Remember the good ol' says when we were going to be rescued from that secretive Bush guy and his "war on science" by the guy who pledged the most transparent, science friendly administration ever?

Obama vowed to change “the posture of our federal government from being one of the most anti-science administrations in American history to one that embraces science and technology.”

In 2009 he issued a memorandum stating “political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions" and charged John Holdren of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to enforce it. As it turns out, the White House has been blocking the release of an FDA study on Frankenfish (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/12/28/obamas-science-commitment-fda-face-ethics-scrutiny-in-wake-of-gmo-salmon-fiasco/).


Questions are emerging about the breakdown of the federal government’s science integrity process in the wake of the Food & Drug Administration’s long-delayed release of its approval of the first genetically modified animal for human consumption.

The AquAdvantage salmon developed by AquaBounty Technologies of Massachusetts—an Atlantic salmon modified with a growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon so it grows to maturity faster—had been winding its way through the federal approval process for 17 years. Two years ago, the FDA had said it was going to release its environmental assessment, the final document in the approval process, within weeks. It was finally and quietly posted on the FDA’s website only last Friday—just hours before the long holiday weekend—and published in the Federal Register on Wednesday.

The release came, FDA sources say, in response to the publication of an investigation in Slate by the Genetic Literacy Project two days before, on December 19. The GLP, which I head, had reported that the FDA had definitively concluded last spring that the fish would have “no significant impact” on the environment and was “as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon.” However, the draft assessment, dated April 19, 2012, was not released—blocked on orders from the White House.

The seven month delay, sources within the government say, came after discussions late last spring between Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius’ office and officials linked to Valerie Jarrett at the Executive Office, who were debating the political implications of approving the GM salmon. Genetically modified plants and animals are controversial among the president’s political base, which was thought critical to his reelection efforts during a low point in the president’s popularity.

...

According to sources, the White House political block—a direct violation of numerous ethics regulations and possibly of federal laws—was instituted over the objections of scientists at the FDA, but with the awareness of HHS Secretary Sibelius, her senior adviser Andrea Palm and the Office of Science and Technology Policy and its director John Holdren, who is responsible for enforcing “science integrity” across government agencies.

The OSTP had overseen an inter-agency review process that was completed by early spring. According to sources, Holdren stood by as the White House openly meddled.

I know, you'll just say it's a fishing expedition.

You actually think the FDA practices good science? I don't. If I were prez I'd throw out the whole agency and start over.

Can't wait to eat some gmo salmon. Bet it's a whole lot safer to eat than a McRibb.


Rene Arend came up with the idea and design of the McRib, but it's a professor from the University of Nebraska named Richard Mandigo who developed the "restructured meat product" that the McRib is actually made of.

According to an article from Chicago magazine, which cites a 1995 article by Mandigo, "restructured meat product" contains a mixture of tripe, heart, and scalded stomach, which is then mixed with salt and water to extract proteins from the muscle. The proteins bind all the pork trimmings together so that it can be re-molded into any specific shape — in this case, a fake slab of ribs.
11 Amazing Facts about the McDonald's McRib - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/11-amazing-facts-about-the-mcdonald-s-mcrib-170212930.html)

Who cares about the GM fish, why is this admin playing politics with science all you science lovers?

Who cares about the GM fish, why is this admin playing politics with science all you science lovers?


An excellent question that is not asked often enough.

The short answer is that science is knowledge and knowledge can ultimately be turned into power. Science is unique in that it has the ability to push forward the boundaries of knowledge so quickly that administrations are offten caught off guard.

They are often caught 'off guard' because scientific discoveries will invariably contain moral, social, political and economic implications. It is for this reasons that administrations will often have to carefully evaluate social political, economic outcomes before they make a decision. The reason for stalling on most scientific issues is because of the political implications. In other words, the science might challenge their power base or, worse still, the power bases of their powerful constituents.

The answer to your question is almost as simple as that.


Tut

This is more like the science did not conform to their preconceived perception .Had the FDA found a danger in the salmon ,you can be sure the Obots would've been quick to act accordingly .The FDA prepared a report, after a 17 year process,that there was no danger in breeding these salmon; and the White House then sat on the report, and probably would be sitting on it still were it not for an article in Slate .

No one has questioned if the salmon are safe to eat... they are . The concern is about whether these salmon, bred in captivity in fish farms ,could get out and change the wild Atlantic salmon genome. Since the fish raised would be sterile females ,the risk is very minimal even if one or more get released into the Atlantic .

Now there is probably very good reasons for challenging the FDA report. God knows I am often a critic of the agency. It's quite another issue that the report was being suppressed. The FDA is saying sterile animals raised inland was unlike to escape and breed with wild animals .That seems to be a reasonable conclusion . The FDA is also saying that even if the technology was banned ;that the transfer of the technology to other countries would occur and their ban would not prevent the introduction of the salmon in the world market place. Their concern then is and should be if the salmon are safe to consume by the US populace.
I find it amusing that conservatives are accused of having 18th century thinking by libs... but when it comes to issues like GMO ;it's the libs that are Luddites .

GMO salmon that must be what I have being eating, doesn't taste good

I read too much into the article?

"Genetically modified plants and animals can be controversial amongst the president's political base"

"Lisa Murkowski, well funded by Alaska fishing organizations, has repeatedly organizations, has repeatedly tried to tie up the FDA in red tape"

Sounds a bit like both sides are unsure, or don't like the implications.

Political timing works both ways. I would find it easy to believe (after all their years) that the FDA top level people are heavily greased.

Sure anti-GMO is a liberal cause. Too bad it isn't just a cause. I couldn't care less what I eat but make way for those who do. The FDA declared years ago that GM corn had zero impact on the environment, yet monarch butterflies avoid it like the plague, unlike regular corn, and still no one knows why. GM wheat (that we all eat now) is now linked to obesity, and it's not clear why. No one can tell me that the FDA knows what they are doing, even without the politics. Science isn't some Final Word - look at all the damages done: Thalidomide, flurocarbons, you name it. And for all the 'good' science done in a bloated agency, there's higher ups who squash their findings. So how do we know if O chose to suppress this for political reasons or for reasons of science? How do we know the FDA didn't choose last April for it's political timing?

I would find it easy to believe (after all their years) that the FDA top level people are heavily greased I can give ancedotal evidence to affirm that .

Political timing works both ways. I would find it easy to believe (after all their years) that the FDA top level people are heavily greased.

Sure anti-GMO is a liberal cause. Too bad it isn't just a cause. I could care less what I eat but make way for those who do. The FDA declared years ago that GM corn had zero impact on the environment, yet monarch butterflies avoid it like the plague, unlike regular corn, and still no one knows why. GM wheat (that we all eat now) is now linked to obesity, and it's not clear why. No one can tell me that the FDA knows what they are doing, even without the politics. Science isn't some Final Word - look at all the damages done: Thalidomide, flurocarbons, you name it. And for all the 'good' science done in a bloated agency, there's higher ups who squash their findings. So how do we know if O chose to suppress this for political reasons or for reasons of science? How do we know the FDA didn't choose last April for it's political timing?


Hi joy,

Unfortunately in these matters science becomes close to the final word. The scientific word becomes the political word. In exactly the same was as bureaucrats, bankers, technocrats have the final word. Politicians are the courtiers to these type of interest groups. Why?

Because we have a very unhealthy tendency to put out faith in these types of specialists. As I said in the beginning in a specialist society knowledge is power.

