Possible REALLY bad news for the Dems

[Guest MikeSC]

Wait, wait - Helen Thomas is NOT dead?

 

I would have bet money that she was. Honest.

She might be. I thought I heard somewhere that she was still alive (which is why I had her ask if she "should be dead", rather than "isn't it weird that I'm asking this from the Great Beyond?") but I could easily be wrong.

 

I mean, what would she be now? 120?

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

I thought this thread would be about Dean-o declaring himself a metrosexual.

 

But I guess that wouldn't be good news for anybody.

Dean Says He's Not Metrosexual, but Metropopulist

(2003-10-29) -- Presidential candidate Howard Dean today renounced his previous confession of metrosexuality, and officially declared himself a 'metropopulist' -- a hot new buzzphrase for politicians who are "in touch with their average American side".

 

"I'm a wealthy former medical internist who also served as governor," said Mr. Dean, "So, I'm the ultimate power-elite insider. But that don't mean I can't relate to 'Joe and Jennifer Sixpack' -- you know, the average working stiffs."

 

While a metrosexual is a "dandyish narcissist" in love with himself and his lifestyle, a metropopulist becomes enamored with his own campaign-generated media image as a kind of noble savage.

 

"Sometimes I look in the mirror," said Mr. Dean, "and I roll up my sleeves and flex my neck muscles until the veins stand out, and I say to myself, 'Howie, you are one righteous prole! You're just like the little people who send you money through the Internet.' O yeah! I know what you want from government.'"

[Guest MikeSC]

I thought this thread would be about Dean-o declaring himself a metrosexual.

 

But I guess that wouldn't be good news for anybody.

Dean Says He's Not Metrosexual, but Metropopulist

(2003-10-29) -- Presidential candidate Howard Dean today renounced his previous confession of metrosexuality, and officially declared himself a 'metropopulist' -- a hot new buzzphrase for politicians who are "in touch with their average American side".

 

"I'm a wealthy former medical internist who also served as governor," said Mr. Dean, "So, I'm the ultimate power-elite insider. But that don't mean I can't relate to 'Joe and Jennifer Sixpack' -- you know, the average working stiffs."

 

While a metrosexual is a "dandyish narcissist" in love with himself and his lifestyle, a metropopulist becomes enamored with his own campaign-generated media image as a kind of noble savage.

 

"Sometimes I look in the mirror," said Mr. Dean, "and I roll up my sleeves and flex my neck muscles until the veins stand out, and I say to myself, 'Howie, you are one righteous prole! You're just like the little people who send you money through the Internet.' O yeah! I know what you want from government.'"

"The Onion", by chance?

 

Heck, if it's not the Onion, let me know where you got this from. It's a hoot.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

LOL, ASL?

[Gert T 0]

Most of the jobs being created are not ones that can support the average family. This isn't growth, it's a mile's swelling.

And you know this how?

 

We could go into depth with what kinds of jobs were created under Clinton --- but what would be the point?

-=Mike

...Hillary griped that most of the wealth of the 80's was only on paper. How in the heck can they explain away the wealth of the 90's, which was even MORE "on paper"?

While I agree that in may NOT just be a mild growth, many insiders have said that it is those with jobs spending more rather than businesses creating more jobs.

 

But it's statistics like always, so we can turn them however we want!

[Justice 0]

While I agree that in may NOT just be a mild growth, many insiders have said that it is those with jobs spending more rather than businesses creating more jobs.

 

But it's statistics like always, so we can turn them however we want!

I don't think that's under dispute. I think the fact is that people are spending more, which means more goods being sold which requires more people to sell said goods and more people to create said goods, which in turn creates will create jobs. Cause and effect, yo. So what was your point here?

[Guest stardust]

While I agree that in may NOT just be a mild growth, many insiders have said that it is those with jobs spending more rather than businesses creating more jobs.

 

But it's statistics like always, so we can turn them however we want!

I don't think that's under dispute. I think the fact is that people are spending more, which means more goods being sold which requires more people to sell said goods and more people to create said goods, which in turn creates will create jobs. Cause and effect, yo. So what was your point here?

