It's not what the candidates had to say, which was so predictable that any pundit could accurately sum up briefly what they had to say without the candidates speaking. What was worth the expense of the debate was the conservative audience revealing the state of that portion of American society. Ron Paul was asked if an uninsured man should be allowed to die rather than receive medical help at government expense. When he said yes, the audience cheered.

Yes, yes, I know the question that was posited, and the answer, were a bit more nuanced than that, but it still did show a tendancy of conservatives to be a bit on the harsh side.

But then, true, we already knew that.

A Pox On Both Their Houses: Obama is a Republican in sheep's clothing.

---------------

Rep. John Conyers (D.-Mich.) at a press conference on July 27 during the debt-ceiling battle: “I say we have to educate the American people at the same time as we educate the president of the United States. Because the Republicans, Speaker [John] Boehner [and] Majority Leader [Eric] Cantor, did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The president of the United States called for that. And my response to him is to mass thousands of people in front of the White House to protest this.” And Conyers hadn’t yet heard the president’s Sept. 8 “jobs” speech in which he called for “modest adjustments to health-care programs like Medicare and Medicaid.” We can just imagine how modest.

.. Thought it was good, some good honest debate going on and ideas being talked about and thats good

.. The clapping/Ron Paul answer is not actually 'true', the clapping is NOT wanting someone to die, thats just spin and nonsense

.. BTW what about the democrats losing the election in NY district 9 last night/weiners old seat -- first time a Rep has won that seat in 90 years, not good for democrats and obama, its really not

"the clapping is NOT wanting someone to die"

Quite right, not wanting someone to die. But they are apparently prepared to consider, in their resentment, watching him die.

If that's not so, but their spontaneous reaction suggests it, maybe we can be forgiven for thinking conservatives maybe value their resentments a little too much.

Bloomberg Poll: Obama Approval Plummets Among Americans Skeptical of Jobs Plan

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

A majority of Americans don’t believe President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan will help lower the unemployment rate, skepticism he must overcome as he presses Congress for action and positions himself for re- election.

The downbeat assessment of the American Jobs Act reflects a growing and broad sense of dissatisfaction with the president. Americans disapprove of his handling of the economy by 62 percent to 33 percent, a Bloomberg National Poll conducted Sept. 9-12 shows. The disapproval number represents a nine point increase from six months ago.

The president’s job approval rating also stands at the lowest of his presidency — 45 percent. That rating is driven down in part by a majority of independents, 53 percent, who disapprove of his performance.

NO DEMOCRAT IS SAFE:

September 14 , 2011

The smashing victory of Republican Bob Turner in the special election for the Congressional seat held for decades by Chuck Schumer and Anthony Weiner sends a pointed warning to House Democrats who were formerly comfortable in their "safe" Democratic districts: No Democrat is safe!

Behind the incredible upset -- this was the first time the district went Republican since it was created -- lies the massive and growing animosity toward Obama by Jewish Democrats. This Administration's deliberate insults against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, its sympathy with the radical Islamists, and its support for a return to 1967 borders for the Jewish State have cost it the support of its once second most loyal voting group (after African-Americans).

According to John McLaughlin, the star political strategist who helped pilot Turner to victor, the Republican candidate spent about $60,000 on media in the final week compared to over a million for the defeated Democrat Weprin. The Democrats flooded the district with workers and money but were not able to stem the avalanche.

Turnout among Latino and African-American voters was very low and the outpouring of Jewish and white Catholic voters against Obama's candidate was truly impressive.

This victory for Republicans is, in its own way, as inspiring for conservatives and as deflating for liberals as the 2010 victory of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race. The message it sends is that Obama's policies have made all liberals and all Democrats vulnerable even in the bastions of Democratic liberalism.

Herman Cain calls NY-9 election “earth breaking” for Jewish vote:

September 14, 2011

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain sees the GOP pickup of New York congressional district 9 as a “huge message” to the 2012 election. Mr. Cain said that the election of fellow businessman and Republican Bob Turner over Democratic politician David Weprin “suggests that the Democrats can’t take 2012 for granted.”

The former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza said that the Democrats failed to keep sex-scandal tainted Anthony Weiner’s seat because of President Obama’s Israel policies. “It says to me -- in neon lights -- that the Jewish community in that district does not like this administration’s position and treatment of Israel. That in itself is earth breaking,” he said in an interview with The Washington Times.

Mr. Cain’s said that, “The Jewish population has been so loyal to the Democrat party. And now the Obama has thrown Israel under the bus, they are sending a very clear message, they do not like it.”

The NY-9 election shows that the GOP can grab Democratic voters next year. “The biggest implication you can read into this is that you can take the Democrat vote,” he told The Times. “Even Democrats are disgusted with the performance of this economy and disgusted with how this administration is treating Israel.”

“Ron Paul was asked if an uninsured man should be allowed to die rather than receive medical help at government expense. When he said yes, the audience cheered.” Mike Q

I wonder Mike, did you watch the debate or are you listening to left wing SPIN media. As you can see below, Ron Paul answered NO, not yes. Also, it was not simply that some poor soul did not or could not afford healthcare. If you heard the debate Blitzer prefaced it by saying the young healthy 30 year old refused to purchase healthcare. He refused to take any personal responsibility, not because he was poor or not eligible but because he did not care about the consequences. Perhaps, he thought “If I get sick, I will just put it on the backs of everyone else” People should not cheer but people SHOULD be disgusted with that type of selfish attitude. It was that disgust you heard, not some satisfaction that someone might die. Don't you see the spin here? Ron Paul basically said if this man refuses to take any responsibility, then he won’t be left to die but he should not expect to get the best of care provided by the backs of the American people who play by the rules.

Be real man! Stop listening to the spin doctors on both the left and the right that slant the truth and vilify for their own agenda. You are better then that!

“Blitzer pressed further, asking a hypothetical situation where the same man got sick and needed care for six months without health insurance. The CNN host asked who would pay for the care: "Are you saying that society should just let him die?"

“Paul responded from practical experience and defended free markets in medical care:”

"No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio. And the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospital, and we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves, assume responsibility for ourselves, that our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. And that's the reason the cost is so high. The cost is so high because we dump it on the government, it becomes a bureaucracy, it becomes a special interest, it cowtows to the insurance companies and to the drug companies."

"Yes, yes, I know the question that was posited, and the answer, were a bit more nuanced than that, but it still did show a tendancy of conservatives to be a bit on the harsh side."

I was focused on the audience reaction, the vigorous "Yeah!" when Blitzer asked should society let him die. The construction of the question itself seemed designed to produce controversy. But it brought out something that people would deny existed. "People should not cheer," someone said, and I agree.

You know it's a tough crowd when Rick Perry gets booed for not being harsh enough.

All people can be stupid some of the time, and some people can be stupid all of the time. Just being an adolescent makes people nearly insane. We don't say that's their choice, to destroy themselves or their lives.

I think of one relative who could have been driven into bankruptcy with credit card debt, but an intervention made it possible for him to deal with his problem. Today he's still financially stupid, but avoids situations where he could ruin himself (like the alcoholic who avoids even a drop of alcohol).

Another relative was in a similar situation to the one Blitzer posited. She might have been able to buy insurance, I can't say, but chose to risk it until she was better able to afford it. Of course, she fell ill, and ended up owing more to the hospital than insurance would have cost. She wasn't selfish, she was young and stupid and poor. And that's not enough reason to stand by and watch her die. That's what I'm saying Mike.

(BTW, she became pregnant, and her debt didn't leave money for insurance. Just in time, the Affordable Healthcare Act enabled her to find affordable insurance. And finally, her job situation improved, and now she's safe from condemnation by those "disgusted" people you feel sympathy for. Who, I have to ask, is the ideologue here?)

"Be real man! Stop listening to the spin doctors on both the left and the right that slant the truth and vilify for their own agenda. You are better then that!"

G, you are wasting your time with Q. He's a dishonest POS.

Hey Mike Q I get it. You want compassion for those less fortunate and so do I. I am sure a good bulk of the crowd that cheered, which we agree was wrong, did so out of frustration for a system that penalizes those that play by the rules and rewards those that don't. That was all it was, frustration, not those looking for blood, as you seem to characterize most conservatives. I trust those who would express their true feelings good or bad, over those that hide their ugly side behind some politically correct curtain, until one day they slip and show their true colors. The politically correct left wing media are not true to themselves. They are not the good guys, they just hide who they are but most people see right through them.

I tend to try and find the good in people but the media right and left as well as the politicians tend to focus on the negative because they have an agenda. As for the debate, every single one of those Republicans have faults but every single one IMO is worth a try with the hope that they will be better then this current administration. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. IMO, it would be insane to "bring back Bush" and insane to re-elect Obama for four more years, unless you think things are working now but I certainly do not.

You mentioned having family members with financial issues, lacking insurance and so on. Most of us have those family members. Some people get disgusted and angry that their situation probably could have been avoided, had they been more responsible. They were not looking at the consequences of their actions. So now, as Ron Paul said, family members, churches, neighbors and friends along with social programs must bear the extra burden of helping. Caring people are not being forced to help by some mandate but are doing so out of love and responsibility. Frustration is because it should not have had to come to that. On the other hand, you seem content to shift that burden on the rest of society, without consequence to those making the poor choices and I think that is wrong. Again, I am not talking about those who were unfortunate but those who choose to be ignorant, expecting others who are responsible to pay.

In the Bible, the same compassionate God that suffered and died on the cross for us, says, "Whoever does not work should not eat." Is that harsh or is that a loving father instilling responsibility in his children, rather then having them burden the rest of society?

I see that I worded my first comment badly. Dr Paul did not use the word Yes when he spoke the word No but then went ahead and said Yes by setting limits on how much society should provide to the person we're frustrated with. A compassionate and moral society, Dr Paul more or less said, will not stand by and watch even the foolish die, but some kind of judgmental death panel will decide how much treatment the sick man will get, and THEN stand by and watch him die. That's the frustration talking, not the coherent moral person. Even "Whoever does not work should not eat" is a dogmatic statement inspired by frustration, that falls apart when the whoever turns out to be crippled or a leper.

