I always saw it as Conservatives look after each other, whilst Liberals looked after others. Wouldn't you agree j2k4?
Printable View
I always saw it as Conservatives look after each other, whilst Liberals looked after others. Wouldn't you agree j2k4?
No, 'fraid not.Quote:
Originally posted by FatBastard@27 November 2003 - 03:21
I always saw it as Conservatives look after each other, whilst Liberals looked after others. Wouldn't you agree j2k4?
It might be more appropriate to say (as a conservative) that we would prefer to teach people how to look out for themselves, as they are best equipped to do that job. ;)
Liberals administer "programs", which make the liberals feel good, but don't do anything for "others", than make them dependent on the liberals. <_<
Conservatives find this methodology elitist.
So which side of politics in the US brought your social welfare programs then?
The general blossoming of such social programs is attributable to Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" legislation of the '60s.Quote:
Originally posted by FatBastard@27 November 2003 - 03:45
So which side of politics in the US brought your social welfare programs then?
Was he a Conservative?
Don't be so coy. He was a Democrat. ;)
Which is still fairly conservative by the standards here.
:ninja:
Ok, thats a fair call - I know the whole situation is more complicated, and I knwo what you mean about Leftist "programs". It just seems obvious that you look after everyone in a society, otherwise the people at the bottom end up being such a drag on the whole society that it eventually brings everybody down.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@27 November 2003 - 07:02
The political differences are a bit more profound than you think, Alex H.
Your understanding of what a conservative would consider "traditional values" would indicate you are a bit behind the curve, if you'll excuse my saying it that way.
Rather than go into all that here, though, I can only resort to urging you to run a search-while I'm not the only conservative here (there is one other one, young kAb-a good man) I think others would agree I am the most prolific.
So, since I'm feeling really lazy, if you want to find out what this conservative is about, run a search and do some reading. :D
I know, I know.
Never mind.
Just ask the others here-I'm sure they'll tell you about me and my politics. :lol:
Seriously-
Just stick around-things will clarify themselves soon enough.
I shouldn't complain really: with Bush draging your economy down, its making ours look much better in comparison :P
You aren't up-to-date, then, on what's happening here?Quote:
Originally posted by Alex H@27 November 2003 - 22:20
I shouldn't complain really: with Bush draging your economy down, its making ours look much better in comparison :P
If Bush is "dragging" the economy, he's dragging it uphill, because that is the direction it's going. ;)
The economy actually has had tremendous numbers recently. All favorable.
(GDP, consumer confidence, etc.) I would have to say employment is the area that needs much improvement now.
Oddly enough, as the "economic indicators" take an upward swing, Colorado posts another record year for bankruptcies.
There is a disconnect between "indicator" and application, apparently.
Are you suggesting Sir, that stastistics and facts do not coincide?Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@29 November 2003 - 00:45
Oddly enough, as the "economic indicators" take an upward swing, Colorado posts another record year for bankruptcies.
There is a disconnect between "indicator" and application, apparently.
Are you suggesting Sir, that stastistics and facts do not coincide? [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by bigboab+29 November 2003 - 00:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bigboab @ 29 November 2003 - 00:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@29 November 2003 - 00:45
Oddly enough, as the "economic indicators" take an upward swing, Colorado posts another record year for bankruptcies.
There is a disconnect between "indicator" and application, apparently.
Lies, damn lies and Boabisms.
The job supply has so far expanded by about 60-80 thousand jobs.
Growth in this area has always been, and presumably will continue to be, of the "fits and starts" variety.
I'm making no excuses-I think it's lagging a bit, too.
The overall numbers are undeniably good though, and are cause for cautious optimism. ;)
With things like that, you really have to look at what kinds of jobs have been "created."
A huge majority of the time you'll find that they're minimum-wage, low hour, entry-level part-time "jobs."
Hardly something one could live off of.
:ninja:
Edit: And you have to look at where in the country they are. Chances are it's New York, or California, or some more-populated state, which is not going to help Billy in Iowa.
I totally agree with Magic, most of these are jobs that pay poorly and in which you love to hate.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@29 November 2003 - 04:05
The job supply has so far expanded by about 60-80 thousand jobs.