Until the holiday retail season is over and people go back to being unemployed. As someone who works retail, even with the increased spending, there wasn't a whole lot of hiring going on in the third quarter that I saw. Yes, most places will start hiring for the holidays some time within the next few weeks (when last year they started hiring in late September/early October, not late October/early September), but most of those hires aren't going to have jobs once the holiday season is over. Once Christmas is done and over with, most of them will go back to being unemployed and job-hunting. Hell, even though people have been spending more money those of us in retail have been getting shit for hours because sales still aren't where they should be. So even those lucky enough to have jobs (as crappy as retail might be) have been working two, maybe three, days a week. And I know I can't speak for everyone in retail, but I know enough people in different areas who do work retail, and we all bitch about the same thing--lack of hours, compared to last year when we were getting 5 to 10 more hours a week than we are now. As much as that sucks, though, I'm glad I DO have a job and am not having to go through the job-hunting process right now.

 

This is just one perspective, take it as you will.

[Guest MD2020]

Is it wrong for me to hope for economic downturn.  I think that a year long recession would be worth it to get Bush out of office.

YEAH!! And maybe they'll be a terriorst attack, like a nuke, in a major city!!!! That'll show that Bush can't lead, and we'll get a good old Dem in charge. Of course, LOL FAUXNEWS2009 LOL will try to spin it like it wasn't Bush's fault, but we'll know it is, because OMG BUSH IS DUMB LOL.

 

 

Sorry if good news for the country might lead to the person of you're choosing losing an election.

Let's not jump the gun here. There's an extreme difference between the economy and terrorists. And what I said I thought was pretty clearly in jest. (But I apologize if it was taken the wrong way. It's really hard to write a dry sense of humor and have it come off right.)

 

Yes, I don't want Bush to be President again, I'll never deny that, but I think that those discussions fit much better in another thread. I just wanted to respond to this post because I don't like that liberals are being painted as anti-American all over the place and made to seem like we're rooting for terrorists and the like. Just because I'm a liberal and don't support the President does not mean I do not 100% love this country. The best part of this country in my opinion is that we are supposed to be able to voice our opinions and displeasure with anyone, even the President.

True. I apologize for jumping the gun there. But, I'm still getting sick and tired of people wanting, either consciously or not, bad news to happen so it helps out their side. And it's not just limited to one party.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

About Jobs...

 

Job loss is actually only about 10% of reported figures.

 

For example, the manufacturing sector has contracted out its cafeteria and maintenance workers to private companies.

 

These contracted jobs count as job loss for the manufacturing sector, and are what are being reported in the news.

 

You've been duped.

 

<--Your friendly neighborhood economist

 

And also, NO economic recession/depression is good for the future of the economy. A recession/depression slows growth, and the difference between what we wouldve had and the growth we have during a recession/depression is lost not only for its year but by a growth factor of <growth loss>e^(rt) in which RT goes very very large...its more of a total growth loss of <gl year 0>+2.78

 

don't say for a moment that a recession is helpful...it aint

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Possible REALLY bad news for the Dems, Good for everybody else

 

The surplus is back, every dollar accounted for?

[Guest MikeSC]

Possible REALLY bad news for the Dems, Good for everybody else

 

The surplus is back, every dollar accounted for?

Every dollar has never been accounted for, so that is moot.

 

And, no, the surplus isn't back. Somebody has to clean up the mess left by the prior administration and, sadly, that costs money.

 

If the Dems want to run on the deficit, they can go ahead.

 

They'll lose REGARDLESS, but that'll make it infinitely worse.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

Possible REALLY bad news for the Dems, Good for everybody else

 

The surplus is back, every dollar accounted for?

You know, I have to wonder what Al Gore would have done with that surplus stuck in his Social Security Lockbox...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...onomy_income_dc

 

There IS no elephant in the room. I promise. LOOK, PRETTY FLOWERS!

[Justice 0]

Of course, Tyler, Consumer spending for the 3Q did go up 6.6% anyways. After two big spending months that generally aren't like that, you'd expect a dropoff. But hey, if you want to keep shouting "Recession!" in the hope thta Dean still stands a slight chance at winning in '04, good for you!

 

*Buddy Christ thumbs up*

[Jobber of the Week 0]

If the Dems want to run on the deficit, they can go ahead.

 

They'll lose REGARDLESS, but that'll make it infinitely worse.

-=Mike

I guess there's nothing the Dems can do to win anything huh?

 

I guess we should sit back and get ready for 100 years of Republicans holding every seat in every office in every branch everywhere, because it's all airtight and bulletproof and the Republicans are doing everything so perfectly that there's nothing the Democrats can complain about that the American people will agree with.

 

 

The World According To TheMikeSC.

