance was "extremely valuable" in preventing further al-Qaida attacks. Hayden said the operations amounted to an "early warning system" allowing top officials to make critical judgments and carefully allocate national security resources to counter threats.
Information gathered by the secret program played a limited role in the FBI's overall counterterrorism efforts, according to the report. Very few CIA analysts even knew about the program and therefore were unable to fully exploit it in their counterrorism work, the report said.
The report questioned the legal advice used by Bush to set up the program, pinpointing omissions and questionable legal memos written by Yoo, in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. The Justice Department withdrew the memos years ago.
The report says Yoo's analysis approving the program ignored a law designed to restrict the government's authority to conduct electronic surveillance during wartime, and did so without fully notifying Congress. And it said flaws in Yoo's memos later presented "a serious impediment" to recertifying the program.
Yoo insisted that the president's wiretapping program had only to comply with Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure — but the report said Yoo ignored the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act, which had previously overseen federal national security surveillance.
"The notion that basically one person at the Justice Department, John Yoo, and Hayden and the vice president's office were running a program around the laws that Congress passed, including a reinterpretation of the Fourth Amendment, is mind boggling," Harman said.
House Democrats are pressing for legislation that would expand congressional access to secret intelligence briefings, but the White House has threatened to veto it.
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
You've violated the war forum rules by posting something that is not anti-democrat or anti-obama.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Sold my beloved J in April 2010 -
If Wire taping kept another 9-11 from going down is bad....
How should he have done it Oh so mighty one?
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
I figured this scandal would lure some of his kind out from under the woodwork. Too bad Bush isn't still president. Then he too could fire inspector generals that were nosing around in his secret business dealings. But I digress.
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
I choose........Enjoy. Now enjoy the following AP report, found at foxnews.com
Hayden Says He Informed Congress of Surveillance Program
In an interview with The Associated Press, former CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden maintained that top members of Congress were kept well-informed all along the way, notwithstanding protests from some that they were kept in the dark.
AP
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Former CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden angrily struck back Saturday at assertions the Bush administration's post-9/11 surveillance program was more far-reaching than imagined and was largely concealed from congressional overseers.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Hayden maintained that top members of Congress were kept well-informed all along the way, notwithstanding protests from some that they were kept in the dark.
"One of the points I had in every one of the briefings was to make sure they understood the scope of our activity 'They've got to know this is bigger than a bread box,' I said," said Hayden, who also previously headed the National Security Agency.
"At the political level this had support," said the one-time CIA chief, jumping foursquare into an escalating controversy that has caused deep political divisions and lingering debate on the counterterrorism policies of an administration now out of power.
Hayden was reacting to a report issued Friday by a team of U.S. inspectors general which called the surveillance program in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks "unprecedented." The report also questioned the program's legal rationale and the excessive secrecy that enshrouded it.
Hayden, who in 2001 designed and carried out the secret program, told The AP he is distressed by suggestions that Congress was not fully informed. He said that he personally briefed top lawmakers on the entire surveillance operation and said he felt that they supported it.
The details of the wider surveillance program described by the federal investigative report remain classified. The program included the wiretapping of American phone and computer lines and was intended to detect communications from the al-Qaida terrorist network. That was revealed by the New York Times in 2005 and later confirmed by then-President George W. Bush.
Several Democratic members of the House and Senate expressed surprise and concern Friday about the still-secret surveillance program.
Hayden asserted that just weeks after Bush approved the activity, senior Republicans and Democrats on the intelligence committees in the House and Senate started getting briefed regularly on its details. He said these sessions happened about four times a year. Hayden also said the number of lawmakers informed was intentionally kept small because the program was highly classified.
On occasion, he said, the briefing audience was expanded to include top members of the House and Senate leadership as well.
Hayden also said that the members of Congress who were briefed were told the average daily level of surveillance activity and the cumulative activity since the program started. And he said the meetings nearly always occurred at the White House, with Vice President Dick Cheney in attendance.
The Bush surveillance program has been contentious since it was first revealed, raising concerns about the extent of secret activities undertaken since the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington and the potential violation of civil liberties. Indeed, the report released Friday said that most of the information gathered under the wider program ultimately did not have any connection to terrorism.
It was so secret that few members of Bush's inner circle were "read in" on the program. Even John Ashcroft, who was attorney general at the time, got an accurate description of one surveillance activity only two years after he first certified it as legal. And his initial request to brief his chief of staff and deputy on the program were refused by the White House.
