-
Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/
Death wish
- Thread starter OkeeDon
- Start date
nixon said:
IMO.........I think the American public will demand higher security due to this sale, meaning over and above what now exist. Hey, I could be wrong but politicians are talking about it which implies residents in they're jurisdictions express concern. If a American company was purchasing the port operations do you think we'd have this chit going on? The answer to appease the public if the purchase by a Arab company goes through, would be heighten security.
Again, we're already spending money on the issue just by being in the news and taking up public servant time. Remember this is MO and not to be construed as fact.
Easy, Bob.
As it's been said, the British company is a private company with several American ties, not a governemtal entity. This is like Kiotis and Kubotas.
Never the less, I am not happy about any of this which is comming to light. Our ports are worse than the porus Mexican border as far as security goes. To have any of them run by a forign governmant is unacceptable *IMO*. I'm sure this will get worse long before it gets better.
It's not IF, it's WHEN.
As it's been said, the British company is a private company with several American ties, not a governemtal entity. This is like Kiotis and Kubotas.
Never the less, I am not happy about any of this which is comming to light. Our ports are worse than the porus Mexican border as far as security goes. To have any of them run by a forign governmant is unacceptable *IMO*. I'm sure this will get worse long before it gets better.
It's not IF, it's WHEN.
nixon said:
Obviously the circumstances and those involved (Arabs). Already in the news this morning is mentioning of restructure of port security and procedures!
Absolutely, but that is a whole different matter which leads to government abuse and waste. There ain't enough forum to get into those areas.....
riptides
New member
OkeeDon said:
I guess it is a matter of interpretation then. If the ultimate authority is a government figure/head then IMHO it makes the company foreign owned and operated.
Companies spin off LLCs and subsidaries all the time to avoild regulatory issues where they want to operate. That does not make the company any less "foreign" in my mind. All part of the globalization efforts underway.
Not necessarily here but all the talking heads (mainly guests) are including the word SECURITY in "port management". The security issues is what I believe many need to understand isn't what's changing.
Again, not in this forum but I hear so many griping about our trade deficit yet when a foreign institution (note I didn't say company or government) wants to invest in the USA everyone is up in arms.
Re. the UAE and terrorism, if people would look closely, it's not the government that has had ties to terrorist organizations, its people. The government has caught, arrested and turned over terrorists to the USA. Hmmmm. Should we give Lackawanna NY or Toledo OH to Canada since terrorists were found in those places?
The government of the UAE has been very helpful in assisting the USA fight terrorism. Name some other middle eastern countries that give the USA and our military the access to its ports, territory, overflight, airports and logistical services to the degree the UAE does.
DPW is already operating ports in some of our allies countries, including Germany, Australia, India and South Korea. Has anyone been seeing issues in those countries?
Why doesn't congress work on legislation to increase security for all instead of picking on the company/country that wants to manage the port(s)?
I know I'm in the minority here but I still see it as a capitialism venture and not related to security to the degree most others do.
Again, not in this forum but I hear so many griping about our trade deficit yet when a foreign institution (note I didn't say company or government) wants to invest in the USA everyone is up in arms.
Re. the UAE and terrorism, if people would look closely, it's not the government that has had ties to terrorist organizations, its people. The government has caught, arrested and turned over terrorists to the USA. Hmmmm. Should we give Lackawanna NY or Toledo OH to Canada since terrorists were found in those places?
The government of the UAE has been very helpful in assisting the USA fight terrorism. Name some other middle eastern countries that give the USA and our military the access to its ports, territory, overflight, airports and logistical services to the degree the UAE does.
DPW is already operating ports in some of our allies countries, including Germany, Australia, India and South Korea. Has anyone been seeing issues in those countries?
Why doesn't congress work on legislation to increase security for all instead of picking on the company/country that wants to manage the port(s)?
I know I'm in the minority here but I still see it as a capitialism venture and not related to security to the degree most others do.
The more info that comes out about this, the more comfortable I become with it.. It seems like there is allot that we dont know about this deal.. However, I still believe that it would be in our best interests to increase security as well.. Maybe this will give us the reason to actually do it..?..
I think we're whistling past each other in the dark; I completely agree with you that BAE Systems is a foreign company; where I took issue with you was that you stated that the integration, etc. was controlled by a foreign government. BAE Systems is private company, not a government. In my opinion, it makes a huge difference. Companies are not usually political; governments always are political. Political differences are what gets us in trouble. Making a profit as a private company is the same anywhere; it doesn't matter where the headquarters are.riptides said:
That's the basic issue that most people miss about globablization. Globalization of corporate activities has nothing to do with a one-world government, except in the case that all governments learn that it's to their advantage to work with the private corporations. In that case, it's the corporations that are improving the governments, not the governments that are ruining the corporations. Look at China as a prime example.