[Guest MikeSC]

I guess there's nothing the Dems can do to win anything huh?

 

This year? No. Not unless they find a candidate with a smidgeon of charisma and a plan that might work.

 

I should mention just how badly Gen. Clark has fared to date. Dean will be SHREDDED horribly in a general election. Lieberman's core beliefs are for sale. Kucinich? Geez, I have a better shot of winning the Dem nomination. Kerrey? Umm, no.

 

I guess we should sit back and get ready for 100 years of Republicans holding every seat in every office in every branch everywhere, because it's all airtight and bulletproof and the Republicans are doing everything so perfectly that there's nothing the Democrats can complain about that the American people will agree with.

 

The World According To TheMikeSC.

 

Jeez, bitch and moan much? You come across like a 12 year old petulant child.

 

Right now, the Dems have nothing that will win. Are the GOP perfect? No. They are nearly as bad about spending as the Dems. The Medicare drug plan is a horrible idea.

 

I love that the Democrats' horrible lack of a message outside of "Bush = Bad" and their horrid candidates are somehow MY fault.

 

You know why the GOP did so well in 1994? THEY PROVIDED AN ALTERNATIVE TO CLINTON. The Democrats are NOT doing that right now.

 

Face it --- the odds of the Dems winning anything in 2004 is slim. The Presidency is a huge long shot --- worse if Dean wins the nomination as he appears to be on the verge of doing. The House Dems have done NOTHING and they will have a hard time explaining away their trashing of very good, respectable judicial nominees.

 

The Dems have to provide a BETTER alternative to Bush --- and they are clearly incapable of doing so. And with the economy apparently improving, their ONE shot is going bye-bye.

 

But it's MY fault that THEY are running an inept campaign.

 

Geez, it'd be like ME chastising YOU for mentioning that Bush Sr. and Dole ran crap campaigns against Clinton.

 

Grow up a little, wold you?

-=Mike

...Heck, if I said they are favorites to win, would THAT make you happy?

[Guest MikeSC]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...onomy_income_dc

 

There IS no elephant in the room. I promise. LOOK, PRETTY FLOWERS!

So it DROPPED to 6.6%?

 

Man, the sky IS falling.

 

Dean DOES have a chance?!?!?

 

Yikes!

-=Mike

...Who would pull off a Lloyd Bridges jumping out of the tower from Airplane: The Movie reference with this post, but doesn't know how to do so.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The Dems have to provide a BETTER alternative to Bush --- and they are clearly incapable of doing so. And with the economy apparently improving, their ONE shot is going bye-bye.

Ask yourself why the economy is improving. Is it because individuals are better off than they were? Probably not. My guess is because it's BUSINESSES doing better than they once were. That is to say, doing better as they cut costs by laying off employees, moving labor functions to countries with slave wage, etc.

 

There's still an above-average amount of people without work and a large surplus turned into a large deficit, Clinton mistakes (which isn't something you care to spell out so I know what you're talking about) or not. All the people unable to find work are going to represent a lot more votes than the CEO's of various giant firms who let people go left and right to get out of the red and improved the economy by stripping their functions down to brass tacks.

 

As for the candidates themselves, I can't say I'm too high on them either. Edwards shot himself in the ass by saying nothing of consequence. I can't stand Clark because the guy practically has to stop the interview and talk to some advisers when asked about an issue that's pretty much split on party lines and should be easily answered. Gephardt fell off my list for stupid comments, Kerry the same, and I'd vote for Bush before Lieberman. So this leaves Howie Dean as a guy who's said things that have made me cringe, but haven't pissed me off like the others.

[Guest MikeSC]

Ask yourself why the economy is improving.

 

More consumer spending most likely.

 

Is it because individuals are better off than they were? Probably not. My guess is because it's BUSINESSES doing better than they once were. That is to say, doing better as they cut costs by laying off employees, moving labor functions to countries with slave wage, etc.

 

They're moving jobs that Americans DON'T WANT and demand far more money than the job is WORTH elsewhere? Ouch.

 

And this is just your assumption and it, apparently, is based on little more than your disdain for conservatism, so until I see some numbers backing up your views, I'll ignore it.

 

I should ask that during the "Clinton boom", who did well? Stock holders are about it.

 

There's still an above-average amount of people without work and a large surplus turned into a large deficit

 

Governments should never run a surplus as it is definitive proof that the people are over-taxed. And, hate to tell you, an "above-average" number of people being out of work would be about 10% unemployment range, not the current level.

