Why do you think Al Gore decided to turn against America by pushing the global warming lie?
He promotes a cap-and-trade system that will permit the transfer of America’s assets over to India and China, turning America into a third world country. Why do you think he decided to take this step?
Was it because he was paid off more than $200,000,000? Or was it because he was angry at the American people for rejecting him in the 2000 election campaign?
Well let me tell you Al.. you were rejected. The American people preferred George W.Bush, and he had one of the most successful presidencies in American history. You lost, buster, live with it! Don’t try to take out revenge by pushing the lie of global warming to undermine American society.
If I was a member of the US senate, I would immediately propose a resolution to issue a warrant for the arrest of Al Gore for treason for providing material support to the enemies of America. Don’t you agree?
Money & power, baby, money & power.
Chief legislator/executive? Obama’s implementation of more taxes?
I am garbage at pol. science but like a good student I like to learn. I was reading an article and I am supposed to try to grasp a understanding of Chief legislator and Chief executive. My means of doing that is by looking at articles like this…
“Obama has announced higher taxes on the owners of small businesses (the most productive individuals), higher taxes on the energy industry (through the cap and trade system), green mandates on the auto industry that will increase the cost of each vehicle, a bailout of mortgagers that will increase the cost of mortgages down the road, increased unionization (which reduces jobs), a repeal of the successful welfare reform of the 1990s, and a rhetorical assault on Wall Street that leaves investors edgy.”
This is the main snippet I honed in on. Could someone explain to me the differences between the two (leg./exec.) so I can figure out what one applies here. I am just trying to get an understanding of this before my text book gets here but I don’t have even the slightest understanding of them at the moment.
Thanks for your time.
Thanks for the info so far. So is implementing taxes fall under the category of implementing legislation? Would this make the situation one involving Chief Legislator?
A president has an agenda of stuff he/she wants to do, but all legislation begins in the congress. However, the executive branch does propose a budget. Then the congress chews on all of that. After congress is finished rigging it, the pres signs it. It’s a bilateral system of government.
When true democracy shall be coming to India?
New trends in Indian democracy
Dalip Singh Wasan, Advocate.
It is on record that India had been facing slavery throughout the ages. The people were slaves even in time of rajas, maharajas, monarchs and then in time of the imperialists and when they were joined to fight against this slavery, they had to suffer at the hands of the police, at the hands of military and it is on record that they had been hanged, they had been imprisoned, they had been facing lathi charge, they had been facing firing and it is also on record that they had been deported to Kale-paani. When they were fighting this war of independence people like Mahatma Gandhi had been promising them that they shall be establishing Ram Rajaya. It is also on record that none explained nor defined what Ram Rajaya would be and before this Ram Rajaya could be established Mahatma Gandhi had been gunned down and was no more to guide the coming rulers.
The political classes who started ruling this country were not very much interested to develop this country. They started indulging in scams, scandals, muddles, bribes, commissions and dalali and in due course they destroyed the democracy which we had established in our country. The present government is not government of the people, by the people and for the people and we can define the present democracy in India as Government of a few, by a few and for a few and this a few clause could be defined the rich people. That had been the reason that the rich had been growing rich and the poor had been reduced to more poverty.
The people of India had been struggling for freedom and after freedom they had to suffer and they had to start struggle for end of the present rulers and we have seen that people had been coming in processions, in rallies, in meeting, in satayagrah and even they had to go on strikes and hunger strikes. But all these agitations had failed and now they have started throwing foot-wares on politicians and some of them have started slapping and manhandling the rulers. The people who agitate are arrested and then are sent to jails, but the people who had been indulging in corruption are still save and only those go to jails who are not having God Fathers to protect them.
The people of India know that India is a rich country because it has got mountains, rivers, minerals, jungles, fertile land, hard-working people, coal, iron, petroleum and gas and had there been competent and honest people to rule and administer this country, we could have developed and could have brought our country at par with the developed countries. But we could not succeed because the division of India in 1947 created so many troubles for us and because of this unsound division, there had been direct and indirect wars and most of our time, energy and resources had been wasted and we have seen that we have come under the grip of terrorism too and if we count exact figures, we have killed at least three to five lac people during this period.
