The problem is Ron Paul is misunderstood. He often walks the fine line between genius and insanity. Ron Paul is an idealist. I think it is important that he is running for President on his very constitutional platform to stand for very principled ideas. The problem is that some of his ideas are impractical (to name a few: converting from fiat money to money backed by a gold standard; the closure of overseas military bases).

The time is not right for Ron Paul. When the US is on the verge of an impending revolution, Ron Paul may be the right man for the right time. Usually a person like him will come into the picture if it is clearly evident that great, great change is needed. While I do not agree with every Libertarian policy, he embodies many good ideas and I don't misconstrue his brilliance for insanity.

Constitutionalism is something we desperately need in this country. That is real conservatism, and that is not a bad thing. Less powerful federal government, more relevant local governments.

The mass media has painted Ron Paul as a crazy, bitter old man. If you have seen him in person, you will realize he is quite the opposite. He is passionate about his ideas. He is not out to win in the primaries, but to spread some ideas. Ron Paul's ideas make sense, but they are clearly hated by the left or the right because both parties rely on emotions to make a case.

I would rather trust private businesses in an independent, constitutional government if there were no clear conflicts of interests. In theory, I would rather have private organizations issue me ID cards than a government agency, because if the private organization screws up, I have recourse and can file suit. Government, on the other hand, if they were to screw up, I couldn't really keep them in check, even with lawsuits.

If in doubt about a large, strong federal Government, just remember this frightening phrase: "We're from the Federal Government and we're here to help."

He is not out to win in the primaries, but to spread some ideas. Ron Paul's ideas make sense, but they are clearly hated by the left or the right because both parties rely on emotions to make a case.No, strange as it may seem, people can disagree with other people based on factual, objective information, misinterpretations of same, or differing philosophies on how to apply given information.
If in doubt about a large, strong federal Government, just remember this frightening phrase: "We're from the Federal Government and we're here to help."Oh, now you're just relying on my emotions to make your case.

Oh, now you're just relying on my emotions to make your case.The Federal Government is clearly a bad thing. Whenever Government gets involved, they often create more damages than benefits. They leave people feeling vitriolic, emotional. Just consider social security, the Patriot Act, the push for real ID among other damning proposals.

The Federal Government makes sense in some areas (such as immigration), but in more cases rather than not, they should not become involved.

The Federal Government is clearly a bad thing. Whenever Government gets involved, they often create more damages than benefits. They leave people feeling vitriolic, emotional. Just consider social security, the Patriot Act, the push for real ID among other damning proposals.

The Federal Government makes sense in some areas (such as immigration), but in more cases rather than not, they should not become involved.

Oh, is it *really*? (Sanchek getting beat up enough that he's called for 'backup'? ;) )

I hate to break it to you Rybit, but the preponderance of the evidence suggests otherwise. Your assertion is so delusional I don't know where to start. Social Security and Medicare, by the way, are two federal programs that work very *well*, have historically been (in Social Security's case) an income *generating* program despite the much-overblown pig/python crisis looming (and in this day and age of bankrupt pension funds, etc, the best hope most working class retirees have to escape a destitute old age), and in the case of Medicare, costs a *fraction* of what private insurance does for the same services, both in the costs services themselves and in their administrative overhead.

Everything from the safety of the food and drugs you consume, the roads and bridges that you drive on, to the guarantee of the funds you deposit in the bank, got its start in a government program or initiative, and I don't think that most Americans feel vitriolic about any of those things. Would one really want a set of patchwork laws at the local level governing such things? Also, one should not confuse Government *programs* with bad legislation such as the Patriot Act, which, I should mention, was born in the Executive, not the Legislative, branch... "Government" is not a monolithic entity, either good or bad, and to suggest that *all* government is bad and somehow anarchy would be better, suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the essential need for structure as populations grow larger and civilizations (or organisms) more complex - large populations simply can't *support* an organizational vacuum without falling into ugly, corrupt, unhealthy, ruin (aka Russia), and if you think private companies are some how more reputable, honest, or controllable/accountable, I've got a levee in New Orleans to sell you (see atrocities with no accountability committed by private federal contractors: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1 ).

Much more to say about this if you'd like to continue :), but I've got a busy afternoon ahead of me at work and so won't be back by here for several hours at least.