 

Clinton mistakes (which isn't something you care to spell out so I know what you're talking about) or not. All the people unable to find work are going to represent a lot more votes than the CEO's of various giant firms who let people go left and right to get out of the red and improved the economy by stripping their functions down to brass tacks.

 

It's not like unemployment is rampant. And the economy was in FREEFALL when Bush took office. This'd be like blaming Roosevelt for the Depression.

 

As for the candidates themselves, I can't say I'm too high on them either. Edwards shot himself in the ass by saying nothing of consequence. I can't stand Clark because the guy practically has to stop the interview and talk to some advisers when asked about an issue that's pretty much split on party lines and should be easily answered. Gephardt fell off my list for stupid comments, Kerry the same, and I'd vote for Bush before Lieberman. So this leaves Howie Dean as a guy who's said things that have made me cringe, but haven't pissed me off like the others.

 

And Dean is a joke.

 

The Dems have nobody who can win right now. And if Hillary decides to run, it'll be even MORE pronounced as she'd get annihilated.

-=Mike

[Firestarter 0]

Ask yourself why the economy is improving. Is it because individuals are better off than they were? Probably not. My guess is because it's BUSINESSES doing better

Well this is good. And I don't say that because I'm an evil conservative who cares more about corporations than individuals. It's because I'm an intelligent conservative who understands that businesses create jobs. If you harm businesses, you harm the individuals that they employ, and you harm the individuals businesses might have employed if they were doing better.

 

I don't understand the left's newfound antipathy towards business. I really don't. It makes zero sense. One side has an understanding of utterly elementary economics and the other doesn't.

 

That is to say, doing better as they cut costs by laying off employees, moving labor functions to countries with slave wage, etc.

This is interesting, considering that both the employment rate and the unemployment rate are increasing. Do you know what that means? Did you even know that was possible? Yes it is, and that's because people on the unemployment registers are actually looking for jobs. Spending is also up. That points to increased consumer confidence and increased worker confidence. That means that businesses are hiring, not shipping off good American jobs to those dirty darkies overseas.

I love the way the left tries to say that conservatives are bigots while at the same time claiming protectionist credentials from the labour unions. You "liberals" are amazingly proficient hookers, working both sides of the street while talking out of both sides of your mouth and wearing two hats at once. Don't you ever get tired? Consistency has its virtues. Try it sometime.

 

a large surplus turned into a large deficit

But that's fine, as long as it doesn't affect investor confidence. In fact it makes the government more effective and the economy more stable. And as Mike already pointed out, governments don't exist to make a profit. The federal budget should never have a surplus. Governments exist only to protect and secure the unalienable rights given to the people by their Creator, and taxation is a means to an end, not a good in and of itself.

 

All the people unable to find work are going to represent a lot more votes than the CEO's of various giant firms who let people go left and right to get out of the red

There is nothing inherently inhuman about "giant firms," much though the left loves to make this silly and fraudulent assumption. Firms are made up of people. Firms provide jobs. Firms, right now, are hiring. And this improves the lot of the people.

 

Take a deep breath, put a paper bag over your head, and try to accept reality.

[snuffbox 0]

I saw this story (economy up 7%) as the headline on my local major newspaper.

 

The entire rest of the front page was about hundreds of jobs in my area going to China and Mexico.

 

Yeah, the economy is grrrreat. Now, if only GWBush wasnt 2nd all-time for most jobs lost during a presidential term behind only Herbert 'Great Depression' Hoover.

[Guest MikeSC]

I saw this story (economy up 7%) as the headline on my local major newspaper.

 

The entire rest of the front page was about hundreds of jobs in my area going to China and Mexico.

 

Yeah, the economy is grrrreat. Now, if only GWBush wasnt 2nd all-time for most jobs lost during a presidential term behind only Herbert 'Great Depression' Hoover.

Until you get a clue, don't post anything.

 

Remember, it's best to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

-=Mike

[Stephen Joseph 0]

I just love ignorants like snuffie who think they understand growth and economics and know diddly.

 

Go read Adam Smith, and then tell me that we're still in a recession. We've been out of it for months now.

 

Ughhh...somedays I wish I wasn't an economist

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I don't know how you can do that for a living. Money (in that scale) is the most boring thing in the world to me. It all seems completely arbitrary.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well this is good. And I don't say that because I'm an evil conservative who cares more about corporations than individuals. It's because I'm an intelligent conservative who understands that businesses create jobs.