We could not establish true democracy because the people in politics are not coming forward to serve the people of India, rather they are coming forward taking this line as a profession, trade, calling and employment. They had been investing money to have bigger returns and they had been successful. Therefore, there are no chances of bringing true democracy in this country because these people are powerful and they have brought so many people of their own in this line and the people who had been under slavery for so many centuries are not so powerful to dethrone these sets of people in politics. The people are simply voters and they know that there had been family rule, party dictatorship and then individual autocracy and even this coatition system could not change the ruling system in India. None is serving the people of India and even honest people shall not be able to rule this country properly.
It seems that the people of India shall suffer for another century and they shall have to start another struggle to get freedom from the present sets of politicians. The present socalled democracy is not true democracy because the people in ruling classes are not from amongst the people, noe they are committed to serve the people of India.
101-C Vikas Colony, Patiala-Punjab-India-147003
Now we are in the true democracy only.
Could Bernie Sanders job plan work?
It seems promising especially as it worked once to get the country out of depression, by working on the Infrastructure.
As President Obama prepares for a Thursday address on jobs to a joint session of Congress, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday called for putting Americans back to work through a series of bold measures that include rebuilding the country’s crumbling infrastructure. As part of a four-point plan to jumpstart the economy, Sanders also said the federal government should do more to help cash-strapped states and local governments that have been forced to furlough teachers, firefighters, police officers and other workers. He advocated transforming our energy system with job-creating investments in renewable and sustainable energy sources. And he called on Congress to reconsider so-called free-trade policies that have decimated manufacturing in the United States.
“While everyone understands that we have got to reduce the deficit, the number one challenge America faces right now is a jobs crisis,” Sanders said, noting that 25 million Americans, 16 percent of the workforce, are today either unemployed or underemployed. “Creating the millions of new jobs that we desperately need is not only vitally important to our economy but will be the means by which we reduce the deficit over the long term.”
The centerpiece of Sanders’ plan for putting millions of Americans back to work is his call for infrastructure investment.
“Everyone in Vermont and across the country understands that we can put millions of Americans back to work rebuilding the nation’s bridges, roads, schools, dams, culverts, rail systems and public transportation, among other vital needs,” Sanders said. “We also need to build new infrastructure: every community in the nation needs high speed Internet access, most need new water or sewage plants, and our antiquated electric grid needs to be redesigned and rebuilt.”
Other critical elements of a successful jobs plan would transform energy systems, reform trade policies and help states and local governments.
So Shirazz your solution is more war. Wow how utterly original!
So is part of his plan to take people getting welfare and unemployment and put them to work building those “bridges, roads, schools, dams, culverts, rail systems and public transportation, among other vital needs”?
If it is, I’m all for it. If it’s just more deficit spending, not so much.
To what extent do the Western countries of the world support free trade?
Obviously, free trade is the key component of capitalism, which now the most established and successful economic system of the world (obviously to varying degrees)
However, to what extent is the world actually free trade? My question comes as a response to the situation in the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher, when the ‘compete to survive’ attitude was enforced to Britain’s industry, and much of it was privatised as a result. However, I was wondering if other countries, particularly withing the EEC, abided by such an attitude? I often heard tales of managers of managers of steelworks (I’m from Sheffield) complaining that German rivals were being subsidised until British Steel was wiped from the map, however didn’t know if they were true and can find no statistics to help me.
A friend always used to point out, when discussing Thatcher and the 80s, that the free market is completely pointless in Britain if other countries don’t abide by the same textbook. So, are other nations such as the USA and the other EEC/EU nations set on an equal footing to the UK in terms of fairness in competing? And if so, how ‘free’ are the free markets in these countries?
Another great example of this is why companies like Austin Rover found themselves nearly constantly outmanoeuvered by French and German competitors, despite the common market being in place.
Sorry for vagueness but I hope you can catch my drift!? Thankyou!
Western countries support free trade only to the extent that they see it in their own short term political interests. For example, all developed countries have protection for their farmers because their farmers can’t compete economically and have political clout.
Look at U.S. Tariffs until fairly recently.
Are you going to argue that the U.S. Was more capitalist in the 20s than during the Great Depression when it had Smoot-Hawley? Or how about the 1890s when the U.S. Was already the world’s greatest industrial power?
Furthermore, economic theory says that a country’s economy benefits from free trade even if the other countries don’t have free trade. So your friend’s comments are completely bogus.
The only countries that really support free trade are those that have essentially no domestic industry of their own, such as Singapore (where imports are about equal to GDP)
and New Zealand (aside from agriculture, a very small domestic industrial base, not surprising with a population of about 4 million)
Powered by Yahoo! Answers