It is these special interest groups that set the agenda. Politics is now molded in the image of the corporatist body, not the other way around. When you vote for any major party you are voting for a number of special interest groups, not of your choice.

'Specialist society' is a good way to put it. Astronomer priests held their knowledge secret for power. Doctors took away midwifery and herbalism. The tobacco lobby with their science/politics kept the FDA's science/politcs at bay until 1996.

'Politics is now molded in the image of the corporatist body' - I like that too. It seems to me that it's more insidious and huge than most of us can imagine. It's so pervasive that I for one can't really grok it. And in relation to what, that we had before?

'Specialist society' is a good way to put it. Astronomer priests held their knowledge secret for power. Doctors took away midwifery and herbalism. The tobacco lobby with their science/politics kept the FDA's science/politcs at bay til 1996.

'Politics is now molded in the image of the corporatist body' - I like that too. It seems to me that it's more insidious and huge than most of us can imagine. It's so pervasive that I for one can't really grok it. And in relation to what, that we had before?


"Astronomer priests", I like that term, it sort of conjures up images of high priests. I hope you don't mind if I borrow it.

Using that analogy we can say that in society we have an unhealthy admiration for the high priests of economics, business, science and the like. And what better way for these elites to perpetuate their power and influence then to form into some sort of corporate body. For example, who amongst us is willing to commit blasphemy by questioning the wisdom of global economics?

It is not the Leviathan state that is the problem it is the corporatist leviathan that is the problem. We are slowly slipping towards what can be seen as a modern version of a feudalism. Yes, knowledge is power and money is the mechanism whereby power is guaranteed using the political processes.

Like all good feudal systems there are those at the top with all the power and at the bottom are the overwhelming majority of the powerless. Politics is big business and big business is politics and there is little difference when it comes to the two. We vote every four years to exchange one set of ruling elites for another.

Except for the select few, we are the "bitter courtiers" regardless of the way we vote. All we can hope for is a few favours might come our way. Seems anti- democratic to me.

Tut when the corporate leviathan has the power to make life and death decisions over the state as the state has on the corporation (aka deciding which is too big to fail and which is OK to take over and divest it's assets ) then get back to me on that theory. The fact is that it's the huge Leviathan state is making the call on who the feudal masters are... not the other way around.

You want Constitutional government Tom, once the undeveloped world used to be ruled by corporations, trading empires with royal charters, where did that get us. I suspect it got us into the situation which ultimately created your country. Do you want to return to those days?

We still live with the legacies of those days. You lament that constitutional government has the power to decide which corporations exist. I certainly don't want a world ruled by Taco Bell, McDonald's and KFC

I don't lament it .I was pointing out that there is no way corporations have the power that the state has. Can't you read ?

Following you train of thought is like trying to decide where a bucking mule is going. Some corporations are bigger than nation states and exercise considerable power in the undeveloped world, someone has to be able to control them

We can't follow the trail of corporate power into those creepy PAC on-the-side not for profits disguised as do-gooders. They calculate with precision. They get tons of legally hidden donations. They get hapless Congresspeople ousted in key areas where there isn't enough money to fight back. They lobby, and they anti-lobby with veiled threats (notice how no one talks about global warning lately?). They exist to maintain their corporate hold. They never see the light of day, at least not in the news, and their names are practically unknown. Except for the PACs that run them.

This is America, where the powerless mostly don't mind as long as they have a job. Co-opted. Benevolence, just enough. It's scary to me but I do nothing either. I want the next generation to do something.

Tut when the corporate leviathan has the power to make life and death decisions over the state as the state has on the corporation (aka deciding which is too big to fail and which is ok to take over and divest it's assets ) then get back to me on that theory. The fact is that it's the huge Leviathan state is making the call on who the feudal masters are ...not the other way around.


Tom, the only suggestion I can make is to take your web browser off right wing think tanks.

You don't want to know about this theory because people such as John Saul put forward theories that don't fit in with you idealized interpretation of the world.
Instead you want to put forward out dated theories from the past centuries.

We hear ad nauseam from these think tanks that democracy is still tied very closely to the Industrial Revolution and out of this revolution developed a sense of individualism. You will probably recite the rest of this story for me.

What did people such as Smith and de Tocqueville know about global economics and modern corporatism?

Saul and others can get back to you with the answer to your question. I can explain it, but you would not be interested, so I would be wasting my time.

I'll get back to you with the theory if you decided to do some wider reading.

"...there is no way corporations have the power that the state has."

I am pretty sure I used the world "corporatist", not "corporation". I'll go back and check over my posts, because there is an important difference.

Maybe in a couple centuries the musings of John Ralston Saul will be wide read and quoted . More likely he won't be a blip on the radar.

Maybe in a couple centuries the musings of John Ralston Saul will be wide read and quoted . More likely he won't be a blip on the radar.


Exactly.

He will only be of historical interest.



.

Whereas Locke ,Adam Smith ,Tocqueville will be studied for centuries.

"...there is no way corporations have the power that the state has."

I am pretty sure I used the world "corporatist", not "corporation". I'll go back and check over my posts, because there is an important difference.

Under the theory of corporatism ,isn't society organized into corporate entities subordinate to the state ?

That's the theory not the reality

Oh really ? So when the government decides one corporation deserves to live because it's too big to fail ;and another one ,the government decides should be taken over by the government and broken up... that is proof that the corporate entities have to power ?

Under the theory of corporatism ,isn't society organized into corporate entities subordinate to the state ?

Just so there is no confusion here. I am not saying that one two or twenty two corporations have the ability to control government. This is NOT what I said. This is why is used the distinction.

In answer to your question. Yes, this is has largely been true for a long time. It is sometimes better known as pluralism.Corporatism presents the opportunity to evolve into some quite different. For example, corporatism was evident in the dictatorship of Mussolini. One would normally expect in a pluralist system the competing interests of individuals are represented through various organizations such as, chambers of commerce, trade unions and the like.

The problem arises when there exists the potential to somehow make these vast and varied interest groups realize the same ideology. In other words, the realization that their interests are not varied but are actually the same.

Surely such a situation cannot possibly arise in the 21 century whereby a government becomes the facilitator Can it?

If it has happened in the past ,then of course it could happen in the future. Of course today it's capitialism is falsely accused of such .

Of course today it's capitialism is falsely accused of suchWell it's the US version of capitalism which is at fault. You can't expect your elected officials to receive unlimited amounts of funds from corporations, special interest groups, and lobbyists and not expect their votes to go that way. You need some serious reform in that area. The problem is independent of who is in office; it has been going on for decades.

if it has happened in the past ,then of course it could happen in the future. Of course today it's capitialism is falsely accused of such .

If you are talking about modern capitalism then I would say it embraces the corporatist ideology just like everyone else. But again, I think it depends on the definition of modern capitalism. Modern capitalism and historical capitalism seem to exhibit very little in common.

'Modern capitalism and historical capitalism seem to exhibit very little in common.'

Please elaborate? I've had this feeling but can't put my finger on it.

'Modern capitalism and historical capitalism seem to exhibit very little in common.'

Please elaborate? I've had this feeling but can't put my finger on it.

Very hard to sum up in a few paragraphs, but I'll give it a go.

Again, it depends on what we mean by the term, 'capitalism'. But if we are talking classical capitalism of people such as Smith and Hume then they would roll over in their graves if they saw how their ideas are being portrayed by certain sections of society in an attempt to justify modern capitalism. They would see modern capitalism as an anathema.

Modern capitalism sometimes uses the words of these men to show how they support the ideologies of the day. Smith understood capitalism as a mixed market place whereby the role of the self-directed individual is of prime importance. Today,we have hierarchical bureaucracies that exist within and outside corporate organizations that exist for the pursuit of profit by employing specialized knowledge provided by the, 'high priests' ( if that rings a bell).

Basically,Smith was interested in what the individual could achieve through his/her efforts in the market place. Within today's environment individualism is frowned upon in favor of towing the corporate line and leaving things up to the experts. There is no balance. Balance is something I am sure Smith and Hume would be still stressing if they were alive today.

If you are talking about modern capitalism then I would say it embraces the corporatist ideology just like everyone else. But again, I think it depends on the definition of modern capitalism. Modern capitalism and historical capitalism seem to exhibit very little in common.

That's because anti-capitalists have been allowed to define it . Let's start by what it isn't... it isn't statism, socialism, communism, fascism, or corporatism.Those are all collective systems and capitalism is not . Capitalism through competition and merit allows for individual rights and achievement .
Is the US a capitalist economic system? It may have been at one point ;but the statists increasingly control the nation.

That's because anti-capitalists have been allowed to define it . Let's start by what it isn't .....it isn't statism, socialism, communism, fascism, or corporatism.Those are all collective systems and capitalism is not . Capitalism through competition and merit allows for individual rights and achievement .
Is the US a capitalist economic system? It may have been at one point ;but the statists increasingly control the nation.


I'm not defining it. I am saying what it does. It uses the same methodology as everyone else It embraces the same ideology.

"Capitalism through competition and merit allows for individual rights and achievements"

Yes, perhaps once in the past, but not now. Corporatism is modern capitalism. It discourages individualism. See my above post.

See what I mean ? You define capitalism in anti-capitalist terms . Corporatism indeed discourages individualism.. capitalism does not. We are close to that 'Humpty Dumpty ' discussion again.

see what I mean ? you define capitalism in anti-capitalist terms . corporatism indeed discourages individualism ..capitalism does not. We are close to that 'Humpty Dumpty ' discussion again.


Tom, you are not trying to tell me that modern capitalism (of the type we have been discussing) is of the same type that Smith envisaged. Please tell me you are not.

Then we sort of agree that the US is not longer based on capitalism.

Then we sort of agree that the US is not longer based on capitalism.

Yep ,hasn't been for a century .;maybe longer.

Hello:

I know what capitalism WAS and what it is NOW. No, I'm not full of theory.. I don't know who Locke is. I'm just a businessman. In fact, you could call me libertarian type of capitalist.. What I mean by that, is that I believe, WITHOUT any help from anybody, capitalism DOES serve the needs of society... Company's competing with each other on a LEVEL playing field WORKS for the benefit of EVERYBODY. Good company's THRIVE, and bad ones FAIL.

That's the way it's supposed to be.

But, THEN, some businessman wanted to TILT the playing field in his favor, because he was LOSING in the marketplace... So, he went to his congressman and asked if he couldn't make a rule or a law or something... And, the congressman, eyeballing his reelection campaign, DID it. So, of course, his competitor needed to visit HIS congressman, and we were off to the races..

Businessmen who curry favor with government, don't have to compete in the market place... They don't have to treat their employees well. They don't have to do ANY of the things a company that depends on the marketplace has to do. All they NEED to do is CONTRIBUTE...

That's called CRONY capitalism. That's what we've got today. It's not a matter of the product or service you produce. It's a matter of WHO you know, and HOW much you pay..

That isn't the way it's supposed to be.

excon

yep ,hasn't been for a century .;maybe longer.So why don't you guys attempt to make some governmental reform?

Tom, you are not trying to tell me that modern capitalism (of the type we have been discussing) is of the same type that Smith envisaged. Please tell me you are not.

When distorted, the word capitalism is a processes where statism is used to coercively create avenues of monopoly and political privilege. But you know and I know that is not what capitalism is about.

When distorted, the word capitalism is a processes where statism is used to coercively create avenues of monopoly and political privilege. But you know and I know that is not what capitalism is about.

So in your opinion what is capitalism about, exploitation of labour

I'm stuck in 18th century thinking as you know .therefore any modern definition of capitalism doesn't work for me.

So your answer is yes then

No.

You confuse me Tom you like eighteenth century ideas and yet you fail to acknowledge that eighteenth century capitalism was founded on slavery. In the early ninetheenth century men in other places threw off the yoke of slavery but these eighteenth century ideas you hold so dear were instrumental to holding the ideas and ideals of capitalist racism even into the twentieth century. It still a happens today you are content to buy the goods manufactured by workers who are treated like slaves but will not acknowledge this is the outcome of your capitalism

Yes you are confused .slavery predates capitalism by many centuries.

That didn't stop it from being a tool of capitalism, capitalism has been around a long while, it is only recently that it became a highly organised system. Slavery was at the very base of capitalism in your country in the early days, you could not have achieved what you did without it, you had an incrediable level of slavery at least a third of your population were slaves. Your capitalists have not lost the idea that labour should be cheap and exploited for their profit

When distorted, the word capitalism is a processes where statism is used to coercively create avenues of monopoly and political privilege. But you know and I know that is not what capitalism is about.


Ok, then Tom we will go with that. You obviously don't like labels.

From now on I'll call the modern version of capitalism some sort of 'ism'. I'll call it 'x-ism'. In fact I will list all 'isms' under the single term, 'x-ism' So things such as, stateism, legalism, labour-ism, science-ism socialism, financial-ism and wrongly named, modern capitalism are all, 'x-ism' Obviously there are many other that could be added to the list.

The capitalism you talk about that has not existed for 100 years or more is excluded from the category of, 'x-ism'. It exists as unique category in its own right. Will this make you happy?

The question now becomes what do all these 'isms' have in common? I would say they all make use of elites. The knowledge produced is of a specialized nature and requires a high degree of organization. Efficiency, management and rational are the key worlds.Management tends to be hierarchical and bureaucratic in nature in order to achieve rational outcomes for the organization.

These outcomes tend to be geared towards the marketplace of goods and services as well as the marketplace of ideas. The worth of the person is measured in terms of the his/her ability to produced stated goals goals.
For example,Exxon, General Motors and the National Academy of Sciences would all be accommodated under this description.

What makes it also interesting is than some of these organizations are quasi-governmental. In other words, they attempt to lobby government while at the same time providing professional services to governments. In this respect they differ from pluralist groups.

Would you be happy with this explanation Tom?

Meanwhile, still no outrage over the one that "embraces science and technology" playing politics with science.

Have you not read the posts in this thread you started? The consensus is that it's american politics as usual, independent of who is in office.

Have you not read the posts in this thread you started? The consensus is that it's american politics as usual, independent of who is in office.

And that justifies it how exactly?

It doesn't, but it'll go on forever unless you make some changes in the way your elected officials receive funds from vested interests.

It doesn't, but it'll go on forever unless you make some changes in the way your elected officials receive funds from vested interests.

This was not about funds, it was about deliberately suppressing science so as not to pi$$ off his base before the election.

Whatever, it's the same result based on the same system.

The system is so corrupt it will never change, too many rich politicians getting richer

.