(...)

I don't understand the left's newfound antipathy towards business. I really don't. It makes zero sense. One side has an understanding of utterly elementary economics and the other doesn't.

Generally the thinking goes that there's more small businesses than there are big businesses, so even though big businesses hire a lot more people (despite machinery and overseas reducing the size of the workforce), the amount of small businesses out there mean that more people get hired into small than big.

 

Unless of course you're talking about the far left's (i.e. California left) business policy, the "give the worker 2 months of paid leave for clipping his toenails too short" kind of policies (and yes, of course I'm exaggerating) that have caused many companies to decide to just go move somewhere else that doesn't stack the deck against the business so much. In that case, I can't understand it either.

 

This is interesting, considering that both the employment rate and the unemployment rate are increasing. Do you know what that means? Did you even know that was possible? Yes it is, and that's because people on the unemployment registers are actually looking for jobs.

 

Also means more and more people are getting laid off, as the number of people getting employed aren't lowering the unemployment figures any. Which isn't to saying nobody can find jobs, but just pointing out the other perspective of your glass half full.

 

Spending is also up. That points to increased consumer confidence and increased worker confidence. That means that businesses are hiring, not shipping off good American jobs to those dirty darkies overseas.

 

There's nothing wrong with moving jobs overseas so long as they follow through on the same standards we do. If a business thinks it's more efficent to be overseas, so be it. But it shouldn't move over there because they can get away treating people there crappier than they can here.

 

Hey, remember a few economic threads back when I mentioned that the job that has put food on my family's plate for two decades was moving to Malaysia? Okay, well, the the people doing this in Malaysia are either very nervous or just doing it to get it on their resume, as over there it's well known that the company is now thinking of pushing it over to China, where they can get away with even more.

 

Skipping over your boring partisan bashing.... (when did I ever say all conservatives are bigots?) and into the giant company thing. Are giant companies unfairly demonized? I don't think so, but I don't think either party really does a good job keeping a leash on either. The giant companies are where the very wealthy are, the ones who like to see the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And while the Ken Lay crap was exposed under Bush's administration, it was brewing under Clinton's.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well this is good. And I don't say that because I'm an evil conservative who cares more about corporations than individuals. It's because I'm an intelligent conservative who understands that businesses create jobs.

(...)

I don't understand the left's newfound antipathy towards business. I really don't. It makes zero sense. One side has an understanding of utterly elementary economics and the other doesn't.

Generally the thinking goes that there's more small businesses than there are big businesses, so even though big businesses hire a lot more people (despite machinery and overseas reducing the size of the workforce), the amount of small businesses out there mean that more people get hired into small than big.

 

As a general rule, things that help big business seldom hurt small business.

 

This is interesting, considering that both the employment rate and the unemployment rate are increasing. Do you know what that means? Did you even know that was possible? Yes it is, and that's because people on the unemployment registers are actually looking for jobs.

 

Also means more and more people are getting laid off, as the number of people getting employed aren't lowering the unemployment figures any. Which isn't to saying nobody can find jobs, but just pointing out the other perspective of your glass half full.

 

Or people are leaving lower-paying jobs for higher-paying jobs, thus the increases in spending.

 

Spending is also up. That points to increased consumer confidence and increased worker confidence. That means that businesses are hiring, not shipping off good American jobs to those dirty darkies overseas.

 

There's nothing wrong with moving jobs overseas so long as they follow through on the same standards we do. If a business thinks it's more efficent to be overseas, so be it. But it shouldn't move over there because they can get away treating people there crappier than they can here.

 

Why shouldn't they? God knows the U.S hardly treated workers well when WE industrialized.

 

Hey, remember a few economic threads back when I mentioned that the job that has put food on my family's plate for two decades was moving to Malaysia? Okay, well, the the people doing this in Malaysia are either very nervous or just doing it to get it on their resume, as over there it's well known that the company is now thinking of pushing it over to China, where they can get away with even more.

 

Again, this is how it goes when your industrializing. Would ANYBODY have ever industrialized under the current rules?

 

Skipping over your boring partisan bashing.... (when did I ever say all conservatives are bigots?) and into the giant company thing. Are giant companies unfairly demonized? I don't think so, but I don't think either party really does a good job keeping a leash on either. The giant companies are where the very wealthy are, the ones who like to see the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And while the Ken Lay crap was exposed under Bush's administration, it was brewing under Clinton's.