Just what those activities involved remains classified, but the report released Friday pointedly said that any continued use of the information gathered in the secret programs must be "carefully monitored."
Bush authorized the warrantless wiretapping program under the authority of a secret court in 2006, and Congress approved most of the intercepts in a 2008 electronic surveillance law. The fate of the remaining and still-classified aspects of the wider surveillance program is not clear from the report.
In the interview Saturday, Hayden called the program extremely valuable and said that it served as an early warning system to help prevent further al-Qaida attacks.
Some members of Congress are calling for a full independent inquiry and others are urging further congressional investigations.
Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat, told The AP Friday that she was shocked by the report. She said she asked former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales -- after the wiretapping was revealed in 2005 -- whether the government was conducting any other undisclosed intelligence activities. She said he told her there were no additional operations.
Robert Bork Jr., Gonzales' spokesman, said Friday: "It has clearly been determined that he did not intend to mislead anyone."
In a separate but related move, House Democrats are pressing for legislation that would expand congressional access to secret intelligence briefings. The Obama administration has threatened to veto it over concerns about protecting secrecy.
I'm sure this is another glaring example of how the CIA lies to Pelosi and Co.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Viper98912 wrote:You've violated the war forum rules by posting something that is not anti-democrat or anti-obama.
Funny, since this forum has pretty much been a Bush and Republican bashing forum since the beginning. Now that a radical Democrat is in office, and there is a lot of opposition, everyone seems to be getting their panties in a bunch that the Bush bashing isn't at the forefront.
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:If Wire taping kept another 9-11 from going down is bad....
How should he have done it Oh so mighty one?
You're looking for a solution or suggestion from someone who does nothing but nay-say and try to belittle everything? 
Viper98912 wrote:You've violated the war forum rules by posting something that is not anti-democrat or anti-obama.
Yea, people seem to forget how it was under the his majesty ruling, which is why history repeats it self often. But believe me on this, the 7-10 haters are going to unite like flies to $hit. Let them decide which is what.
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:If Wire taping kept another 9-11 from going down is bad....
How should he have done it Oh so mighty one?
Chris
IMO, just by following the time line ever since Bush was campaigning all the way to the moment when he lied and insisted to our nation that we must go into Iraq; if you ask me, there was not going to be another 9/11. Bush and his administration main objective was met at the fall of Hussien, therefore: Mission Accomplished.
All of this wire taping is the same crap that Nixon pulled and all it does is interfere with your liberties. Homeland security is just a false of sense of security, it's there so the average folks would "feel" safe.
Watch the first 10 mins on this for a laugh.
And if Bush wanted to really do something, we should had stayed in Afghanistan, the sheer act of us going to Iraq only proves that he had other motives.
But then again it is o.k. that he did that.
Also since you back up on your liberties being disenfranchised, and you love to reference US fore-fathers as if you understand it, here is a quote that one can only hope you understand it and know who said it.
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T wrote:IMO, just by following the time line ever since Bush was campaigning all the way to the moment when he lied and insisted to our nation that we must go into Iraq; if you ask me, there was not going to be another 9/11. Bush and his administration main objective was met at the fall of Hussien, therefore: Mission Accomplished.
All of this wire taping is the same crap that Nixon pulled and all it does is interfere with your liberties. Homeland security is just a false of sense of security, it's there so the average folks would "feel" safe.
How exactly do you want to attempt to explain away the fact that through surveillance they were able to track down and capture terrorists, and then get the information out of them that enabled us to thwart a similar level attack to 9/11 that was to be aimed at LA?
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Also since you back up on your liberties being disenfranchised, and you love to reference US fore-fathers as if you understand it, here is a quote that one can only hope you understand it and know who said it.
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."
While I agree with the premise, I'm curious if you think Franklin could have conceived terrorism against civilians as we see in our day, able to be organized through technology that people of that time probably could never have conceived.
And that was his opinion, not an amendment to the constitution. However, if we found out that agents were eavesdropping on private conversations that had nothing to do with criminal activityn or suspected criminal activity, then they should be held accountable.
But, if we're talking about agents eavesdropping on a quickstop owner, who is transfering thousands of dollars every week to his "brother" in yemen, a brother with ties to known terrorist groups, then I'm ok with that.
You guys that want to know every state secret need to stop reading so many grisham/clancy novels and go plant some tomatoes or something.
