Military Industrial Complex: Bush and Halliburton

[Craig Lamson]

I personally dont have a big problem with all of this. Halliburton and its other companies certainly have the skills and the assets to perform these tasks. Someone is going to profit in WAR OR PEACE from government actions. And sure the principals of Halliburton made money but it also flowed downhill to a whole lot of other folks.

As for Cheney, are the yeary sums his pension? Again I've no problem with Cheney making money from his association with Halliburton. I'm a capitalist. I am a business owner. I support the process. I count my lucky stars that I live in a place and time that makes my choice to risk it all and chase my dreams possible. So as long as what Cheney and Halliburton has done is within the law, more power to them. If and when they break the law then punish them...its nothing more than I would expect for myself.

I am also a businessman who has made money out of the capitalist system. I also have the kind of political views that would get me locked up in so called “socialist” dictatorships. I am all in favour of political freedom, however I believe everybody should have this freedom, not just the rich and powerful.

As a result of my income, I pay a lot of money in taxes. I do not object to that. I believe it is important that wealth should be redistributed via the tax system. However, I am very concerned that this money is not wasted, especially on some monopoly contract that has been achieved via bribing the government.

I think we are getting good value for our money. Others may not agree. So be it. In addition as a stockholder of Halliburton I expect the company to use every legal method possible be a profitable as possible. I WANT them to work on the razors edge. If they are required to return monies, it makes me happy because in my book they are doing their job.

I won't complain about a tax increase to reduce debt, if thats how it actually gets used.

Well that explains your position. The issue for you is not about government corruption or getting into an unnecessary war, it is about whether you are getting a good return for your investment. That is why people like you are so keen on governments increasing money on military spending. It probably also explains why conservative extremists are so opposed to spending on social welfare. I suppose it is more difficult to make money out of this type of government spending.

You are right the issue for me is NOT about corruption as I explained eariler. I'm a realist, not and idealist, and as such I understand that corruption is an ever present human condition. Its simply never going away John, no matter how many idealists wish it so.

And yes I want the best return on my investment possible, why should I want anything less?

I dont feel the war is unecessary, in fact I think it was long overdue. I'm just wondering when the rest of the world will wake up.

I support military spending because its needed. There may come a time in the near future when your very existance might ride on the power of the American military. Oh wait, your very existance right now might be the result of American military power.

There is money to be made from social welfare spending as well. My objection to most of it is that it sucks the lifeblood from the people of the country. A strong and vibrant counrty is not a country that sucks from the tit of governent. Personal responsibility breeds strength, dependance on the government breeds weakness.

[Ron Ecker]

There is money to be made from social welfare spending as well. My objection to most of it is that it sucks the lifeblood from the people of the country. A strong and vibrant counrty is not a country that sucks from the tit of governent. Personal responsibility breeds strength, dependance on the government breeds weakness.

The problem is that in such a system as you idealize here, there are necessarily going to be people left behind and left without, and not because of some lack of effort on their part. There will be people and families who simply can't cut it in such a "strong and vibrant" system. This is just as much a fact of life as the corruption that you accept as a fact of life. It's fine to be a realist, I try to be one too, but one shouldn't be selective about it.

I know there are charities and all that for folks who can't cut it. But it's an absolute disgrace IMO that the U.S. can spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on the military, but can't provide its citizens, in this the most prosperous nation on earth, with free health care when they need it. Even folks who aren't poor are having trouble buying medication they have to have, because of the way the drug companies in this "strong and vibrant" system are gouging them simply because they can do it.

[Craig Lamson]

There is money to be made from social welfare spending as well. My objection to most of it is that it sucks the lifeblood from the people of the country. A strong and vibrant counrty is not a country that sucks from the tit of governent. Personal responsibility breeds strength, dependance on the government breeds weakness.

The problem is that in such a system as you idealize here, there are necessarily going to be people left behind and left without, and not because of some lack of effort on their part. There will be people and families who simply can't cut it in such a "strong and vibrant" system. This is just as much a fact of life as the corruption that you accept as a fact of life. It's fine to be a realist, I try to be one too, but one shouldn't be selective about it.

I know there are charities and all that for folks who can't cut it. But it's an absolute disgrace IMO that the U.S. can spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on the military, but can't provide its citizens, in this the most prosperous nation on earth, with free health care when they need it. Even folks who aren't poor are having trouble buying medication they have to have, because of the way the drug companies in this "strong and vibrant" system are gouging them simply because they can do it.

You are right that there will always be those that have and those that dont. I fully understand that. I'm not against safety nets, I'm against wholesale support.

We do supply a huge number of our citizens with health care ( and its not "free"). But that said not eveyone "needs" it. A good many choose simply not to purchase coverage making other choices instead. Its about personal responsibility. Some people make good choices and others don't. Hey, life is not fair...never has been. Thats reality.

If you don't like the way the Pharmas price their products you are free to start your own company to develop, produce and market drugs at a price point that makes you happy. Beat then at their own game...of course in no time someone is bound to whine about it and suggest that the government "fix" it.

Edited July 15, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Ron Ecker]

If you don't like the way the Pharmas price their products you are free to start your own company to develop, produce and market drugs at a price point that makes you happy.

Good idea! I wish I had thought of that sooner. I hope it's not too late to get started.

[Mark Stapleton]

If you don't like the way the Pharmas price their products you are free to start your own company to develop, produce and market drugs at a price point that makes you happy.

Good idea! I wish I had thought of that sooner. I hope it's not too late to get started.

The odds maybe stacked against you, Ron--unless of course you, too, can attach two lobbyists to every member of the US Congress and spend millions corrupting politicians to legislate favorably. Never fear, I can loan you ten bucks to get you started. (And don't worry, according to Craig, corruption is an ever present human condition)

[Ron Ecker]

I can loan you ten bucks to get you started.

Ten bucks? That won't even buy me a chemistry set. I'm discouraged already.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Pssst, Wanna buy some drugs!

[Craig Lamson]

Hey, life is not fair...never has been. Thats reality.

And the conservative is hellbent on making sure it stays just that way - unfair.

Conservatives always have the attitude: I'm ok, the hell if I care about you.

They oppossed an end to slavery and we'd have it still if it were up to conservatives.

They oppossed women's rights or rights for non-whites and we'd have it still if it were up to conservatives.

They oppossed the eight hour day and all other labor laws and we'd have them still if it were up to conservatives.

et al........ad nauseum

They oppose any kind of social services, welfare, safety nets, help for those in need, progress - domestic and foreign.

They always always seem to like conflict, war, injustice - as long as they are on the 'winning' end of it.

Exploitation....always been that way...no reason to change it if it 'aint broke.

I've got enough or lots of money - so why bother me about those that do not....they made 'their choice' I helped make for them.

It is 'broken'.....has long been...slowly we fight the Neaderthal in humans and make some slow progress.

It is not that a lack of life being fair is the continuous factor - but selfishness, ignorance and a lack of altruism.

We all once lived in the sea - things can change.....try it sometime. Change - positive change

You paint with such a wonderful broad brush, too bad you loaded it with BS before it hit the canvas. Take another sip of the koolaid Peter, you appear thirsty.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

I live in a World where the gap between rich and poor is greater than it was in Roman times, and shows no sign of stopping. A world where 36,000 children a DAY die needlessly, from either preventable disease's or starvation. A world that spends 10,000% more on weapons each year, than it does on aid. A world where one country consumes 25% of all natural resources, and where 40% of its population are classified as obese. A world, where according to most scientific research, human activity is raising the temperature to the point where within a 100 years life on the planet will not be viable. A world, where my country is about to ok 25 Billion pounds for a nuclear weapons upgrade, to protect us against a bunch of exiled terrorists, and old age pensioners have to chose between heating their hovels, or buying food. I wish I could be a realist, and not care a fig about any of this. It must be pleasant to be posessed of no social concience.