Growth in this area has always been, and presumably will continue to be, of the "fits and starts" variety.
I'm making no excuses-I think it's lagging a bit, too.
The overall numbers are undeniably good though, and are cause for cautious optimism. ;)
In Australia we have record low unemployment rates (work/volunteer one hour or more and your not considered unemployed) but if you look at the statistics more closely most if not all the jobs created are casual/part time crapwork these are also the first jobs to go if the economy slides.
I think the mistake is to look at low unemployment levels as some indicator that people are happy and that people feel good about themselves.
Alot of these jobs depress people and that leads to a much poorer society.
Ahem.
The 60-80 thousand jobs created are burger flippers?
No-these are light-manufacturing jobs paying decent wages, and it doesn't matter where they come up; actually, to have any growth at all in California right now would be a bit more of a feat than in Iowa, unless such things are happening merely on the strength of Arnold's having taken office.
You guys really think the the leading edge of economic growth is more Burger Kings and McDonald's?
The economy rebounds and that's the first thing that happens?
SHEEESH!! <_<
Are you suggesting Sir, that stastistics and facts do not coincide? [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by bigboab+29 November 2003 - 01:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bigboab @ 29 November 2003 - 01:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@29 November 2003 - 00:45
Oddly enough, as the "economic indicators" take an upward swing, Colorado posts another record year for bankruptcies.
There is a disconnect between "indicator" and application, apparently.
the whole economy is really worse...
the whole economy is really worse...[/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by internet.news+29 November 2003 - 17:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (internet.news @ 29 November 2003 - 17:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by bigboab@29 November 2003 - 01:52
<!--QuoteBegin-clocker
Quote:
@29 November 2003 - 00:45
Oddly enough, as the "economic indicators" take an upward swing, Colorado posts another record year for bankruptcies.
There is a disconnect between "indicator" and application, apparently.
Are you suggesting Sir, that stastistics and facts do not coincide?
:huh: What "whole" economy? :huh:
That's what the "job growth" is here. Part-time, minimum-wage service sector, in the populated areas.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@29 November 2003 - 22:11
Ahem.
The 60-80 thousand jobs created are burger flippers?
No-these are light-manufacturing jobs paying decent wages, and it doesn't matter where they come up; actually, to have any growth at all in California right now would be a bit more of a feat than in Iowa, unless such things are happening merely on the strength of Arnold's having taken office.
You guys really think the the leading edge of economic growth is more Burger Kings and McDonald's?
The economy rebounds and that's the first thing that happens?
SHEEESH!! <_<
I don't imagine that it would be terribly different in the States.
:ninja:
light manufacturing jobs = Process work.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@29 November 2003 - 21:11
No-these are light-manufacturing jobs paying decent wages, and it doesn't matter where they come up; actually, to have any growth at all in California right now would be a bit more of a feat than in Iowa, unless such things are happening merely on the strength of Arnold's having taken office.
You guys really think the the leading edge of economic growth is more Burger Kings and McDonald's?
The economy rebounds and that's the first thing that happens?
SHEEESH!! <_<
These jobs are as depressing as flipping burgers.
Just because people are employed doesnt mean everything is aok.
There is more to life than economic indicators, having people work in jobs they hate to survive while owners make money is nothing to be proud of.
Even if the newly created jobs aren't minimum wage "starter" positions, things still aren't as rosy as the indices would indicate.
The trend is to make employees shoulder an increasing percentage of health care costs and retirement benefits aren't what they used to be either. So, what initially may look like a halfway decent wage is, in fact, closer to minimum wage than it may appear after subtracting those costs.
My parents generation expected to retire comfortably, my generation hopes to, and the next guys can just kiss the whole idea away. They'll have to work till death's doorstep just to support the burgeoning "baby boom" generation and to pay off all the "tax cuts" of the present administration.
So it's not happening fast enough, huh?
Jobs you don't enjoy?
A small percentage of us (surely not me) has jobs they enjoy.
Wages are a relative thing, also.
These supermarket checkout clerks in California are on strike because their fringes were cut back a bit.
These are clerks, mind you-making $16-$18 an hour!