There is quite a robust investment in the resentment business. At any hour of the day or night you can't miss the various radio shows whose sole format is harping on frustrations, creating resentment. This must be what you were referring to when you said "the media right and left as well as the politicians tend to focus on the negative because they have an agenda."

BTW, Dr Paul is the Republican candidate I respect. It's not that I agree with everything he says (I agree with his stance on the military; an 80% cut in spending there would still leave us with a respectable defensive force, while cutting the deficit by, say, 40% of the year's total discretionary budget!), but he is believably sincere and honest; the rest of the pack are either phony-sounding or demonstrably mendacious about where they stand.

hey hey!

Of all the republican candidates, Dr. Paul is the rugged individual of the group.

MikeQ: I am with MikeG and Ron Paul on this one.

Ron Paul, ...Ron Paul, ...Ron Paul, ...Ron Paul, ...

LET'S SEE. I'll take some liberty and speak for Caspian on this-

DOES THE ENTIRE BOARD SEE RON PAUL, AS THE ONE VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO THE "DO NOTHING'S?
IF SO, THEN PERHAPS WE SHOULD ACT UPON OUR HUNCHES- AND MAKE SURE HIS VOICE COUNTS.

John, looks like I will be voting for the same two guys as last time.

Ron Paul in the Republican primary and Ralph Nader in the General if he runs.

Obama does not deserve a second term because he destroyed liberalism by implementing center/right policies that benefit the wealthy just like Bush/Cheney did.

Obama won in 10 Bush Red States because most Americans were fed up.

He will lose most, if not all 10 in 2012.

Bush was not a conservative and Obama is not a liberal.

Well in name only.

=============================

"We can have democracy in this country or we can have great concentrated wealth in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both."

--Louis Brandeis
Supreme Court Justice / 1941

=======================


"The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it."

--Edward Dowling

"an 80% cut in spending there would still leave us with a respectable defensive force," MQ

Last comment first and a lesson on principles. So what if a respectable defensive force is not enough and as a result we are attacked and innocent people die. Does that make you and Ron Paul non-coherent immoral people because you care more about cutting the deficit then the physical welfare of people in this country or even other countries? Are you saying, we can ignore the slaughter of the innocent, by some foreign maniac because we can only afford a limited amount of military protection? Wouldn't you agree there are limitations to how many we can protect with our military? I think what Ron Paul is saying is we are not using our military properly and therefore we are wasting a lot of money. Instead of protecting our borders and those here at home, we have become the policemen of the world. If we close unimportant bases throughout the world, we can put that money toward a stronger military and stronger defense.

Now hold on to that thought, that principle and apply it to healthcare. Aren't there many irresponsible people, especially non-citizens abusing and taxing our system and taking benefits away from those that are deserving and really need it? Like the military, wouldn't you agree there are limitations to how many uninsured people we can protect? So should we just throw more money at it regardless or should we address the cause and prevent the abuse? Instead of the idiot spin doctors saying, "What would you do to make healthcare better?" "What would you do to protect Americans from those abusing the system?" "If you repeal the healthcare law, how would you make sure those with pre-existing diseases get coverage?" No, they ask, "Do you think it is right to let someone without healthcare die?" That would be like the Right saying, "Do you think it is okay to let people die because we did not have a big enough military to protect them?"

Mike, WE are the real people. The politicians and the media are playing us. The Republicans abuse Perry today and tomorrow they praise him. Obama and the Democrats are for the people ONLY when it comes to trying to get elected and re-elected. The issue with our current government is crystal clear. The politicians are serving there own self interest, when they should be serving ours. The media are their puppets, when they should be our spokesmen.

"DOES THE ENTIRE BOARD SEE RON PAUL, AS THE ONE VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO THE "DO NOTHING'S?" John

I think he is different then the rest of the politician pack. I think he is honest. The right call his foreign policy treasonous. The left try to paint him as insensitive because of his belief of individual responsibility.

So since neither the Left, nor the Right like him, that must make him a pretty good candidate.

The politicians are serving there own self interest, when they should be serving ours. G finally gets it

"Wouldn't you agree there are limitations to how many uninsured people we can protect?"

How many SHOULD we support? As many as there are. It's not OK to say "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers you do to me" as long as it doesn't cost anything, then play God when it starts getting expensive.


Meanwhile, I know of no moral imperative to keep maintaining some 800 overseas military bases just so we have the exotic luxury of being able to attack anywhere in the world.

We know that with our current military and intelligence agencies eating up nearly 60% of the federal discretionary budget we were nevertheless successfully attacked and innocent people were murdered.

Likewise, the US spends two times more per capita on healthcare than other developed countries that enjoy superior healthcare stats while the US ranks thirty-seventh in the world.

In light of this you can say yet again that throwing money at something doesn't make it better than SMARTER spending. We just need to know what that means.

It's a moral imperative to help the sick,-not just those who can pay, not just those we approve of. That means it costs whatever it costs. But don't worry, just think of all those other countries with universal coverage, far better health stats, who are paying half what we pay with the crappy system we defend almost fanatically. And if everybody's covered, we won't have to keep feeling cheated by those system-abusing lowlifes, and then the resentment-mongers would have to find some other group to demonize.

So smarter spending in the case of healthcare is universal public insurance.

When you were trying to make a point you said "That would be like the Right saying, 'Do you think it is okay to let people die because we did not have a big enough military to protect them?'" We know that with the world's biggest military we were still hit. There will always be fingers pointing, finding fault, assigning blame, using exactly that language, no matter who does what or who doesn't. Fear of those fingers should not determine the size of our military budget or our social budget; what is right should determine these things.

“G finally gets it” Fred

Fred, the following scenario is how I view most politicians:.

Bama: My poll numbers are dropping!

Prez Advisors: That is because less and less people believe you, they think you are all campaign and no action.

Bama: What can I do, I have an election coming, my career is at stake!

Prez Advisors: The problem is the Repucs are getting too much face time with their recent debates. We need to come up with something that the people want....hmm...lets think.

Bama: I know something they want. They want jobs!

Prez Advisors: But you know we cannot deliver on that. What we can do is ask for another spending package but mention jobs, ask for tax cuts and everything the Repuc’s want but at the same time slip in taxing the rich and things we know they will never go for. They will look so bad and you will look like the hero. We will tell them to “stop the political circus” people can relate to that. We will tell them it is urgent to “pass it right away” And the best part is, you can sell it everywhere for months and they won’t even know you are actually campaigning.

Bama: Brilliant! ..Uh but what if the Repucs DO pass it right away, then what?

Prez Advisors: Washington do something quick? Are you kidding.. hahaha. You are starting to believe your own nonsense...hahaha.

Bama: hahaha..what was I thinking?

After the speech..

Detroit – Bama: …Pass this jobs bill right away….

Chicago- Bama… Pass this jobs bill right away ..

LA – Bama….Pass this jobs bill right away…


Bama to advisors: So how are my poll numbers? Are they getting any better?

Prez Advisors: Nope, not yet, stay with it!

“How many SHOULD we support?” MQ

We have different philosophies because you think government should support everyone.

I think government should only support those that can’t. And make it affordable and therefore accessible, to those that can. So if I choose to buy a fancy new car, rather then put that money toward healthcare, then that is the wrong choice but it is my choice and as long as I have the freedom of choice which I support, then society should not have to pay for both that car and my healthcare. Furthermore, if we have a right to healthcare, then we have a right to food, shelter and anything else that is essentially. I and nobody else should be denied ACCESS to healthcare but not everyone should have to pay for my healthcare in a freedom of choice, society.

"Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers you do to me" MQ

Mike, you quote the Bible. That means that God is found in the least of us and as individuals we should treat the least of our brothers the same as we treat God but it does not mean that we must have a socialized healthcare system, in order to love one another.

“Likewise, the US spends two times more per capita on healthcare than other developed countries that enjoy superior healthcare stats while the US ranks thirty-seventh in the world.” MQ

Yes US healthcare is broken and needs improvement. It is too costly and nobody should be denied access but the last time I saw the stats the ranking had to do with overall access to healthcare, which we need to improve on. As far as best quality of care, response to urgent care, cancer treatment, wait times for operations and procedures, we rank among the top. The benefit of Obamacare is it provides access to everyone with pre-existing diseases which I strongly support but it does nothing to lower the cost of healthcare, which is the main issue. It just throws money at the problem, creating a poorer quality of life overall.

Smarter spending in my mind is to attack the over the top costs, so it is more affordable to everyone. We have a moral obligation to make it in general, affordable and accessible. The individual has the obligation of deciding what they want to spend their money on. Quite often as in the Ron Paul example, they make the wrong choice. They need to be encouraged to make the right choice. Or we could have a society that makes all the choices for us, to somehow protect us from ourselves, so we never fall, we never get hurt, we never learn anything from our mistakes and we never excel and grow as individuals. Sorry, that is just not my idea of an ideal world.

Sorry, to break into the current debate but, I just came across something that ought to shake and awaken all of you right down to the very core.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/China-Consolidates-Grip-on-nytimes-2650144197.html?x=0&.v=1

CHINA #1 - IN RARE MATERIALS
AFGHANISTAN #1- IN NATURAL MATERIAL THAT SUPPORT THE HI-TECH BATTERYS, ETC THAT WE DEPAND ON.
STORTAGES IN SUPPLY OF CANCER DRUGS REACHING CRITICAL MASS.

Hmmmm! How can we afford to live in this NWO oriented world that our sellout globalists have set up for us?

