So, what factory are you working in?

.”...America is no longer willing or able to invest
in its own future.”

The author, unfortunately misses his own point and,
at the same time, unknowingly reveals the true
problem which is staring us right in the face.

The real problem is that America has become soft,
whose culture has shifted from working in a factory
for a living to becoming an investor for life because
its so much easier. So everyone is an investor now !!
Thus, having such a forced and raised standard of
living for several decades now, Americans are used to
it and refuse to give it up. Investors do not PRODUCE
anything for their country to export. They just
continually run up their own credit and debt, like
their own government, and expect this free-lunch to
continue forever.

America is now a completely uncompetitive trader. Not
even with the Fed fiddling and devaluing the dollar
does America give any semblance of having any real
trade edge or advantage within her manufacturing
sector—which now slouches to occupy barely 12% of
her economic output now. While her financial sector
proudly occupies 60% - 70% of her industry now—all
driven by debt and credit.

America is like a Great Lizard that is greedily
devouring its own tail. Eventually this Great Lizard
will choke itself to death or break it’s own back
through its own insatiable and unstoppable greed.

@Clash:

hmmm, As illustrated by your album-cover avatar, you don’t sound too optimistic about the human condition or our prospects going forward. 

But the Constitution is only as strong as those willing to defend it. 
If that’s your point, it’s a good one.

Peace.

One would have to think, or believe that governments and governance is still in the hands of the the people being governed, or that justice actually exists, to fall for this nationalistic tripe. Imperialism hasn’t changed, only the camouflage has been changed.

The Roman Empire had at one time 4 emperors, and the seat of its government was moved regularly on the whim of the elite class, why should anyone think that we have progressed any farther than the Romans?

Technology has and will continue to allow the elite class the luxury of ignoring the sovereignty of the governments and people they steel from, imperialistic fascism is here to stay, it knows no borders, and is class exclusive. The politics of empire are clear make war on those who can not defend their resources while controlling the docile populace of the fatherland with poverty, disease, and repression of human rights, the same as it ever was.

By the way the next time you resist, please feel free to show the jack booted thug who has come to beat you down, or put you in a cage your copy of the constitution, I am quite sure they will apologize and let you go.

Are you sure you want to get rid of anonymity?  Identification of speakers can easily be used to punish, and thereby suppress, speech which displeases the powerful.  Wikileaks, for example, could be shut down under such a rule.

@ Anarcissie:
First Amendment, my emphasis:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the PEOPLE to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

We love our dog & cat, too—but only People have First Amendment rights.  Sorry PETA.

You may be right about the need for a constitutional amendment to prohibit corporations from making political contributons.  I’m all for it.

It could be worded simply enough, something like:
“Political contribuitons can be made by US citizens only, in any amount, and must be publicly posted.”

Transparency is necessary to prevent the very thing you write of, Anarcissie: corporations or unions using their officers/members as fences for their donations. (If you see me donating more than $100, you know something’s up!)

At the same time, I believe the AMOUNT of those contributions by individuals ARE protected by the First Amendment.

But if you can see a list of contributors and note their donations, you can see who’s trying to influence what. 
So let George Soros (US citizen since 1961) and the Koch brothers (native US citizens) cancel eachother out, and I’m sure I’ll get an Amen from the purveyors of paid political announcements.

China, America, and practically all countries face increased electtric energy costs and perhaps even future shortages which may limit industrial growth.

Don’t count on ‘fracted’ natural gas for future generation of electricity.

NY times reporter Ian Urbina is blowing the whistle on altnatural gas production.

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/u/ian_urbina/index.html

Nuclear fusion generation does not look promising at Los Alamos Nationa Laboratory or Sandia National Laboratories.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmsea08232011/nmsea08232011.htm#tatro

Nuclear fusion generation of electricity Los Alamos physicist Dr P. L. Mascheroni and his wife Marjorie have disappeared.

Listen to Dr Mascheroni’s assessment of the future of fusion generation of electricity.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/theinvestigation/mascheroni.mp3

oddsox—According to the article I read, those on the Supreme Court agreeing with the current majority opinion did not bother with the question of whether corporations are persons or not.  I know that their decision is widely held to have endowed corporations with personhood, but as far as I can tell, it does not.  That question—whether a collection of persons inherits personhood or specific rights from its constituents—is interesting, but I don’t think it came into the present issue.  As it reads, the First Amendment endows dogs and cats with immunity from having Congress (and, therefore, the states) passing laws restricting their speech.  To enable Congress to suppress speech, especially political speech, of any sort will require a new amendment to the Constitution, at least with the present Court.

In any case, as I said, I don’t see how deciding organizations are not persons would prevent the rich from influencing, indeed, controlling our elections.  It might impede labor unions, but they are virtually powerless these days and in any case could probably find a way around unpersonhood if they wanted to.

So what you’re basically talking about is a Constitutional amendment that won’t do anything.