.,
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
so bush made a mistake or two... clinton did too.... they're all human... even obama.... but seriously things were alot better 6 of the 8 years Bush was president. And lets not forget how this great nation is run. Its a democracy, not a dictatorship.... Bush was up against a host of dems that was NOT easy to work with. When things started slacking off is when Bush started slacking off....especially these bailouts... if any bailing out needed to be done, the hard working american taxpayer should've been... not overpaid CEO's and certainly not free loaders which is what this socialist bastard obama is pushing for......
but 2012 I'm voting Palin.....wether she's republican, democrat or independant....
-Red-
We never left Afghanistan. the media just didn't cover it.
Wanna see pics from 05?
I'm with you there Red.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
....thanks....its good to hear that someone stands with me...or I with them....or whatever...lol....
yeah, I'm afraid the US is one of the biggest brown nosers in the northern hemisphere... Seems we can take care of everyone else except our own.... Iraq were there... Afgan...were there... pakistan....there and back again...
but new york? chicago?.....what about florida....there's plenty of houses down there for the homeless of those cities...lol...I mean, it should be common sense... what makes us think we can take care of other countries when we can't take care of ourselves?
and as for the eavesdropping, its government... there's a whole lot more of other corruption going on than that..... I mean, if you can get on google and type in your addy and zoom in on satellite on your own home, you shouldn't be surprised when the government "eavesdrops"....
and I think the media is another problem in our country.... we need more foxnews channels...
-Red-
Quiklilcav wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T wrote:IMO, just by following the time line ever since Bush was campaigning all the way to the moment when he lied and insisted to our nation that we must go into Iraq; if you ask me, there was not going to be another 9/11. Bush and his administration main objective was met at the fall of Hussien, therefore: Mission Accomplished.
All of this wire taping is the same crap that Nixon pulled and all it does is interfere with your liberties. Homeland security is just a false of sense of security, it's there so the average folks would "feel" safe.
How exactly do you want to attempt to explain away the fact that through surveillance they were able to track down and capture terrorists, and then get the information out of them that enabled us to thwart a similar level attack to 9/11 that was to be aimed at LA?
You know better than this. The power to perform all essential surveillance LEGALLY was already in place since 1978 by
FISA. Allow me to underline some key points.
Quote:
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources to spy on political and activist groups, which violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The act was created to provide Judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security. It allowed surveillance, without court order, within the United States for up to one year unless the "surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". If a United States person is involved, judicial authorization was required within 72 hours after surveillance begins.
Under these rules (which where laid in place to prevent misuse) - The powers of the intelligence community are not harmed one bit - they simply have to report what they are doing and why.
While I understand that some people feel the 2nd Amendment is the only important part of The Constitution, fact is that we need to follow the whole thing. As for the very reason that FISA was formed - well with the way Bush discarded FISA's oversight(which has no effect except to prevent abuse) and since Obama is (sadly) now taking the same argument as Bush - Obama could order a wiretap on all Michael Steele's phones, on his families phones - and really on any phone of anyone who opposes Obama. No one would stop him - in fact with no oversight, no one would likely ever know. Luckily, I'm sure you trust Obama just as much as you trusted Bush, so I'm sure its no big deal right?
Quiklilcav wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Also since you back up on your liberties being disenfranchised, and you love to reference US fore-fathers as if you understand it, here is a quote that one can only hope you understand it and know who said it.
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."
While I agree with the premise, I'm curious if you think Franklin could have conceived terrorism against civilians as we see in our day, able to be organized through technology that people of that time probably could never have conceived.
Consider that maybe Benjamin Franklin wasn't a coward. The technology wasn't there, but do you think that civilians where not killed by the enemy? Back in the days before "nice" warfare - civilians where intentional targets. Even without the technology though - people understood the importance of information in war. Ever heard the old phrase "loose lips sink ships" or such? Prostitution may be the worlds oldest profession, but I'll bet spying is not far behind. If you think that our forefathers thought as you do - then why include the 4th amendment at all?
Patrick Henry wrote:Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!
Our forefathers held their freedom up as being even more important than their very lives. Don't tell me that they'd support trading in those freedoms for any kind of protection from any threat ever.
