.
I had a Big Fight with a Scoundrel that insulted my wife. It almost degenerated into blood with weapons. But fortunately some people were wise and locked me at home ( my wife and some vigilante friends ).
The War against Scoundrels that disrespect Women :
Since my house is a fortress ( with a very big balcony ) and iron bars against thieves I was imprisoned at home. The Police later gave me some help against the scoundrel and took his data.
Now, I realize, how low, base and villain are many men. I realize the Imbecility of the Macho and Midnight Drunken CowBoy mentality of abusing Women.
And the neighbors and spectators are usually of extreme cowardice in defending Women. Everybody wants to avoid "problems" by being silent and coward.
It is a very despicable but extended practices of evil. These two bastardies :
1 - Blame the victim, blame the woman that was raped. This "Blame the Victim" also appears in Big War, in Lawsuits of Accidents, Violence, Swindling People, Pollution, etc ...
2 - Deny reality : In Sexual or Family abuse, in Big War ( the first victim of war is Truth ), and in many conflicts. The problem does not exist. So the problem is solved.
The worst men, the most despicable scoundrels, are those bastards that abuse Women, those at home, or those in the open streets, supermarkets, restaurants, etc ... even if the Women is a perfect unknown to them, or only very distantly known.
I am in campaign for "Respect all Women" ..... I visited some Great Ladies in my neighborhood and told them about scoundrels that don't respect Women. It is weird that I, being a man, say this :
"Ladies, what I want to tell you, is more interesting to Women than to Men" and I follow my rant telling them who is a Dangerous Scoundrel in town. And how it is important to profile bastards, inform the police and divulge the facts of incidents.
I hope there were more people forming alliances and groups against these Coward Bastards.
I say that probably the tenth lover of the mother beat the little boy, and so the adult guy hates Women. ( His mother had a dissolute and disordered sexual life with many lovers )
I have met many men in my life that only consider Women as "Passing Sexual Pleasure", and later abuse, abuse, abuse.
I hope there is more protection for Women, including those that fall in these Bastard Wars of Nowadays.
Vicente Duque
Saturday, December 5, 2009
I had a Big Fight with a Scoundrel that insulted my wife. It almost degenerated into blood with weapons. People were wise and locked me at home to avo
Monday, November 30, 2009
The Oregonian : Only Brown People want to pick fruit and vegetables - Explotation or Cultural Trend ? - Brownization of American Fields - 90% Latino
.
The Oregonian : Only Brown People want to pick fruit and vegetables - Explotation or Cultural Trend ? - Brownization of American Fields - 90% Latino
My comment :
American Soils and People are the best producers of cereals and other foodstuffs, but America is losing the War of Flowers, Fruits and Vegetables.
California, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico are low rain areas - In some Areas of Latin America it never stops raining and labor is super cheap. Conclusion Markets triumph were conditions are better.
And White Americans don't want to pick up fruit ---- Is it the sun ??? ---- Is it Skin Cancer ??? --- Is it a biological or cultural difference ??? --- Why is it that Whites don't pick up fruit ??
The Oregonian
Stable farm labor seems elusive in global economy
By Gosia Wozniacka,
November 07, 2009
Stable farm labor seems elusive in global economy
Some excerpts :
Labor has always been the Achilles' heel of U.S. agriculture. But today, globalization is causing the ultimate strain.
In the past two decades, U.S. producers of labor-intensive crops have not kept up with the growth in the market. They have lost both global and domestic market share to foreign competitors, primarily because of cheap labor and lower production costs overseas.
That's particularly true in regions that produce fruits, vegetables and nursery products. Six states -- Oregon, Washington, California, Florida, Texas and North Carolina -- account for half of all hired and contracted farmworkers. Growers depend on them to increase productivity and get fruits and vegetables to our plates.
....................
The question remains: How does the U.S. secure a stable agricultural labor force?
A defining societal shift
When Bob Terry, owner of Fisher Farms near Gaston, advertised for entry-level field work positions a few months ago, he expected at least a few white, Anglo job seekers.
"With unemployment being as high as it is, we thought we'd have at least some Caucasians," Terry said. "But we had none."
Several hundred job seekers showed up, all Latino, Terry said, and most spoke broken English. The company, which produces more than 3.5 million nursery plants on 300 acres at three sites, hired 80.
This is how it's always been, said Terry, who has worked with the company for 16 years.
"We always hear, 'You don't hire Americans; you hire the others, immigrants, because they're cheaper,'" Terry said. "And it's just not true. We don't discriminate; we just take them as they come in."
Monumental changes in the structure of agriculture have affected who works in the fields and how Americans feel about agricultural jobs, experts and data show.
Family farms, passed down through generations, were once the agricultural engine. But technology led to increased production and pushed farms to consolidate into large, industrial-size operations. Although small family farms still exist, the bulk of production has shifted to large-scale family and corporate operations, which hire more nonfamily workers.
...........................
The societal shift from farming means that working in the fields is no longer part of American culture and is not a job most U.S.-born Americans are skilled in or find desirable, even during a recession, experts and growers say.
Even farmers and their families have been driven from farm work by expanding nonfarm economic opportunities, said William Kandel, a sociologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service.
...................
Globalization challenges
According to the National Agricultural Workers Survey, more than 90 percent of today's farmworkers are Latino, and only about 20 percent are U.S.-born. More than half don't have legal status, both nationally and in Oregon.
........................
Employers can't afford to invest in mechanization or raise wages because "costs of production are going up," said Gary Furr, general manager of J. Frank Schmidt & Son Co., a large nursery based in Boring. Companies must remain competitive in a global marketplace, Furr said, or "you go out of business and push production to Third World countries."
That shift to other countries is already happening, Emerson said, especially among producers of labor-intensive crops. Since 1990, U.S. producers have lost a substantial chunk of the domestic fruit and vegetable market, data show.
In 1999, the United States became a net importer of fruits and vegetables for the first time in history. The import-export gap widened to a nearly $8 billion deficit in 2007, according to data from the U.S. International Trade Commission. Paradoxically, loss of competitiveness comes at a time of increased demand year-round from consumers for fresh fruits and vegetables, Emerson said.