Regards,
Nydia

Addendum:

Also, just because something makes something 'feel bad' aesthetically doesn't invalidate something's empirical usefulness or actual (often essential) service to the population which denigrates it (often for political or greed-related reasons which fly in the face of the facts). Want a hurtfulness form because you're outraged over taxes? ;)

Regards,
Nydia

What is the problem with Social Security? Rather, the problem is with leaders who feel it is okay to shift monies from that fund to their other priorities, and leaving I.O.U.s that do not get honored.

Reagan, btw, was a great one for dipping into other funds. He and Bush Sr thought the Postal Service retirement funds should be accessible to them, and also resisted (with the help of their lackies in Congress) paying the Postal Service the monies owed for Non-Profit mailers fees and franking privileges, which Congress is in charge of, not the Postal execs. There was little surprise by many of us employed by the USPS when Marvin Runyon was appointed as Post Master General, and promptly worked out a deal with the government making the huge debt they owed us a long term interest free loan.

But I am rambling.....my point is that someone like Paul, in the tradition of Goldwater, would reduce government intrusion into many of the areas of daily life it now so blatantly butts in to. The downside to that is that such a large number of the population have grown dependent on that intrusion, and too rapid of a change could result in utter chaos.

While less federal involvement, and more empowering of the states, is a worthy goal to work toward, the time is not ripe for Paul. I am glad to see he is bringing his ideas to the table, though; at least it makes others have to think, if not openly talk, about them.

What is the problem with Social Security? Rather, the problem is with leaders who feel it is okay to shift monies from that fund to their other priorities, and leaving I.O.U.s that do not get honored.


Reminds me of the IOUs in Dumb and Dumber

While less federal involvement, and more empowering of the states, is a worthy goal to work toward, the time is not ripe for Paul. I am glad to see he is bringing his ideas to the table, though; at least it makes others have to think, if not openly talk, about them.
A lot of people would have you think Ron Paul would just end Social Security and Medicare, and leave people to fend for themselves, but that's not really the case.

Ron Paul has stated that he doesn't actually want to immediately pull the plug on Social Security and other currently necessary programs. He just wants to transition to smaller government as fast as is feasible, instead of waiting until the country is completely bankrupted and the plug is pulled on us anyway.

On our current course, we really have the choice of either choosing to make that sort of transition ourselves or having it all removed at once when we can no longer sustain it. It's wishful thinking to believe we can fix things by just nudging the status quo a little to the left or right and calling it change.

(Sanchek getting beat up enough that he's called for 'backup'?)
If watching Thor post literally 1,329 words to avoid answering a simple yes/no question is getting beat up, then I am definitely beat up!

Did the irony just fly over Rybit's head?

The job of the Government is to do what is necessary, but not profitable.

It is expected to do it well. Very well. Held to as high a standard as you would hold any person doing you a service.

Government is NOT a bad thing. Clearly. Government is a necessity and is only as good or as bad as we make it. Certainly Government does not do certain things well. But it does others very well.

many of the roles and areas in which government should be allowed exist is debatable.
Health Care.
This is a prime example. Yes, Health Care can be very profitable. But it is also necessary, we literally, cannot live without it. So it creates a case where at times the basic needs of citizens are placed in direct conflict with the profit margins of the health care entity.

What is needed is a way to make sure that health care can still be a profitable private institution, but still a service which all people have access to. And in a way where concerns of health always trump concerns of profit.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to the fact that some of us believe in limited government and others believe in a more socialist government.

That's why you don't see me really trying to change anyone's mind about Ron Paul. If they don't already get it, they probably won't ever, because it's fundamentally counter to what they want from government. That's fine. That's their choice.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that society at large not getting it has us on an irreversible course toward collapse (http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Fail-Succeed/dp/0670033375). Just as people get lazy and spoiled on a microeconomic level, we as a country have become the same way on a macroeconomic level. What we're doing simply isn't sustainable, even with minor tweaks and improvements.