Just my opinion, but if it's related to government (any government; even ours), then, almost by definition, it isn't capitalist. Governments cannot resist trying to control the things in which they have an interest for purposes other than capitalism.bczoom said:
Why is it, if I'm supposed to be such a flaming liberal, that on this issue I'm one of the most conservative ones here?
Could it be that I'm not one-sided?
Beats me, but's so much more fun to pretend you are!OkeeDon said:
Spiffy1 said:
Left, right, "one-sided" or complex, now if that wasn't in the spirit of a humorous thread [that went somewhat astray as I recall] I don't know what it...still gives me a chuckle!OkeeDon said:
wait....did I just compliment Don?
OK carry on, back to countries buying US ports.....
Somehow scares me a bit, yet I can't help but to think it's about like selling someone the GoldenGate Bridge; if they really want to pay for it.......
JimR
Charter Member
I guess it's my turn to crank it up a little bit. Where were all the Democrats and Republicans when we leased a Port to the Chinese government in California during the Clinton years? We are talking COMMUNISTS here with ATOMIC BOMBS having control of a port. Let's go back to a bank robbery in California. I'm sure you all remember this one televised on tv. The criminals had fully automatic Chinese AK's. These weapons came in from that port under control of the Chinese. According to what I read there was a container of these that hit our shores. There was very little to no mention of this in the media. I wonder why? Government coverup maybe. Clinton had just sold the Chinese goverment information on missiles. Oh my GOD, what is wrong with America. It's ok for Clinton to pull this crap, but not for Bush. Now it just came out this morning that Bush was not even aware of this deal until it was already done. He was blindsided by the feds who passed the deal saying it was ok.
riptides
New member
Not right or wrong, but George kindof gives and spews forth the ramble that we need not worry about our security. Then, I mean this port deal, just looks bad... and he does not see it coming.
In simple terms he is not doing, what he is speaking. It is not his fault, but someone, advisors, councelors and what not, just MISSED this simple deal. The average American sees it as UnAmericanOwner-port-security-bombs-America.
Then thoses advisors to Bush have failed to notify him, accordingly. Face it, a whole lot of people are not seeing the big picture and are not pro-active in the accountability department.
Junkman
Extra Super Moderator
B_Skurka said:
The US has allowed its citizens to sell their companies, land, farms, businesses, etc. to foreigners for many years. If people ever realized how much of our farm land was owned by foreigners, they would be screaming bloody murder. We even allow foreign companies to set up plants in this country to build cars and give them special tax treatment. Nothing new, except that this time the purchaser is owned by another country!!!!!!!!
Junk,Junkman said:
But foreign government ownership is nothing new...
APL, which manages terminals in Oakland, Los Angeles, Seattle and Alaska, is owned by the NOL Group, which is majority owned by the Singapore government.
The Chinese government owns part of a company that operates a terminal at the Port of Long Beach.
The British Petroleum Company owns almost 1/2 of the Trans Alaska Pipeline and more than half of the oil Prudhoe Bay The British government owns roughly 70 percent of British Petroleum.
JimR
Charter Member
Long Beach was where the AK's were brought in. America has been selling itself to foreign countries for years. Sooner or later all of the manufacturing and everything else will be foreign owned and oprerated. We will be pawns at their feet trying to figure out what we did wrong. The rich will be happy as they have their money. The little guy will be screwed. We will be a third world country.
I'm trying to figure out what some of you are saying. So, if other ports, in Calif or Alaska or whatever, are operated by companies that are owned by foreign governments, it's OK for this new deal to go through?
I think not. I think it's time to draw a line. I have nothing against private industry, but as I've repeatedly said, I don't trust governments to operate private industries. I think this present deal has to be stopped. Then, I thnk we need to go back and look at the other deals that have been mentioned, and do something about them. At the very least, I think that some of our wealthiest investors, now that they have more of their own money because of tax cuts, to put together companies to buy back our most valuable assets.
I do not understand how all this has happened. Our government passes tax cuts so our investors have more money to invest. Instead, our investors keep that money, and get even more by selling our companies to foreign interests. Then, they sell off our forest prducts, scrap steel and more to China. Where does that money go? Oh, yeah, I remember, it goes to Dubai for oil or to Shanghai for products.
At the same time, because of the tax cuts, we have to borrow money from foreigners to run the government, so a lot of our money goes to interest payments to foreigners.
How did we get into this mess? Oh, yeah, 12 years of increasing national debt under Reagan/Bush. Then, after 8 years of improvement (not perfect, no one's perfect, but it was still improvement), we re-elect the guys who increase the debt and send the assets and jobs overseas. All because a few phoney moralists are more concerned about a blowjob than they are about how this government works.