They are not joined in their picketing activities by the grocery baggers, who make $6-$7 an hour, but are not unionized, and so make less, and don't get strike pay while their co-workers have put them out of work.
Oddly enough, I heard one of the picketers interviewed say, "We'd all like better jobs, but there aren't any."
I should say not.
Pray tell, how many of these light manufacturing or even burger flipping jobs are manned by someone trying to support 2,3 or 4 kids?
Is there a problem with entry-level jobs to go along with other growth?
I've been in my share of burger joints.
They are not, in the main, staffed by late-twenties, early-thirties family men and women.
There's nothing wrong with entry level jobs as part of economic growth. It's when it forms the bulk of the "oh look at all the new jobs we've created!" spiel when it becomes a problem.
Checkout clerks here don't make $16-$18 an hour Canadian. They (and most service-sector jobs) make $8-$9 ($8 is minimum wage here), if they aren't forced onto a $6 "training wage."
Where I am, these jobs are, in fact, manned by people trying to support a family. And it doesn't work out too well. Sure, you'll see a few teenagers here and there, but most of them aren't. Anyone that's able to leaves as fast as they can. Unemployment bounces from 11-17% (in my area, not provincial (which is 9.1%), or a nation-standard), and while the government says "look at the new jobs," they almost never come here, and they certainly don't pay enough to live from, even if you get 36-40 hours a week (which is almost unheard of). What happens is the companies fire one full-time employee to hire two part-time, and then they don't have to pay for health benefits either, if they even do in the first place.
:ninja:
Edit: Clarification.
Where in California are you talking about j2?
LA?
$16-18/hour will barely put gas in your tank there.
When Wal-Mart announced the job fair for their new Super Center here recently, they had over 3000 applicants ( it made the nightly news), many of whom were middle aged professionals laid off from tech/aerospace jobs. They were trying to support families and keep their homes together.
I'm sure that they found the news about the upswing in the economy richly ironic as they were fitted for their new red vests...
actually, those would be blue vests. the red shirts are a few blocks away at target. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@29 November 2003 - 23:05
When Wal-Mart announced the job fair for their new Super Center here recently, they had over 3000 applicants ( it made the nightly news), many of whom were middle aged professionals laid off from tech/aerospace jobs. They were trying to support families and keep their homes together.
I'm sure that they found the news about the upswing in the economy richly ironic as they were fitted for their new red vests...
a comparative review of shopping at wal mart vs shopping at target, from some chick's blog:
Quote:
Friday, October 31, 2003
WalMart versus Target. There's a huge difference, but I've had trouble putting my finger on it exactly. All I know is that when I walk into WalMart, I feel utterly overwhelmed by the mass of humanity and screaming children and crap for sale as cheap as possible. I hate the feeling I get when I walk in there. On the flipside, I really enjoy shopping at Target most of the time. It's easy to find what I'm looking for. The prices seem reasonable without screaming at me about how low they are. The store feels clean and easy to navigate. And it has a warmer feel to it. Less sterile and warehouse-like.
There's a couple of things I've been able to pinpoint. At WalMart, many of the shelves are very high. So high, that you can't possibly see over them even when standing at a distance. This leads to a sort of claustrophobic feeling. Also, WalMart has a tendency to place large displays in the aisles even when there's no room to pass comfortably. Beyond that, it's smaller things. Target seems to use more color, especially rich reds and blues. While Target puts sale prices on things in font about 3 inches high, WalMart tends to put up big plastic numbers that are a foot tall. WalMart seems to focus exclusively on low prices where Target also seems to have a desire for some level of quality. Employees at Target are easy to spot by their red shirts and khaki pants with a small name badge, but at WalMart, employees must wear incredibly tacky blue vests with "How May I Help You" in huge block letters on the back. That doesn't make WalMart employees any more helpful (especially as evidenced by the pregnant woman asking one about microwaves on Sunday, who completely ignored her and kept walking). It does increase the load as far as visual stimulus goes. And I think that's one of basic problems with WalMart. There is just too much text, too big, too omnipresent. Add to that the towering shelves and narrow, cluttered aisles, and it just feels oppressive. Add to that hoardes of bargain-seeking parents dragging their squalid packs of children of dirty children behind them.