Shifting the costs of higher farmworker wages onto U.S. consumers -- who spend less of their income on food than anyone else in the world -- is also not viable, Emerson said. Growers have little control over prices, he said, and suppliers can simply bring cheaper goods from overseas.
"There's no silver bullet to this problem," Emerson said.
With competition from cheap wages overseas, it's unclear how to retain legal workers in low-paid U.S. farm jobs, he said, because U.S. agriculture has become a revolving door even for immigrants. Once they learn English, understand the job market and are legal, they, too, leave for jobs with better pay and conditions.
"The majority of workers stay in agriculture only for a few years," Emerson said. "Most people don't look at it as a permanent job."
.
The Oregonian : Only Brown People want to pick fruit and vegetables - Explotation or Cultural Trend ? - Brownization of American Fields - 90% Latino
My comment :
American Soils and People are the best producers of cereals and other foodstuffs, but America is losing the War of Flowers, Fruits and Vegetables.
California, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico are low rain areas - In some Areas of Latin America it never stops raining and labor is super cheap. Conclusion Markets triumph were conditions are better.
And White Americans don't want to pick up fruit ---- Is it the sun ??? ---- Is it Skin Cancer ??? --- Is it a biological or cultural difference ??? --- Why is it that Whites don't pick up fruit ??
The Oregonian
Stable farm labor seems elusive in global economy
By Gosia Wozniacka,
November 07, 2009
Stable farm labor seems elusive in global economy
Some excerpts :
Labor has always been the Achilles' heel of U.S. agriculture. But today, globalization is causing the ultimate strain.
In the past two decades, U.S. producers of labor-intensive crops have not kept up with the growth in the market. They have lost both global and domestic market share to foreign competitors, primarily because of cheap labor and lower production costs overseas.
That's particularly true in regions that produce fruits, vegetables and nursery products. Six states -- Oregon, Washington, California, Florida, Texas and North Carolina -- account for half of all hired and contracted farmworkers. Growers depend on them to increase productivity and get fruits and vegetables to our plates.
....................
The question remains: How does the U.S. secure a stable agricultural labor force?
A defining societal shift
When Bob Terry, owner of Fisher Farms near Gaston, advertised for entry-level field work positions a few months ago, he expected at least a few white, Anglo job seekers.
"With unemployment being as high as it is, we thought we'd have at least some Caucasians," Terry said. "But we had none."
Several hundred job seekers showed up, all Latino, Terry said, and most spoke broken English. The company, which produces more than 3.5 million nursery plants on 300 acres at three sites, hired 80.
This is how it's always been, said Terry, who has worked with the company for 16 years.
"We always hear, 'You don't hire Americans; you hire the others, immigrants, because they're cheaper,'" Terry said. "And it's just not true. We don't discriminate; we just take them as they come in."
Monumental changes in the structure of agriculture have affected who works in the fields and how Americans feel about agricultural jobs, experts and data show.
Family farms, passed down through generations, were once the agricultural engine. But technology led to increased production and pushed farms to consolidate into large, industrial-size operations. Although small family farms still exist, the bulk of production has shifted to large-scale family and corporate operations, which hire more nonfamily workers.
...........................
The societal shift from farming means that working in the fields is no longer part of American culture and is not a job most U.S.-born Americans are skilled in or find desirable, even during a recession, experts and growers say.
Even farmers and their families have been driven from farm work by expanding nonfarm economic opportunities, said William Kandel, a sociologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service.
...................
Globalization challenges
According to the National Agricultural Workers Survey, more than 90 percent of today's farmworkers are Latino, and only about 20 percent are U.S.-born. More than half don't have legal status, both nationally and in Oregon.
........................
Employers can't afford to invest in mechanization or raise wages because "costs of production are going up," said Gary Furr, general manager of J. Frank Schmidt & Son Co., a large nursery based in Boring. Companies must remain competitive in a global marketplace, Furr said, or "you go out of business and push production to Third World countries."
That shift to other countries is already happening, Emerson said, especially among producers of labor-intensive crops. Since 1990, U.S. producers have lost a substantial chunk of the domestic fruit and vegetable market, data show.
In 1999, the United States became a net importer of fruits and vegetables for the first time in history. The import-export gap widened to a nearly $8 billion deficit in 2007, according to data from the U.S. International Trade Commission. Paradoxically, loss of competitiveness comes at a time of increased demand year-round from consumers for fresh fruits and vegetables, Emerson said.
Shifting the costs of higher farmworker wages onto U.S. consumers -- who spend less of their income on food than anyone else in the world -- is also not viable, Emerson said. Growers have little control over prices, he said, and suppliers can simply bring cheaper goods from overseas.
"There's no silver bullet to this problem," Emerson said.
With competition from cheap wages overseas, it's unclear how to retain legal workers in low-paid U.S. farm jobs, he said, because U.S. agriculture has become a revolving door even for immigrants. Once they learn English, understand the job market and are legal, they, too, leave for jobs with better pay and conditions.
"The majority of workers stay in agriculture only for a few years," Emerson said. "Most people don't look at it as a permanent job."
.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
How Empires fall eaten by debts - The rise and fall of the world's great powers - Economic weakness is endangering global power
.
How Empires fall eaten by debts - The rise and fall of the world's great powers - Economic weakness is endangering global power
Newsweek.com
An Empire at Risk
We won the cold war and weathered 9/11. But now economic weakness is endangering our global power.
Global Greats : With pundits speculating about the end of American global dominance, a look back on the rise and fall of the world's great powers.
By Niall Ferguson
Ferguson is Laurence A. Tisch professor of history at Harvard and the author of The Ascent of Money
November 28, 2009
An Empire at Risk
Some excerpts :
This matters more for a superpower than for a small Atlantic island for one very simple reason. As interest payments eat into the budget, something has to give—and that something is nearly always defense expenditure. According to the CBO, a significant decline in the relative share of national security in the federal budget is already baked into the cake. On the Pentagon's present plan, defense spending is set to fall from above 4 percent now to 3.2 percent of GDP in 2015 and to 2.6 percent of GDP by 2028.