Sigh.
We could have prevented all this, but a few people were convinced by Fox News that this lightweight was the "lesser of two evils". Of course, they're the same people who said that Dick Cheney was a real sportsman, and worried that Kerry might shoot someone because of the way he carried his gun.
Sigh.
I think not. I think it's time to draw a line. I have nothing against private industry, but as I've repeatedly said, I don't trust governments to operate private industries. I think this present deal has to be stopped. Then, I thnk we need to go back and look at the other deals that have been mentioned, and do something about them. At the very least, I think that some of our wealthiest investors, now that they have more of their own money because of tax cuts, to put together companies to buy back our most valuable assets.
I do not understand how all this has happened. Our government passes tax cuts so our investors have more money to invest. Instead, our investors keep that money, and get even more by selling our companies to foreign interests. Then, they sell off our forest prducts, scrap steel and more to China. Where does that money go? Oh, yeah, I remember, it goes to Dubai for oil or to Shanghai for products.
At the same time, because of the tax cuts, we have to borrow money from foreigners to run the government, so a lot of our money goes to interest payments to foreigners.
How did we get into this mess? Oh, yeah, 12 years of increasing national debt under Reagan/Bush. Then, after 8 years of improvement (not perfect, no one's perfect, but it was still improvement), we re-elect the guys who increase the debt and send the assets and jobs overseas. All because a few phoney moralists are more concerned about a blowjob than they are about how this government works.
Sigh.
We could have prevented all this, but a few people were convinced by Fox News that this lightweight was the "lesser of two evils". Of course, they're the same people who said that Dick Cheney was a real sportsman, and worried that Kerry might shoot someone because of the way he carried his gun.
Sigh.
If you were talking about a democratic white house avoiding a war in Iraq (whether that is good, bad, etc, fodder other threads), you'd be making sense.
But claiming this administration is more reasponsible for sending manufacturing away - a situation far more damaging than anyone wants to admit[yes, I know fodder for other threads], selling ports, etc; now I think somebody is smoking Bill's wacky weed [heck, I'd maybe even have voted for him if he'd had the guts to admit it, rather than making up stories]. Especially, to say that Mr. Clinton straightened out issues from the Reagan administration and now Bush is messing it up again?
Any economist will tell you, that previous administrations have more effect [assuming either current or previous really has any effect at that] on economies than the current one. I don't care if you give Bill Gates or Bill Mahr credit for the economy, but Bill Clinton certainly doesn't deserve it.
On the other hand, if you want to say that Bush is making a royal mess of things, while at least Clinton was too busy getting sexual favors to mess anything up - I'd have to say only time will tell, but sure couldn't argue it.
But claiming this administration is more reasponsible for sending manufacturing away - a situation far more damaging than anyone wants to admit[yes, I know fodder for other threads], selling ports, etc; now I think somebody is smoking Bill's wacky weed [heck, I'd maybe even have voted for him if he'd had the guts to admit it, rather than making up stories]. Especially, to say that Mr. Clinton straightened out issues from the Reagan administration and now Bush is messing it up again?
Any economist will tell you, that previous administrations have more effect [assuming either current or previous really has any effect at that] on economies than the current one. I don't care if you give Bill Gates or Bill Mahr credit for the economy, but Bill Clinton certainly doesn't deserve it.
On the other hand, if you want to say that Bush is making a royal mess of things, while at least Clinton was too busy getting sexual favors to mess anything up - I'd have to say only time will tell, but sure couldn't argue it.
Actually, any economist will tell you that the economy anticipates future events and begins to change even before those events happen. The proof of this is in the stock market -- if the "street" believes that earnings for a particular company will be up, they bid the stock price uhen investorsp even before the earnings report is out. Thus, on the day the report is released, if it meets the expectations, often nothing happens to the price -- it already happened when investors anticpated the good report (or vice versa).Spiffy1 said:
What does this have to do with the economy? Simple. What actually happens is that it was anticipated that Clinton would clean up the Reagan/Bush mistakes, and the economy improved as a result. Then, it the last year of Clinton's administration, it was anticipated that Bush would win, and the economy started down again. After all, Bush ran his entire campaign stating that things would be worse, so the market believed him and made his predictions come true.
What really started the glory days of the Clinton economy was the courageous vote of Congress in 1993 to support the Clinton budget (with not one single Republican voting for it. The real genius behind the Clinton economy was Robert Rubin, arguably the best SecTreasury since Alexander Hamilton.
thcri
Gone But Not Forgotten
OkeeDon said:
I was around and in business prior Regan/Bush. I saw the economy spindling downwards. I saw people packing up and moving to other towns just to get work. Your years of Reagan/Bush was the seed that made the years of Clinton so good. Our government is a business and anytime there is changes it takes years to see the fruits. No different in my business, when I make a change I don't see the fruits over night. Now I am not saying all the good fruits of the years Clinton was in office came from the Reagan years but a lot of them did. Fact is before Clinton left office the economy was already doing a downturn. Don't tell me any different as being in business I saw it. Reagan as far as I am conerned was the best President this county has seen in a long time. Of course after having Carter in there anybody would have been better.
