Lion's Weekend Blurb - Sat., Sun., Dec. 20-21

[Lion]

On Friday President Bush announced an emergency $17 billion bailout for the US auto makers to keep them afloat at least for the next month or so. The $17 billion loan comes from the original $700 billion federal bailout package that was to go JUST for financial institutions. So the game has been changed. To date, half of the $700 billion is gone. The Obama administration will have $350 billion to give out to whoever wants it I guess. It's a safe bet that he'll five more billions to the auto peeps cause they have to keep the unions happy. Insurance companies are in trouble, state and local governments are going broke, small businesses are struggling, and of course many families across America. Should they get a piece of the pie too? To top it all off, Barrack Obama's soon to be installed administration is putting together another estimated $650-$850 billion stimulus package to get the economy going again. That's on top of the first $700 billion. I thought the first $700 billion was suppose to do that? Just take $700 billion and give each American a share out of that. We'll spend it and get the economy moving. That little $600 check me and other tax payers got from the government back in the spring did nothing. Show us da money. Meanwhile, America digs a deeper hole and slips slowly into the ever growing money pit.

[Thumper]

sinking ship. move to alaska, live off land.

[berlin88]

Another bailout or stimulus package would be a disaster.

Obama and other Democrats think they can get out of this mess by spending money, raising taxes, more government regulation and printing money. WRONG!

1. Printing money devalues the currency and raises inflation rates. Unless your goal is to destroy peoples finances/ bank accounts, this is not the way to go.

2. Raising taxes during a bad economy discourages people from spending money and investing in the economy. They should be lowering taxes, not raising them.

3. You can't get out of debt by spending money your don't have. We have been trying to fund big government agendas with money that doesn't exist. We deceive the voters into thinking the welfare programs are affordable because we just jack up the debt/ print more money.

If a state like California or New York tried to fund these welfare programs on there own without printing endless amounts of money, they would either go broke or the citizens would revolt once they learn the cost.

The greatest deception of our time is big government claiming their agenda is affordable. Its not, they just use deficit spending and the printing press to make it appear so. So long as the federal government picks up the tab, the tax payers don't concern themselves with the cost of having it.

4. Bad regulation time and time again has killed our economy. People come up with this bad regulation thinking it will do some good or correct a social injustice, and completely ignore the side effects and long term consequences.

5. From the Democrats perspective, the Unions are innocent victims whenever there is a dispute between them and the company. They side with the unions 100%, just like they are now doing in the auto industry.

The average American doesn't understand the power, money and yes corruption these Unions have. They just view the Unions as "protecting workers rights/ wages" and ignore the greed and spoiled nature of the unions. If they knew how much the Unions spent on supporting politicians instead of actually helping their members, they would be surprised. If they knew how "coddled" some of these Unions are, they would be just as amazed.


6. With both parties they use one liners and moral arguments to advance their agenda, while putting a blindfold over peoples eyes.

With Republicans its the whole "kill the evil terrorists", "defend your religious beliefs" and "defend traditional values against the secular progressives". They also advance small government and free markets as well.

With Democrats its "socialism and regulation are good", "Labor Unions are innocent victims of corporate power/ greed", "Secularism is good", "Welfare programs are good"


7. Back in High School when Iraq started, I was one of those "go fight" people. Bush claimed Iraq had WMD's and I believed him. I firmly supported the Iraq war. I viewed the Dems as the anti military, anti war peace activists who never supported any military action, even when justified. I firmly believed that if we were to fight, go all in and defeat the enemy.

Well I was wrong. Sadamm had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no real threat to the USA. Maybe Israel or the Saudis, but not the USA.

I have stated before that most young voters are blind/ brainwashed followers of the Dems, well I was the opposite. A loyal follower of the Republicans. I am unsure why or how I turned out Republican when most of the other students I knew were Dems, but I did.

It wasn't until college when I started to research the history of the two parties and look up all the facts/ evidence behind the two sides. To see for myself what "conservatism", "liberalism", "secular progressive" or "socialiasm" actually is. Thus how I came to be a Goldwater Conservative.

[General Al Ramsey]

It is very similar to a person who is already in financial trouble and you give them a home equity loan and consolidate their payments and extend the terms of the loan. All it does is allow the person to continue spending their way into a deeper pit. I have been laid off twice this year and I have never been laid off in my whole working life. (I am 53 now) So that is 35 years. My unemployment benefits just ran out this week! (Merry Christmas) :irked: I could apply for the federal unemployment extension, but I don't want to do it.