And as for the argument about our forefathers failing to foresee technology - well couldn't Liberals say the same about the 2nd amendment? Our forefathers never had full auto 50 cal machine guns either. Plus modern advancements mean that not only do we have advanced law enforcement means, we don't need guns to procure food to feed our families - in short we simply don't NEED guns at all. But seriously - what does that matter? Rights are rights and are not supposed to be striped from us by the flow of time. Perhaps now you see where that argument is flawed.
we don't need guns? obviously you don't live in the country. If I want squirrel soup for supper, I sure as hell ain't runnin that mf down with my bowie....nor my pocket knife...
same as farming... if coyotes are getting into my livestock, what am I supposed to do? Guns are a form of protection, and we have a right to protect ourselves...and our livestock. Some people prefer to grow their own food and some people still enjoy hunting their own food. it all goes back to how you choose to use it. see education is the answer, not bans.... this is why you have crime, because alot of uneducated idiots are running around with guns. but the same with automobiles. Drugs, alcohol...etc... the point is we need better education and a gravity of the consequences of our choices.
-Red-
^LOL That is one way of looking at it.
Quote:
"we need more foxnews channels..."
"things were alot better 6 of the 8 years Bush was president"
"2012 I'm voting Palin.....wether she's republican, democrat or independant"
Please tell me you're kidding on that?
Otherwise, you have it pretty clear on how crap is.
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:We never left Afghanistan. the media just didn't cover it.
Wanna see pics from 05?
I'm with you there Red.
Chris
You're right, it's just 85% of troop coverage and focus left Afganistan and went to Iraq.
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
no, I'm serious....I'm voting Palin 2012....if she runs.... I agree with fox news and would watch it if I could afford my directv.... and things were better, for me, 6 of the 8 years of Bush. Yeah, it was about 2006 when I first got laid off for a week or two.... but no big deal, I still had a job. 2007 I got laid off a few times that year. lol....last year.....sucked..... this year I've been laid off 12 weeks.... I have 10 weeks to go before my unemployment runs out and I have to file for an extention....
now why is this? because people in china can work for next to nothing and make furniture cheaper than I can..... but 10 years down the road, I'm still using the same computer desk I built. my uncle has been through 3 china models.....imo, NAFTA should be repealed....
-Red-
Red wrote:no, I'm serious....I'm voting Palin 2012....if she runs.... I agree with fox news and would watch it if I could afford my directv.... and things were better, for me, 6 of the 8 years of Bush. Yeah, it was about 2006 when I first got laid off for a week or two.... but no big deal, I still had a job. 2007 I got laid off a few times that year. lol....last year.....sucked..... this year I've been laid off 12 weeks.... I have 10 weeks to go before my unemployment runs out and I have to file for an extention....
now why is this? because people in china can work for next to nothing and make furniture cheaper than I can..... but 10 years down the road, I'm still using the same computer desk I built. my uncle has been through 3 china models.....imo, NAFTA should be repealed....
If we're in such a monetary mess now, what makes you think repealing NAFTA would change anything? Would money magically appear to pay US workers higher wages?
no, but US workers would have a job...................................its not complicated so stop making it out to be. Does the government get taxes from chinese workers? no....
I'm just saying that NAFTA is one of the biggest reasons why we don't have any jobs in america. Repealing it wouldn't magically pay US workers higher wages. What sense does that make? NAFTA is like cancer. it didn't show any affects immediately. but it slowly decayed our economy. look at the 90's and how much "booming" business was doing. everywhere was hiring. thats because the previous administrations had set it up and invested in the american people. its kinda like farming....you don't harvest in the spring when you plant crops.....
and its an impatient attitude that so many people have today. magically appear...lol...what a laugh....US workers should be paid by their skill/education/qualification....not just because we're US workers. the min wage should've stayed at $5.15/hour.... that way 16 year old teenagers could "work their way up" the ladder of success... but now its all being handed to them....where's the discipline at?
-Red-
If you want to increase jobs in America, and reduce the number of jobs being shipped over seas, stop taxing the piss out of American businesses who employee people here. Simple as that. I've said it before, but a company will never send a job overseas if it can avoid it and still remain competitive. When you continue to increase the cost of operating and employing people in this country, the cost of relocating becomes the lesser of two evils.
Red wrote:now why is this? because people in china can work for next to nothing and make furniture cheaper than I can
Red wrote:Repealing it wouldn't magically pay US workers higher wages. What sense does that make?
so you're saying we should pay American workers what we pay Chinese workers then?
So we repeal NAFTA, and then there's all of a sudden jobs for Americans. Ok....sounds good. Where's the money to pay those workers coming from?
I love how people think "oh, just take back NAFTA and there's all of a sudden jobs and money for everyone!!!!"
That's not how it works. The companies that utilise outsourcing do it for a reason. Do you really think those big manufacturers would stay here, pay higher prices/wages to produce the items(at a higher cost to the consumer I might add)? No, they would move to other countries where it would still be a ton cheaper to produce the same product.
Red wrote:and its an impatient attitude that so many people have today. magically appear...lol...what a laugh....US workers should be paid by their skill/education/qualification....not just because we're US workers. the min wage should've stayed at $5.15/hour.... that way 16 year old teenagers could "work their way up" the ladder of success... but now its all being handed to them....where's the discipline at?
maybe people need to come to the realization that not everyone deserves to own a home. Not everyone deserves that high paying job. Not everyone deserves what everyone they see on TV has. Not everyone deserves a higher education.
And who justifies what a persons skill is worth? Unions that have done us so well in the past? Maybe those Chinese working for pennies on the dollar ARE dictating the value of that skill. What then?
Yet leave it to Americans to feel so entitled that we can just have our government/taxes fund those things they think they deserve.
yep, I have to agree.....but its still fun blaming NAFTA.....lol....
if it costs a business 3 million dollars to operate in america and 2 million in china.....duh...which one would you choose?
but you left out a choice that alot of businesses opt that can't afford to relocate. Pay under the table. unfortunately this system allows parasites who are feeding from the government to pack their pockets and rob the American taxpayer.
-Red-
Quote:
so you're saying we should pay American workers what we pay Chinese workers then?Quote:
no, I'm saying that fed min wage should've stayed where it was. now it costs more for employers to pay their employees.... if chinese workers want to work for pennies, then thats their problem.
and have I not said that it took time for this decay to happen....why would it be a sudden fix that you're making it out to be? no its not going to happen over night. but it would be a start.
and as far as unions are concerned are they not somewhat of the problem in the automotive industry? I don't see the purpose of a union.
and I'm NOT for govt funding houses and the whims of people who don't care. people play the system... there's plenty of them around here on disability, living on welfare, cheating the system.... don't even try to make it out like thats what I'm saying b/c its not....
as far as I'm concerned, I'm a hard working American Taxpayer. My education is woodworking and agriculture. I chose not to go to college, big deal. and I started out at min wage. But I worked my way up the ladder.... the harder I worked, the higher my wages went. Thats all I'm saying....
and if you don't wanna own your own home thats fine. rent for the rest of your life... thats okay... we have a right to choose that.....
but NAFTA took what the government thought to be "second hand jobs" and gave them to other countries, North America Free Trade Agreement.... free trade... free trade.... tell me what you believe in free trade.... 9.5% unemployment is part of a result in free trade.... and as far as furniture, there is a different quality in chinese and american.... Don't F*ck with me on this issue, I know what I'm talkin about..... I can smoke any chinese on furniture.... besides, somethings wrong when its cheaper to buy new than to repair....
-Red-
plus its pretty bad when you go to lowes to by an American flag and its made in china....
-Red-
Red wrote:no, I'm serious....I'm voting Palin 2012....if she runs.... I agree with fox news and would watch it if I could afford my directv.... and things were better, for me, 6 of the 8 years of Bush. Yeah, it was about 2006 when I first got laid off for a week or two.... but no big deal, I still had a job. 2007 I got laid off a few times that year. lol....last year.....sucked..... this year I've been laid off 12 weeks.... I have 10 weeks to go before my unemployment runs out and I have to file for an extention....
now why is this? because people in china can work for next to nothing and make furniture cheaper than I can..... but 10 years down the road, I'm still using the same computer desk I built. my uncle has been through 3 china models.....imo, NAFTA should be repealed....
Sorry to hear on Palin and Fox.
Red. You do realize that George H. Bush was the grandfather of NAFTA and not to mention it was Republican backed it too and yes Clinton finished it. Think about how this screwed workers all in the name of maximizing profit. This is where government should not interfere.
Worst thing about it, consumers WILL NEVER see a price difference whether the american name product was built here, or Mexico, or China.
Also you want to build here, then remove what Reagan imposed, by having tax loop holes if you build outside. Last thing we need is corporate tax welfare. Unfortunately, and truth be told, politicians want to be re-elected and, well.... since corporations has the big $$$ for campaigns, it is only natural for them to side with corporations and not the people.
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