Everything from the safety of the food and drugs you consume, the roads and bridges that you drive on, to the guarantee of the funds you deposit in the bank, got its start in a government program or initiative, and I don't think that most Americans feel vitriolic about any of those things. Would one really want a set of patchwork laws at the local level governing such things? Also, one should not confuse Government *programs* with bad legislation such as the Patriot Act, which, I should mention, was born in the Executive, not the Legislative, branch... "Government" is not a monolithic entity, either good or bad, and to suggest that *all* government is bad and somehow anarchy would be better, suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the essential need for structure as populations grow larger and civilizations (or organisms) more complex - large populations simply can't *support* an organizational vacuum without falling into ugly, corrupt, unhealthy, ruin (aka Russia), and if you think private companies are some how more reputable, honest, or controllable/accountable, I've got a levee in New Orleans to sell you (see atrocities with no accountability committed by private federal contractors: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1 ).Nydia, the onset of most of those Federal programs did not come until FDR. I did not, for the record, say that the Federal government power should be reduced to the point of no function; rather I stated that for where it makes sense and where standards are needed the Federal government is appropriate (roads, immigration, flight standards, medicine). But the problem is that these so-called Federal-sponsored programs have been the doing of a lot of corrupt, private business. Remember a little federal governmental organ called the FAA? They were effectively the protector of large aviation. Southwest couldn't get in until they deregulated the airline agency.

I am not advocating for the abolition of government. Government is necessary for the protection of private property and some basic rights. Capitalism is not corporatism. Libertarians are not for pledging taxpayer wealth into the hands of corporations. But the Democrats as well as those in favor of the welfare state, have proven that large federal agencies are incompetent. Department of Education and No Child Left Behind? Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?

I am looking for a scaleback, not a complete dismissal of Federalist policies. It makes sense on many sides, at least some of the regulatory programs. It doesn't make sense in some other areas.

Very funny. It's ironic that you bring in the example of the levees because that is an argument I was going to pull. The levees were funded by the Flood Control Act of 1965. If you put the bureaucrats in control (from 1965 to 2005), you put yourself in the hands of incompetence. The project was only 60% complete in 2005. Incompetent federal administrators in the US Army Corps of Engineers and $85 million later, we still have what has led us to this. One side claims that we haven't put enough money into FEMA; the other claims we need to pump more money into this agency that has failed so badly. You might like to blame the contractors, but who rubber stamped all the projects? The people in the Federal government, of course.

We're not talking about anarchy and no accountability. Rather, why not replace those ineffective government services with nothing? Keep the ones that keep us in the pursuit of happyness, but have less government intrude in our lives. We need governance, but we also need our independence. Once the government goes past the protection of private property, it reaches a point where it starts appropriating money (in other words, a fancy euphemism for stealing) for the good of the people.

It's about idiot-proofing the government so that they cannot take away rights but continue to offer the basic services that we need. The welfare state has made it so difficult for anyone to die out of stupidity. We shall see whether or not making it so difficult to die out of stupidity is a good thing. Ever see the movie Idiocracy?

Ultimately, I think it comes down to the fact that some of us believe in limited government and others believe in a more socialist government.I prefer to think less in such broad-based terms and more along the line of what L2 brought up regarding necessities, with health care paramount about those necessities. It's hard to have liberty when bankrupted by medical costs, for instance. OTOH, programs like the current War On Drugs, Battle Against Pornography, and Sortie Opposing Gambling are extensions of government that compromise liberty.

The Federal Government is clearly a bad thing. Whenever Government gets involved, they often create more damages than benefits. They leave people feeling vitriolic, emotional. Just consider social security, the Patriot Act, the push for real ID among other damning proposals.

The Federal Government makes sense in some areas (such as immigration), but in more cases rather than not, they should not become involved.

Speaking as a citizen from a country with a much wider government involvement, no, the federal government is not clearly a bad thing, and its a mystery to me how you would come to this conclusion. Theres a quite long list of things the government needs, in my opnion, to handle, because them being private would directly conflict with your populations interests. A few examples, to me anyway, are healthcare, fire departments, police departments, national defence, and so on.

Speaking as a citizen from a country with a much wider government involvement, no, the federal government is not clearly a bad thing, and its a mystery to me how you would come to this conclusion. Theres a quite long list of things the government needs, in my opnion, to handle, because them being private would directly conflict with your populations interests. A few examples, to me anyway, are healthcare, fire departments, police departments, national defence, and so on.Fire, healthcare, police departments are typically LOCAL government programs. I did not say that we don't need national defense or national healthcare system. But we need to reconsider giving this power to the bureaucrats.