So I would have let the car companies fend for themselves, and we will recover from this recession sooner rather than postponing it longer. Bush just pushed all his republican friends under the bus. (Congress)

My kids will end up paying for all the taxes that will have to be raised to cover these bailouts plus Social Security. I can hear them now (why work)!

[Statalyzer]

The $17 billion loan comes from the original $700 billion federal bailout package that was to go JUST for financial institutions.

Any people who thought Congress would abide by its word when it voted for the bailout were kidding themselves.

Also, as a side note, that $700 bailout of institutions that Congress had pushed down the road to ruin in the first place was not the only bailout passed, it was just the only big one that made the news. The dearth of leadership in all categories but panicking has actually cost the USA over a trillion bucks.

That's on top of the first $700 billion. I thought the first $700 billion was suppose to do that? Just take $700 billion and give each American a share out of that. We'll spend it and get the economy moving.

Another good idea would have been to use it to reduce our embarrassing and gargantuan national debt.

[truefeel]

1. Printing money devalues the currency and raises inflation rates. Unless your goal is to destroy peoples finances/ bank accounts, this is not the way to go.

Dude, they are not going to print extra money. That money would probably be lent (from China perhaps again ?), and that money will mostly be giral money. America is not going to print more money; they know that will not help a thing.

2. Raising taxes during a bad economy discourages people from spending money and investing in the economy. They should be lowering taxes, not raising them.

You think that they are going to raise taxes, but will it actually be like that ?

3. You can't get out of debt by spending money your don't have. We have been trying to fund big government agendas with money that doesn't exist. We deceive the voters into thinking the welfare programs are affordable because we just jack up the debt/ print more money.

Here I agree with you, but on the other hand: there is not much of a choice, is there ?

4. Bad regulation time and time again has killed our economy. People come up with this bad regulation thinking it will do some good or correct a social injustice, and completely ignore the side effects and long term consequences.

No, the sole thing that killed your economy were the bad loans, which affected the economy. The big three would otherwise be in problems, but not that big problems and it would still be overcomeable.

5. From the Democrats perspective, the Unions are innocent victims whenever there is a dispute between them and the company. They side with the unions 100%, just like they are now doing in the auto industry.
Dude, a goverment cannot give unions a big advantage. The goverment only gives in big lines some laws. Seeing how poorly you Americans are paid when working for mcdonalds, it's obvious how much those laws contain. The problem was very local in those big three, the unions really did not wanted to know anything that would affect negatively the workers. That played inside the organisation, not outside.

[Derek]

Dude, a goverment cannot give unions a big advantage.
Ohhhh yes they can. They can make it illegal to work in an industry without being a member of the union (and paying union dues), they can make it impossible for companies to bust strikes, and they can force a company to come to the table under any terms the union offers. Some unions have become ridiculously powerful, the UAW is a leading example of this.

Seeing how poorly you Americans are paid when working for mcdonalds, it's obvious how much those laws contain.
Fastfood isn't unionized and generally gets paid minimum wage. The employee turnover in such an industry would make unions useless. Its not a career job.

[truefeel]

Ohhhh yes they can. They can make it illegal to work in an industry without being a member of the union (and paying union dues), they can make it impossible for companies to bust strikes, and they can force a company to come to the table under any terms the union offers. Some unions have become ridiculously powerful, the UAW is a leading example of this.

The bolded part does not mean necessary a big advantage, as the bargaining stands outside that. Also the fact that America is very liberal gives me the impression the USA would not force companies into something like forcing companies to accept unions offers. Something like that does not even exist in Belgium, which you savely can say the Utopia of unions.

[nilloC]

Ohhhh Fastfood isn't unionized and generally gets paid minimum wage. The employee turnover in such an industry would make unions useless. Its not meant to be a career job.

I added 3 words in your last sentence to make it more accurate. :p

No one thinks the fast food industry is a valid career job. However I'd wager that quite a few people do get stuck in the industry; first a burger-whore, slaving over the grills in the back. Then you get "promoted" to cashier". Then, maybe, just maybe night shift assistant manager.