As far as Clinton's blow job, who cares about it. I think it is great that he got one. It's the fact as to where he got. The Oval Office come one Don where is your morals? And then he lied about it. I don't care what a stupid judge said about it not being sex. It was sex and he lied under oath to the people of the United States. The blow job could have passed STD's and that is sex.
As far the the present Bush, no I am not totally happy with how he has handled things. But you also have to take into consideration that he has been faced with the greatest obstacles for a President in a long time. Would I vote for him again, probably not, but I sure as hell would not vote for Kerry, Gore, or Hillary Clinton. I didn't add Kennedy to the list because I think he is a total wash out anyway.
And I may add that I don't care what the party is they both or all have failed the people. If Kerry would have won the election we all would be bitching here today about what he has done to our country.
murph
Don,
I'm going to stay out of the which administration did what... I believe we've burned that bridge in the past.
Your post appears to address economics from a political perspective.
Are you saying the exodus of US jobs to foreign countries is due to the tax cut? That's one I've not heard before. Do you have further info?
Can you also support that all the money from tax cuts has been pocketed and nothing has been spent?
OK... Now please tell me what should we tell the UAE and any of our other allies? The UAE has been a loyal ally in the war on terror. They've supported our military more than any other in the region. They have more of our military ships in their ports than any other country in the world. What message does that send them as well as any of our other allies about what you get when you cooperate with the USA. The cold shoulder?
You say you don't trust governments to run corporations. Heck, after seeing what happened with Enron, MCI, Adelphia, Arthur Anderson, AOL, Bristol-Meyers, Global Crossing, Halliburton, Merck, Tyco, Xerox... (the list goes on and on) I'm more worried about non-government run corporations.
I'm going to stay out of the which administration did what... I believe we've burned that bridge in the past.
Your post appears to address economics from a political perspective.
Are you saying the exodus of US jobs to foreign countries is due to the tax cut? That's one I've not heard before. Do you have further info?
Can you also support that all the money from tax cuts has been pocketed and nothing has been spent?
OK... Now please tell me what should we tell the UAE and any of our other allies? The UAE has been a loyal ally in the war on terror. They've supported our military more than any other in the region. They have more of our military ships in their ports than any other country in the world. What message does that send them as well as any of our other allies about what you get when you cooperate with the USA. The cold shoulder?
You say you don't trust governments to run corporations. Heck, after seeing what happened with Enron, MCI, Adelphia, Arthur Anderson, AOL, Bristol-Meyers, Global Crossing, Halliburton, Merck, Tyco, Xerox... (the list goes on and on) I'm more worried about non-government run corporations.
BC, some good points. I'm not saying the exodus of jobs is due to the tax cut, I'm saying that both are symptoms of the same problem. The exodus of jobs and the demand for tax cuts are both based in greed.
I don't actually know what'd happened to all the money from tax cuts. It hasn't been invested in new facilities or jobs here, because all of the jobs are going overseas. It's not trickling down, because Fox News, of all people, reported the other day that real incomes in the middle class are down. It's not going into TBills, otherwise we wouldn't need so much foreign investment in our government borrowing.
As far as I can see, it's going into big ticket items like multi-million dollar houses. Also, just having come back from Roatan Island off the coast of Honduras, where small condos are going for $600,000, I think a lot of the money is leaving the country.
I don't actually know what'd happened to all the money from tax cuts. It hasn't been invested in new facilities or jobs here, because all of the jobs are going overseas. It's not trickling down, because Fox News, of all people, reported the other day that real incomes in the middle class are down. It's not going into TBills, otherwise we wouldn't need so much foreign investment in our government borrowing.
As far as I can see, it's going into big ticket items like multi-million dollar houses. Also, just having come back from Roatan Island off the coast of Honduras, where small condos are going for $600,000, I think a lot of the money is leaving the country.
OkeeDon said:
That is so blatantly FALSE that I have to jump in. Sorry Don, but the exodus of jobs is based on the reality of a world dominated by Wal Mart. Wal Mart is essentially forcing companies to move jobs to lower cost labor markets to squeeze down prices. In fact many companies that do move jobs overseas have no choice if they want to stay in business at all, and those that do often see eroded profits year after year not increased profits. So if simple survival is considered greed, then I suppose you are correct. Most folks would argue that simple survival is not greed.