From now on I'll call the modern version of capitalism some sort of 'ism'. I'll call it 'x-ism'. In fact I will list all 'isms' under the single term, 'x-ism' So things such as, statism, legalism, labour-ism, science-ism socialism, financial-ism and wrongly named, modern capitalism are all, 'x-ism' Obviously there are many other that could be added to the list.


The question now becomes what do all these 'isms' have in common? I would say they all make use of elites. The knowledge produced is of a specialized nature and requires a high degree of organization. Efficiency, management and rational are the key worlds.Management tends to be hierarchical and bureaucratic in nature in order to achieve rational outcomes for the organization.

These outcomes tend to be geared towards the marketplace of goods and services as well as the marketplace of ideas. The worth of the person is measured in terms of the his/her ability to produced stated goals goals.
For example,Exxon, General Motors and the National Academy of Sciences would all be accommodated under this description.

What makes it also interesting is than some of these organizations are quasi-governmental. In other words, they attempt to lobby government while at the same time providing professional services to governments. In this respect they differ from pluralist groups.


The reason I posted this was to show that 'statism' is an outmoded or an incomplete idea. Governments are not necessarily at the helm when it comes controlling social and economic policy. It is far more pervasive and insidious than that.

What makes it also interesting is than some of these organizations are quasi-governmental. In other words, they attempt to lobby government while at the same time providing professional services to governments. In this respect they differ from pluralist groups.
And many of them are created by government for the purpose of government having it's hands in the marketplace. The sole reason an entity would lobby is because it is the government that rigs the system in that direction. If the government is going to be the replacement to the invisible hand then of course people in the economy will act accordingly.

The sole reason an entity would lobby is because it is the government that rigs the system in that direction.Yes, by accepting bribes and voting in their favor - that's the process that needs changing.

and many of them are created by government for the purpose of government having it's hands in the marketplace. The sole reason an entity would lobby is because it is the government that rigs the system in that direction. If the government is going to be the replacement to the invisible hand then of course people in the economy will act accordingly.


This is largely correct. The economic invisible hand in this case is actually the rationality that requires these type of solutions. In other words, it is a complete ideology that serves the purpose of statism. . Governments are one of many influential players in the game. No one is at the helm, it guides itself.

The self regulating system, how nice, utopia at last

Governments are one of many influential players in the game. No one is at the helm, it guides itself. Maybe ;but in the end of the day ,it's government that is the ultimate power and responsibility . Laws whether written by a legislator ;a K Street lobby firm or by a totalitarian despot still need to become law ;and that is a government process . There is where the buck of responsibility ends .

Maybe ;but in the end of the day ,it's government that is the ultimate power and responsibility . Laws whether written by a legislator ;a K Street lobby firm or by a totalitarian despot still need to become law ;and that is a government process . There is where the buck of responsibility ends .


Interesting, but I would say that responsibility rests with ,'us' the ordinary citizen. The average man or women in the street cannot influence Exxon, the Academy of Sciences or any quasi-governmental monstrosity.

Government is the only lever that the average person has if they want to change things. Why on earth would anyone want to make government smaller? At the moment the 'body politic' is corporatism and corporatism is the 'body politic'.

Obviously, no one wants an expansion of the type of government we are getting. Forget about the rest. The average voter is never going to be in a position to influence anything other than government. Why would we want to squander this?

Government is the only lever that the average person has if they want to change things. Why on earth would anyone want to make government smaller? At the moment the 'body politic' is corporatism and corporatism is the 'body politic'.



You want to see where corporatism gets you, you think you just dropped off a cliff

Nine executives lose millions as share plan falters (http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/nine-executives-lose-millions-as-share-plan-falters-20130104-2c86w.html)

Why would we want to squander this?
And why would one want the"benevolent " Prince to be a multi-headed hydra ;bureaucratic mazed Leviathan ? You just described how the growth of the state has morphed into this unresponsive entity that you say is beholden to the corporate entity and not the individual . Your solution is to grow it bigger ? When a corporation gets that big there is demands to break it up .

and why would one want the"benevolent " Prince to be a multi-headed hydra ;bureaucratic mazed Leviathan ? You just described how the growth of the state has morphed into this unresponsive entity that you say is beholden to the corporate entity and not the individual . Your solution is to grow it bigger ? When a corporation gets that big there is demands to break it up .



If the government were to shrink to minimum proportions overnight, it would make absolute no difference the void will be filled.

I am not actually talking about A CORPORATION When I talk about, "the void being filled" I don't necessarily mean that a single corporation takes on the role of government anymore than I mean that a single corporation has the ability to control government. The body politic is massive, so why would it's left hand want to fight against the right hand? Of course government is an important part of the body, but it is a compliant part.

P.S I dislike these type of analogies, but anyway.

When a corporation gets that big there is demands to break it up .

I think I see where you are coming from. As I said I don't like these sort of analogies, but I'll try another one.

I don't think there could ever be a single corporation that could ever get that big. I am actually talking about a 'bundle' of corporations( including government) working towards a common goal. A goal they are unconscious of.

I use 'bundle' because I think we can imagine them as the fasces. There is no left right distinction rather there is a higher unity through strength.

Instead of this old fashion fascist rhetoric, replace it with the modern version. For example, strength through ideology, rationalism, managing, technology. I could go on and on with similar familiar tunes they all dance to.

Common ideology creates the Leviathan.

President Obama announces intent to appoint Esther Duflo to Global Development Council - MIT News Office (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/obama-duflo-global-development-council)

Good? I hope so. Councils, commissions, agencies always make me sigh, OMG top heavy. Then I sigh again and say this is the way of the world when you have 7 billion people. Then I sigh again, hoping that poverty alleviation and economic development (despite being in the interest of the US) are something positive in the corporatist 'developed' world.

More surrender of sovereignty to the Agenda 21 globalists.

Yeah right, it's a liberal conspiracy, along with global warming.

I wouldn't say liberal .There are globalists on both sides of the aisle . Bush signed the Agenda 21 agreement .

Modern capitalism is for the elites who fund the think tanks and Super Pacs to craft state laws that maximize profits by eroding the federal governments ability to make fair rules and regulations that make public safety and accountability a non existent entity.

You only have to read your basic contracts to see how they can extract hidden fees, raise interest rates, and buy and sell your credit through what they call investment (schemes) to create lucrative revenue streams into perpetuity. I also think you cannot even say modern capitalist without framing it around the venture capitalist business model.

Supply money without demand and leverage huge profits and protect them in bankruptcy. Shift costs from corporate coffers to government programs and realize the profits from relieved responsibilities and liabilities.

Modern venture capitalism creates no value but to the investors, and needs no demands but those of the investors. Consumer, and citizens need not apply. LOL, want to be an entrepreneur? Not without a bank or rich guy on your side, or sizable collateral.

When you speak of science, you better check with the corporation that makes money off the science, or lack thereof. Science has always taken a back seat to the monied interests that hold the patents on whatever ideas a scientist can come up with.

Science has always taken a back seat to the monied interests that hold the patents on whatever ideas a scientist can come up with.
yes someone needs to fund science. What you think that if government is funding it ;then the science is as pure as the driven snow ? All I have to say about that is East Anglia.. hide the decline.
Or a more recent example is the subject of this posting ;or Andrew Cuomo suppressing the results of studies about fracking .

The point of this thread is the blatant hypocrisy of the Obama administration.


Obama vowed to change “the posture of our federal government from being one of the most anti-science administrations in American history to one that embraces science and technology.”