Again, no one wants to be locked into the fast food industry for their life. But with the state of our current economy, and refusal to aid underdeveloped areas such as the inner-city areas of our country, many people get stuck working in the fast food establishments. It's not the person's choice, but it's all they can muster at the time.

[Camel]

:uhh:Only McJobs left to do???:wtf:

[Derek]

The bolded part does not mean necessary a big advantage, as the bargaining stands outside that.
Actually its a huge advantage, because it makes the company dependent on the union for labor, effectively completely reversing the labor market and creating a monopoly in the form of a union (which is just as bad as any other monopoly).

Also the fact that America is very liberal gives me the impression the USA would not force companies into something like forcing companies to accept unions offers. Something like that does not even exist in Belgium, which you savely can say the Utopia of unions.
Thats the most extreme measure a government can take in favor of unions. Its happened in the past (in the US).

[truefeel]

Actually its a huge advantage, because it makes the company dependent on the union for labor, effectively completely reversing the labor market and creating a monopoly in the form of a union (which is just as bad as any other monopoly).
You are right if you look it really that one-sided, but you forget one major thing: A company is not restricted to stay in USA. If I was a big company (I assume it is a big company as I don't see such laws made for small ones) I would just move to any other country were unions are not needed. So no, it is not a huge advantage in practice, only in theory.

Thats the most extreme measure a government can take in favor of unions. Its happened in the past (in the US).

Then your goverment is hypocritic, praising liberal lifestyle while making such measures

[Derek]

You are right if you look it really that one-sided, but you forget one major thing: A company is not restricted to stay in USA. If I was a big company (I assume it is a big company as I don't see such laws made for small ones) I would just move to any other country were unions are not needed. So no, it is not a huge advantage in practice, only in theory.
Why do you think jobs keep getting outsourced to China and India? With laws like these and the ridiculous wages union workers get, why would any company want to keep their factories in the US? The power of the labor unions has made the US non-competitive (this applies to much of Europe as well, France's labor laws are even more ridiculous).

(By the way, such laws requiring you to join the union only exist in some states, not a nationwide level).


EDIT for clarification.

[truefeel]

Why do you think jobs keep getting outsourced to China and India? With laws like these and the ridiculous wages union workers get, why would any company want to keep their factories in the US? The power of the labor unions has made the US non-competitive (this applies to much of Europe as well, France's labor laws are even more ridiculous).

(By the way, what I'm describing only exists in some states, not a nationwide level).

If you what you described is true, your goverment is even more stupid then I actually tought.

[goarmy44]

On Friday President Bush announced an emergency $17 billion bailout for the US auto makers to keep them afloat at least for the next month or so. The $17 billion loan comes from the original $700 billion federal bailout package that was to go JUST for financial institutions. So the game has been changed. To date, half of the $700 billion is gone. The Obama administration will have $350 billion to give out to whoever wants it I guess. It's a safe bet that he'll five more billions to the auto peeps cause they have to keep the unions happy. Insurance companies are in trouble, state and local governments are going broke, small businesses are struggling, and of course many families across America. Should they get a piece of the pie too? To top it all off, Barrack Obama's soon to be installed administration is putting together another estimated $650-$850 billion stimulus package to get the economy going again. That's on top of the first $700 billion. I thought the first $700 billion was suppose to do that? Just take $700 billion and give each American a share out of that. We'll spend it and get the economy moving. That little $600 check me and other tax payers got from the government back in the spring did nothing. Show us da money. Meanwhile, America digs a deeper hole and slips slowly into the ever growing money pit.

Speaking of a money pit: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_should_the_government

[Statalyzer]

Also the fact that America is very liberal gives me the impression the USA would not force companies into something like forcing companies to accept unions offers.

Why would it give you that impression? Liberals in general are much more supportive of unions.

The goverment only gives in big lines some laws. Seeing how poorly you Americans are paid when working for mcdonalds, it's obvious how much those laws contain

What are you talking about? It sounds like you're saying the government should force all fast-food companies to raise the salaries of all workers, which I hope you're not. Those people all made fair agreements to put in X work for Y pay. It's mostly unskilled labor and the franchises often have to put in major efforts just to keep themselves staffed because of unreliable people and turnover. And finally, if the government did that then the price of cheap fast food would go up.