Over the longer run, to my own estimated departure date of 2039, spending on health care rises from 16 percent to 33 percent of GDP (some of the money presumably is going to keep me from expiring even sooner). But spending on everything other than health, Social Security, and interest payments drops from 12 percent to 8.4 percent.
This is how empires decline. It begins with a debt explosion. It ends with an inexorable reduction in the resources available for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Which is why voters are right to worry about America's debt crisis. According to a recent Rasmussen report, 42 percent of Americans now say that cutting the deficit in half by the end of the president's first term should be the administration's most important task—significantly more than the 24 percent who see health-care reform as the No. 1 priority. But cutting the deficit in half is simply not enough. If the United States doesn't come up soon with a credible plan to restore the federal budget to balance over the next five to 10 years, the danger is very real that a debt crisis could lead to a major weakening of American power.
The precedents are certainly there. Habsburg Spain defaulted on all or part of its debt 14 times between 1557 and 1696 and also succumbed to inflation due to a surfeit of New World silver. Prerevolutionary France was spending 62 percent of royal revenue on debt service by 1788. The Ottoman Empire went the same way: interest payments and amortization rose from 15 percent of the budget in 1860 to 50 percent in 1875. And don't forget the last great English-speaking empire. By the interwar years, interest payments were consuming 44 percent of the British budget, making it intensely difficult to rearm in the face of a new German threat.
Call it the fatal arithmetic of imperial decline. Without radical fiscal reform, it could apply to America next.
.
How Empires fall eaten by debts - The rise and fall of the world's great powers - Economic weakness is endangering global power
Newsweek.com
An Empire at Risk
We won the cold war and weathered 9/11. But now economic weakness is endangering our global power.
Global Greats : With pundits speculating about the end of American global dominance, a look back on the rise and fall of the world's great powers.
By Niall Ferguson
Ferguson is Laurence A. Tisch professor of history at Harvard and the author of The Ascent of Money
November 28, 2009
An Empire at Risk
Some excerpts :
This matters more for a superpower than for a small Atlantic island for one very simple reason. As interest payments eat into the budget, something has to give—and that something is nearly always defense expenditure. According to the CBO, a significant decline in the relative share of national security in the federal budget is already baked into the cake. On the Pentagon's present plan, defense spending is set to fall from above 4 percent now to 3.2 percent of GDP in 2015 and to 2.6 percent of GDP by 2028.
Over the longer run, to my own estimated departure date of 2039, spending on health care rises from 16 percent to 33 percent of GDP (some of the money presumably is going to keep me from expiring even sooner). But spending on everything other than health, Social Security, and interest payments drops from 12 percent to 8.4 percent.
This is how empires decline. It begins with a debt explosion. It ends with an inexorable reduction in the resources available for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Which is why voters are right to worry about America's debt crisis. According to a recent Rasmussen report, 42 percent of Americans now say that cutting the deficit in half by the end of the president's first term should be the administration's most important task—significantly more than the 24 percent who see health-care reform as the No. 1 priority. But cutting the deficit in half is simply not enough. If the United States doesn't come up soon with a credible plan to restore the federal budget to balance over the next five to 10 years, the danger is very real that a debt crisis could lead to a major weakening of American power.
The precedents are certainly there. Habsburg Spain defaulted on all or part of its debt 14 times between 1557 and 1696 and also succumbed to inflation due to a surfeit of New World silver. Prerevolutionary France was spending 62 percent of royal revenue on debt service by 1788. The Ottoman Empire went the same way: interest payments and amortization rose from 15 percent of the budget in 1860 to 50 percent in 1875. And don't forget the last great English-speaking empire. By the interwar years, interest payments were consuming 44 percent of the British budget, making it intensely difficult to rearm in the face of a new German threat.
Call it the fatal arithmetic of imperial decline. Without radical fiscal reform, it could apply to America next.
.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Nice Thanksgiving ! - My devout pious MOM and me, the devil - I still kneel and pray to God, the Virgin, the Saints, the Angels and the Blessed Animas
.
My devout pious MOM and me, the devil - I still kneel and pray to God, the Virgin, the Saints, the Angels and the Blessed Animas of Purgatory
Have a Nice Thanksgiving !
My Mom is extremely old and sick : blind, unable to walk, very sick of diabetes, "defeated" cancer, heart disease, rheumatism, etc ...
She is uninterested in Foreign Policies, WorldViews or Weltanschaungs. She doesn't pay any attention to the Future.
But I read newspapers or magazines to her : things about children, mothers, women, moving stories of the heart. She is interested in Mr Obama, wife Michelle and the two girls and she admires and likes this couple in the White House.
Under the conservative crust my mom has a "Liberal" heart that would scare Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. She is unable to hate.
The favorite readings for my mom are sermons of famous priests and nuns like "Mother Angelica" ( she can't see her favorite nun now because of blindness )... I read many sermons, catholic homilies and speeches from the Pope.
My mother is a better detective than Sherlock Holmes and we always fail hiding "Bad News" from her.
I am very tired on Sunday Evenings because of the long trip to visit my MOM, but I am also extremely happy to have the best Mother in the World.
I would rather fail in business and money matters than fail my mother by being reckless and not visit her. My wife prepares apple pie, mango pie, grapes and plum pies, pastry of chicken with peas, carrots, and other herbs, etc.. because these delicatessen are very healthy and according to diet, and they are delicious.
She lives in her own home and has nurses, a daughter and a granddaughter that live with her.
These people consider me very absurd because I talk a lot of Catholicism with my mother and kneel to pray a lot with her. I also sing Catholic songs, to the Virgin Mary and hymns and things of Churches. And when she almost died we used to listen to mass in the Hospital : a Catholic Mass in Television of a rich Franciscan church, perhaps in New York or New England, these people have money and the parishioners are old and very pious.
But those who laugh don't understand the fear of death of very old and sick people and the need of comfort of Religion.
I am too much of a Volterian Atheist of the Illustration. I guess I am much worse than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, with the difference of not being a mason.
Life needs some theater. I wouldn't have anything to talk to my mother if I did not adopt her point of view of life. For her Religion has always being concern number 1....
And don't forget that I have the best and most loving mother in the Whole and Entire World. !