All I know is that from the moment I walked into WalMart on Sunday, it felt overwhelming. We left without purchasing what we'd planned to purchase, and drove a mile to the Target, found what we wanted quickly and easily, and left very happy.
Ah.
I can't afford either.
No one wears vests of any color while dumpster diving...
I've seen those reflective-florescent ones being worn. I think maybe it serves to "call" a particular dumpster.
:ninja:
Wal-mart in the UK (ASDA) isnt like that :blink:Quote:
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@30 November 2003 - 07:16
a comparative review of shopping at wal mart vs shopping at target, from some chick's blog:
Quote:
Friday, October 31, 2003
WalMart versus Target. There's a huge difference, but I've had trouble putting my finger on it exactly. All I know is that when I walk into WalMart, I feel utterly overwhelmed by the mass of humanity and screaming children and crap for sale as cheap as possible. I hate the feeling I get when I walk in there. On the flipside, I really enjoy shopping at Target most of the time. It's easy to find what I'm looking for. The prices seem reasonable without screaming at me about how low they are. The store feels clean and easy to navigate. And it has a warmer feel to it. Less sterile and warehouse-like.
There's a couple of things I've been able to pinpoint. At WalMart, many of the shelves are very high. So high, that you can't possibly see over them even when standing at a distance. This leads to a sort of claustrophobic feeling. Also, WalMart has a tendency to place large displays in the aisles even when there's no room to pass comfortably. Beyond that, it's smaller things. Target seems to use more color, especially rich reds and blues. While Target puts sale prices on things in font about 3 inches high, WalMart tends to put up big plastic numbers that are a foot tall. WalMart seems to focus exclusively on low prices where Target also seems to have a desire for some level of quality. Employees at Target are easy to spot by their red shirts and khaki pants with a small name badge, but at WalMart, employees must wear incredibly tacky blue vests with "How May I Help You" in huge block letters on the back. That doesn't make WalMart employees any more helpful (especially as evidenced by the pregnant woman asking one about microwaves on Sunday, who completely ignored her and kept walking). It does increase the load as far as visual stimulus goes. And I think that's one of basic problems with WalMart. There is just too much text, too big, too omnipresent. Add to that the towering shelves and narrow, cluttered aisles, and it just feels oppressive. Add to that hoardes of bargain-seeking parents dragging their squalid packs of children of dirty children behind them.
All I know is that from the moment I walked into WalMart on Sunday, it felt overwhelming. We left without purchasing what we'd planned to purchase, and drove a mile to the Target, found what we wanted quickly and easily, and left very happy.
Sounds like KwikSave or Netto... :unsure:
@ j2k4 - you're economy ain't that great. The only reason it would be on the "upswing" would be because America started a war (always goes down) the war ended (always goes up) and Bush got his oil (up again).
Think about where the economy of the most powerful nation on earth should be. It may be ok, but its not meeting it's potential.
Alex-Quote:
Originally posted by Alex H@30 November 2003 - 19:31
@ j2k4 - you're economy ain't that great. The only reason it would be on the "upswing" would be because America started a war (always goes down) the war ended (always goes up) and Bush got his oil (up again).
Think about where the economy of the most powerful nation on earth should be. It may be ok, but its not meeting it's potential.
In order, then:
Right, wrong, wrong, and, to conclude, right.
As to your whiffs-
The war (such as it is) ain't over.
Bush didn't get any oil.
And, to your last:
Our economy has never met it's "potential".
If it did, I reckon we'd be hearing complaints about that, so......
The war is over! "Mission Accomplished" right? (Or am I just naive to think that?) And the war was about oil. Always was. Bush still thinks he is running an oil company (and badly, like he has always run his oil companies).
And America's economic potential? 10% of the population controls 90% of the wealth. Fine, those guys were smart enough to get the money so they should have it. But surely there is enough money to go around so that everybody can have a decent quality of life.
"Mission Accomplished" was a public relations/political stunt that has come back to bite Bush in the ass.
Presumptuous twit.
The war was never about oil.
Had that been the overriding motive we would have invaded Canada.