 

Big companies are not intrinsically bad, but yes, they will take advantage of anything they can. That is why I don't support pure capitalism --- government oversight is a necessity.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Italics due to board screwup, again. I think it's your redundant quoting or something. Try not to have a quote within a quote.

 

Why shouldn't they? God knows the U.S hardly treated workers well when WE industrialized.

 

Because if they want to be headquartered here in the US and take all the benefits that come from that, they shouldn't be providing all the work to some third-world country. You're burning the candle at both ends for the benefit of Joe CEO, who is both saving costs having third-worlders do the work while cashing in on his big Bush tax break.

 

This means that middle and lower class suffer.

 

Again, this is how it goes when your industrializing. Would ANYBODY have ever industrialized under the current rules?

 

I'm not too well versed on the specifics, but it is possible to negotiate a middle ground. Companies should be free to move about if it suits them ("Hey, our resources are coming from here, let's move this over here") but not because they can pay the labor something less than livable.

[Vyce 0]

Clinton-Gore Economic Boom Continues

(2003-10-31) -- The latest figures on decreased jobless claims and a huge increase in third-quarter Gross Domestic Product (GDP) signal a continuation of the Clinton-Gore economic boom, according to an expert.

 

"After a brief two year 'hiccup' the wisdom of Clinton-Gore still shines through," said one unnamed itinerant professor who has taught at the University of California Los Angeles, Columbia University, Fisk University and Middle Tennessee State University. "Any time economic indicators are this good, you can take it as an article of faith that it's the legacy of the two best men ever elected President -- Bill Clinton and Al Gore."

 

_____________________________________

 

The sad thing is that I know people who would accept this as truth.

[Guest MikeSC]

Italics due to board screwup, again. I think it's your redundant quoting or something. Try not to have a quote within a quote.

 

I do try to do that, but sometimes a little context is needed.

 

Why shouldn't they? God knows the U.S hardly treated workers well when WE industrialized.

 

Because if they want to be headquartered here in the US and take all the benefits that come from that, they shouldn't be providing all the work to some third-world country. You're burning the candle at both ends for the benefit of Joe CEO, who is both saving costs having third-worlders do the work while cashing in on his big Bush tax break.

 

At the risk of sounding bad, what benefits are there for staying in America? I doubt moving the HQ to Malaysia will cause a major increase in taxes. Maybe government bribes will skyrocket, but I doubt the cost of doing business will shoot up.

 

The jobs going overseas, again this will sound "heartless", are not WORTH our minimum wage. They're just not.

 

A business's job is to pay people less than their work generates.

 

This means that middle and lower class suffer.

 

Increased prices would hurt more than losing menial jobs.

 

Again, this is how it goes when your industrializing. Would ANYBODY have ever industrialized under the current rules?

 

I'm not too well versed on the specifics, but it is possible to negotiate a middle ground. Companies should be free to move about if it suits them ("Hey, our resources are coming from here, let's move this over here") but not because they can pay the labor something less than livable.

 

Umm, in those countries, ARE they being paid a wage they can't live on? Cost of living in a lot of developing countries isn't exactly astronomical.

-=Mike

[snuffbox 0]

Clearly a few conservatives on this board need to really grab hold of reality and common sense.

 

It doesnt matter what numbers say, what the statistics are for one quarter of business or what certain pollsters are checking in with today. If people are losing jobs like this , then shit is BAD. It DOES NOT help our economy to lose millions of jobs to faraway countries.

 

This is the current employment situation in my area - 4 major factories have moved overseas in the last 30 days, thats hundreds of jobs lost. Now these are decent jobs, money to support families. Now theyre all lost. The new jobs - a new wal-mart supercenter just opened this past wednesday. Thats alot of new jobs, big store/24 hours. But the avg pay there is 7$ or less per hour; the factory avg was 10-20$ per hour.

 

Jobs are being created and jobs are being lost...but the financial differences and the growth problems are seriously hurting our working class.

 

And for the guy who marked out for Adam Smith...Have you studied the French Revolution at all? The entire thing happened because the working class majority got too fed up with a conservative power base eating up all the money in the land.

 

And one more thing, Im not a liberal. I am a Libertarian, my heart supports laissez faire business policies, but my head knows that the American companies cant police themselves and millions of our working class CANT be stepped on.

 

Americans really need to stop blindly following the rhetoric and spin of their political parties and open their eyes to the obvious ills that are right in front of us.