Have a Nice Thanksgiving !
Vicente Duque
My devout pious MOM and me, the devil - I still kneel and pray to God, the Virgin, the Saints, the Angels and the Blessed Animas of Purgatory
Have a Nice Thanksgiving !
My Mom is extremely old and sick : blind, unable to walk, very sick of diabetes, "defeated" cancer, heart disease, rheumatism, etc ...
She is uninterested in Foreign Policies, WorldViews or Weltanschaungs. She doesn't pay any attention to the Future.
But I read newspapers or magazines to her : things about children, mothers, women, moving stories of the heart. She is interested in Mr Obama, wife Michelle and the two girls and she admires and likes this couple in the White House.
Under the conservative crust my mom has a "Liberal" heart that would scare Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. She is unable to hate.
The favorite readings for my mom are sermons of famous priests and nuns like "Mother Angelica" ( she can't see her favorite nun now because of blindness )... I read many sermons, catholic homilies and speeches from the Pope.
My mother is a better detective than Sherlock Holmes and we always fail hiding "Bad News" from her.
I am very tired on Sunday Evenings because of the long trip to visit my MOM, but I am also extremely happy to have the best Mother in the World.
I would rather fail in business and money matters than fail my mother by being reckless and not visit her. My wife prepares apple pie, mango pie, grapes and plum pies, pastry of chicken with peas, carrots, and other herbs, etc.. because these delicatessen are very healthy and according to diet, and they are delicious.
She lives in her own home and has nurses, a daughter and a granddaughter that live with her.
These people consider me very absurd because I talk a lot of Catholicism with my mother and kneel to pray a lot with her. I also sing Catholic songs, to the Virgin Mary and hymns and things of Churches. And when she almost died we used to listen to mass in the Hospital : a Catholic Mass in Television of a rich Franciscan church, perhaps in New York or New England, these people have money and the parishioners are old and very pious.
But those who laugh don't understand the fear of death of very old and sick people and the need of comfort of Religion.
I am too much of a Volterian Atheist of the Illustration. I guess I am much worse than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, with the difference of not being a mason.
Life needs some theater. I wouldn't have anything to talk to my mother if I did not adopt her point of view of life. For her Religion has always being concern number 1....
And don't forget that I have the best and most loving mother in the Whole and Entire World. !
Have a Nice Thanksgiving !
Vicente Duque
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
World War I ended the Progressive Era, Korea ended Harry Truman’s Fair Deal and Vietnam ended Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society - Politico.com
.
World War I ended the Progressive Era, Korea ended Harry Truman’s Fair Deal and Vietnam ended Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society - Politico.com
Would Afghanistan be the end of the Social Projects of President Obama ?
Politico.com
"How will we pay for this?"
By Reps. David Obey (D-Wis.), John Murtha (D-Pa.) and John Larson (D-Conn.)
November 24, 2009
"How will we pay for this?"
Some excerpts :
In the coming days, President Obama will announce his decision regarding a change in strategy for the ongoing war in Afghanistan and we commend him for recognizing the need - and taking the time - to conduct a thorough review of the war and what we can realistically achieve there.
Like most Americans, we are concerned about the wisdom of significantly enlarging and lengthening our commitment to a war that is costing hundreds of billions of dollars and the lives of our brave men and women in uniform.
Our troops and their families are making enormous sacrifices and all of us appreciate their service. They’ve always responded to what we’ve asked them to do with dedication and distinction. We owe it to them to bring hard nosed realism to whatever task we set for them. And hard nosed realism suggests that, regardless of how good the military strategy might be, a counterinsurgency campaign can only be successful if we have a strong partner on the ground; and we have no such partner in Afghanistan.
If the President does decide to engage in an expanded counterinsurgency strategy, hard nosed realism also obliges us to ask: How will we pay for this?
Even the most ardent advocates of an expanded counterinsurgency strategy tell us it would require a commitment of at least ten years and maybe double that to succeed. The Administration estimates that it will cost $1 million per U.S. service member per year – leading to at least a trillion dollars in military costs alone. Add to that the cost of economic and civilian aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the costs to U.S. taxpayers would be astronomical.
We have spent the last year in Congress debating how we will pay for health care reform, which is expected to cost nearly a trillion dollars over the next ten years. The Congressional Budget Office is earnestly measuring the cost of each competing health care plan, and has had most of Congress twisting themselves into knots in order to keep the health care bill deficit neutral. Shouldn’t it be asked to do the same thing with respect to money spent on the current wars? We have already spent nearly a trillion dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - an effort that’s been paid for with borrowed money - and another ten years would cost about a trillion more. If we keep that up, it will devour our nation’s ability to address virtually any other priority.
To keep that from happening, we have introduced legislation that would impose a progressive surtax beginning in 2011 to pay for the war. The bill requires the President to set the tax rate so that it fully pays for the previous year’s war cost, and it allows for a one year delay in its implementation if the President determines that the economy is too weak to sustain that kind of tax change. But the basic notion behind the bill is that if the President and the nation decide that the war is important enough to fight, then it ought to be important enough to pay for. Otherwise, we are shoving billions of dollars in taxes off on future generations and will devour money that could be used to rebuild our economy by expanding their educational opportunities, expanding their job training possibilities, attacking our long term energy problems and building stronger communities.
Presidential historian Robert Dallek reminds us, “War kills off great reform movements.” He points to a list of historical examples that make his point: World War I ended the Progressive Era, Korea ended Harry Truman’s Fair Deal and Vietnam ended Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.
We have been on the cusp of what could be one of the greatest reform movements in generations, with a strong and inspiring leader in the White House, and great progress imminent on creating a new American economy, fixing our broken health care system, and investing in a modern 21st century infrastructure. We cannot allow the war to derail that potential to change the face of our nation.
David Obey is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. John Murtha is chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. John Larson is chairman of the House Democratic Caucus
.
World War I ended the Progressive Era, Korea ended Harry Truman’s Fair Deal and Vietnam ended Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society - Politico.com
Would Afghanistan be the end of the Social Projects of President Obama ?
Politico.com
"How will we pay for this?"