[truefeel]

What are you talking about? It sounds like you're saying the government should force all fast-food companies to raise the salaries of all workers, which I hope you're not. Those people all made fair agreements to put in X work for Y pay. It's mostly unskilled labor and the franchises often have to put in major efforts just to keep themselves staffed because of unreliable people and turnover. And finally, if the government did that then the price of cheap fast food would go up.Hmm, now that would be an idea to increase population health:chin:. But seriously, I do NOT suggest to increase wages. I only took it to compare it. You have to read in the right context, my friend.

Why would it give you that impression? Liberals in general are much more supportive of unions.b/c liberals have more the idea of letting things run without interference.

[Statalyzer]

b/c liberals have more the idea of letting things run without interference.

No way. Not in the USA anyway. Of course what constitutes "interference" is debateable, but if you take it to mean just government stepping in to try and make something work a certain way (without caring whether the result of the gov't effort is good or bad), then "letting things run without interference" is more of a conservative position. Although it's becoming more of a neither conservative nor liberal position.

[truefeel]

Well, I might took the term "liberal" a bit too literal:chin:. Btw, conservative is also something completely different; it just means that you are not open for new things and such. Liberal means, very literal, atually a "race on which nobody gets external advantages and thus only the strongest person can win that race".

[nilloC]

Well, I might took the term "liberal" a bit too literal:chin:. Btw, conservative is also something completely different; it just means that you are not open for new things and such. Liberal means, very literal, atually a "race on which nobody gets external advantages and thus only the strongest person can win that race".

Wah-huh?? I've always understood that liberalism is an agenda that stresses individual rights, as well as equal opportunities for every and anyone. To do this, yes, the government has to step in. Usually it isn't about the strongest man winning the race though.

In an even stricter sense, liberalism is a willingness to advocate changes in the system, while conservatism advocates sticking to "what's been working" or the status quo.

[Derek]

What truefeel is describing is classical liberalism (aka, Libertarian Party), what you are describing is modern liberalism (aka, Democratic Party), which is essentially socialism to whatever degree and in many respects is the anti-thesis of classical liberalism (Ex, a welfare state is essentially the goal of modern liberalism, which it is entirely opposed to classical liberalism). Its actually fairly ironic, modern US conservatism is very close to classical liberalism (and was even closer a couple decades ago).

I'm fairly surprised that Truefeel is referring to classical liberalism, as in modern political debate the term is usually completely co-opted by modern liberalism. Thats why we've been so confused at his last few posts, we've all been reading them wrong and only now that I've read his definition of liberalism (ie, classical liberalism) can I go back and see that his posts make perfect sense.

[nilloC]

What truefeel is describing is classical liberalism (aka, Libertarian Party), what you are describing is modern liberalism (aka, Democratic Party), which is essentially socialism to whatever degree and in many respects is the anti-thesis of classical liberalism (Ex, a welfare state is essentially the goal of modern liberalism, which it is entirely opposed to classical liberalism). Its actually fairly ironic, modern US conservatism is very close to classical liberalism (and was even closer a couple decades ago).

Classical liberalism (from the John Locke and David Hume I've read) is essentially summed up as socially liberal/fiscally conservative (close enough to libertarian, as you said). I wouldn't say that "US conservatism" is closer to classical liberalism than "US liberalism" is, but then we're really just getting into semantics, aren't we? :p

I'm quite sure, in any event, the word "liberal" is very different in how it is perceived in the US and mainland Europe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Europe isn't the word "liberal" more commonly applied to someone who has a "conservative" social and economic view?

[truefeel]

Like I said, liberalism has more a "we do not interfere and let things go like they should normally go" definition for me. It is more the way Europeans look at it. So the way you described: yes, it is something like that. Although we don't put it together with "conservatism". Conservatism is for us more "no change".

I'm fairly surprised that Truefeel is referring to classical liberalism, as in modern political debate the term is usually completely co-opted by modern liberalism. Thats why we've been so confused at his last few posts, we've all been reading them wrong and only now that I've read his definition of liberalism (ie, classical liberalism) can I go back and see that his posts make perfect sense.

I really have to remind that. I never knew Americans and Europeans would have a different view on the meaning of liberalism. I'm happy now that we atleast understand now eachother:).