In 2009 he issued a memorandum stating “political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions"

And yet he suppressed scientific findings during the election cycle. You guys would have jumped all over Bush for such an act and there would be a media frenzy. As usual, we hear crickets chirping when it comes to Obama...

THE FDA DOES NOT SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS MAKE.
They are a front for corporations, with a few begrudging concessions here and there just to stay alive.
I wouldn't jump on any president for doing this over fish,

THE FDA DOES NOT SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS MAKE.
They are a front for corporations, with a few begrudging concessions here and there just to stay alive.

You could say the same about the EPA

You could say the same about the EPA

I do.

Apparently Obama can't be held accountable for anything...

So because he hasn't made a speech about it then he is suppressing the report? That's a stretch at best since any scientific report is subject to peer review and the congress has already said they will suppress or ban any actions that come from the finding of the FDA.The whole world is questioning the science behind GMO products.

This ain't about science its about its about economy that I addressed in my last post.


Modern venture capitalism creates no value but to the investors, and needs no demands but those of the investors. Consumer, and citizens need not apply. LOL, want to be an entrepreneur? Not without a bank or rich guy on your side, or sizable collateral.

When you speak of science, you better check with the corporation that makes money off the science, or lack thereof. Science has always taken a back seat to the monied interests that hold the patents on whatever ideas a scientist can come up with.

The conspiracy is about the money to be made or lost. Check with your congress on that one.

Yeah Luddites still question the science of GMO . There is a chance to eradicate hunger ;and that chance is in GMO .

The point of this thread is the blatant hypocrisy of the Obama administration.



And yet he suppressed scientific findings during the election cycle. You guys would have jumped all over Bush for such an act and there would be a media frenzy. As usual, we hear crickets chirping when it comes to Obama...


I attempted to answer the question in the very first post. But perhaps I left out an important bit.

Science is a two edged sword in politics regardless of who is in power politicians embrace science because of the advantages it can afford them. Because science can produced unexpected social, moral and political implications there is always a danger that the science will work against their party.

I think the bit you are looking for is the fact that politician who says they are embracing science and technology and does the opposite is without doubt a hypocrite.

You can't hold the President accountable for the actions of the many, he is there to lead but he may just be going for a walk

You can't hold the President accountable for the actions of the many, he is there to lead but he may just be going for a walk

What Speech said... Apparently Obama can't be held accountable for anything...

It appears none of your Presidents can each passes the buck to the other

But it is a convenient ruse. Obama's been milking that cow for 4 years now

I wouldn't say liberal .There are globalists on both sides of the aisle . Bush signed the Agenda 21 agreement .

Probably because there is nothing contemptible than an politician of any persuasion who won't conform.

Hello again,

I must admit that I snicker a little bit when I see this thread in my notifications.. I mean, how do you discuss science with people who believe that a pretty design in a seashell is PROOF there's a God?

excon

So we should hold the president accountable for suppressing a report that was released last year and congress is trying to squash the results? What does that have to do with science?

I mean what was the purpose of cloning Dolly if you weren't going to eat her or use her wool? I say the science doesn't matter if there are enough people or monied interest who don't believe in it or have a strong interest in preserving the status quo. I mean if we were so pro science wouldn't we follow the science and NOT the money?

Just like big oil won't invest in green energy as long as oil is making huge profits. Doesn't matter what science says or how the president feels about it if the congress has already moved to ban the results.

In this society MONEY TALKS, and science is a tool to bring more of it. Come on, stop trying to assign ideology to science. It can't be done.

And while you may want to make Obama accountable for promoting science, lets make the ones who resist it just as accountable. When he privatized NASA, you cried, while still hollering "we ain't got no money".

You can't have it both ways.

I've seen worse senseless political arguing than this here, and thankfully I don't know which of you finds God in a seashell whorl. If I were from another planet, I would find it very curious that saving the earth and religion seem to be polar opposites in so many people.

I am not against GMO efforts, but not just so that 7 billion people can become many more billion. Unless some Franken-fruit or fish or grain makes humans sterile. Then we can pump more money back into cloning, having pigs be surrogates, and populating space. Or living forever on fake organs. Perish the thought, and imagine the wars between 'pure' human and not quite human. Goody

Hello again,

I must admit that I snicker a little bit when I see this thread in my notifications.. I mean, how do you discuss science with people who believe that a pretty design in a seashell is PROOF there's a God?

excon

What else are you going to attribute it to Ex, science had nothing to do with it and cannot explain why each is unique. You need to understand, ex, science is just man striving to understand the detail of what God did. Einstein said it well " I just want to know the thoughts of God, everything else is just the details"

science had nothing to do with it and cannot explain why each is unique.Actually each species of seashell has many common traits; the differences exist in the same way as we ar alle different: nature (genetics) and nurture (wear and tear on the shell).

Actually each species of seashell has many common traits; the differences exist in the same way as we ar alle different: nature (genetics) and nurture (wear and tear on the shell).

Ah yes but where did the genetics come from

Mark Lynas a British environmentalist,has been a key figure in the demonizing of GMO for years . But now he says he's been wrong.

I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonising an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.

As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.

I guess you'll be wondering-what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.
Read the whole thing here :
Mark Lynas » Lecture to Oxford Farming Conference, 3 January 2013 (http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/)
Basically he let preconceived ideas rule his science . Seems to be an epidemic .

Basically he let preconceived ideas rule his science . Seems to be an epidemic .

Yes one wonders how it can be called science, find some criteria, develop a theory and then lie about the results, is nothing sacred

I know we discussed Al Gore's sale of his unwatchable Current TV to Al Jazeera . Not sure if we went into detail about the full extent of the hypocrisy of him selling it to an entity owned by the Qatari government, which is run by the Al Thani family. Qatar of course has a massive carbon footprint in the world . But for the Goracle ,business is business. He won't let his own convictions interfere in a good deal while he simultaneously lectures us on the sacrifices we must make.
Hmmm ;I wonder why oil rich Qatar would be interested in getting a foothold in the US cable TV market ? Could it be that they will use the forum to propagandize about the evils of the newly found oil and natural gas wealth in the United States ? Will we see movies and specials funded by OPEC depicting the evils of the fracking revolution ?
Matt Damon fracking film backed by big OPEC member - Economy (http://economy.money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/matt-damon-fracking/)
Naaaahhhh

Of course you will, there are many interests competing in our destruction

Mark Lynas a British environmentalist,has been a key figure in the demonizing of GMO for years . But now he says he's been wrong.

read the whole thing here :
Mark Lynas » Lecture to Oxford Farming Conference, 3 January 2013 (http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/)
Basically he let preconceived ideas rule his science . Seems to be an epidemic .


Finally Mark Lynas has realized that the politics of globalization and the scientific ideology are one and the same.

He cannot have any preconceived ideas because only individuals have preconceived ideas. Individualism is discouraged in favour of conformity to the existing scientific structures.. Management will reward him.

He loved Big Brother.

Finally Mark Lynas has realized that the politics of globalization and the scientific ideology are one and the same.

He cannot have any preconceived ideas because only individuals have preconceived ideas. Individualism is discouraged in favour of conformity to the existing scientific structures.. Management will reward him.

He loved Big Brother.

Bought no doubt

bought no doubt

I was thinking exactly the same thing,

Tut

Individualism is discouraged in favour of conformity to the existing scientific structures..