By Reps. David Obey (D-Wis.), John Murtha (D-Pa.) and John Larson (D-Conn.)
November 24, 2009
"How will we pay for this?"
Some excerpts :
In the coming days, President Obama will announce his decision regarding a change in strategy for the ongoing war in Afghanistan and we commend him for recognizing the need - and taking the time - to conduct a thorough review of the war and what we can realistically achieve there.
Like most Americans, we are concerned about the wisdom of significantly enlarging and lengthening our commitment to a war that is costing hundreds of billions of dollars and the lives of our brave men and women in uniform.
Our troops and their families are making enormous sacrifices and all of us appreciate their service. They’ve always responded to what we’ve asked them to do with dedication and distinction. We owe it to them to bring hard nosed realism to whatever task we set for them. And hard nosed realism suggests that, regardless of how good the military strategy might be, a counterinsurgency campaign can only be successful if we have a strong partner on the ground; and we have no such partner in Afghanistan.
If the President does decide to engage in an expanded counterinsurgency strategy, hard nosed realism also obliges us to ask: How will we pay for this?
Even the most ardent advocates of an expanded counterinsurgency strategy tell us it would require a commitment of at least ten years and maybe double that to succeed. The Administration estimates that it will cost $1 million per U.S. service member per year – leading to at least a trillion dollars in military costs alone. Add to that the cost of economic and civilian aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the costs to U.S. taxpayers would be astronomical.
We have spent the last year in Congress debating how we will pay for health care reform, which is expected to cost nearly a trillion dollars over the next ten years. The Congressional Budget Office is earnestly measuring the cost of each competing health care plan, and has had most of Congress twisting themselves into knots in order to keep the health care bill deficit neutral. Shouldn’t it be asked to do the same thing with respect to money spent on the current wars? We have already spent nearly a trillion dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - an effort that’s been paid for with borrowed money - and another ten years would cost about a trillion more. If we keep that up, it will devour our nation’s ability to address virtually any other priority.
To keep that from happening, we have introduced legislation that would impose a progressive surtax beginning in 2011 to pay for the war. The bill requires the President to set the tax rate so that it fully pays for the previous year’s war cost, and it allows for a one year delay in its implementation if the President determines that the economy is too weak to sustain that kind of tax change. But the basic notion behind the bill is that if the President and the nation decide that the war is important enough to fight, then it ought to be important enough to pay for. Otherwise, we are shoving billions of dollars in taxes off on future generations and will devour money that could be used to rebuild our economy by expanding their educational opportunities, expanding their job training possibilities, attacking our long term energy problems and building stronger communities.
Presidential historian Robert Dallek reminds us, “War kills off great reform movements.” He points to a list of historical examples that make his point: World War I ended the Progressive Era, Korea ended Harry Truman’s Fair Deal and Vietnam ended Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.
We have been on the cusp of what could be one of the greatest reform movements in generations, with a strong and inspiring leader in the White House, and great progress imminent on creating a new American economy, fixing our broken health care system, and investing in a modern 21st century infrastructure. We cannot allow the war to derail that potential to change the face of our nation.
David Obey is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. John Murtha is chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. John Larson is chairman of the House Democratic Caucus
.
What Teddy Roosevelt said about Health Insurance, protection of the poor and the weak, Protection of the Immigrant, Taxation of the Rich, Presidential
.
What Teddy Roosevelt said about Health Insurance, protection of the poor and the weak, Protection of the Immigrant, Taxation of the Rich - Presidential Campaing of 1912
Teddy Rooselvelt proposes Health Insurance for Americans and presents Germany and Bismark's legislation as a model. More Information on Germany and England, pioneers in these developments.
This is a speech of Theodore Roosevelt in August of 1912, during the Presidential Campaign. He is the total opposite of today's Republicans - It is so funny that John McCain says that Teddy is his avowed hero. Because these two guys Teddy and John are perfect opposites in Real Politics.
Teaching American History Organization
Confession of Faith
Theodore Roosevelt
August 6, 1912
Confession of Faith
Some excerpts
It is abnormal for any industry to throw back upon the community the human wreckage due to its wear and tear, and the hazards of sickness, accident, invalidism, involuntary unemployment, and old age should be provided for through insurance. This should be made a charge in whole or in part upon the industries, the employer, the employee, and perhaps the people at large to contribute severally in some degree. Wherever such standards are not met by given establishments, by given industries, are unprovided for by a legislature, or are balked by unenlightened courts, the workers are in jeopardy, the progressive employer is penalized, and the community pays a heavy cost in lessened efficiency and in misery. What Germany has done in the way of old-age pensions or insurance should be studied by us, and the system adapted to our uses, with whatever modifications are rendered necessary by our different ways of life and habits of thought.
Working women have the same need to combine for protection that working men have; the ballot is as necessary for one class as for the other; we do not believe that with the two sexes there is identity of function; but we do believe that there should be equality of right; and therefore we favor woman suffrage. Surely, if women could vote, they would strengthen the hands of those who are endeavoring to deal in efficient fashion with evils such as the white-slave traffic; evils which can in part be dealt with nation-ally, but which in large part can be reached only by determined local action, such as insisting on the wide-spread publication of the names of the owners, the landlords, of houses used for immoral purposes.
What Teddy Roosevelt said about Health Insurance, protection of the poor and the weak, Protection of the Immigrant, Taxation of the Rich - Presidential Campaing of 1912
Teddy Rooselvelt proposes Health Insurance for Americans and presents Germany and Bismark's legislation as a model. More Information on Germany and England, pioneers in these developments.
This is a speech of Theodore Roosevelt in August of 1912, during the Presidential Campaign. He is the total opposite of today's Republicans - It is so funny that John McCain says that Teddy is his avowed hero. Because these two guys Teddy and John are perfect opposites in Real Politics.