[Craig Lamson]

I live in a World where the gap between rich and poor is greater than it was in Roman times, and shows no sign of stopping. A world where 36,000 children a DAY die needlessly, from either preventable disease's or starvation. A world that spends 10,000% more on weapons each year, than it does on aid. A world where one country consumes 25% of all natural resources, and where 40% of its population are classified as obese. A world, where according to most scientific research, human activity is raising the temperature to the point where within a 100 years life on the planet will not be viable. A world, where my country is about to ok 25 Billion pounds for a nuclear weapons upgrade, to protect us against a bunch of exiled terrorists, and old age pensioners have to chose between heating their hovels, or buying food. I wish I could be a realist, and not care a fig about any of this. It must be pleasant to be posessed of no social concience.

You too are painting with that same broad brush.

You need to not assume so much.

[Craig Lamson]

Hey, life is not fair...never has been. Thats reality.

And the conservative is hellbent on making sure it stays just that way - unfair.

Conservatives always have the attitude: I'm ok, the hell if I care about you.

They oppossed an end to slavery and we'd have it still if it were up to conservatives.

They oppossed women's rights or rights for non-whites and we'd have it still if it were up to conservatives.

They oppossed the eight hour day and all other labor laws and we'd have them still if it were up to conservatives.

et al........ad nauseum

They oppose any kind of social services, welfare, safety nets, help for those in need, progress - domestic and foreign.

They always always seem to like conflict, war, injustice - as long as they are on the 'winning' end of it.

Exploitation....always been that way...no reason to change it if it 'aint broke.

I've got enough or lots of money - so why bother me about those that do not....they made 'their choice' I helped make for them.

It is 'broken'.....has long been...slowly we fight the Neaderthal in humans and make some slow progress.

It is not that a lack of life being fair is the continuous factor - but selfishness, ignorance and a lack of altruism.

We all once lived in the sea - things can change.....try it sometime. Change - positive change [Lemkin]

You paint with such a wonderful broad brush, too bad you loaded it with BS before it hit the canvas. Take another sip of the koolaid Peter, you appear thirsty. [Lamson]

------

I am not in the least changed in my opinion as being correctly and virtuously representing the majority on the planet - more so when the 'reply' is a one-liner put-down without substance. How do you define:

Justice, morality, fairness, equality - or are they just abstractions you don't care to be bothered about because you've 'got yours'. Might is not right. Riches make not morality. Fairness is for all not just you and your buddies. Etc. I'll let the majority on the planet [get it demos..democracy] decide - and history. There have always been those who oppose progress toward a better, more equal, more just, more fair, more progresive world...they are always the minority, sadly more often in control - or in their circles. They often spout 'democracy' but really like oligarchy or rigged heirarchy of some sort. Maybe you'll change, but even if you don't you are in a minority in America and a miniscule minority worldwide. The opposite is the religion of greed, domination, inequality, control, manipulation, cynicism. Your 'reality' is continuation of an artificial nightmare for most at the hands of the few, if we do not try to change it. IMO

My 'broad brush' is only broad in that it encompasses everyone - even the planet and all its nature of which we are not masters, but an integral part. The domination paradigm has gotten us exactly where we are and should not be - and won't be 'zip' if we don't soon change.

No Peter, your BROAD BRUSH, was directed not at EVERYONE but rather directed to one group, conservatives. And as such you painted everyone with conservative values with the same color. That is pure crap.

Of course those like you are simply used to spewing crap like this. Its how you operate. Your many post on this forum attest to that fact.

Its a big world, I'm sure you can find a place that fits your ideals. I can understand why the USA in not a place you would feel comfortable. You dont seem to have what it takes to compete.