Agendized 'science' by consensus, that's how we got this climate change charade.

Special interest seems to be able to buy anything. And muddy the waters on real science.

If you mean elected officials are 'special interests ' I agree. Andrew Cuomo suppressed a fracking study in NY ; Emperor Zero holding on to the report about the GMO salmon; Former VP Goracle making a major fortune exploiting bad science... yeah dem special interests .

if you mean elected officials are 'special interests ' I agree. Andrew Cuomo suppressed a fracking study in NY ; Emperor Zero holding on to the report about the GMO salmon; Former VP Goracle making a major fortune exploiting bad science... yeah dem special interests .Why are you only focusing on democrats?

Because the right is just as loonie as the left. Now that's a fact we can count on. We don't vote for our loonies though. Nor do we allow them to pull us too far from the mainstream center. We don't kick out the middle guys either as not being left enough.

Why are you only focusing on democrats?

Show me the Republic who deliberately buried a scientific study for political purposes recently .

show me the Repubic who deliberately buried a scientific study for political purposes recently .

Tom you need look no further than the original posting.

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski has repeatedly tried to tie up the FDA in red tape. She previously tried but failed to get the Senate to involve NOAA in the process. She has said again and again that a more scientific review of the biotechnology was in order. But she let it slip on Friday that the demand for a better science was really more a smokescreen for efforts to simply kill the idea.

At the end of her video clip she says, "I simply don't believe these fish should be approved"


Agendized 'science' by consensus, that's how we got this climate change charade.


Exactly. Now that global warming is settled all we need to do is make sure that GMO is settled in the same way.

You might think global warming is far from settled, but I might think it is settled. Tom might think GMO is settled, and I might not think it is settled . But in the end the democracy doesn't matter. All that matters is the rational process. It is the debate you have when there really is no debate. The outcome has always been known.

All that matters is the rational process.

Kind of like how you came to agree that Fox News, which consistently presents multiple viewpoints is to be dismissed just as a smear organization waging “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against said media outlet even though far more biased media outlets get a pass?


Tom you need look no further than the original posting.

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski has repeatedly tried to tie up the FDA in red tape. She previously tried but failed to get the Senate to involve NOAA in the process. She has said again and again that a more scientific review of the biotechnology was in order. But she let it slip on Friday that the demand for a better science was really more a smokescreen for efforts to simply kill the idea.

At the end of her video clip she says, "I simply don't believe these fish should be approved"

Murkowski thinks like a liberal, but at least she was open and honest instead of actually hiding the science until after the election because of the political implications.

Murkowski thinks like a liberal, but at least she was open and honest instead of actually hiding the science until after the election because of the political implications.

I see, so she is really a liberal. Sounds like the,"no true Scotsman" approach to me.

Show me a Democrat who deliberately buried a scientific study for political purposes.

Whoever you come up with I just say they think like a Republican.

I see, so she is really a liberal. Sounds like the,"no true Scotsman" approach to me.

Show me a Democrat who deliberately buried a scientific study for political purposes.

Whoever you come up with I just say they think like a Republican.

No, just pointing out she is a liberal Republican, why should we be surprised she would think that way on GM? As for showing a Democrat burying it for political purposes look no further than the OP.


However, the draft assessment, dated April 19, 2012, was not released—blocked on orders from the White House.

The seven month delay, sources within the government say, came after discussions late last spring between Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius’ office and officials linked to Valerie Jarrett at the Executive Office, who were debating the political implications of approving the GM salmon.

Game, set, match.

Speaking of science and other stuff, why are we doubling down on ethanol, which no one wants, does nothing to help the environment and takes up 40 percent of our corn crop so we can all pay even higher grocery prices? At least I now know why my church built a feeding center in Guatemala, they can't afford to make tortillas any more.

As Biofuel Demand Grows, So Do Guatemala’s Hunger Pangs (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/science/earth/in-fields-and-markets-guatemalans-feels-squeeze-of-biofuel-demand.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&)

No, just pointing out she is a liberal Republican, why should we be surprised she would think that way on GM? As for showing a Democrat burying it for political purposes look no further than the OP.



Game, set, match.


I wasn't seriously asking for anyone to show me a Democrat who deliberately buried a scientific study for political purposes. I posted it to show you are applying the, "no true Scotsman " fallacy.Namely, no true Republican would bury a report.
They all obviously do it.



Tut

Of course your term blocked could be the white house reviewing the data, or that Murkowski represents her states industry interests. Naw that can't be a possibility, there has to be some conspiracy behind motives.

Kind of like how you came to agree that Fox News, which consistently presents multiple viewpoints is to be dismissed just as a smear organization waging “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against said media outlet even though far more biased media outlets get a pass?


"Waging guerrilla warfare and sabotage" don't sound like words I'd use. Are you sure that is what I said?

Again, I don't remember giving other media outlets a pass. In fact I would have more than likely said that you don't really have an objective media.

I do remember you saying that if the media were in any way objective Obama would have lost in a landslide. I am pretty sure that I stated an agreement with that proposition.

I could be wrong, but I'll wait for a reply to the contrary.



Tut

Get use to right wing embellishment to prove a point. They can't believe that women and minorities don't believe the guys on Fox are fair and balanced and Rush and Glenn are geniuses.

I think it was the drone of the fat lazy 47% by fat and lazy rich guy that sank them though, and the reforms Romney/Ryan were going to push, plus we all love Big Bird.

Conservatives are no longer a majority, and certainly not ultra conservatives that want to tell you what OUR rights are. The way I see it, the right sunk themselves and it had little to do with the media. Most young people are never home and watch little TV news when they are.

"Waging guerrilla warfare and sabotage" don't sound like words I'd use. Are you sure that is what I said?

Again, I don't remember giving other media outlets a pass. In fact I would have more than likely said that you don't really have an objective media.

I do remember you saying that if the media were in any way objective Obama would have lost in a landslide. I am pretty sure that I stated an agreement with that proposition.

I could be wrong, but I'll wait for a reply to the contrary.



Tut

You didn't say that, you just agreed with NK's ridiculous conclusion.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/its-come-713241-30.html#post3361344

Tom you need look no further than the original posting.

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski has repeatedly tried to tie up the FDA in red tape.

I said Republic not RINO

You got more types of Republican than you got states, what part of the word party don't you understand


A political party (from Latin: pars, Genitive partis, "part", "portion") is a political organization that typically seeks to influence government policy, usually by nominating candidates with aligned political views and trying to seat them in political office. Parties participate in electoral campaigns and educational outreach or protest actions. Parties often espouse an expressed ideology or vision bolstered by a written platform with specific goals, forming a coalition among disparate interests.

A political party not a group of people with diametrically opposed views, did you notice the definition included "aligned political views"?

I said Republic not RINO
Ah yes, the "no true scotsman" claim
No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)

Well I suppose we could say no true american would be a republican or no true american would be a democrat but all would be patriots, and we know patriotism is the refuge of scoundrels

You didn't say that, you just agreed with NK's ridiculous conclusion.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/its-come-713241-30.html#post3361344


Actually we were all wrong.I sahould have said something then and there but I didn't because I though I might be accused of nit picking. See how little things can grow.

You posted an article by Politico to show that Media matters was waging a war against Fox. Their stated intention was to sabotage Fox.

You told NK that he couldn't tell the difference between a conservative leaning media outlet which aired both sides of a debate and a so-call media watchdog with an obsession to destroy Fox.