The Nazi government is technically a federal government. You are telling me that invasive government policies with a secret national police is good?

I didn't call for the abolition of government. That is where Libertarians are most misunderstood. A scaleback of ineffective policies. Keep government where government belongs like defense and immigration. Not what we watch on TV like the FCC.

Speaking as a citizen from a country with a much wider government involvement, no, the federal government is not clearly a bad thing, and its a mystery to me how you would come to this conclusion. Theres a quite long list of things the government needs, in my opnion, to handle, because them being private would directly conflict with your populations interests. A few examples, to me anyway, are healthcare, fire departments, police departments, national defence, and so on.
Keep in mind that we have state governments here that could serve as the national governments for many entire countries. Our state governments have an entire House and Senate, just like the Federal government does. Limiting Federal government wouldn't interfere with services like fire departments and police departments at a state and local level, like we already have.

Government has to do only 3 things because no one else can: External defense, internal order, and an honest currency.

The more things it does in addition to those, the more likely it will neglect or be unable to do one of the essential three.

yes, i do acknowledge your state government is vastly different to ours, but wouldnt it have to be federally funded, and thus federally regulated, if you wanted for example UHC run statewise?

EDUCATION!!!!!

This is a real pet peeve of mine in terms of the federal government sticking it's nose in and screwing up the teaching of our kids, in the name of "No Child Left Behind".

How many schools have eliminated Band, Art, Phys Ed, etc, so that more time could be spent studying material that the students needed to learn and be tested on in order to meet the federal standards, in order to receive the allotted funding the following year?

My opinion is that the program Bush was claiming to be such a success in his State of the Union speech the other night does not educate children at all, but merely trains them to successfully pass specific tests. Critical, abstract thinking is so much more important than learning by rote.

Get the feds out of the classrooms.

This is the stuff that a candidate like Ron Paul could get some traction with, I think, if he could also explain where the states could develop alternative sources of education funding.

yes, i do acknowledge your state government is vastly different to ours, but wouldnt it have to be federally funded, and thus federally regulated, if you wanted for example UHC run statewise?
We actually pay separate state and federal income taxes. Also, all sales taxes are paid directly to the state (at least in Georgia). Part of gas taxes also go to the state. The states are only so dependent on the federal government, because the federal government requires it of them.

It's just a huge bureaucratic circle jerk, with money going up to the federal government and then being redistributed back down to the states again. With ample loss to corruption, both ways, of course.

we also pay separate state (well, actually its municipal) and federal income taxes, my point is that state tax would not be enough to fund for example a UHC system, and thus you would have to fund it federally, yes? wouldnt that require federal oversight, thus making it, in practicality, a federal issue? not that it, in my opinion, shouldnt be.

also, about education...dont you want to guarantee a national standard on public education? just because its being run horribly now doesnt mean it has to be, does it?

Couldn't the states collect any and all taxes and monies and redistribute them to the federal government? Instead of an invasive approach that we have now, wouldn't it be better for states to collect our money and redistribute them to the federal government rather than having to file separate forms?

The general idea is to eliminate the federal income tax. States could fill the gap and "pay" for federal services.

National defense is something that could be paid out from a state/county property tax. It makes sense to pay for national defense from property tax because it's the same idea as paying for an alarm subscription service. The land that you own is being protected by the government.

There are many interesting ways to redistribute money. Empowering the states to decide how much money to give to the federal government will be a better way for states to purchase benefits/welfare services from the federal government. Sure, national defense will be one of those required in financing the government. But a less centralized Federal government will let states pick and choose which healthcare program to accept. If the state doesn't have a state-wide healthcare system, subscribe the services of the federal government.

If states don't need a federal service, they don't pay for it. Simple as that.

Instead of the federal government giving money to the states, why not have states give the money to the feds? Empowers the state and keeps the feds in check.

We likely don't even need the income tax at all, if government spending is brought back within reason. The entire IRS revenues only account for about 1/3 of what the government takes in. Even without it, we'd still be bringing in roughly the same amount that we did (including the IRS) 10 years ago.

Like most entities, when we keep rewarding our government's bad spending with more money, the spending only continues to spiral out of control. The answer is to fix the spending, not the funding.