Edited July 18, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[John Simkin]

There is money to be made from social welfare spending as well. My objection to most of it is that it sucks the lifeblood from the people of the country. A strong and vibrant counrty is not a country that sucks from the tit of governent. Personal responsibility breeds strength, dependance on the government breeds weakness.

The problem is that in such a system as you idealize here, there are necessarily going to be people left behind and left without, and not because of some lack of effort on their part. There will be people and families who simply can't cut it in such a "strong and vibrant" system. This is just as much a fact of life as the corruption that you accept as a fact of life. It's fine to be a realist, I try to be one too, but one shouldn't be selective about it.

I know there are charities and all that for folks who can't cut it. But it's an absolute disgrace IMO that the U.S. can spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on the military, but can't provide its citizens, in this the most prosperous nation on earth, with free health care when they need it. Even folks who aren't poor are having trouble buying medication they have to have, because of the way the drug companies in this "strong and vibrant" system are gouging them simply because they can do it.

You are right that there will always be those that have and those that dont. I fully understand that. I'm not against safety nets, I'm against wholesale support.

We do supply a huge number of our citizens with health care ( and its not "free"). But that said not eveyone "needs" it. A good many choose simply not to purchase coverage making other choices instead. Its about personal responsibility. Some people make good choices and others don't. Hey, life is not fair...never has been. Thats reality.

If you don't like the way the Pharmas price their products you are free to start your own company to develop, produce and market drugs at a price point that makes you happy. Beat then at their own game...of course in no time someone is bound to whine about it and suggest that the government "fix" it.

It seems that the US is very different from the rest of the developed world. Conservatives in other advanced economies fought hard against the introduction of a safety net (welfare state). They called it socialism (I believe you call our National Health system – socialized medicine).

This system, created for the first time in Sweden in the 1930s, and followed by the rest of the advanced countries after the Second World War, was in every case, extremely popular, and no government has been able to remove it. In the UK for example, the Conservative Party, led by Winston Churchill, fought the introduction of a welfare state (the main reason why Churchill was ousted from office in 1945). However, they had to accept defeat and since 1951 have accepted the principal of the welfare state, although they have tried to undermine it by a lack of spending and the privatization of certain aspects of the service.

If that is the case, why has the United States not followed our example? Well according to a recent posting by Nathaniel Heidenheimer, according to public opinion polls in the US, a large majority of the population would like to see a European styled welfare state. The problem for Americans is that they do not live in a democracy. Their only choice in elections is between two parties who are totally opposed to any reforms that would result in the redistribution of wealth. This is in itself a result of allowing the political process of being dominated by a ruling elite made up of very wealthy individuals. They fund and therefore control these two political parties.

This was always likely to happen with the introduction of democracy. In virtually every case, countries took measures that would stop this from happening. The US, probably because of the high levels of political illiteracy in the country, failed to do this.

Also, in other advanced countries, people do not only vote for what appears to be financially beneficial to them. For example, people like me vote for policies that hurt as financially. We do this for two main reasons. One because we think it is morally just that people who earn the most, should pay a higher proportion of their income in tax. For example, I actually prefer that some of my income is used on helping people living in poverty. Secondly, people believe it makes political sense. Large gaps in wealth causes resentment and leads to criminal activity. The more equality that exists in a country, the more harmonious the society.

That is why people in Europe consider it so hypocritical when Americans go on so much about being Christians. It seems that Americans like you have never read the New Testament. Or if you have, you definitely have not understood it.

[Craig Lamson]

There is money to be made from social welfare spending as well. My objection to most of it is that it sucks the lifeblood from the people of the country. A strong and vibrant counrty is not a country that sucks from the tit of governent. Personal responsibility breeds strength, dependance on the government breeds weakness.

The problem is that in such a system as you idealize here, there are necessarily going to be people left behind and left without, and not because of some lack of effort on their part. There will be people and families who simply can't cut it in such a "strong and vibrant" system. This is just as much a fact of life as the corruption that you accept as a fact of life. It's fine to be a realist, I try to be one too, but one shouldn't be selective about it.

I know there are charities and all that for folks who can't cut it. But it's an absolute disgrace IMO that the U.S. can spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on the military, but can't provide its citizens, in this the most prosperous nation on earth, with free health care when they need it. Even folks who aren't poor are having trouble buying medication they have to have, because of the way the drug companies in this "strong and vibrant" system are gouging them simply because they can do it.

You are right that there will always be those that have and those that dont. I fully understand that. I'm not against safety nets, I'm against wholesale support.

We do supply a huge number of our citizens with health care ( and its not "free"). But that said not eveyone "needs" it. A good many choose simply not to purchase coverage making other choices instead. Its about personal responsibility. Some people make good choices and others don't. Hey, life is not fair...never has been. Thats reality.

If you don't like the way the Pharmas price their products you are free to start your own company to develop, produce and market drugs at a price point that makes you happy. Beat then at their own game...of course in no time someone is bound to whine about it and suggest that the government "fix" it.

It seems that the US is very different from the rest of the developed world. Conservatives in other advanced economies fought hard against the introduction of a safety net (welfare state). They called it socialism (I believe you call our National Health system – socialized medicine).

This system, created for the first time in Sweden in the 1930s, and followed by the rest of the advanced countries after the Second World War, was in every case, extremely popular, and no government has been able to remove it. In the UK for example, the Conservative Party, led by Winston Churchill, fought the introduction of a welfare state (the main reason why Churchill was ousted from office in 1945). However, they had to accept defeat and since 1951 have accepted the principal of the welfare state, although they have tried to undermine it by a lack of spending and the privatization of certain aspects of the service.

If that is the case, why has the United States not followed our example? Well according to a recent posting by Nathaniel Heidenheimer, according to public opinion polls in the US, a large majority of the population would like to see a European styled welfare state. The problem for Americans is that they do not live in a democracy. Their only choice in elections is between two parties who are totally opposed to any reforms that would result in the redistribution of wealth. This is in itself a result of allowing the political process of being dominated by a ruling elite made up of very wealthy individuals. They fund and therefore control these two political parties.

This was always likely to happen with the introduction of democracy. In virtually every case, countries took measures that would stop this from happening. The US, probably because of the high levels of political illiteracy in the country, failed to do this.

Also, in other advanced countries, people do not only vote for what appears to be financially beneficial to them. For example, people like me vote for policies that hurt as financially. We do this for two main reasons. One because we think it is morally just that people who earn the most, should pay a higher proportion of their income in tax. For example, I actually prefer that some of my income is used on helping people living in poverty. Secondly, people believe it makes political sense. Large gaps in wealth causes resentment and leads to criminal activity. The more equality that exists in a country, the more harmonious the society.

That is why people in Europe consider it so hypocritical when Americans go on so much about being Christians. It seems that Americans like you have never read the New Testament. Or if you have, you definitely have not understood it.

Perhaps the real reason American have "not followed Europes lead" is that some of us can see the utter failure of the "welfare state". I for one am very happy we have not gotten into the sewer of socialism. YMMV.

Is it any wonder that a welfare state is popular? Why not. The burden of making good personal choices and having personal responsibility has been lifted. People are free to totally screw up their lives with no cares. Don't work, no problem, make someone else pay. No apartment, no problem, the rich can pay your way. Lotta babies and not dad...no problem. Yep that looks like the ideal system to build a stong country. Thanks but no thanks.

Edited July 19, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Hey, life is not fair...never has been. Thats reality.

And the conservative is hellbent on making sure it stays just that way - unfair.

Conservatives always have the attitude: I'm ok, the hell if I care about you.

They oppossed an end to slavery and we'd have it still if it were up to conservatives.

They oppossed women's rights or rights for non-whites and we'd have it still if it were up to conservatives.

They oppossed the eight hour day and all other labor laws and we'd have them still if it were up to conservatives.

et al........ad nauseum

They oppose any kind of social services, welfare, safety nets, help for those in need, progress - domestic and foreign.

They always always seem to like conflict, war, injustice - as long as they are on the 'winning' end of it.

Exploitation....always been that way...no reason to change it if it 'aint broke.

I've got enough or lots of money - so why bother me about those that do not....they made 'their choice' I helped make for them.

It is 'broken'.....has long been...slowly we fight the Neaderthal in humans and make some slow progress.

It is not that a lack of life being fair is the continuous factor - but selfishness, ignorance and a lack of altruism.

We all once lived in the sea - things can change.....try it sometime. Change - positive change [Lemkin]

You paint with such a wonderful broad brush, too bad you loaded it with BS before it hit the canvas. Take another sip of the koolaid Peter, you appear thirsty. [Lamson]

------

I am not in the least changed in my opinion as being correctly and virtuously representing the majority on the planet - more so when the 'reply' is a one-liner put-down without substance. How do you define:

Justice, morality, fairness, equality - or are they just abstractions you don't care to be bothered about because you've 'got yours'. Might is not right. Riches make not morality. Fairness is for all not just you and your buddies. Etc. I'll let the majority on the planet [get it demos..democracy] decide - and history. There have always been those who oppose progress toward a better, more equal, more just, more fair, more progresive world...they are always the minority, sadly more often in control - or in their circles. They often spout 'democracy' but really like oligarchy or rigged heirarchy of some sort. Maybe you'll change, but even if you don't you are in a minority in America and a miniscule minority worldwide. The opposite is the religion of greed, domination, inequality, control, manipulation, cynicism. Your 'reality' is continuation of an artificial nightmare for most at the hands of the few, if we do not try to change it. IMO -

My 'broad brush' is only broad in that it encompasses everyone - even the planet and all its nature of which we are not masters, but an integral part. The domination paradigm has gotten us exactly where we are and should not be - and won't be 'zip' if we don't soon change. -Lemkin

---------

I find credible you believe your claim that 'greed is good' and that 'I hope my Haliburton stock price goes up' and that you don't much care about what those trying to change things in a postive way are doing...so my question. Why are you here in this Forum then?...why not watch your stocks and indulge in your toys and bounty of the greed.....do you have an agenda or job here bothering/thwarting/wasting time of those who are [by your own admission] deluded idealists at best.....I think so. Or are you afraid we might make some positive discoveries and actions - they might even effect your Haliburton stock prices? Then your successful 'competition' won't be so rigged?

Why I am currently out of the country would be beyond your ken and I didn't know that only 'good' Americans stayed at home (perhaps you should tell that to some of the military, intelliegence operatives, corporate globalizers/colonialists, World Bank criminals, etc.)

...and...I'll be back.

Your world, sadly, seems to resemble a Darwinian cockfight. Money and Power the only measuring stick. Competition not cooperation or help the only 'good'. How sad. It is this lack of moral/ethical/alturuistic enlightenment that has brought humanity (and the USA leading the charge) to where it is today. I'll bet your religion doesn't peddle this viewpoint. Or is this viewpoint your 'religion'. Someone like a MLK or Nelson Mandella and many others I could mention are my kind of heroes....they tried to make things better and help others...they were not into just self accumulation of things for themselves. I'd love to hear who your heros are....Ken Lay? Dick Chaney? Rumsfeld? Papa Doc Dubalier? Pinochet? So, take your tiny brush and paint a cynical world of continued exploitation, inequality, wide discrepancy between rich and poor. Sounds nice.....fair, just, even pious.

I hope you can convince the poor in Haiti [for example], who recently had their democratically elected President Aristide kidnapped and removed by the USA - and who have been expoited and kept poor by us for centuries (even supported the death squads), to buy shares in Haliburton so they can share in your 'enlightened vision'. I guess they just don't know how to compete or made their choices. They chose Aristide and not the FRAP [CIA-run death and disorder squads]. They didn't choose poverty - we have made sure they get it though.

NB- my retired parents before they died spent their OWN money to volunteer at the Albert Schwitzer Hospital in the jungles of Haiti when they could have spent it on themselves in retirement in the USA...I guess you think they were deluded and wasting their time and upsetting the natural world order. They also, by chance, met a CIA man there who was running a hotel [as cover] and supporting our control and havoc in Haiti. Your world, IMO, is upside down. You'd support the 'hotel owner', me thinks....as he keeps your Haliburton stock up and the people down. I could make a comparable analysis in most countries and of the peoples we exploit and keep subservient for your dividends and the Empire....oh, but thats my broad brush again....maybe the broad brush is the broad reach of the Empire or the breadth of the evil behind it. Again I'd love to hear why you haunt this Forum from your 'hotel' rather than just ignore the deluded, insane or naive who try to make positive change or investigate the non-existant hidden forces preventing them. Maybe you're aware your 'ever was thus' is only because of continued suppression, lies and oppression - and if it this blockage is thwarted by exposure and reversed, progress can be made - and that scares you or those with which you 'stand' or find affiliation at the top looking down in the unfair world order. The AS Hospital in Haiti is run by a Mellon - yes that Mellon family. The rest of the family won't talk to him..he took his money and did some good with it...built that hospital with his own money...he has none more now. In his late 80s he toils there still. What have you done lately for the positive good of the world, may I ask. Feel free to answer in broad strokes.

Peter, you are the perfect example of the losers of the world. Caught by your own words, rather than deal with that you launch into "what is your agenda? Why are you here? blah, blah, blah. I think I hit the real nerve here Peter. You simply don't have what it takes to make it in a place where you must compete to survive. Yoiu cant make it in a competitive world so you want the world to operate down on your level. How sad. DO you really enjoy being a lemming? No Peter, you are a nutjob.

Why am I here? Entertainment of course. Noting is funnier than reading the drivel from a bunch of leftist idealists. Even more fun to watch them spin thier yarns about every CT you could imagine. Its comedy at its finest! I mean wher else could I find such wonders as Simkins very slanted views of America? Or Your daily diatribes about the topic of the day, always ending with the evils of America . No..this place is a HOOT!

Please Peter, continue to live in your fantasy world. I'll live in reality.

Edited July 19, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Perhaps the real reason American have "not followed Europes lead" is that some of us can see the utter failure of the "welfare state". I for one am very happy we have not gotten into the sewer of socialism. YMMV.

The welfare state in this country is financed through a system of National insurance. Every adult in employment pays a small percentage of their salary into this scheme. In return they recieve, Health care, at the point of need, The biulding of social housing(although this has all but ceased in recent years) unemployment income, a small percentage of their in work income, Education is also partly funded by the charge. Can the system be misused, yes, would I be without it, No, Has it ever prevented me from working hard, and being ambitious in my chosen field? no, and nor does it with most people. I strongly suspect that it is because it is partly socialistic in nature that you hate, and fear it.

Is it any wonder that a welfare state is popular? Why not. The burden of making good perspnal choices and having personal responsibility has been lifted. People are free to toally screw up their lives with no cares. Don't work, no problem, make someone else pay. No apartment, no problem, the rich can pay your way. Lotta babies and not dad...no problem. Yep that looks like the ideal system to build a stong country. Thanks but no thanks.

You really dont have a very high opinion of your fellow Humans do you Craig? Every single one of them out to screw you, do you down, live the high life on your precious tax Dollars. Given the precarious nature of Capitalism I am very glad we have a safety net, (imperfect as it is) Long may it continue to offer basic protection to me and my children. and by extention everybody else's children as well.