@ Anarcissie:
All arguments of whether corporations can make political contributions rest upon their being viewed as persons.  Unless they are, the First Amendment (or Fourth Amendment, which rights corporations have also claimed) has no force.

Turns out the 14th Amendment, the one that gave federal government ultimate power over states with respect to the rights of newly-freed slaves, has more influence. 
But legal precedent using the 14th amendment wasn’t set until 1886 and was literally done so by clerical error.  Not kidding.

Read about it here: http://money.howstuffworks.com/corporation-person1.htm

It’s mind-numbing that for 125 years we’ve been hamstrung by a clerk’s headnote that did not reflect the judge’s ruling.  A clerk who may have had a conflict of interest in the case itself.
Until the rights of natural persons (you and me) are held as distinct from those of “artificial” persons (corporations et. al), we’ll be open to the corruption that results from Lobbyists and Labor Unions being active in politics.

The recent Supreme Court decision rested (according to the quotations I’ve read) on the First Amendment, to wit, ‘Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….’  I think one must agree that this text is rather straightforward, and it’s especially nice to see rightists supporting the Constitution for once, rather than attempting to strangle it.

The complaints about corporate contributions seem like a sham to me anyway, as if the rich, being deprived of the corporate checkbook, could not find some other way to hire shills and bribe the legislature.

Great article: On economics, all products made-in China are sold in US, and equlibrium GDP of sales in America, would be 100 % Guranteed total jobs in America (750 billion a year for 30 million out-of-wk, at $25,000 a year). Epitaph may read “Auschwithz made in America: 30 million exterminated… no jobs, income, retirement, pensions.”

@Anarcissie and others who believe “Outlawing political contributions by corporations and labor unions is unconstitutional.”

Defenders of corporate and union political contributions have cited the 9th Amendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Inotherwords, if rights are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, those rights are not denied by default. 

But that cuts both ways.  There is nothing here to prevent the people from passing a law that restricts or prohibits political contributions by non-individals, i.e. corporations, unions, etc. 

Also oft-cited is the US Code of Law, section 1.1.1:
U.S.C.1.1.1: “The words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;”

But these are rules of constriction, they establish that non-individual entities must obey the law just as individuals must.  They establish no rights. 

So, again, let’s pass the laws necessary to make clear: 
Political contribuitons can be made by US citizens only.
They may be unlimited.
They must be transparent.

We’ll all be the better for it.

@Marian Griffith:
Not in disagreement with you re: quality goods or German- vs. American-made, Union or not.

As a young many many years ago, I held various jobs, both union and non-union.  Was a Teamster for a while.
It seemed to me that there was an implicit agreement between unions and management that went beyond their collectivly-bargained contract.  It resembled what you describe as “Rheinland” model.
Union jobs paid more and had better benes, so they were desirable vs. comparable non-union jobs. 
At the same time, union members worked their jobs the “union way,” and the unions themselves would help to maintain that standard.  Unions would not protect those members who couldn’t/wouldn’t deliver.
There was pride in being able to perform to union specs. 

“Union-made” had the reputation of being a bit better than like non-union goods.  If they cost a little more, there was also a perception of higher value.  Thus, “Union-Made” could compete in the marketplace.

All this was 40 years ago, though.  Tell me, is it still like that here?

The point of my first post has nothing to do with this.  Whether strong or weak, Unions have no place in our political system.  Nor do corporations.  Their contributions serve only to corrupt the process according to their interests. 

Are political contributions from Unions or Corporations protected by the Constitution?  I believe not… more on that in a moment.

Ok, Anarcissie, I see what you may be referring to here:  A May 2011 ruling by a Virginia Federal Court Judge, James Cacheris. 

“For better or worse, Citizens United held that there is no distinction between an individual and a corporation with respect to political speech,” Judge Cacheris wrote in his opinion. “Thus, if an individual can make direct contributions within [the law’s] limits, a corporation cannot be banned from doing the same thing.”

Judge Cacheris is wrong. 
Individuals, unlike corporations:
—can be citizens
—can vote
—die
—are subject to taxes upon death

Judge Cacheris’ ruling should be overturned.
Corporations and Unions should be kept out of politics.

Is it?  Where is that mentioned in the constitution?

If it is, let’s pass the appropriate amendment.

oddsox—Outlawing political contributions by corporations and labor unions is unconstitutional.

When Lobbyists and Labor Unions get involved in politics the results are problematic.

Lobbyists are paid to secure special treatment (deductions, exemptions) for their corporate masters, creating a competitive imbalance.
Union wages and benefits drive up production costs and put our goods at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace.

Solution: outlaw political contributions by both corporations and labor unions. 
Allow only those by named individuals who are US Citizens.

Outsourcing of public works monies to foreign companies should be prohibited.  (Many in my community get upset when a company from another state gets a contract, let alone a foreign country.)