Teaching American History Organization
Confession of Faith
Theodore Roosevelt
August 6, 1912
Confession of Faith
Some excerpts
It is abnormal for any industry to throw back upon the community the human wreckage due to its wear and tear, and the hazards of sickness, accident, invalidism, involuntary unemployment, and old age should be provided for through insurance. This should be made a charge in whole or in part upon the industries, the employer, the employee, and perhaps the people at large to contribute severally in some degree. Wherever such standards are not met by given establishments, by given industries, are unprovided for by a legislature, or are balked by unenlightened courts, the workers are in jeopardy, the progressive employer is penalized, and the community pays a heavy cost in lessened efficiency and in misery. What Germany has done in the way of old-age pensions or insurance should be studied by us, and the system adapted to our uses, with whatever modifications are rendered necessary by our different ways of life and habits of thought.
Working women have the same need to combine for protection that working men have; the ballot is as necessary for one class as for the other; we do not believe that with the two sexes there is identity of function; but we do believe that there should be equality of right; and therefore we favor woman suffrage. Surely, if women could vote, they would strengthen the hands of those who are endeavoring to deal in efficient fashion with evils such as the white-slave traffic; evils which can in part be dealt with nation-ally, but which in large part can be reached only by determined local action, such as insisting on the wide-spread publication of the names of the owners, the landlords, of houses used for immoral purposes.
*********************************************************
Bismark in Germany and Social Legislation in England
***********************************************************
As said in the previous paragraphs, Teddy was an admirer of the Social Legislation of Otto von Bismark ( The Iron Chancellor ) in Germany.
Here you find beautiful information about that :
The Huffington Post
By Paul A. London
November 3, 2008
Finally, Health Insurance 90 Years Late
Some excerpts :
The story starts in Germany in 1883. Count Otto von Bismarck, the "Iron Chancellor," championed government-sponsored social insurance including "sickness insurance" to win working class voters away from the Socialists. It was not a socialist program. It was an anti-socialist program. Bismarck rammed it through and enlarged it over the years, overriding opposition from his own conservative allies and from the Socialists who knew the program was aimed at weakening them.
German workers loved Bismarck's program, and so did employers and the military recruiters. Worker productivity soared and the army got healthier recruits than those in other countries. No wonder most "advanced" nations followed Germany. Great Britain in 1911 was the last of the important European countries to do so. Lloyd George visited Germany and studied the program. As Prime Minister he overcame fierce resistance in the House of Lords to create the UK's version of social insurance and the United States was expected to follow.
.
Monday, November 23, 2009
The world still can learn from Keynesian economics - Los Angeles Times - Keynes is the Greatest Economist of all times
.
The world still can learn from Keynesian economics - Los Angeles Times - Keynes is the Greatest Economist of all times
The world still can learn from Keynesian economics - Los Angeles Times - Keynes is the Greatest Economist of all times
Excellent Article from The Los Angeles Times :
I am appalled by the dimension of the "Economic" hate against Mr Obama, Timothy Geithner, and their team of economists.
The president is very intelligent and honest, he is not perfect but is doing his best in every area. Probably Economics and Unemployment are the Biggest obstacles for gaining the Trust of Americans in their President and Easy Governance.
Some of the theories that Obama's enemies advance in many topics like Economics, War, Health Care and Immigration border on Lunacy and Madness.
It was the same with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Greatest President of the 20 century. He was intensely hated by the same people that received great benefit from his policies ( some of the rich ). Some of the Attacks on FDR were as lunatic as today's attacks on Mr Obama.
Los Angeles Times
The world still can learn from Keynesian economics
Reagan-like faith in efficient markets set the stage for the financial meltdown
By Michael Hiltzik
November 23, 2009
The world still can learn from Keynesian economics
Some excerpts :
Great crises have a way of reminding us that acting as though we know perfectly well what the future holds almost always leads to disaster.
That's especially true in economics, which tends to underscore the murkiness of the real world by dealing out surprises one after another -- booms, crashes, bubbles, you name it.
It's fitting, therefore, that the recent economic meltdown has begun to restore that great apostle of uncertainty, John Maynard Keynes, to his rightful position of influence in economic thought.
"Keynes asked why financial markets are inherently unstable," Robert Skidelsky told me the other day. "His answer was that we don't know what the future will bring. He talked about the inherent precariousness of knowledge, that when we estimate the future we're only disguising our ignorance."
If that sounds obvious, keep in mind that the financial disaster of recent times was born in the hubris that the financial markets are nearly flawless machines for assessing risk and that government regulation would make them inefficient.
Skidelsky is a British economic historian whose three-volume biography of Keynes came out on these shores from 1986 to 2001. We had a chance to talk last week while he was visiting the U.S. to promote his latest work, "Keynes: The Return of the Master," published in September, which aims to spotlight the relevance of Keynesian economics for modern times.
He argues that it's impossible to miss the connections: For one thing, the banking and credit collapse of recent years stems from precisely the same economic mistakes Keynes saw in the 1920s.
For another, the government stimulus programs that have stemmed the worldwide decline and begun the process of recovery are based on his precept that when confidence is shattered in the private investment market, the only remedy is "state intervention to promote and subsidize new investment" -- presumably by deficit spending.
"The most positive difference between now and the Depression," Skidelsky says, "is that we have Keynes' writing, so that governments didn't repeat the mistake of the early '30s of cutting their own spending when private spending was falling."
.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Theodore Roosevelt Organiz. : Teddy Super Important : Women's Rights, Creation of Electoral Primaries, Tax the Rich, Health Care - Progressive Prophet
.
Theodore Roosevelt Organization : Teddy Super Important : Women's Rights, Creation of Electoral Primaries, Taxing the Rich, Health Care - Teddy, the Progressive Prophet
Theodore Roosevelt Organization
The Bull Moose years
The Bull Moose years
Some excerpts :
But the real winner in 1912 was democracy in the form of the presidential primaries. By running and losing, by refusing to be counted out ... when the voters had spoken ... Theodore Roosevelt had firmly established the new primary system.
Never again would any political party decline to nominate the clear winner of the presidential primaries, and by the 1970s the primary system entirely controlled the nominating process. Theodore Roosevelt won the Republican primaries in 1912, and then lost the nomination and the election. Wilson won the election in November. But the real winner in 1912 was democracy in the form of the presidential primaries. By running and losing, by refusing to be counted out by party leaders when the voters had spoken first, Theodore Roosevelt had firmly established the new primary system. "..Are the American people fit to govern themselves, to rule themselves, to control themselves? " TR asked in March. "I believe they are. My opponents do not." It was democracy that was on trial in the contest for the nomination that year, and in the long run democracy won.