NK said, "What's the problem with that? Does it invalidate the news source?


It was assumed by Tom and yourself that it in fact does invalidate objective journalism. Actually it doesn't. The disposition of Media Matters to make an argument false does not mean that the argument presented is actually false. The only way to tell if the content is objective or not is to examine the text. Only after this can we determine its objectivity or other wise.

How you ever noticed that when Tom posts a think tank study he nearly always adds something like this at the end. Yes, I know a right wing study, no credibility.

And I mostly answer. "Not necessarily Tom, I will have a look at the study and get back to you.

By not saying something from the onset I made a comment that was not strictly correct. In fact we can apply the same standards to Fox and every other News outlet. All that matters is the content of the report. The moral of the story for me is to make sure I nit pick at every opportunity.

You didn't say that, you just agreed with NK's ridiculous conclusion.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/its-come-713241-30.html#post3361344



You posted an article by Politico to show that Media matters was out to get Fox. You told N.K that he can't tell the difference between a conservative leaning media outlet that airs both sides of an argument an a so called media watch dog with an obsession to destroy Fox.

NK asked, What's wrong with that? Does it invalidate the news source? Both Tom and yourself incorrectly believe that it does. In fact it doesn't. This is because a disposition to render an argument false does not mean that the argument itself is false. In other words, the only way to determine if an article lacks objectivity is to actually examine the article.

Tut

well I suppose we could say no true american would be a republican or no true american would be a democrat but all would be patriots, and we know patriotism is the refuge of scoundrels

Democrats can be patriots, they just have a different view of patriotism. Evidently, if your predecessor adds to the debt that's unpatriotic, but if you add to the debt it's patriotic as long as you ask others to pay for it out of "economic patriotism (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2012/09/27/obamas-call-for-economic-patriotism-is-as-convincing-as-new-coke/)."

I have always believed the government should be flexible enough to take action in a crisis, no matter what it is, and admire this president for taking on the debts of his predecessor and addressing the problem. There was no quick fix. More action still needed.

Yes swift action to abolish all discetionary spending until the budget is brought into surplus.

2012 Discretionary Spending Breakdown | pgpf.org (http://www.pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0070_Discretionary-Breakdown.aspx)

DATA, DATA,more DATA!

Yes swift action to abolish all discetionary spending until the budget is brought into surplus.
Unfortunately that won't do the trick . Entitlements and debt service is the real issue . But haircuts on discretionary spending is a good start

And defense spending reductions, and raising the wage cap on SS taxes.

you think SS is welfare It isn't... it isn't a benefit either ;its earned income! Not only did we contribute to Social Security insurance , but our employers did too.

It totaled 15% of our income before taxes .

If you averaged $30,000 per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 invested in Social Security. If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security ($375/month, including both your and your employer's contributions) at a meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you'd have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved!
Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month. That's almost three times more than today's average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month.
And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you're 98 if you retire at age 65)! I can only imagine how much better most average income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low risk interest-earning accounts.

Instead, we were robbed ,and the government pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madoff ever did.

And defense spending reductions, and raising the wage cap on SS taxes.

Yes that debt service is a real whammy particularly as your credit rating keeps dropping, better not to have the debt. So you start with no wars that weren't started by someoneelse and putting a threshold on SS, Medicare and Medicade, as well as discontinuing money wasting activities, such as War on terror, War on Drugs, EPA, Renewable Energy, Agricultural subsidies and staples

The problem with SS isn't the people who earn and contribute but those who don't

The problem with SS isn't the people who earn and contribute but those who don't
Again... if SS is a welfare program then it was fraudulently sold to the American people.

again.... if SS is a welfare program then it was fraudulently sold to the American people.

Tom you should know things change over time, what was a great idea in the 1930's get's changed. We used to have something called a social security contribution, must have got the idea from you, but it got rolled into the general tax rate and now everyone is entitled. I expect that something similar has effectively happened over there. We had a politician called Keating who decided to solve the problem, he sold the workers a real bill of goods, superannuation as a tradeoff for wage increases, I wonder where he got the idea, anyway contribution is now 12% in a designated account. No work, no pension

I checked the history... it was a fraud from the get go. I'm familiar with superannuation.. If the Dems get their way ;they plan to seize our private 401-K plans and convert them to government managed superannuation accounts.

If the Dems get their way ;they plan to seize our private 401-K plans and convert them to government managed superannuation accounts.Any proof of this? It's quite an allegation.

Fiscal Cliff: Why Congress Might Have to Mess with the 401(k) | TIME.com (http://business.time.com/2012/11/28/fiscal-cliff-why-congress-might-have-to-mess-with-the-401k/)

The repubs only science is profit. By any means necessary. That's why Wall Street manages your 401k.

Did you read the article? It has nothing to do with "seizing" your 401(k) savings - it has to so with the eliminating the deduction.

The repubs only science is profit. By any means neccesary. Thats why Wall Street manages your 401k.

A guy on the other side of town manages my retirement. What, you don't let the experts do it?

Did you read the article? It has nothing to do with "seizing" your 401(k) savings - it has to so with the eliminating the deduction.


It could eliminate the deduction altogether or just for top earners, further restrict the amount that is deductible (currently $17,500; for those over 50, $23,000), start taxing retirement savings growth, or take back the part that has grown tax-free.

I know what I'm talking about . The Dems held hearings on this in 2008 and it has been on the backburner since... but never far from their minds. What part of "take back " don't you understand ? It was NEVER theirs to begin with ;so in effect ,the plan is to seize. There are other links that detail the plan originally floated by Teresa Ghilarducci in Congressional hearings in 2008.She is a professor at the New School of Social Research ,and author of 'When I'm Sixty-Four:The Plot against Pensions and the Plan to Save Them'.

In place of 401-K s , she would transfer the accounts into government created "guaranteed retirement accounts"(GRA) . The government would deposit $600 every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have a mandatory contribution of 5 percent of pay into the accounts .The government would allow a 3 % return .

take back the part that has grown tax-freeDo you really think that would happen? That would be political suicide. Even calculating that would be a PITA. I find it hard to believe that was brought up by anyone.

Oh and.. FactCheck.org : IRAs, 401(k)s and You (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/iras-401ks-and-you/)


Teresa Ghilarducci, Nov. 18: It is utterly ridiculous [to suppose] that I advocate seizing 401k assets.

Ghilarducci has long proposed limiting tax deductions for money put into 401(k) and similar retirement accounts and setting up a new type of account instead.

Ghilarducci: If people put money into 401(k)s they could keep it there, and taxes would continue to be deferred until withdrawn. It is unthinkable that Congress would take a tax break away for activities already undertaken.

As opposed to state goverments raising your pension contributions (Wisconsin) or employers that file bankruptcy and wipe ALL your loot out (Hostess)? Or the government being shut down and tanking Wall Street (debt ceiling)?

What part of the capitalist business model being BROKEN is it we are not understanding? All those financial products we keep inventing is subject to change or failure.

As opposed to state goverments raising your pension contributions (Wisconsin) or employers that file bankrupcy and wipe ALL your loot out (Hostess)? Or the government being shut down and tanking Wall Street (debt ceiling)?

What part of the capitalist business model being BROKEN is it we are not understanding? All those financial products we keep inventing is subject to change or failure.

Yet states like Texas, Indiana and Florida are going into the year with a budget surplus and strong economies. Something must be working right.

I know what she advocates .She can spin it anyway she wants when confronted . Of course she doesn't call it 'seizing '... duh .
This is all one needs to seriously object to this plan... When I die ;the 401-K becomes part of my kid's inheritance. When one dies under her plan ;the benefit ceases.

Do you really think that would happen? That would be political suicide. Even calculating that would be a PITA. I find it hard to believe that was brought up by anyone.

Oh and.. FactCheck.org : IRAs, 401(k)s and You (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/iras-401ks-and-you/)

Your 2008 Factcheck is obsolete...


Republicans Sound Alarm on Administration Plan to Seize 401(k)s (http://www.humanevents.com/2010/05/04/republicans-sound-alarm-on-administration-plan-to-seize-401ks/)

By: Connie Hair
5/4/2010 01:00 AM

In February, the White House released its “Annual Report on the Middle Class” containing new regulations favored by Big Labor including a bailout of critically underfunded union pension plans through “retirement security” options.

The radical solution most favored by Big Labor is the seizure of private 401(k) plans for government disbursement — which lets them off the hook for their collapsing retirement scheme. And, of course, the Obama administration is eager to accommodate their buddies.

Vice President Joe Biden floated the idea, called “Guaranteed Retirement Accounts” (GRAs), in the February “Middle Class” report.

In conjunction with the report’s release, the Obama administration jointly issued through the Departments of Labor and Treasury a “Request for Information” regarding the “annuitization” of 401(k) plans through “Lifetime Income Options” in the form of a notice to the public of proposed issuance of rules and regulations. (pdf)

House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and a group of House Republicans are mounting an effort to fight back.

The American people have become painfully aware over the past year that elections sometimes have calamitous consequences. Republicans lack the votes (for now) to reign in the Obama administration’s myriad nationalization plans for everything from health care to the automobile industry.

Now the backdoor bulls-eye is on your 401(k) plan and the trillions of dollars the government would control through seizure, regulation and federal disbursement of mandatory retirement accounts.

Boehner and the group are sounding the alarm, warning bureaucrats to keep their hands off America’s private retirement plans.

Just when you thought it was safe to come up for air after the government takeover of health care.

The entirety of the House GOP Savings Recovery Group letter outling the issue that was sent last night to the Labor and Treasury secretaries:


The Honorable Hilda L. Solis
Secretary
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20210

The Honorable Timothy Geithner
Secretary
U.S. Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20210

Dear Secretaries Solis and Geithner:

As members of the Republican Savings Solutions Group, we write today to express our strong opposition to any proposal to eliminate or federalize private-sector defined contribution pension plans, such as 401(k)s, or impose burdensome new requirements upon the businesses, large and small, who choose to offer these plans to their employees.

In the Annual Report of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class, Vice President Biden discussed at length the creation of so-called “Guaranteed Retirement Accounts, (GRAs)” which would provide for protection from “inflation and market risk” and potentially “guarantee a specified real return above the rate of inflation” — presumably at taxpayer expense. In the Report, the Vice President recommended “further study of these issues.”

The Vice President’s comments are troubling, insofar as they come on the heels of testimony before Congress from supporters of GRAs proposing to eliminate the favorable tax treatment currently afforded to 401(k) plans, and instead use those dollars to fund government-invested GRAs into which all employees would be required to contribute a portion of their salary — again, with a government subsidy. These advocates would, essentially, dismantle the present private-sector 401(k) system, replacing it instead with a government-run investment plan, the size and scope of which remain to be seen. This despite data showing that 90 percent of households have a favorable opinion of the existing 401(k)/IRA system.

In light of these facts, we write today to express our opposition in the strongest terms to any effort to “nationalize” the private 401(k) system, or any proposal that would dismantle or disfavor the private 401(k) system in favor of a government-run retirement security regime.

Similarly, and more recently, the Departments of Labor and Treasury have jointly issued a “Request for Information” regarding the “annuitization” of 401(k) plans through “Lifetime Income Options.” While we appreciate the Departments’ seeking guidance and information from all parties and stakeholders in advance of regulatory activity, we strongly urge that the Departments not proceed with any regulation in this area before they have carefully and thoroughly considered all of the information received.

More specifically, we urge that the Departments take no action to mandate that plan sponsors — often, small businesses — include a “lifetime income” or “annuitization” option if they choose to offer a 401(k) plan to their employees, or that beneficiaries take some or all of their retirement savings in such an option. Data shows that 70 percent of Americans oppose the concept of a mandated annuity or government payout of their 401(k) plan. On a more fundamental level, Congress should not be in the business of choosing “winners” and “losers” among retirement security stakeholders. Instead, we urge the Departments to make it easier for employers to include retirement income solutions in their savings plans and to help workers learn more about the value of their retirement savings as a source of retirement income. Finally, to the extent new mandates and bureaucratic red tape from Washington push small employers out of the business of offering these plans to their employees, we would submit such an effort weakens, rather than strengthens retirement security.

We appreciate your consideration of our views in these important matters and stand ready to work with you and the Administration to promote secure and adequate retirement savings for all Americans.

Sincerely,

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
Rep. John Kline (R-MN)
Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI)
Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX)
Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV)
Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY)
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-OH)
Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH)
Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN)
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS)
Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA)
Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA)

The Dems still want our retirement.

When I die ;the 401-K becomes part of my kid's inheritance. When one dies under her plan ;the benefit ceases.Where can one find that information?

Your 2008 Factcheck is obsolete... No it isn't. Your info validates what I have written. Thanks.

No it isn't. Your info validates what I have written. Thanks.

It takes a really weird sense of logic to conclude your 2008 fact check on Teresa Ghilarducci invalidates what Biden and Obama did 2 years later. You didn't believe The Minority Report was real did you?

Projected surplus as even our state has said they didn't pay the bills from the past fiscal year.

State Could See Budget Surplus by 2013 | KUT.org (http://kut.org/2011/12/state-could-see-budget-surplus-by-2013/)


A surplus wouldn't necessarily mean the state is flush with cash. The budget was balanced in part by underfunding programs like Medicaid, with the intention of adding additional funds in the 2013 legislative session.

Texas comptroller declares economic recession over | Texas Report (http://texasreport.net/2011/12/texas-comptroller-declares-economic-recession-over/)


In the last two budget cycles, lawmakers were forced to slash government spending and tap the Rainy Day Fund to make up for budget deficits. For 2012-2013 they cut $4 billion in funding for public schools and shorted $4.8 billion for Medicaid, the health program for the poor and disabled.

Expected surplus won (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/texas-legislature/headlines/20130101-expected-surplus-wont-lessen-2013-texas-budget-fight.ece)


AUSTIN — Shortfall and sacrifice: that's how the Texas Legislature two years ago defended gutting $5.4 billion from public education, laying off thousands of public workers with slashed spending and stripping Medicaid to the bone.


The Texas economy is humming. Unemployment is at a four-year low of 6.2 percent, sales tax receipts are skyrocketing and money is pouring in to state coffers behind a new energy boom, fueled by oil gushing in West Texas and a fracking frenzy from North Texas to San Antonio. Even the Rainy Day Fund, the state's emergency piggybank, has replenished most of the $3.2 billion borrowed during the last session after much hand-wringing by reluctant conservatives.

We should be grateful for the resources we have that others do NOT.

We should be grateful for the resources we have that others do NOT.

Yep, and be thankful we don't have delta smelt (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574384731898375624.html) so we can still use those resources.