MikeG- Are you prepared or willing to pay market priced scale for these and otherforeign goods? Does private industry give a damn about this nations people? Will they tighten up their own belts in order to keep our nation functional. Or is it all about what keeps them happy?
In this days current market place what is the value thast should be placed upon the home grown "human component" that protects their interests?

let's start with this-
Cost of raising a child to the age of maturity estimated to be $250,000 per child unit.
Should that child lose either life or limb in the endeavor of protecting corporate and the publics interests- then why shouldn't the corporate world be included into the indebtedness [in full] for that life and lifetime of lost income?
IF YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT IT WAS A PERSONAL DECISION TO SIGN-UP FOR SERVICE AND NO FURTHER COMPENSATION SHOULD BE ASSIGNED- THEN...
PERHAPS OUR SOLDIERS OUGHT TO DECLARE THEMSELVES PRIVATE CONTRACTORS JUST LIKE THE BLACKWATER'S OF THE WORLD, SINCE NEITHER GOVERNMENT NOR THE CORPORATES HAVE GIVEN A TINKERS DAMN ABOUT "THEIR EXTRAORDINARY SACRIFICES AND DEDICATION TO COUNTRY".

WHAT IS THE PRICE YOU WOULD ATTACH TO LEAVING A MINOR CHILD, CHILDREN, ELDERLY PARENT & ESPOUSE FOR YEARS UPON YEARS?
HOW ABOUT THE RELATIVE LOSS OF INCOME FOR COMPARIBLE JOB RESPONCIBILITES IN THE CORPORATE WORLD?
-LOSS OF LIFE?
-LOSS OF LIMB?
-ETC?

Oh, I know. You would opt out of that inefficient and wasteful "gov't defense funding" and care for the heroes that protect those liberties you so enjoy- for that shiney new car, right?

THINK AGAIN!
THE REST OF THE WORLD IS CLOSING IN ON YOU JUST AS IT IS FOR THE REST OF US.

Hmmmm! Imagine a world where all military personnel went on strike, and the globalist crap weasels who have sold us out were held responcible and bound to honor their own contractual dilemmas for every single life wasted in their names- personally.

Still, stuck on stupid arguing Obamacare? Shame on you.
The real question to ponder here is-
WHO IS TOP DOG? HOW AND WHAT STRATEGIES ARE NEEDED TO REMAIN THERE? HOW CAN OUR NATION SURVIVE THE ON SLAUGHT OF UNIVERSAL AWARENESSES. HOW DO WE KEEP OUR NATION AND ITS PEOPLE HEALTHY AND STRONG ENOUGH NOT TO BE OVERTAKEN BY INVASION, INEPTITUDE, OBSOLESCENSE, REVOLT OR DEFAULT.

MikeG: Better hurry up and buy that car before, all that you can afford with your fait paper dollar money is a tail light.

Just kidding. But quit bitching about the paltry amount that Obamacare is costing us- when reality is staring you right in the face

CHINA'S MILITARY & POPULATION IS 10X THE SIZE OF OURS.
THE NUCLEAR OPTION IS OFF THE TABLE UNLESS WE ALL WANT TO PERISH.
WE CAN NO LONGER EXTORT THE WORLD AND PLUNDER THE RESOURCES OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE CAUGHT UP WITH US AND ARE COGNIZANT OF OUR PAST POLITICAL AGENDAS & METHODOLOGIES.

HOW DO YOU PROPOSE THAT WE ATTAIN, MAINTAIN, & RESTORE TRADING, FISCAL, AND FINANCIAL ORDER SO THAT GOODS FLOW WITH RATIONAL, REASONABLE & COMPETITIVE PRICING THAT DOESN'T INCREASE THE CURRENT POVERTY LEVEL IN THIS COUNTRY?

"Does private industry give a damn about this nation’s people?"

John, no they don't, not really but they are in business to make money. It is the role of government to give a damn and not play political games.

" Will they tighten up their own belts in order to keep our nation functional. Or is it all about what keeps them happy?"

John, They are in business to make money but wouldn't be great if the employee meant more then the dollar? Wouldn't it be great if they gave more back? Wouldn't it be great if they kept our nation functional, even though it is not their job to do so? Wouldn't it be even GREATER if our government did their job and kept our nation functional?

"Still, stuck on stupid arguing Obamacare? Shame on you. The real question to ponder here is-
WHO IS TOP DOG? HOW AND WHAT STRATEGIES ARE NEEDED TO REMAIN THERE? HOW CAN OUR NATION SURVIVE THE ON SLAUGHT OF UNIVERSAL AWARENESSES. HOW DO WE KEEP OUR NATION AND ITS PEOPLE HEALTHY AND STRONG ENOUGH NOT TO BE OVERTAKEN BY INVASION, INEPTITUDE, OBSOLESCENSE, REVOLT OR DEFAULT. " John

John, you are right! Obamacare is a stupid argument. Then why wouldn't Obama and the Democrats "quit bitching" about Obamacare for over a year, with so many more important issues on the table? Think about it John. Obamacare was this administrations distraction, for not doing what really mattered, like the more important questions that you pose, as well as putting our fiscal house in order to make our nation stronger when they had the chance to do so.

John, don't you see? We can argue everyday about Obamacare and it means nothing. The waste comes not so much in dollars but the time this Administration spent on passing it, when they had so many more important priorities, as you so clearly state

"They need to be encouraged to make the right choice. Or we could have a society that makes all the choices for us, to somehow protect us from ourselves, so we never fall, we never get hurt, we never learn anything from our mistakes and we never excel and grow as individuals."

Frontier homesteaders didn't get much chance to learn the lessons of responsible money management, or find out if they could handle credit cards. Were they weaker, more dependent because they did not pass some test that means something to 21st century conservatives?

We feed our kids, and as a consequence they never get to find out if they would resort to cannibalism if hungry enough. Does that matter? We feed them- not to cheat them out of learning some lesson- but because it would be cruel not to feed them. Are they weaker, more dependent for not facing this test, not accorded respect because they didn't prove their mettle?

If we had always had universal public insurance, we wouldn't have any inferiors to point our fingers at, and, really, would the world have been a poorer place in any way for that?

"you think government should support everyone."

The government doesn't support anyone. Taxpayers pay into a pool for public use. The government only manages the fund. Supposedly the taxpaying public wants Social Security, Medicare, eventually universal Medicare. The public gets the most efficient and reliable service from government management. But because we don't get to see who would fall on his face, this is unacceptable? Sorry, I don't understand that.

I fully agree that the current healthcare bill is flawed and deficient. Medicare was flawed in its original form. But something had to get through the door, or there would never be any Medicare. Same with the Affordable Healthcare Bill. Repeal it because it's not perfect and there may never be Medicare for all.

“Were they weaker, more dependent because they did not pass some test that means something to 21st century conservatives? We feed them- not to cheat them out of learning some lesson- but because it would be cruel not to feed them. Are they weaker, more dependent for not facing this test, not accorded respect because they didn't prove their mettle?” MQ

Mike Q, it was never about passing a test or not feeding our children or not taking care of those that are weaker. It has always been about taking personal responsibility because it is the right thing to do if we are able. “Taxpayers pay into a pool for public use.” And I want that to mostly go toward helping those that cannot help themselves. I also don’t have a problem spending a little for Medicare and SS to provide some additional help in retirement. If universal healthcare is reasonable and better for most, then bring it on but there are always tradeoffs and limits. If those tradeoffs outweigh the benefit for most, then we have reached the limits.

So, sacrifice liberty and individual choice for a “flawed” government program would be a limit. Seeing it through and getting something decent would be a positive but starting something bad that we cannot scrap, would be a negative. Raising taxes and growing government bigger, simply because you think bigger is better, would be a limit. The ultimate big government drone, is somebody that says, “raise my taxes”. That person won’t even exercise their individual freedom to pay more on their own or decide to use that money for charity. They lost the will to be an individual. Instead they call on government to make decisions for them and that is going way over the limit.

Ron Paul: A nonstarter from the get go. By his own rhetoric, he would eliminate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (these could still be repaired instead) and ban all other government run entitlements. He vehemently is opposed to single payer socialized medicine (this being ok by me). And yes, Mike G as far as I am concerned his worst flaw is that he would be an irresponsible isolationist as the rest of the world gobbles up all our remaining crumbs to our final and permanent demise.

Truer Words Were Never Written:
Take note Caspian, John, Mike Q. and etc., etc.

----------------------------------------

Obama Becomes the Fall Guy:

September 15, 2011

The Left turns on Obama as if he were culpable for pushing through the Left’s own agenda.

Suddenly, liberal op-ed writers are trashing — even lampooning — Barack Obama as a one-term president (“one and done”). Centrist Democrats up for reelection in 2012 openly worry about inviting a kindred president into their districts, lest the new pariah lose them votes.

Left-wing think tanks, environmentalists, and academics vent their anger against Obama for supposedly being too soft on Republicans and too ready to compromise with right-wingers. But what really has caused the left-wing falling-out, less than three years after the hope-and-change crush on Barack Obama?

For now, it’s the polls.

Obama’s popularity has plummeted to little more than 40 percent approval. Suddenly, Democrats worry that the public anger could be contagious. It might infect them as well — in the way a sinking George W. Bush hurt congressional Republicans up for reelection in 2006.

Yet the Left cannot fairly blame Obama. After all, he rammed through on a strictly partisan vote the century-old liberal dream of a federal takeover of health care — something that Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton never could do. Keynesians never dreamed that a president could actually borrow $5 trillion for domestic spending in less than three years.

The Obama administration even tried to shut down a brand-new Boeing aircraft plant on the shaky argument that the company might thereby be hiring fewer union workers somewhere else. For environmentalists, Obama kept oil producers out of new fields in Alaska, the American West, the Gulf, and other offshore sites. Hundreds of billions in borrowed federal money went to failed “wind and solar” plants in an effort to jump-start “millions of green jobs.”

The Obama revolution that occurred under the radar was even more insidious. Open-borders activists were promised that the government would not bother illegal aliens unless they were wanted for felonies. Never before has the United States joined a foreign government in suing one of its own states — in the way that the Justice Department and Mexico have either filed or joined suits seeking to overturn Arizona’s immigration law.

From January 2009 through 2010, Obama advanced the liberal dream with a passion not seen since the New Deal days of Franklin Roosevelt. He bulldozed all opposition and rammed through most of what he wanted with the help of a Democratic Congress: Obamacare, record borrowing, record spending, and hundreds of hard-left presidential appointees and judges.