WOMEN AND THE PROGRESSIVE PARTY, 1912 - 1916
It may seem strange or ironic that women played such an important role in a party nicknamed the "Bull Moose Party," but the Progressive or Bull Moose Party welcomed women into leadership positions as no major party had before. The high status of women in the Progressive Party reflected the party's strong advocacy of women's suffrage and women's rights, and the emphasis that Theodore Roosevelt, the party's presidential candidate in 1912, gave to women's issues. Up to this time, no male of Theodore Roosevelt's prominence and popularity had endorsed women's suffrage, and in 1912 neither the Republican candidate, President William Howard Taft, running for reelection, or Democrat Woodrow Wilson, endorsed women's suffrage on the national level. In 1912 women had the vote in several Western states, but in no state east of the Mississippi River.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We were, of course, for woman suffrage, and we invited women delegates and had plenty of them. They were our own kind, too-- women doctors, women lawyers, women teachers, college professors, middle-aged leaders of civic movements, or rich young girls who had gone in for settlement work."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the first national convention of the Progressive Party, in Chicago in August of 1912, all observers noted the prominence of women, women delegates, women leaders. The Kansas newspaper editor William Allen White recalled: "We were, of course, for woman suffrage, and we invited women delegates and had plenty of them. They were our own kind, too-- women doctors, women lawyers, women teachers, college professors, middle-aged leaders of civic movements, or rich young girls who had gone in for settlement work." "Settlement work" refers to the settlement houses in the cities, places where the poor could obtain basic social services, not then available from government. Many social workers, male and female, supported the Progressive Party in 1912. Indeed, the most famous settlement house leader and social worker in American history, the beloved Jane Addams of Hull House in Chicago, was at the convention, and seconded Theodore Roosevelt's nomination for President. This was said to be the first time that a woman had addressed the national convention of a major party. The rules of the Bull Moose Party, adopted at the Chicago convention, mandated that four women were to be members-at-large on the Progressive National Committee. This was to insure female representation at the highest levels of party leadership.
In November 1912 Theodore Roosevelt carried two states with women's suffrage, Washington and California (he won six states in all); and in the State of Washington, Helen J. Scott was a Progressive elector. It was said in the press at the time that she was the first woman to cast a vote in the electoral college-- and therefore in a real constitutional sense Helen Scott may be said to be the first woman who voted for President! However, some reports list women among the Progressive electors in California, and the matter has not been resolved by historians as yet.
.
Theodore Roosevelt Organization : Teddy Super Important : Women's Rights, Creation of Electoral Primaries, Taxing the Rich, Health Care - Teddy, the Progressive Prophet
Theodore Roosevelt Organization
The Bull Moose years
The Bull Moose years
Some excerpts :
But the real winner in 1912 was democracy in the form of the presidential primaries. By running and losing, by refusing to be counted out ... when the voters had spoken ... Theodore Roosevelt had firmly established the new primary system.
Never again would any political party decline to nominate the clear winner of the presidential primaries, and by the 1970s the primary system entirely controlled the nominating process. Theodore Roosevelt won the Republican primaries in 1912, and then lost the nomination and the election. Wilson won the election in November. But the real winner in 1912 was democracy in the form of the presidential primaries. By running and losing, by refusing to be counted out by party leaders when the voters had spoken first, Theodore Roosevelt had firmly established the new primary system. "..Are the American people fit to govern themselves, to rule themselves, to control themselves? " TR asked in March. "I believe they are. My opponents do not." It was democracy that was on trial in the contest for the nomination that year, and in the long run democracy won.
WOMEN AND THE PROGRESSIVE PARTY, 1912 - 1916
It may seem strange or ironic that women played such an important role in a party nicknamed the "Bull Moose Party," but the Progressive or Bull Moose Party welcomed women into leadership positions as no major party had before. The high status of women in the Progressive Party reflected the party's strong advocacy of women's suffrage and women's rights, and the emphasis that Theodore Roosevelt, the party's presidential candidate in 1912, gave to women's issues. Up to this time, no male of Theodore Roosevelt's prominence and popularity had endorsed women's suffrage, and in 1912 neither the Republican candidate, President William Howard Taft, running for reelection, or Democrat Woodrow Wilson, endorsed women's suffrage on the national level. In 1912 women had the vote in several Western states, but in no state east of the Mississippi River.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We were, of course, for woman suffrage, and we invited women delegates and had plenty of them. They were our own kind, too-- women doctors, women lawyers, women teachers, college professors, middle-aged leaders of civic movements, or rich young girls who had gone in for settlement work."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the first national convention of the Progressive Party, in Chicago in August of 1912, all observers noted the prominence of women, women delegates, women leaders. The Kansas newspaper editor William Allen White recalled: "We were, of course, for woman suffrage, and we invited women delegates and had plenty of them. They were our own kind, too-- women doctors, women lawyers, women teachers, college professors, middle-aged leaders of civic movements, or rich young girls who had gone in for settlement work." "Settlement work" refers to the settlement houses in the cities, places where the poor could obtain basic social services, not then available from government. Many social workers, male and female, supported the Progressive Party in 1912. Indeed, the most famous settlement house leader and social worker in American history, the beloved Jane Addams of Hull House in Chicago, was at the convention, and seconded Theodore Roosevelt's nomination for President. This was said to be the first time that a woman had addressed the national convention of a major party. The rules of the Bull Moose Party, adopted at the Chicago convention, mandated that four women were to be members-at-large on the Progressive National Committee. This was to insure female representation at the highest levels of party leadership.
In November 1912 Theodore Roosevelt carried two states with women's suffrage, Washington and California (he won six states in all); and in the State of Washington, Helen J. Scott was a Progressive elector. It was said in the press at the time that she was the first woman to cast a vote in the electoral college-- and therefore in a real constitutional sense Helen Scott may be said to be the first woman who voted for President! However, some reports list women among the Progressive electors in California, and the matter has not been resolved by historians as yet.