[Derek]

I'm quite sure, in any event, the word "liberal" is very different in how it is perceived in the US and mainland Europe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Europe isn't the word "liberal" more commonly applied to someone who has a "conservative" social and economic view?
Thats because the classical "liberal" is still used in Europe. I'm opening a whole new can of worms here, but whatever: The term "liberal" was co-opted (all around the world, but most especially in the US) by socialists to make their agenda more palatable. Hence the Democratic Party calls themselves "liberal" despite having strong socialist undertones. In Europe it is acceptable for a party to be called Socialist, so there wasn't a need to co-opt the word "liberal" and the classical definition remained.

Classical liberalism (from the John Locke and David Hume I've read) is essentially summed up as socially liberal/fiscally conservative (close enough to libertarian, as you said).
In modern US parlance, yes. However the traditional definition would be to say that Classical liberalism is liberal (by definition), then the Republican Party would be socially conservative/economically liberal and the Democratic Party would be socially liberal/economically conservative*. The point here is that in the US political terminology has rotated somewhat, so to speak, so that the modern definition of "liberal" does not match the classical definition of "liberal".


*By some bizarre stretch. Its not considered conservative any more, in fact classic economic liberalism is modern economic conservatism. Strictly speaking, "conservative" basically means status-quo. For years, status-quo was economic liberalism, hence why this is now a "conservative" stance. If you go back far enough, however, there was a time when this was radical, it is at this point that modern Democratic economic policies can be considered conservative: Large government, tight control of the economy, high taxes. The only difference was where the extra revenue went, there were no social programs at that time. This is the economic system that John Locke "radically" rejected.

[nilloC]

Thats because the classical "liberal" is still used in Europe. I'm opening a whole new can of worms here, but whatever: The term "liberal" was co-opted (all around the world, but most especially in the US) by socialists to make their agenda more palatable. Hence the Democratic Party calls themselves "liberal" despite having strong socialist undertones. In Europe it is acceptable for a party to be called Socialist, so there wasn't a need to co-opt the word "liberal" and the classical definition remained.

I'll just focus on this first statement, because to be honest it is the one that seems to have the most interesting discussion value, to me at least. :p

What we're really getting at (again) is semantics, and the limits of language. But that aside, I'm not so sure socialist movements aimed to accept the term "liberal" just to make their agenda easier to digest for the public. If this had a likeliness of occurring, I agree it would occur with greater tendency in America due to our anti-communist, anti-socialist 20th century. Elsewhere in the world (as you have stated) there would be no need to cover up "socialism" with the much more PC "liberalism".

In the sense that Truefeel is using the word "liberal", it is more fitting as what Americans feel are "libertarian" values. I've met very many socially liberal people in my lifetime. However I've met much fewer socially liberal/fiscally liberal individuals. Even though one is socially liberal/fiscally moderate/conservative, they would likely call themselves a "liberal" on the political spectrum. It is this socially liberal/fiscally moderate/conservative group that compromise a large portion of the Democratic party. You don't have many fiscal liberals (who actually know what they're talking about) supporting what the Democrats are running as their platform. It's that reason that I truly do not believe the Democratic party has strong socialist undertones. That is the point that I disagree the greatest with you on. I can only say that because I consider one who does not support the Democratic party, but ideals that fit my socially/fiscally liberal ideology.

As stated earlier, the evolution of the term "liberal" and what it has meant through the past 200 years is something I do agree (at least partly!) with you on. The examples that you have discussed and what I discussed earlier is great proof of the flaws of language, which is an entirely new plane of discussion. I don't believe we want to discuss Chomsky right now. :p

[Slapper]

My shortest post ever, as ive already said my piece on this subject. Government Greed, Fed Reserve Greed and Corporate Greed all in a love in.

Noones going to jail over any of this whole mess, they remain rich and you will all remain poorer.

The Fed is loving this bailout. Enough said.

P.S. Warstomp and Berlin, check your PM's. Id rather talk about those subjects, this one is old and we all know the outcome, see above comment. As for backing it up Warstomp, you say when, ill start sending info and material for your consideration. I aint blocking my ears or my eyes, but millions and millions have, just like you. you want info, say so in PM, ill give ya what i got no probs. I can and will back up my words with info. Its up to each of us what we think about that day, after you see whats out there, you can make up your own mind and if ALL of the conspiracy believers are for real or out for something else.

[nilloC]

Noones going to jail over any of this whole mess, they remain rich and you will all remain poorer.