We likely don't even need the income tax at all, if government spending is brought back within reason. The entire IRS revenues only account for about 1/3 of what the government takes in. Even without it, we'd still be bringing in roughly the same amount that we did (including the IRS) 10 years ago.

Like most entities, when we keep rewarding our government's bad spending with more money, the spending only continues to spiral out of control. The answer is to fix the spending, not the funding.That's right. You reminded me about a point a friend brought up to me. We spend about $300B on welfare programs; the irony is that only $130B is spent on those who need the money because of administrative overhead. I don't have links to sources, but I'll try looking them up.

The Nazi government is technically a federal government. You are telling me that invasive government policies with a secret national police is good?Nazis? If I didn't know better, I'd think that someone was relying on emotions to make his case!

Arguing that the modern "conservative" has a concern for limiting government is laughable.

It is and has been more or less, starting with Reagan, of stripping government agencies of their staff and outsourcing those jobs to companies that have made large campaign contributions or have hired the "conservatives" spouses as consultants for a few million dollars or have worked out some deal with the politician to create a nice golden job for them after they leave office.

Bylimet is absolutely dead on about Reagan and Bush dipping into things like retirement funds and social security to fund their so called conservative agenda.

Why would someone think SSI is a bad thing? When my wife passed away, I was a young guy in his 30's with four kids who suddenly had to figure out how to work and raise those kids. I received money from SSI (survivors benefits) to financially assist me with my new found role as both father and mother.

So explain to me why I should not want social security to be government run?

Explain to me where the current healthcare system is better than what Canada has or Sweden or most other countries?

Explain to me why the current healthcare system is so expensive yet the "conservatives" swore up and down it would create competition and keep prices down?

Explain why just one of my medications (Coreg) costs me over $400.00 a month and why NO insurance will cover the cost? They say that I don't need it, yet it is proven I do need it to live.

Why is keeping government off our backs something that is ok if it means weakening the powers of the EPA, which is there to clean up air, water, soil, industrial waste and pollution in general?

Can anyone here say that a strong EPA has negatively effected them?

That Social security has hurt them?

Why is regulating what I watch on TV or see on the Internet not having government on my back?

That's right. You reminded me about a point a friend brought up to me. We spend about $300B on welfare programs; the irony is that only $130B is spent on those who need the money because of administrative overhead. I don't have links to sources, but I'll try looking them up.

And how much more will be administrative costs if it is privatized?

Nazis? If I didn't know better, I'd think that someone was relying on emotions to make his case!Not really. Rather, stating the facts rather bluntly. I'm using standard rhetoric to make a point.

To some people, invasive government policies with a secret national police might be something they want. You can make the decision. I'm just trying to point out the nonsense. The Japanese government in the 1940s were very brutal as well.

Asian countries have also developed federalism from an imperial system, very similar to the ideas of federalism, with 縣 (prefectures/counties) and 州/省 (states/provinces). Cities administer family trees and require civil registration.

The beauty is that the US is a free country. Anyone is welcome to pick the good or bad option. Choice is an illusion to keep order and control. You are free to jump off a cliff just as you are free to go to college.

And how much more will be administrative costs if it is privatized?Well, theoretically, if there's $300B, just write a check to everyone needs it after they have been verified instead of running costly programs like food stamps, etc.

We don't even really need to privatize it. We can just cut a check or reduce the administrative overhead. The problem is the bureaucrats running these programs are the ones that have made them completely ineffective.

The problem is that those bureaucrats are so concerned about job security they will fight tooth and nail for the program's survival.

Not really. Rather, stating the facts rather bluntly. I'm using standard rhetoric to make a point. Standard for who? Someone who hasn't heard of Godwin's Law, it seems. I'm the first to argue against the current administration's 'spying on Americans' fetish and all it entails, but your 'standard rhetoric' is kinda funny.

We can discuss the point ad infinitum, but I won't belabor it. I think the comparison is appropriate. Read "Hands Off Hitler: It's time to repeal Godwin's Law (http://www.reason.com/news/show/32944.html)." Claiming one has fallen into the trap of Godwin's law is yet another debate faux pas.

How many schools have eliminated Band, Art, Phys Ed, etc, so that more time could be spent studying material that the students needed to learn and be tested on in order to meet the federal standards, in order to receive the allotted funding the following year?