.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
The American Medical Association AMA attacked the Health Care plan of President Calvin Coolidge as "socialism and communism—inciting to revolution"
.
The American Medical Association AMA attacked the Health Care plan of President Calvin Coolidge as "socialism and communism—inciting to revolution"
Enotes.com
National Health Insurance
National Health Insurance
Some excerpts :
Proposals for a national health insurance system were heard as early as 1912, when President Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Party platform (following the example of Germany and other European nations) called for "the protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted to American use." Shortly thereafter, the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL) formed a Committee on Social Insurance comprising prominent members of the American Medical Association (AMA) and others. The committee recommended a compulsory plan covering the majority of workers.
Efforts to enact the AALL plan at the state level failed, largely due to opposition from organized medicine and other conservative elements that considered it a harbinger of radical social change. The AMA initially called the plan the "inauguration of a great social movement" (1917), but rapidly changed course and consistently opposed mandatory health insurance since that time. In 1920 the AMA House of Delegates resolved to oppose "any plan embodying the system of compulsory insurance which provides for medical service to be rendered contributors or their dependents provided, controlled or regulated by any state or the federal government." The labor leader Samuel Gompers joined in opposition, apparently fearing that benefits gained through legislation rather than negotiation would be vulnerable to later repeal or limitation.
In 1927 President Calvin Coolidge appointed a Committee on the Cost of Medical Care, funded by a consortia of foundations, led by Carnegie and Millbank. The committee documented the severe and widespread problems Americans faced in obtaining and paying for medical care. The Committee called for care provided through group practice, paid for by insurance or taxation. The AMA attacked the plan a "socialism and communism—inciting to revolution."
.
The American Medical Association AMA attacked the Health Care plan of President Calvin Coolidge as "socialism and communism—inciting to revolution"
Enotes.com
National Health Insurance
National Health Insurance
Some excerpts :
Proposals for a national health insurance system were heard as early as 1912, when President Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Party platform (following the example of Germany and other European nations) called for "the protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted to American use." Shortly thereafter, the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL) formed a Committee on Social Insurance comprising prominent members of the American Medical Association (AMA) and others. The committee recommended a compulsory plan covering the majority of workers.
Efforts to enact the AALL plan at the state level failed, largely due to opposition from organized medicine and other conservative elements that considered it a harbinger of radical social change. The AMA initially called the plan the "inauguration of a great social movement" (1917), but rapidly changed course and consistently opposed mandatory health insurance since that time. In 1920 the AMA House of Delegates resolved to oppose "any plan embodying the system of compulsory insurance which provides for medical service to be rendered contributors or their dependents provided, controlled or regulated by any state or the federal government." The labor leader Samuel Gompers joined in opposition, apparently fearing that benefits gained through legislation rather than negotiation would be vulnerable to later repeal or limitation.
In 1927 President Calvin Coolidge appointed a Committee on the Cost of Medical Care, funded by a consortia of foundations, led by Carnegie and Millbank. The committee documented the severe and widespread problems Americans faced in obtaining and paying for medical care. The Committee called for care provided through group practice, paid for by insurance or taxation. The AMA attacked the plan a "socialism and communism—inciting to revolution."
.
History : Theodore Roosevelt was a strong believer in taxes on wealthy people and compulsory Health Care Insurance
.
History : Theodore Roosevelt was a strong believer in taxes on wealthy people and compulsory Health Care Insurance
The New York Times
He’s No Teddy Roosevelt
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
August 15, 2008
He’s No Teddy Roosevelt
Some excerpts :
Roosevelt was an early, eloquent supporter of imposing a tax on large estates. Here’s what he said in a speech on April 14, 1906:
As a matter of personal conviction, and without pretending to discuss the details or formulate the system, I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the adoption of some such scheme as that of a progressive tax on all fortunes, beyond a certain amount, either given in life or devised or bequeathed upon death to any individual — a tax so framed as to put it out of the power of the owner of one of these enormous fortunes to hand on more than a certain amount to any one individual; the tax of course, to be imposed by the national and not the state government.
And there’s this, from later the same year:
The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government. Not only should he recognize this obligation in the way he leads his daily life and in the way he earns and spends his money, but it should also be recognized by the way in which he pays for the protection the States gives him.
And here is an excerpt from a message to Congress in 1907:
The inheritance tax . . . is both a far better method of taxation, and far more important for the purpose of having the fortunes of the country bear in proportion to their increase in size a corresponding increase and burden of taxation. The Government has the absolute right to decide as to the terms upon which a man shall receive a bequest or devise from another, and this point in the devolution of property is especially appropriate for the imposition of a tax. . . . No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood.
As these speeches makes clear, Theodore Roosevelt was a strong believer in taxes on wealth, particularly the estate tax.
.
History : Theodore Roosevelt was a strong believer in taxes on wealthy people and compulsory Health Care Insurance
The New York Times
He’s No Teddy Roosevelt
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
August 15, 2008
He’s No Teddy Roosevelt
Some excerpts :
Roosevelt was an early, eloquent supporter of imposing a tax on large estates. Here’s what he said in a speech on April 14, 1906:
As a matter of personal conviction, and without pretending to discuss the details or formulate the system, I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the adoption of some such scheme as that of a progressive tax on all fortunes, beyond a certain amount, either given in life or devised or bequeathed upon death to any individual — a tax so framed as to put it out of the power of the owner of one of these enormous fortunes to hand on more than a certain amount to any one individual; the tax of course, to be imposed by the national and not the state government.
And there’s this, from later the same year:
The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government. Not only should he recognize this obligation in the way he leads his daily life and in the way he earns and spends his money, but it should also be recognized by the way in which he pays for the protection the States gives him.
And here is an excerpt from a message to Congress in 1907:
The inheritance tax . . . is both a far better method of taxation, and far more important for the purpose of having the fortunes of the country bear in proportion to their increase in size a corresponding increase and burden of taxation. The Government has the absolute right to decide as to the terms upon which a man shall receive a bequest or devise from another, and this point in the devolution of property is especially appropriate for the imposition of a tax. . . . No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood.
As these speeches makes clear, Theodore Roosevelt was a strong believer in taxes on wealth, particularly the estate tax.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