Far from being namby-pamby, Obama has gone after opponents like no president since Richard Nixon. He urged Hispanics to “punish our enemies.” He called his political opponents “hostage takers.” The affluent were lumped together with the super-rich and derided as “millionaires and billionaires,” “corporate-jet owners,” and “fat cat” bankers. His supporters in unions and the Congressional Black Caucus freely blasted the Tea Party with slurs — with the unspoken assurance that the president’s constant calls for civility certainly did not apply to them.

Critics may lampoon Obama’s use of a teleprompter, but he still uses it to good effect in his near-daily speeches. Obama is a far better megaphone for left-wing policies than was the lackluster Jimmy Carter, the pompous Al Gore, or the condescending John Kerry. He easily outshines the wooden Harry Reid and the polarizing Nancy Pelosi. Compared with Obama and his smoothness, an often gaffe-prone Vice President Joe Biden can seem a liability. Obama is as charismatic as “I feel your pain” Bill Clinton — as we saw in 2008, when Obama destroyed the primary challenge of Hillary Clinton.

So the Left cannot really complain that Obama either betrayed the cause or proved particularly inept in advancing it. Instead, what Obama’s supporters are mad about is that the public is boiling over chronic 9 percent unemployment, a comatose housing market, escalating food and fuel prices, near-nonexistent economic growth, a gyrating stock market, record deficits, $16 trillion in aggregate debt, and a historic credit downgrading. And voters are not just mad, but are blaming these hard times on the liberal Obama agenda of more regulations, more federal spending, more borrowing, more talk of taxes, and more “stimulus” programs.

A mostly moderate-to-conservative public has concluded that it does not like the new liberal agenda. After three years, it believes that the big government/big borrowing medicine made the inherited illness far worse. Voters may or may not like Obama, but they surely do not like what he is still trying to do.

In response, the Left needs a sacrificial lamb. So it has nonsensically turned with a fury on Obama as if he were culpable for pushing through the Left’s own agenda. If Democrats do not blame the public’s anger on their once-beloved messenger, then they are left only with their message itself. And that is something they simply cannot accept.

"it was never about passing a test"

OK, I'm just trying to understand the terminology being used here.

"individual freedom to pay more (into the tax pool) on their own"

If communism won't work because those people who goof off and still get food, lodging, and the rest destroy the incentive for anyone else to work, then it also has to be that those people who chose not to pay more into the tax pool and still get the benefits of the extra payments into the pool destroy any incentive for anyone else to pay in more. It is only when the costs and the benefits of any societal system are equally shared that the people can believe in it and support it and make it work. The greater the disparity in wealth within a society, the greater the disparity between ability to pay in and the greater the suspicion that exists regarding who is and who isn't paying a fair share and who is and who isn't getting his fair share of the benefits. The more suspicion and distrust there is the more poorly the society functions; the society fights itself, tears itself more and more apart, becoming more and more distrustful with each suspicion of someone shirking or someone taking advantage. Distrust, suspicion, resentment, feelings of inequity and unfairness, all have real, quantifiable effects on individual and public health.

"The ultimate big government drone, is somebody that says, 'raise my taxes'”.

Government is the most capable facilitator of public projects, not a queen bee. You insist that government works for us ("we the people"), or should work for us, but when it does, you find it intrusive, bullying, and tell it, I guess, to not work for us, and if it's not working for us, then it doesn't need any tax money from us. And if "big" government is bad, then what entity will determine who is abusing the system, if not an intrusive government bureaucracy in every town and city in the US (a really, really big government). There must be smaller government, but somehow find and round up 12 million illegal aliens, without raising our taxes. Smaller government, but scrutinize every applicant for aid, scrutinize what they own, what they eat, what they do in their spare time, but don't raise my taxes to do this.

Personal responsibility is not, of course, a mandate to separate America into classes, the responsible and the irresponsible. It is not, you say, a test. What benefits you accrue from extra thought and care and work are well-earned and a source of pride for you. The dismally mediocre life the irresponsible person has is only minimally aided by some food stamps and a mountain of people on top of him resenting him.

"sacrifice liberty and individual choice for a 'flawed' government program"

What liberty is lost with the healthcare act? If you have insurance, you just keep it, if you want. The "irresponsible" uninsured become responsible. If individual choice is to be respected, that means the right of the irresponsible to be irresponsible is to be respected. So what do we do about the irresponsible? Respect their choice and shut up? Make them responsible (with a little help if they can't afford to be responsible)?

This just gets so confusing, translating from conservativese to English.

“So what do we do about the irresponsible?”..MQ

We educate them to be more responsible or suffer the hardships that go along with irresponsibility. As a nation, we become proactive, by doing whatever we can to save money, like controlling our borders. We don’t simply ignore irresponsible behavior by demanding more money to pay for that.

“This just gets so confusing, translating from conservativese to English.”MQ

I got nothing left then, no other way to express my point of view, except the following analogy:

A triple member’s car runs out of gas on the highway. He needs to wait for help because there are not enough triple A tow-trucks in the area. He thinks it would be so much better if everyone were a triple A member so that the organization would be larger and more helpful to the driving public. He thinks it is selfish and cruel that everyone would not want to make triple A bigger in order to provide more tow trucks to stranded motorists.

He never considers the fact that there are other driving clubs besides triple A, which motorists use and are happy with. He only cares about triple A because that is what he has and what he believes in. In his world, anyone that believes in limited size and power of triple A does not believe in supporting the driving community because triple A represents a great centralized way of helping drivers. He dreams of a world where triple A is big enough to help every driver. How much safer and better this world would be.

While triple A provides a service to the community for a fee. It can never be the community. The community consists of the individual drivers. I too dream of a better world. A world where we care enough for each other that we pull over and help those in need by using whatever service works best for each situation. A mandate that we all pay for an ever growing triple A does not mean we are a community that cares about each other. A willing and caring individual with an empty gas can could provide an even better service and not cost the community anything. Actually, there would be no need to burden the community, grow triple A or stretch their resources had this individual just been responsible enough to check his fuel gauge. A responsible individual that saves on resources is better then a tax increase needed to pay for mistakes that could have been avoided.

q cant seem to differentiate between habitat for humanity and congress.

Dylan proved the Congress and Wall Street sold out the American masses 28 years ago.

----------------

Union Sundown
Well, my shoes, they come from Singapore,
My flashlight's from Taiwan,
My tablecloth's from Malaysia,
My belt buckle's from the Amazon.
You know, this shirt I wear comes from the Philippines
And the car I drive is a Chevrolet,
It was put together down in Argentina
By a guy makin' thirty cents a day.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Well, this silk dress is from Hong Kong
And the pearls are from Japan.
Well, the dog collar's from India
And the flower pot's from Pakistan.
All the furniture, it says "Made in Brazil"
Where a woman, she slaved for sure
Bringin' home thirty cents a day to a family of twelve,
You know, that's a lot of money to her.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Well, you know, lots of people complainin' that there is no work.
I say, "Why you say that for
When nothin' you got is U.S.-made?"
They don't make nothin' here no more,
You know, capitalism is above the law.
It say, "It don't count 'less it sells."
When it costs too much to build it at home
You just build it cheaper someplace else.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Well, the job that you used to have,
They gave it to somebody down in El Salvador.
The unions are big business, friend,
And they're goin' out like a dinosaur.
They used to grow food in Kansas
Now they want to grow it on the moon and eat it raw.
I can see the day coming when even your home garden
Is gonna be against the law.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Democracy don't rule the world,
You'd better get that in your head.
This world is ruled by violence
But I guess that's better left unsaid.
From Broadway to the Milky Way,
That's a lot of territory indeed
And a man's gonna do what he has to do
When he's got a hungry mouth to feed.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Copyright ©1983

That last comment from caspian is true and the reason our economy will never create jobs. No matter how much money the american consumer spends the corporation will not create jobs in the united states but order more merchandise from foregin operations.Go into any large department or electronic store and try anf find something made in the united states. This will prove caspian comments

"The greater the disparity in wealth within a society, the greater the disparity between ability to pay in and the greater the suspicion that exists regarding who is and who isn't paying a fair share and who is and who isn't getting his fair share of the benefits. The more suspicion and distrust there is the more poorly the society functions; the society fights itself, tears itself more and more apart, becoming more and more distrustful with each suspicion of someone shirking or someone taking advantage. Distrust, suspicion, resentment, feelings of inequity and unfairness, all have real, quantifiable effects on individual and public health."-me, yesterday. Continuing:

Following the world-wide collapse of laissez-faire capitalism in the early 20th century, and the shake-ups and insecurities brought about by two world wars, people did what the members of all social species do when faced with trouble,-they came together in cooperative mutual aid. General MacArthur's Japan rebuilding policies narrowed the divisive economic disparities between classes, and in doing that he created a healthy and prosperous nation out of the ashes of a sickly, susoicious dead-end of extreme disparity and its resultant economic stagnation. Europe rebuilt itself in a generous spirit of collective effort that informed their new economies and their invigorated social ethics. In the US we adopted the ideas of Douglas MacArthur and Maynard Keynes, and enjoyed a generation of belief in what worked so well for us,-a trust in mutually beneficial collectivism with government management.

Trust is self-perpetuating; it takes an egregious violation of the belief in others to erode that trust. It's looking at the effect rather than the cause to say that governments here and in Europe started betraying society's trust by re-enabling pirate capitalism. Those policy changes were the effect of the cause, the cause being a decades-long, intensive, well-financed effort by moneyed interests to attack the integrity of this trust on two fronts,-to corrupt legislators in government, and to glamorize some glorious mythos of empowered individualism and "enlightened" self-interest.

This corrupting of legislators is not proof that government is inherently an untrustworthy manager. It only proves that people in the public sector can be corrupted by the necessarily pre-existing corruption of the private sector. It only shows that the private sector will always corrupt and undermine the public sector unless prevented from doing so. This means more controls, not fewer.