Actually, I think it's more like 1% controls 90% of the capital, but it's a capitalist system, so what are you gonna do?
We are in Iraq because the Bush advisory cabal realized early on that their boy was too stupid to deal with the economy or diplomacy, so instigating a war and reveling in the "Big Stick" image was a easy ( and ultimately, the only) course to take.
You have to work with what you got, after all.
Well maybe it wasn't totally about oil. Maybe it was so that Bush could help out his campiagn contibutors by giving them lucrative reconstruction contracts in Iraq :blink:
Rather than the "Big Stick" image, couldn't they just impeach him? He's lied to Congress enough. Someone is ging to come back at me and say he never lied: Telling your advisers they can't give you any bad news, or ignoring information that does not support your case for going to war is worse than lying - And soldiers shouldn't have to die on a foreign battlefield because Bush needs to prove he can weild the "Big Stick".
So it wasn't about oil? Then let's look at the "Axis of Evil"
North Korea, Iran, Iraq.
Weapons of mass destruction? N. Korea, yes, Iran, almost, Iraq, no.
Threatening neighbours? N. Korea, yes. Iran. no. Iraq, no.
Army, navy and air force? N. Korea, yes. Iran, yes. Iraq, no.
Democracy? N. Korea, Iran, Iraq, no.
Human rights abusers? N. Korea, Iran, Iraq, yes.
Large oil reserves? N. Korea, no. Iran, no. Iraq, yes.
And so on ... Now, if you were to pick on one country to invade, which should it be first? Which country is the biggest threat to world peace?
If Iraq had no oil, the US and the others wouldn't be there. They went in supposedly looking for WMD, now they claim it was to liberate the people of Iraq. Bullshit!!
The same reason they armed the Mujahadin, oil! The same reason they installed the Taliban, oil! The same reason they are now paying off the Afghani warlords, oil!
The US has to leave Saudi Arabia, they need a base in the Middle East to protect "their" oil, simple as that.
:)
WalMart is a combination of the dept. store from the robin williams movie "one hour photo" (the looks of the store) and the fictional MegaLoMart from the cartoon series "king of the hill" (low prices, but aisle after aisle full of shoddy products & inept employees).Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@30 November 2003 - 12:34
Wal-mart in the UK (ASDA) isnt like that :blink:
Sounds like KwikSave or Netto... :unsure:
oil, human rights, and democracy aside... and i don't believe any of those are THE primary motive in most decisions... it's about forcing countries like iraq to act like well-behaved citizens of the capitalist community, and to contribute to the western economy in some way. as long as they do that, the citizens of those places can get stuffed, as far as business interests are concerned (and business interests are basically the only interests that matter, as far as i know...).
So Billy, how much oil are we getting from Iraq?Quote:
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@30 November 2003 - 21:42
The same reason they armed the Mujahadin, oil! The same reason they installed the Taliban, oil! The same reason they are now paying off the Afghani warlords, oil!
The US has to leave Saudi Arabia, they need a base in the Middle East to protect "their" oil, simple as that.
:)
Gee, that's right, NONE.
In fact we are paying ridiculous prices to import gasoline into Iraq.
How long till the Iraqi infrastructure is rebuilt and the oil industry is back in full swing?
Hmmm, the ever optimistic Bush administration says 1 year. Maybe.
More realistic observers might say 2 or more years and that is assuming that sabatage/ terrorist attacks don't happen.
Fat chance.
I never bought the Bush explanation of WMD and I don't buy the "American Oil" theory either.
Sorry.
It doesn't matter when the oil comes up, it's in the ground, same as in the bank. And it isn't just Iraq's oil they are protecting, it's the Middle East's oil, all of it.
:)
people always complain about America's problems even if they dont even live in America. thats pretty sad and pathetic.then u turn it around on us acting like your country doesn't have its share or problems like drugs have never touched your soil, or you do not have prositutes. what a bunch of pathetic shitty ass hypocrits and clocker u fuckin moron the water we use to keep our Golf Resorts going in Arizona also play a big part in our economy in this state which actually effects America instead of some asshole halfway around the got damn world u jackass.
:lol: