work FOR the government.
That being said, the department of state is the oldest department in the
executive branch and almost the only one mentioned in the constitution.
International affairs dictate the need for an organization that provides for
communication, direct and indirect, with foreign countries. Additionally I
provide security and intelligence analysis for U.S. Citizens operating
abroad. Diplomatic Security is also the responsible law enforcement
organization for visa and passport fraud (some of this has been eaten up by
DHS). The department of State is not the defense department or the CIA or
the FBI. We are here for a constitutionally mandated reason.
Also don't get me wrong, I didn't say I am against all taxes. I know we
need taxes for defense and law enforcement. Now roads, education and other
services should all be handled at a state level, or as in the case of the
postal service, privately. In many cases I think we should move much more
aggressively towards toll roads supported by those that actually use them,
education that PARENTS want for their children, and by lowering the tax
burden n parents I can assure you that parents are not going to choose the
garbage schools that we have now. Why not privatize all schools?
While I know that government research, mainly defense based, is in large
part responsible for great technological advances, this is not necessarily
always the case. Xerox, IBM and Microsoft, all private companies, had a lot
to do with getting us where we are today. A few generations ago it would
have been Ford, GM and Dodge. Before that the railroads. Private industry
is and always will be where the greatest and most powerful innovation comes
from.
Just so you know, I have my own ethical questions about where I work and
what I do. I am a sellout, and I know it. I have kids, and I do what I
need to do to give them the best life they can have. I didn't need a knife,
a gun or a stick to do it. I did it with my mind. I have worked in the
private sector, actually starting to make something of a name for myself
before deciding to go the "professional" route.
Matt were you in a socialist position in the marines? No. It was a service
position. It's different and you know it is.
--
Timothy Heald
Web Portfolio Manager
Overseas Security Advisory Council
U.S. Department of State
571.345.2319
The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S.
Department of State or any affiliated organization(s). Nor have these
opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations. This e-mail is
unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:05 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: More Breaking News
Whoa, now Tim. You work for the US Government - that's a job provided for
society's benefit, making that a socialist position. Why should I pay for
your job?
The whole point is that we make some sacrifices in order to acheive a safer,
healthier society. Without taxes, we would have no roads, no public
education, no postal service. Don't think that the private sector would
take over these things, because people just don't care that much about each
other on a personal basis to make society better without a huge personal
benefit.
WIthout supporting the public, you and I would not be sitting here in forn
of computers typing our views - we'd both be living in 1850.
- Matt Small
----- Original Message -----
From: Heald, Tim
To: CF-Community
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:44 AM
Subject: RE: More Breaking News
Yeah god forbid we expect people to work harder. To study on their own
time
to better themselves.
People rise to the level of their abilities. Why is it my burden to
support
them in a manner better than they can provide for themselves?
--
Timothy Heald
Web Portfolio Manager
Overseas Security Advisory Council
U.S. Department of State
571.345.2319
The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S.
Department of State or any affiliated organization(s). Nor have these
opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations. This e-mail
is
unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:42 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: More Breaking News
Exactly. The overall cost to the country of an even poorer poor is worse
than the minor burden of an artificially manipulated standard of living.
Besides increases in unemployment, theft, and violent crime, there is also
an associated decrease in access to base medical care which leads to more
sickness and the spread of communicable diseases. With a shortened life
expectancy, people tend to try and have more children in order for their
family to survive which puts an even greater burden on the country.
And besides, if people aren't making as much money who's going to buy all
the SUVs and HDTVs?
-Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Horwith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:24 AM
Subject: RE: More Breaking News
> but the idea behind Minimum wage is that it guarantees a standard of
living
> that, though still at or near poverty level, does help to guarantee
certain
> basic living standards. Even then, the minimum wage tends not to
keep-up
> with the rise in inflation. That said, if a higher inflation rate is
the
> price we must pay in order to guarantee legal workers a chance at a
decent
> life, so be it.
>
> ~Simon
>
> Simon Horwith
> CTO, Etrilogy Ltd.
> Member of Team Macromedia
> Macromedia Certified Instructor
> Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
> Certified Flash MX Developer
> CFDJList - List Administrator
> http://www.how2cf.com/ <http://www.how2cf.com/>
<http://www.how2cf.com/>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 07 January 2004 14:02
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: More Breaking News
>
>
> I think two main things have led us through inflation and rising
costs.
>
>
> 1. Coming off of the gold standard, thanx Nixon.
>
>
> 2. Minimum wage.
>
>
> Why in a free market economy should the government dictate what one
side
> of
> an open trade should receive? If a person is willing to work for next
to
> nothing, should they not be able to? Also, to return to a place where
we
> can compete in a world economy as not just a service provider, but an
> industrial base, we need low pay low skill employees. As long as law
> requires us to meet and exceed basic standards we cannot do so.
>
>
> The only other answer would be to severely penalize countries and
> companies
> that don't meet the same requirements that we impose internally.
>
>
> We start by exactly matching tariffs imposed by other nations against
our
> goods. Add additional tariffs to nations that don't afford their
> employees
> the same minimum standing of living, add even more for nations that
don't
> have basic human rights.
>
>
> It would be painful, maybe even start a war or two, but I think it
would
> be
> worth it in the long run.
>
> --
> Timothy Heald
> Web Portfolio Manager
> Overseas Security Advisory Council
> U.S. Department of State
> 571.345.2319
>
> The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the
U.S.
> Department of State or any affiliated organization(s). Nor have these
> opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations. This
> is
> unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Horwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:58 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: More Breaking News
>
> Hey - I like cutting my own lawn.
>
> I'm no economist, bu i wouldn't hold your breath on seeing minimum
wage
go
> away. Quite honestly, as far as I know it shouldn't go away. The
goal
> shouldn't be to do away with it so that companies can hire Americans
for
> as
> cheap as they can get illegal labor, but to legalize all of the labor
to
> the
> extent that it all falls under minimum wage law. That way there'd be
no
> benefit to hiring an illegal labourer as opposed to a legal one
(they'd
> cost
> the same). Without minimum wage, what would protect the workforce -
> especially unskilled and manual labour? Of course, this would most
likely
> result in even more work being outsourced to countries like India...
any
> work that can be, anyway.
>
> ~Simon
>
> Simon Horwith
> CTO, Etrilogy Ltd.
> Member of Team Macromedia
> Macromedia Certified Instructor
> Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
> Certified Flash MX Developer
> CFDJList - List Administrator
> http://www.how2cf.com/ <http://www.how2cf.com/>
<http://www.how2cf.com/>
<http://www.how2cf.com/>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 07 January 2004 13:36
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: More Breaking News
>
> >We have 10.5 million illegal workers in the United States right
now,"
> said
> US Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue.
>
> >"If they went home, we'd have to shut down the country."
>
> Hehe, or we'd just have to learn how to cut our own lawn again. :)
>
> Immigration is probably where I am furthest from libertarian. At
this
> point
> I am almost isolationist. I would much rather see work-fare
programs
> that
> get people off the rolls of welfare and into low and no skill jobs.
> Really
> if we could do away with the minimum wage and make it so that these
> companies that hire illegals because they can't afford Americans,
can
> again,
> it would be good for us all.
>
> Also isn't this going to encourage MORE illegal immigration, as
people
> will
> see the "success stories" of people who got legal recognition. Plus
the
> way
> many state governments are set up, don't immigrants, even
non-citizens,
> then
> become eligible for social programs, like welfare and medical
benefits?
>
> Yeah I can't see how any of this is a good idea.
>
> --
> Timothy Heald
> Web Portfolio Manager
> Overseas Security Advisory Council
> U.S. Department of State
> 571.345.2319
>
> The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the
U.S.
> Department of State or any affiliated organization(s). Nor have
these
> opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations. This
> is
> unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erika L Walker-Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:27 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: More Breaking News
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3375327.stm
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3375327.stm>
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3375327.stm>
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3375327.stm>
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3375327.stm>
>
> Cheers,
> Erika
> _____
> _____
>
>
_____
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