The paid-for evangelizing for narrow self-interest as a moral good and magical recipe for advancement over others is a knockout punch for trust in others. Self-interested competition reinforces the concentration on individualism. Suspicion of others destroys empathy and enables a solipsistic asocial pathology of ruthlessness. Each anti-social act by others is seen as proof that people are awful creatures, and life becomes a self-protective battle against our fellow men and the danger of a tyranny of any effective organization of others.

"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world....
The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

"Self-interested competition reinforces the concentration on individualism." MQ

"The falcon cannot hear the falconer.."

A bird that was born free, what need does a wild Falcon for the Falconer? Falconry was a sport of rich men and kings who tame the wild creature for sport and their own pleasure.

Be free Falcon to soar the sky's as the good Lord intended!

God gave us free will to be individuals, to think as individuals and to love one another as individuals. Who on Earth has the right to play God? No man, no government and no King.

In his letter from Birmingham Jail Martin Luther King states:

"It was illegal to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am
sure that, had I lived in Germany at that time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's anti-religious laws."

Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which
the Laws of Nature and the Laws of God entitle them, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to separation."

What are the difference between the social and intellectual needs of those raised in individualistic societies and those raised in collectivist societies?

Obama is covering up the crimes of Wall Street

---------------

Bill Moyers sits down with veteran regulator William K. Black, who says Wall Street is already been breaking current rules. Video
April 23, 2010 / http://tinyurl.com/2enufok
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04232010/watch.html

"“What are the difference between the social and intellectual needs of those raised in individualistic societies and those raised in collectivist societies?”-fred

America (individualistic): Avg. income, $38k
Norway (collectivist): Avg. income, $38k
Per capita tax rate: US,29% Norway, 38%
Per capita healthcare costs: US, $7.5k (16.1% of GDP) Norway, $5k (8.5% of GDP)
% of income later provided by social security: US, 40% Norway, 55%
Rank in socioeconomic disparity (among wealthier nations): US, 2nd worst, after Singapore Norway, 3rd best, after Japan and Finland
Migration into US (legal and illegal) keeps dropping, while migration into Norway keeps rising, as the US is no longer the jobs place. Norway’s response to immigration is more disturbing than America’s. Norway had no trouble with social accord as long as they were homogeneous; Americans are ahead of the curve in tolerance.

I know this doesn’t answer your question. Googling gives numbers, but I don’t know about intellectual needs.

MG: Poets evoke dreamlike experiences with images that appear material, and should therefore have literal meanings, but which are "translated" differently by each reader. Your 21st century conservative translation saw the falcon as a captive. Why not the falcon as part of a team,-say, as government, able to do things the falconer, we the people, cannot do, in exchange for morsels of tasty tax revenue? And if the falcon betrays the trust of the falconer, "things fall apart".

Scholars suggest the Russian revolution disturbed Yeats, threatening the worldview he was comfortable with, warts and all. Any comfortable world view threatened by loss of mutual trust will bring this poem to mind.

This talk of poetry is not politics, and looks out of place here. But it illustrates an important aspect of our discussions. I'm constantly asking you what you mean by, say, freedom, or an individual. And the other night I said I was trying to "translate" this conservative terminology. This is because it seems to me that the purpose of what seems like a set word list is to evoke dream images that can't be parsed.

I could be wrong.

“What are the difference between the social and intellectual needs of those raised in individualistic societies and those raised in collectivist societies?”-fred

Fred, you always seems to come up with thought provoking one liners. For me, your question invokes much deeper thoughts then MQ's economy response. I see a collective as having the same needs, same ideas and goals and intellectually thinking as one. The early Apostles were a good example of that. Sharing the same belief system in their Christian community. Pooling together their resources so one did not benefit while another suffered but all were protected by each others trust. They were a collective but a collective by choice, by their own free will.

We live however in a diverse society, where we all think and believe differently from one another. So "things fall apart" when government has to enforce that behavior because everyone does not agree or share the same trust. A collective must come from the people. ALL must be one. Otherwise, those that feel differently will rebel. So in a diverse country like ours, individualism is the most fair, because everyone is free to choose their own way and no one is being forced to be part of something they don't have faith in.

"Your 21st century conservative translation saw the falcon as a captive. Why not the falcon as part of a team,-say, as government, able to do things the falconer, we the people, cannot do, in exchange for morsels of tasty tax revenue? And if the falcon betrays the trust of the falconer, "things fall apart". MQ


Mike Q, now we are getting some where. Your vision of the Falcon is exactly what most Conservatives and I want from government. The Falcon (government), serving we the people, as part of a Team and if (government) betrays the trust of we the people then things fall apart. Yet that is not what I am reading from your posts. You see government as the authority over man, controlling the masses, protecting us from one another, keeping order. Does that sound more like the Falcon or the Falconer? I want government to act the part of the Falcon, you want it to be the Falconer. I want neither too little assistance or too much control and intrusion in our lives. Either too much or too little and things will fall apart.

During the 1960s, I thought the "do your own thing" mantra of the new left was puerile, but in my youthful vagueness and lack of good civics lessons (so much for schools pushing communism), I didn't put my finger on why I felt it was also threatening to some form of beneficent order that allowed a relatively effective functioning of SOMETHING I didn't recognize and appreciate at the time. The rise of hippies' ethos of individualism had me feeling that "mere anarchy is loosed upon the world".

But, alternately soothed by continuing social progress under LBJ, and shocked into distraction by the murders of John and Bobby and Martin and Malcolm, I was kept for a long time from thinking about civics and politics and government and a person's role in everything.

Then Reagan's puppetizing of the FCC and his firing of the nation's unionized air traffic controllers shocked me into focus. This was government asserting itself, as it had done with civil rights and Social Security/Medicare, but this time it asserted itself to depower people in the service of business. That this was done in the avowed context of ENHANCING personal liberty was so outrageously a mind game,-"tasing" people's brains by total illogic,-that I felt compelled to challenge this threat, even considering the possibility that a touch of "mere anarchy" was preferable to conservatives' "liberty."

And so I fought for a long time AGAINST conservatism instead of FOR a progressive social democratic ethos. Negativism instead of positivism. It's invigorating to work toward a positive goal. Wish I'd thought of it sooner.

THIS SHOCKED YOU INTO FOCUS?
On August 3, 1981 nearly 13,000 of the 17,500 members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) walked off the job, hoping to disrupt the nation's transportation system to the extent that the federal government would accede to its demands for higher wages, a shorter work week, and better retirement benefits. At a press conference in the White House Rose Garden that same day, President Reagan responded with a stern ultimatum: The strikers were to return to work within 48 hours or face termination. As federal employees the controllers were violating the no-strike clause of their employment contracts. In 1955 Congress had made such strikes a crime punishable by a fine or one year of incarceration -- a law upheld by the Supreme Court in 1971. Nevertheless, 22 unauthorized strikes had occurred in recent years -- by postal workers, Government Printing Office and Library of Congress employees, and by air traffic controllers who staged "sick-outs" in 1969 and 1970.

Negotiations between PATCO and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) began in February 1981. PATCO president Robert Poli demanded an across-the-board wage increase of $10,000/yr for controllers whose pay ranged from $20,462 to $49,229; the reduction of a five-day, 40-hour work week to a four-day, 32-hour work week; and full retirement after 20 years service -- a package with a $770 million price tag. The controllers argued that they deserved these considerations due to the highly stressful nature of their very important work. The federal government balked at these budget-busting demands of more money for less work, well aware that other federal employees were likely to take action to improve their lot if PATCO succeeded. The FAA made a $40 million counteroffer which included a shorter work week and a 10 percent pay hike for night shifts and those controllers who doubled as instructors. Further negotiations between Poli and Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis sweetened the pot even more. Nonetheless, 95 percent of PATCO's membership rejected the final settlement. The FAA began work on a contingency plan that would go into effect if a strike occurred.

Designed to take place during the busiest time of the year for airlines, the strike threatened major carriers like Braniff, Eastern, American and TWA, who reported losses of $30 million a day during the strike. These companies had been counting on a summer surge in business to offset losses due to fare and route deregulation which had spurred the growth of new, smaller carriers that effectively competed with the giants. Concern grew regarding the extent to which the strike would impact business and the economy. Air transportation was a $30 billion-a-year business; every day 14,000 commercial flights carried 800,000 passengers -- 60 percent of them on business trips -- while 10,000 tons of air cargo was transported daily. Airlines employed 340,000 people and revenue losses due to the strike forced some to resort to layoffs and management wage cuts. The fresh fruit, fresh flower and fresh fish markets depended on swift air transport, as did other industry in need of spare parts, health care services for blood supplies, and the financial system for paper fund transfers. But other businesses prospered thanks to the strike -- among them Trailways and Greyhound, the Amtrak rail service, and car rental agencies, as travelers sought alternate means of transportation.

To the chagrin of the PATCO strikers, and the surprise of nearly everyone else, the FAA's contingency plan functioned smoothly, minimizing the strike's effects. Approximately 3,000 supervisors joined 2,000 non-striking controllers and 900 military controllers in manning airport towers. The FAA ordered airlines at major airports to reduce scheduled flights by 50 percent during peak hours for safety reasons. Nearly 60 small airport towers were scheduled to be shut down indefinitely. The FAA's Oklahoma City training school, which normally produced 1,500 graduates per 17-21 week course, considered plans to increase that matriculation number to 5,500. (More than 45,000 people applied within four weeks of the strike's onset.) PATCO strikers made dire predictions about reduced air safety as a consequence of the 60-hour work week put in by their replacements, but in fact limited traffic and the extra monitoring efforts of the 33,000 Air Line Pilots Association members diminished the risk of an "aluminum shower," as controllers euphemistically called an air accident. Before long, about 80 percent of airline flights were operating as scheduled, while air freight remained virtually unaffected.

There wasnt much support for the PATCO strikers. The public sided with the government and exhibited little sympathy for individuals whose earnings were already well above the national average. AFL-CIO president Lane Kirkland accused Reagan of "brutal overkill" in firing the strikers, and another union leader complained that the president was engaged in "union-busting," but pilots and machinists continued to do their jobs in spite of the PATCO picket lines, while labor strategists criticized Poli for calling an ill-advised strike that damaged Labor's image. The International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers considered a boycott of U.S. air traffic to show support for PATCO, but it never developed. (Canadian and Portuguese controllers did engage in a two-day boycott.)

The federal dreadnought turned all its big guns on the hapless strikers. PATCO leaders were hauled off to jail for ignoring court injunctions against a strike. The Justice Department proceeded with indictments against 75 controllers. Federal judges levied fines amounting to $1 million a day against the union while the strike lasted. Over 11,000 strikers received their pink slips, while 1,200 went back to work within a week's time. Morale among the strikers was shaky. "I thought Reagan was bluffing," lamented one controller. In October the Federal Labor Relations Authority decertified PATCO.

Two months after the strike, a congressional committee report indicated that by January 1983 only two-thirds of the controllers needed for full and safe operation of air traffic would be in place, and recommended rehiring some of the strikers who had been fired. The administration curtly refused, and Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis declined even to meet with PATCO leader Robert Poli. By 1984 air traffic had increased by 6 percent while there were still 20 percent fewer controllers than had been on the job prior to the strike.

According to journalist Haynes Johnson, the decisive manner in which Reagan handled the PATCO strike convinced many Americans that he was "the kind of leader the country longed for and thought it had lost: a strong president" -- in sharp contrast to the widely-held view that Reagan's predecessor, Jimmy Carter, had been too indecisive. Reagan stressed that he derived no satisfaction from sacking the controllers. He pointed out that he was the first president to be a lifetime member of the AFL-CIO. And he was aware that PATCO had been one of the few unions to support his presidential bid. "I supported unions and the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively," he wrote in his memoirs, " but no president could tolerate an illegal strike by Federal employees."

AND THIS??
The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as "Ascertainment of Community Needs," and was to be done systematically and by the station management.

The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.

The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.

The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.


However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.

The fairness doctrine remains just beneath the surface of concerns over broadcasting and cablecasting, and some members of congress continue to threaten to pass it into legislation. Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming.

If the two events cited above were the braking points that shaped your entire 30 year crusade against conservatism?

Then you should get a rope and find a suitable tree.............

"And so I fought for a long time AGAINST conservatism instead of FOR a progressive social democratic ethos. Negativism instead of positivism. It's invigorating to work toward a positive goal. Wish I'd thought of it sooner." MQ

Yes negativism only serves to increase division and opposition. People can be forced to obey the rules but you cannot force people to believe in the rules and that matters the most, if you want to effect real change and unity. Reagan had a way of winning the hearts and minds of people to want to come aboard. This administration never understood that. You cannot win people over with high pressure sales, criticizing, and insisting on your way just because you have the power to do so. You win people by pointing then in the right direction and letting them see it for themselves. If they are still not convinced then:

A) You are not good enough at communicating your beliefs in a way that people can relate, understand and believe in OR..

B) You ideas and beliefs are just not as good as you think they are.

fred: You can paste with the best of them, but....

I realize there are worse things that conservatism has done, which is what you seem to be implying, but these events happened to be the ones that made me take notice. So shoot me? In the case of the air traffic controllers,-and I think we've been through this before,-it was not a single act that had no significance outside of itself. The strength of all unions, big and small, private and public, relied on years of successes and a consequent general acceptance of the place of unions in shaping social and business policy. When a conservative president can smash a union's action, it tells business that they have support from the President of the United States, that they can beat down all unions, that all the work unions did to establish credibility was tossed out in one stroke. That, fred, was a major event, that altered American history.

We also talked about the Fairness Doctrine before. The Doctrine is no longer needed in today's crowded cable world, but back at the time the Doctrine existed, it was a good idea. Why Reagan took time out of his busy schedule to remove this check on propagandizing, demagoguery, and outright lying, can only- it seems to me- be because he didn't want a way for these things to be countered. That development had the potential to be the beginning of a monolithic American Pravda. And that would have been a significant event in our history, worthy of being named as a formative shocker.

MG: "You win people by pointing then in the right direction and letting them see it for themselves."

That's why I try to establish a vocabulary that clearly defines things, and try to eliminate from political talk evocative, emotive words that let everyone supply their own translation, resonate to this image in their mind, nod in "agreement", and then support someone they think believes in what they believe in.

That's as good a reason as any for having something like a Fairness Doctrine.

Oh, forgot:

Also, fred, it was not "just" the broad and lasting impact Reagan's acts had on American history, it was also the reversal in how governmental power was being applied. Previously, for a generation, it had been used to EMPOWER people with rights and protections. With Reagan, it was being used to knock people down a notch or two. If this became a precedent, it would be one of the century's most significant events.

So, yes, I was shocked. Silly me.

fred: Again we find those so absurdly detached from the realities of the situation, "air traffic controllers working lab rat schedules" with tens of thousands of lives at stake- pontificating and beating their chests when these overworked public servants were essentially whistle-blowers for real-time public safety improvements that the private sectors ownership and government completely ignored.
Sure Reagan had his reason as he explained for taking such action but did he make the skies safer or increase efficiency by firing those veteran air traffic controllers and replacing them with novices and some military personnel?
Records will show some but not mask all of the menacing data that occurred in the skies during that stretch of time. Flight delays, near misses, runway episodes etc.
Yeah Reagen made his point, just as every quote/unquote conservative based upon pure dollars and the power to wield authority, ...damn the poor bastards on board or below. If something bad happens- then chalk it up as a percentage point or acceptable collateral damage. Better yet, in a worst case scenerio, blame the entire disaster on the fired controllers who forced his hand.

... but, this is as we all know so well- the best government that $$$ and money alone can "buy" and "sell" to- we the gullible public, ...as if their words from their NEWLY "bought and paid" elevated position suddenly made them instant experts-
WHERE WAS REAGANS CONCERN FOR PUBLIC SAFETY? SHOULDNT THAT HAVE BEEN HIS #1 PRIORITY?
Perhaps, I'm confused. What did you all say that responcible role of government was again?

I suggest you two porch monkeys read the cut and paste again. And in your responses stick to the facts. Plaese dont mix apples and oranges with emotional hypebole, as it is dishonest.

.."it was also the reversal in how governmental power was being applied. Previously, for a generation, it had been used to EMPOWER people with rights and protections. With Reagan, it was being used to knock people down a notch or two." MQ

I have to ask. Empower what people? Whose protections and rights? Knock who down?

From the article the employees were clearly breaking the law:

"As federal employees the controllers were violating the no-strike clause of their employment contracts. In 1955 Congress had made such strikes a crime punishable by a fine or one year of incarceration -- a law upheld by the Supreme Court in 1971."

Their DEMANDS were selfish and unreasonable:

"PATCO president Robert Poli demanded an across-the-board wage increase of $10,000/yr for controllers whose pay ranged from $20,462 to $49,229; the reduction of a five-day, 40-hour work week to a four-day, 32-hour work week; and full retirement after 20 years service -- a package with a $770 million price tag."

They were not willing to compromise:

"The FAA made a $40 million counteroffer which included a shorter work week and a 10 percent pay hike for night shifts and those controllers who doubled as instructors. Further negotiations between Poli and Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis sweetened the pot even more. Nonetheless, 95 percent of PATCO's membership rejected the final settlement."

They did not care about how it affected anybody else, they just cared about themselves:

"Airlines employed 340,000 people and revenue losses due to the strike forced some to resort to layoffs and management wage cuts."

The PUBLIC, who are the real people the government is supposed to represent, did not agree:

"There wasnt much support for the PATCO strikers. The public sided with the government and exhibited little sympathy for individuals whose earnings were already well above the national average."

Reagan explains the reason he did it and it was NOT to knock down people:

"He pointed out that he was the first president to be a lifetime member of the AFL-CIO."I supported unions and the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively," he wrote in his memoirs, " but no president could tolerate an illegal strike by Federal employees."

Now compare this to the majority of the public, who legally voiced their disagreement with the healthcare bill. For that, you side with government.

I would respect the truth so much more. If you simply said that you support special interests and public unions whether or not they break the law, whether they are right or wrong, whether they serve the public's interest, no matter what.

G: Thanks for taking the time, as I was not going to spoon feed it to them.

One other point, and it may be the most important: No other American union supported PATCO in their walk out. None. Zero.

AFL-CIO counseled PATCO not to strike and to keep using sick-outs as a feasible job action.

They knew that the demands for a cadillac plan in an economy much like we have today was not going to fly. Especially because PATCO endorsed Reagan, it would be seen as political payback and Reagan wasnt going there.

PATCO fucked themselves and everybody else because mass firings had never been done before. It was PATCO's fault. Reagan had no choice.

ps.

30 year Teamster with employment and organizing in both public and private sector.

MG and fred:

I am, and was back then, aware of the arguments against the strike. But while you focus on the pros of the arguments, because he's your guy, a bigger picture clearly showed an ideological victory against unionization, his memoir glosses notwithstanding. An "unintended" consequence of his action? Possibly, considering Washington's propensity for bringing about unintended consequences,-in its foreign affairs particularly. But, Reagan's being in a union as a result of his acting career job notwithstanding, he was first and foremost a conservative, and pushed as many radically conservative agenda items as he could get away with. So, while it was possible he didn't consider that the POTUS siding with business against a union would initiate open season on all unions, it's more likely this was a bonus, INTENDED consequence of his stand for law and order.

Reagan, after all, was no respecter of law and order when it got in his way. When Congress wouldn't authorize the financing of the Contras, Reagan dismissively shoved aside the US Constitution's checks on executive overreach, and illegally sold weapons to a rogue state he had recently been idolized for menacing. And then either lying in the subsequent investigation or maybe his Alzheimer's really was so bad that he couldn't remember what he had done. Either way, this was not a shining moment for America. When Reagan said that government was the problem, he was trying to point his crooked finger at blameless bureaucracies while HE was the problem, not them.