Just to add: The mindset of the proletariat and the fall of the bourgeoisie. ;)

That isn't a bad thing either, Slapper.

[Slapper]

i just wanted to add again, the Unions in Canada offered wage and benefit concessions months ago when all this came into the scope as they dont seem overly greedy and they most certainly understand their jobs are on the line if they dont become part of a solution. They understand their high wages are part of the problem, along with bad management and CEO's and Execs making too much money along with pumping out junk that does not last....

Seems their American counterparts have issues. Umm, what where they again? You say to me, Americans are not greedy?. I dont paint all with the same brush, but when the UAW wont help out, and refuse to do anything to help save the Companys when they damn well should know they are part of a problem and solution, i guess people who argue they arent greedy look a little silly saying so. If you disagree, explain their position and debate it with me....Cuz i just aint getting it boss.....

Just to add: The mindset of the proletariat and the fall of the bourgeoisie.

I was just thinking that comrade, it seems like history repeating itself.

Its a good day for a revolution and napalm, BBQ anyone? pass the nuts...

[nilloC]

I was just thinking that comrade, it seems like history repeating itself.
Its a good day for a revolution and napalm, BBQ anyone? pass the nuts...

I'm unsure if you're sarcastic, and I didn't mean for my post to be demeaning to you. I just meant that the mindset that you have (and I have, actually) is something I expect to see with increased frequency. The fat cats of the economy are the minority, yet you have a massive amount of people who are taken advantage of just to increase the means of those who have money. It's only an amount of time until people get pissed off enough and unified to rectify this. I'm not advocating communist, or even socialist, value. I'm just advocating that many, many people are being taken advantage of and selling themselves short.

Part of me thinks the Comintern is going to resurrect itself. :p

[Slapper]

I was agreeing with you as well, and im saying its getting to be that time...

When we are taken advantage of, lied to, and told what to think, what to say, what to believe and how to basically live your life. All to make the rich richer. The bailouts and further debt of the U.S is what the Fed and their owners want. Wait ill rephrase that, its what the Fed demands, since they are what causes it all in the 1st place.

The takeover of the bourgeoisie started long ago by the Fed, that was in 1913, in 1919 the COMINTERN was created, the Communists knew something the rest didnt i guess...Something to counter the rich and powerful of the Western World, evidently they didnt want to be next, they had their own deal going and did not want to share is what i figure.

Presnt day, they are saying lies about Iraq, and all other things tied to the War on Terror from its beginning to present day, and taking libertys like potato chips, making new self serving laws to strengthen their powers. Not even beginning to mention the criminal acts taken place on Wall street for how many years now...thats a whole other ball of wax and lies and deceipt. I mean, literally, the U.S for the last 8 years has been totally BS'ed and run by Corporations. ALL of Bushes closest people are Corporate America, thats where they came from, from Condi to the VP to Rumsfeld and the list goes on and on and on. Noone can argue that, try it...

So, it should be no shocker about what the neocons have done, since they wrote about what they wanted to do in 98-99. All of it has been exactly as it was wrote in PNAC. To a T. I wish people would get off the couch and read the Project for a New American Century. That document reveals everything thats going on. Its there, on paper, written by all of the top people in Government and their hangers on and advisors...The damn War on Terror was planned long before the 2000 election people and so was the intent to go into Iraq and Afghanistan. And you say you believe 9/11 was a random act committed by people who live in caves..Read PNAC. They needed everything that has happened since to further the neocon agenda. Read it, seriously. I know im not a section 8 yet, and i considered all the factors. It seems a little too coincidental for all this to be unrelated.

The Comintern had nothing on them. The Chekists of old would be proud of what the U.S has going. Let me make a comparison:

KGB= Homeland Security-CIA-FBI-NSA

GRU= DIA and all other branches also have Intel sections, Naval, Army, Space, etc etc...

We are there now, make no mistake. Pass the nuts and napalm.... :)

[nilloC]

I agree completely, I just didn't want you to think I was doing some sarcastic, communistic, Russian thing. God knows I dig the Russians and Germans enough. :p

[Slapper]

God knows I dig the Russians and Germans enough

Agreed. I worked for years with both. Good people, end of. No different than us as a people really. Same outlook for the most part, same worrys. We all got bad Government, on that you would find most agree....