That's the exact reason my daughter is going to go to private school when she's of age. We paid 10 grand last year for her day care, we can afford to put that into a private school instead in two years, and she'll get a better, more well rounded education for that.

We can discuss the point ad infinitum, but I won't belabor it. I think the comparison is appropriate. Read "Hands Off Hitler: It's time to repeal Godwin's Law (http://www.reason.com/news/show/32944.html)." Claiming one has fallen into the trap of Godwin's law is yet another debate faux pas.It's only a faux pas when the one invoking Hitler/Nazis is actually discussing something comparable to their behavior. You tossed it out there without a wire, not relating it to anything but a "federal government." That sort of vacuousness seems entirely in line with Godwin and is probably the sort of thing Stalin would have done.

That's the exact reason my daughter is going to go to private school when she's of age. We paid 10 grand last year for her day care, we can afford to put that into a private school instead in two years, and she'll get a better, more well rounded education for that.As a side note--you probably already know this, Taleren--be careful going into private school. I believe a good liberal arts education is helpful, but as one who has been through the private education system for high school in the States (I was in Taiwan for middle school up till the equivalent of 8th grade), I can attest that they have some serious problems just as they have a lot of benefits. They aren't the answer to everything.

Some of the bilingual education in public schools irks me. I came here from Taiwan after going through middle school there (as a white-washed Chinese), but seeing ballots printed in Spanish sends a very bad message--a message that you can come vote even without knowing the issues in the language they were conducted. Everyone who naturalized here through the legal process (non-amnesty) has to prove proficiency in English. Why can't we hold the same standard of those who want to come the US? (Yes, I know this is an Election '08 issue.) I got my primary sample ballot in the mail, and I was surprised the candidates names weren't translated into Spanish.

As a side note and nothing relevant to the education policies in government, I am surprised that no one has pushed for Chinese as a second language. It's like the US wants to ignore developing a program for it. Some schools in NY and LA have started integrating Chinese into their elementary and middle school programs though...

/endrail topic

As a side note and nothing relevant to the education policies with government, I am surprised that no one has pushed for Chinese as a second language. It's like the US wants to ignore developing a program for it.

/endrail topic

Actually, I have heard a lot more talk about that exact point here in Minnesota education. It is going to be the future in terms of business and trade, and command of the language will hence command a larger starting salary to the newly graduated business/advertising major.

Well funny enough most, if not all Chinese people I deal with directly from China...speak very good English. So in my case, I don't even need to know it, they do.

Couldn't the states collect any and all taxes and monies and redistribute them to the federal government?

Read up on Henry George Rybit he has an idea that I think has merit but would take some convincing to pass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George

"Government has to do only 3 things because no one else can: External defense, internal order, and an honest currency."

I would expand on this a bit Akipt.

What's nice about this argument is that we actually have a document that says what the government can do.

Article I, Section 8, very neatly lays out the powers of the federal government (external defense, internal order, and honest currency are included as are post office, immigration, bankruptcy, foreign treaties, intellectual property protection, and of course the dreaded one, interstate commerce).

For years, Article I, Section 8, was interpreted very strictly.

That fell by the wayside with the court-packing plan of FDR and the rest is history. It's interesting to read his fireside chat justifying his plan. Certainly puts into perspective any putative claims that the current President has overreached his powers.

Wickard v. Filburn was basically the last bar to any limit on federal powers. U.S. v. Lopez saw some return. Gonzales v. Raich is an interesting decision also (disappointed with Scalia's opinion though it seemed to depend on not all 50 states legalizing medical pot).

In Raich, the much maligned (at least by the left) Thomas wrote:

"Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

Too bad it doesnt work like that.

Implied and inherent powers are significant factors in the defining the scope of government.

I'll chime in on the China/Chinese thing. My brother just returned from another of his now monthly visits to China for his company though this time it was an IPO party. He is basically seeing the trend in his industry that if he wants to go higher he is going to need to do 6 month rotations in China b/c he now has many people from China reporting under him. He tells me that his Chinese sucks... but that he's learning... all of his underlings speak perfect English. Interesting stuff, though he tells me that most major news outlet internet sits are blocked and that you can't get to any wiki pages. That plus the hour long speech by a party representative saying that the company was successful b/c the party allows them to be during the IPO celebration is enough to give him major pause at the idea of relocation ;)