So it's not, fred, that I don't agree that PATCO went too far, but I also didn't care for Reagan's so quickly and eagerly taking the most extreme measure he could have thought of. He could have arrested PATCO leaders for breaking laws. Any number of suits could have been filed against the union. Fines could have been levied. The union would in time have had to back down, but without the same blow to all of unionism. A longer strike would only have hurt business, and those losses would be at least partially recouped by those suits against PATCO.

No, Reagan was chortling with glee at this perfect excuse to destroy unionism and advance the hegemony of business over all else. Oh, but that would mean he was supporting special interests, and you disapprove of that.

As for the healthcare bill again, the majority of the public supported the earlier, more socialist version, and came to be disappointed with its later, more corporate version. A majority of Congress apparently judged it was representing the best interests of constituents by voting for passage, and the Senate agreed. When government says certain union strikes are illegal, you respect government. But when something passes that you don't like, then government is bad. You talk about truth. Whose?

Mike, first off as per you last comment about healthcare. Please provide some facts where the "majority of the public" supported some sort of socialized healthcare. Healthcare reform yes but I am not aware of your claim of support by the general public for some socialized version.

"No, Reagan was chortling with glee at this perfect excuse to destroy unionism and advance the hegemony of business over all else." MQ


The idea that Reagan's plan all along was to destroy the Unions is a preconcieved biased notion on your part because you don't like Reagan's conservative position. Unless you believe that Reagan made some secret deal ahead of time with the unions telling them to strike with unreasonable demands, only to betray them as an an excuse to bring down all unions. However, the truth is PATCO did it all on their own and it is their excess that is to blame for opening some anti-union Pandora's box, not Reagan. Now you are right,I like Reagan, I like what he did for this country as a whole. I think the majority supported Reagan but I love this country and the people of this country, much more then I like Reagan.

"When government says certain union strikes are illegal, you respect government. But when something passes that you don't like, then government is bad. You talk about truth. Whose?" MQ


Consider the following analogy as explanation, if you are a Yankee fan you will really understand:

Yankee pitcher AJ Burnet struggled this year. He struggled so much the fans (the majority of the public) turned on him, booed and wanted him out of there. The team and their management (government) supported him and even put down the fans. The fans (the majority) don't hate AJ they just don't like how he is pitching and how he is hurting the team. If AJ turns it around, these same fans that booed him, will cheer the loudest. That's not a double standard. That is simply judging by the truth. The difference between that and ideologues or those with an agenda is they don't judge by the facts but judge by what they believe in. Management ignored the facts and disrespected the fans because they were invested in AJ and refused to see the truth. And there will also be a minority of fans that will hate AJ regardless of whether or not he turns things around. Those are the two opposite sides of wrong headed ideologues, that are not serving the people's interest.

MG: Healthcare reform; by "socialist" I meant "public option", or "single payer." As for the numbers, "In June 2009, 50% were in favor vs. 45% opposed, but in January 2010, support had dropped to 40%....In February 2010, Gallup found a new low of 36% approval....Overall Kaiser said respondents were evenly divided about the bills before congress, though only 38% of Americans said they would be happy or relieved if there was no reform legislation passed in 2010 compared to 58% saying they would disappointed or angry....On March 22, 2010, one day after the health reform bill was passed by the US House, a Gallup/USA Today poll found that 49% of Americans thought the bill was a “good thing,” 40% said it was a “bad thing” and 11% had no opinion....A combined 50% had favorable views, versus 42% had unfavorable views....
A Time Magazine poll in late July <2009> found 80% of Americans support guaranteed issue, i.e. requiring insurance companies "to offer coverage to anyone who applies, even if they have a pre-existing health condition."-Wiki. I don't have the numerous polls early on in the debate that showed strong support (like 60%) for reform containing a public option.

Reagan didn't have to plan anything; the PATCO strike fell right into his lap. Had he followed the orderly measures I mentioned, he could have ended the strike as quickly as civil suits could have been expedited against PATCO. Overreaching would have been discouraged without showing the world that unions are now paper tigers to wipe oneself with. It was unnecessarily drastic, if law and order really had been the concern.

"Had he followed the orderly measures I mentioned, he could have ended the strike as quickly as civil suits could have been expedited against PATCO."

Holy Smokes! You have absolutely no clue of what you write, yet you keep writing it? Q, You are a gem. A person who can honestly lie to themself and whole heartedly beleive it. Your profile can be found DSM-3!

MQ, As for your healthcare numbers, its interesting that the majority, up to 80%, including myself, agreed with some type of healthcare reform and coverage for those with preexisting diseases. Yet, if single payer would provide what the majority wanted, why then don't the numbers match? Why is there no more then 50% that would want single payer and much less that wanted this current healthcare bill? It because neither solution is right for this country.

"Overreaching would have been discouraged without showing the world that unions are now paper tigers to wipe oneself with. It was unnecessarily drastic, if law and order really had been the concern." MQ

Mike that is not Reagan's fault, he responded delusively to an economic threat. If unions are paper tigers instead of tigers, that's not his fault either. If he handled it the way you say and it resulted in extended pain and hardship for this country, while protecting only special interests then it would be his fault. BTW, I would feel the same way if he acted that drastic to a threat from a Tea Party revolt.

"According to journalist Haynes Johnson, the decisive manner in which Reagan handled the PATCO strike convinced many Americans that he was "the kind of leader the country longed for and thought it had lost: a strong president" -- in sharp contrast to the widely-held view that Reagan's predecessor, Jimmy Carter, had been too indecisive."

Caspian, mike G, mikeQ, fred, robert, peter:

Hey guys, don't miss this. This is it America's winning bi-partisan ticket. See if you agree with the points, forget about what MSM is telling you.
Dennis Kucinich - Ron Paul.

Watch the entire 30 minute interview from CSPANS WASHINGTON JOURNAL. I couldn't access their video Url.
HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY!

MG: Sure, Carter was tentative, while Reagan was decisive. And sure, some people want any decision, even a wrong one, while others are willing to wait for a more considered decision. Some people like cilantro, some people hate it.

"If unions are paper tigers instead of tigers, that's not his fault either."

He MADE them paper tigers by making them look silly and puny next to the most powerful man in the world with a resume that promises he'll do the same to any other union. Unions lost respect and the power of past successes. They hadn't changed, but business' perception of them did. The result was the discrediting and weakening of all unions,-sensible, responsible ones that had long done a lot of good for a lot of people.

And no, PATCO didn't do that. There was always some percentage of people who did not like unions, and especially disapproved of PATCO's excessiveness. Those who didn't like unions still respected their power to shape policy in the workplace. After Reagan, there was no respect.

It was my feeling that Reagan took advantage of an unexpected opportunity to achieve an item of his agenda,-something that just about anyone of any party would do,-and that his agenda was to increase business profits by decreasing worker costs. Since it took so long for America to grow a middle class (largely through the long efforts of labor unions), it was terrifying to me that an ideologue could steer us back to where we had pulled ourselves out of. The America that I knew and felt so good about was going to be dismantled, bit by bit over many years, if one of its pillars could be snapped by an ideologue with the cachet of being the President of the United States. I guess since you're not seeing through my eyes you will just not see what I saw.

"You have absolutely no clue of what you write."-fred

And yet you've never taken a moment to educate me. Makes me wonder.

John, just saw your post. Haven't even watched the video yet. KUCINICH/PAUL! Thought I'd never hear it. Keep saying it. KUCINICH/PAUL, KUCINICH/PAUL, KUCINICH/PAUL!

Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With Reporters on the Air Traffic Controllers Strike

August 3, 1981

The President. This morning at 7 a.m. the union representing those who man America's air traffic control facilities called a strike. This was the culmination of 7 months of negotiations between the Federal Aviation Administration and the union. At one point in these negotiations agreement was reached and signed by both sides, granting a $40 million increase in salaries and benefits. This is twice what other government employees can expect. It was granted in recognition of the difficulties inherent in the work these people perform. Now, however, the union demands are 17 times what had been agreed to -- $681 million. This would impose a tax burden on their fellow citizens which is unacceptable.

I would like to thank the supervisors and controllers who are on the job today, helping to get the nation's air system operating safely. In the New York area, for example, four supervisors were scheduled to report for work, and 17 additionally volunteered. At National Airport a traffic controller told a newsperson he had resigned from the union and reported to work because, ``How can I ask my kids to obey the law if I don't?'' This is a great tribute to America.

Let me make one thing plain. I respect the right of workers in the private sector to strike. Indeed, as president of my own union, I led the first strike ever called by that union. I guess I'm maybe the first one to ever hold this office who is a lifetime member of an AFL - CIO union. But we cannot compare labor-management relations in the private sector with government. Government cannot close down the assembly line. It has to provide without interruption the protective services which are government's reason for being.

It was in recongition of this that the Congress passed a law forbidding strikes by government employees against the public safety. Let me read the solemn oath taken by each of these employees, a sworn affidavit, when they accepted their jobs: ``I am not participating in any strike against the Government of the United States or any agency thereof, and I will not so participate while an employee of the Government of the United States or any agency thereof.''

It is for this reason that I must tell those who fail to report for duty this morning they are in violation of the law, and if they do not report for work within 48 hours, they have forfeited their jobs and will be terminated.

Q. Mr. President, are you going to order any union members who violate the law to go to jail?

The President. Well, I have some people around here, and maybe I should refer that question to the Attorney General.

Q. Do you think that they should go to jail, Mr. President, anybody who violates this law?

The President. I told you what I think should be done. They're terminated.

The Attorney General. Well, as the President has said, striking under these circumstances constitutes a violation of the law, and we intend to initiate in appropriate cases criminal proceedings against those who have violated the law.

Q. How quickly will you initiate criminal proceedings, Mr. Attorney General?

The Attorney General. We will initiate those proceedings as soon as we can.

Q. Today?

The Attorney General. The process will be underway probably by noon today.

Q. Are you going to try and fine the union $1 million per day?

The Attorney General. Well, that's the prerogative of the court. In the event that any individuals are found guilty of contempt of a court order, the penalty for that, of course, is imposed by the court.

Q. How much more is the government prepared to offer the union?

The Secretary of Transportation. We think we had a very satisfactory offer on the table. It's twice what other Government employees are going to get -- 11.4 percent. Their demands were so unreasonable there was no spot to negotiate, when you're talking to somebody 17 times away from where you presently are. We do not plan to increase our offer to the union.

Q. Under no circumstances?

The Secretary of Transportation. As far as I'm concerned, under no circumstance.

Q. Will you continue to meet with them?

The Secretary of Transportation. We will not meet with the union as long as they're on strike. When they're off of strike, and assuming that they are not decertified, we will meet with the union and try to negotiate a satisfactory contract.

Q. Do you have any idea how it's going at the airports around the country?

The Secretary of Transportation. Relatively, it's going quite well. We're operating somewhat in excess of 50 percent capacity. We could increase that. We have determined, until we feel we're in total control of the system, that we will not increase that. Also, as you probably know, we have some rather severe weather in the Midwest, and our first priority is safety.

Q. What can you tell us about possible decertification of the union and impoundment of its strike funds?

The Secretary of Transportation. There has been a court action to impound the strike fund of $3.5 million. We are going before the National Labor Relations Authority this morning and ask for decertification of the union.

Q. When you say that you're not going to increase your offer, are you referring to the original offer or the last offer which you've made? Is that still valid?

The Secretary of Transportation. The last offer we made in present value was exactly the same as the first offer. Mr. Poli (Robert Poli, Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization) asked me about 11 o'clock last evening if he could phase the increase in over a period of time. For that reason, we phased it in over a longer period of time. It would have given him a larger increase in terms of where he would be when the next negotiations started, but in present value it was the $40 million originally on the table.

Q. Mr. Attorney General, in seeking criminal action against the union leaders, will you seek to put them in jail if they do not order these people back to work?

The Attorney General. Well, we will seek whatever penalty is appropriate under the circumstances in each individual case.

Q. Do you think that is an appropriate circumstance?

The Attorney General. It is certainly one of the penalties that is provided for in the law, and in appropriate cases, we could very well seek that penalty.

Q. What's appropriate?

The Attorney General. Well, that depends upon the fact of each case.

Q. What makes the difference?

Q. Can I go back to my ``fine'' question? How much would you like to see the union fined every day?

The Attorney General. Well, there's no way to answer that question. We would just have to wait until we get into court, see what the circumstances are, and determine what position we would take in the various cases under the facts as they develop.

Q. But you won't go to court and ask the court for a specific amount?

The Attorney General. Well, I'm sure we will when we reach that point, but there's no way to pick a figure now.

Q. Mr. President, will you delay your trip to California or cancel it if the strike is still on later this week?

The President. If any situation should arise that would require my presence here, naturally I will do that. So, that will be a decision that awaits what's going to happen. May I just -- because I have to be back in there for another appointment -- may I just say one thing on top of this? With all this talk of penalties and everything else, I hope that you'll emphasize, again, the possibility of termination, because I believe that there are a great many of those people -- and they're fine people -- who have been swept up in this and probably have not really considered the result -- the fact that they had taken an oath, the fact that this is now in violation of the law, as that one supervisor referred to with regard to his children. And I am hoping that they will in a sense remove themselves from the lawbreaker situation by returning to their posts.

I have no way to know whether this had been conveyed to them by their union leaders, who had been informed that this would be the result of a strike.

Q. Your deadline is 7 o'clock Wednesday morning for them to return to work?

The President. Forty-eight hours.

The Secretary of Transportation. It's 11 o'clock Wednesday morning.

Q. Mr. President, why have you taken such strong action as your first action? Why not some lesser action at this point?

The President. What lesser action can there be? The law is very explicit. They are violating the law. And as I say, we called this to the attention of their leadership. Whether this was conveyed to the membership before they voted to strike, I don't know. But this is one of the reasons why there can be no further negotiation while this situation continues. You can't sit and negotiate with a union that's in violation of the law.

The Secretary of Transportation. And their oath.

The President. And their oath.

Q. Are you more likely to proceed in the criminal direction toward the leadership than the rank and file, Mr. President?

The President. Well, that again is not for me to answer.

Q. Mr. Secretary, what can you tell us about the possible use of military air controllers -- how many, how quickly can they get on the job?

The Secretary of Transportation. In answer to the previous question, we will move both civil and criminal, probably more civil than criminal, and we now have papers in the U.S. attorneys offices, under the Attorney General, in about 20 locations around the country where would be involved two or three principal people.

As far as the military personnel are concerned, they are going to fundamentally be backup to the supervisory personnel. We had 150 on the job, supposedly, about a half-hour ago. We're going to increase that to somewhere between 700 and 850.

Q. Mr. Secretary, are you ready to hire other people should these other people not return?

The Secretary of Transportation. Yes, we will, and we hope we do not reach that point. Again as the President said, we're hoping these people come back to work. They do a fine job. If that does not take place, we have a training school, as you know. We will be advertising. We have a number of applicants right now. There's a waiting list in terms of people that want to be controllers, and we'll start retraining and reorganize the entire FAA traffic controller group.

Q. Just to clarify, is your deadline 7 a.m. Wednedsay or 11 o'clock?

The Secretary of Transportation. It's 11 a.m. Wednesday. The President said 48 hours, and that would be 48 hours.

Q. If you actually fire these people, won't it put your air traffic control system in a hole for years to come, since you can't just cook up a controller in -- [inaudible]?

The Secretary of Transportation. That obviously depends on how many return to work. Right now we're able to operate the system. In some areas, we've been very gratified by the support we've received. In other areas, we've been disappointed. And until I see the numbers, there's no way I can answer that question.

Q. Mr. Lewis, did you tell the union leadership when you were talking to them that their members would be fired if they went out on strike?

The Secretary of Transportation. I told Mr. Poli yesterday that the President gave me three instructions in terms of the firmness of the negotiations: one is there would be no amnesty; the second there would be no negotitaions during the strike; and third is that if they went on strike, these people would no longer be government employees.

Q. Mr. Secretary, you said no negotiations. What about informal meetings of any kind with Mr. Poli?

The Secretary of Transportation. We will have no meetings until the strike is terminated with the union.

Q. Have you served Poli at this point? Has he been served by the Attorney General?

The Attorney General. In the civil action that was filed this morning, the service was made on the attorney for the union, and the court has determined that that was appropriate service on all of the officers of the union.

Q. My previous question about whether you're going to take a harder line on the leadership than rank and file in terms of any criminal prosecution, can you give us an answer on that?

The Attorney General. No, I can't answer that except to say that each case will be investigated on its own merits, and action will be taken as appropriate in each of those cases.

Q. Mr. Lewis, do you know how many applications for controller jobs you have on file now?

The Secretary of Transportation. I do not know. I'm going to check when I get back. I am aware there's a waiting list, and I do not have the figure. If you care to have that, you can call our office, and we'll tell you. Also, we'll be advertising and recruiting people for this job if necessary.

Q. Mr. Secretary, how long are you prepared to hold out if there's a partial but not complete strike?

The Secretary of Transportation. I think the President made it very clear that as of 48 hours from now, if the people are not back on the job, they will not be government employees at any time in the future.

Q. How long are you prepared to run the air controller system -- [inaudible]?

The Secretary of Transportation. For years, if we have to.

Q. How long does it take to train a new controller, from the waiting list?

The Secretary of Transportation. It varies; it depends on the type of center they're going to be in. For someone to start in the system and work through the more minor office types of control situations till they get to, let's say, a Chicago or a Washington National, it takes about 3 years. So in this case, what we'll have to do if some of the major metropolitan areas are shut down or a considerable portion is shut down, we'll be bringing people in from other areas that are qualified and then start bringing people through the training schools in the smaller cities and smaller airports.

Q. Mr. Secretary, have you definitely made your final offer to the union?

The Secretary of Transportation. Yes, we have.

Q. Thank you.

Note: The President read the statement to reporters at 10:55 a.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House.

"I guess since you're not seeing through my eyes you will just not see what I saw." MQ

Mike Q, we are all different, with different opinions and beliefs. We do not need to share the same set of eyes so that we see and believe everything exactly the same. That does not divide us, it makes us stronger to see things differently. What divides us is when our beliefs are so strong we no longer are objective, we ignore sound reasoning and refuse to open our eyes to anything that might go against what we decided long ago in our heart to be truth. All I am suggesting is to open your eyes anew, from the person you are today, based on all the facts presented to you and see if you come up with the same conclusion.

"based on all the facts presented to you and see if you come up with the same conclusion."

Let me go back in time. I was completely non-political in mid-century. Goldwater concerned me, so I preferred LBJ, though I never voted until 2000. When LBJ passed all his landmark legislation I was impressed with him as a president, though I felt no party preference. I had simply never thought about politics. It was not until Reagan did things that I felt bode poorly for the general governmental philosophy and institutions that I felt comfortable with, that I woke to the realization that everything I admired came from Democratic administrations, and the political figures I feared were all (new word to me) conservatives. Republicans were OK, but not conservatives.

It was the effect that Reagan was going to have through his actions that concerned me, not what party affiliation he had, or if he realized the long-term harm he would bring, or if he intended to cause this long-term harm,-no, just that what he was doing looked to me would be bad for our future. When I soon after learned that Goldwater and Reagan were not isolated oddities, and that they represented this new-to-me phenomenon of conservative philosophy, I realized that it was quite likely that Reagan DID intend what in my view was harm. Intended, not of course out of evilness, but out of a different view of what was evil.

The transcript fred kindly provided was historically interesting, and I appreciate it, but the further fleshing-out of the PATCO incident does not retroactively alter the history of my revelation thirty years ago. It was the mention of my spontaneous feelings of concern upon hearing of some of Reagan’s actions that initiated all the back-and-forth about the PATCO strike, not any argument from me about the wrongness of the strike, as your challenge seems to suggest is what you think.