Opinions of actinanass, Part 4: Black people, and the republican party

[actinanass]

Originally Posted by QueEx

To further this debate, in search of the elusive truth: unmoot the point, taxes are at arguably historical lows and entrepreneurs have in fact accumulated, if not outright hoarded, capital -- yet, have not created work.

Fear can stop job growth faster than any tax policy.

Sadly, with the closure of military bases, fear will be able to spread.

This is a sad era we're living in.

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by actinanass

Fear can stop job growth faster than any tax policy.

Sadly, with the closure of military bases, fear will be able to spread.

This is a sad era we're living in.

Funny you should say that. Fear, that is. The word seemed to have escaped you when your exalted leaders ("he must fail") were generously spreading economic fear among the populace to prevent or forestall economic recovery during Mr. Obama's administration. But I see you know the lesson well.


`

[actinanass]

Originally Posted by QueEx

Funny you should say that. Fear, that is. The word seemed to have escaped you when your exalted leaders ("he must fail") were generously spreading economic fear among the populace to prevent or forestall economic recovery during Mr. Obama's administration. But I see you know the lesson well.


`

When Rush first said that, I didn't agree with it. However, I do disagree with the point most of YOUR side suggest. The point that says "if you want he president to fail, you want America to fail". The president is ONE man with a political view. That one man does not represent every American political view. Thus, wanting his political view to fail does not constitute wanting the whole country to fail. The whole country did not vote for Obama. If that was the case, we have a dictatorship.

[Thick Johnson]

People believe in what they want to.

I believe in results.

If I don't see results and its beyond my control

I stop believing.

That actually seems like a strange way to operate to some.

Fuck being hopeful.

Shit requires action but most are waiting for someone
to take action. Seems those who have power are constantly
given passes for lack of productivity while those without
are always under a microscope.

Many prime examples of this theory.

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by actinanass

When Rush first said that, I didn't agree with it. However, I do disagree with the point most of YOUR side suggest. The point that says "if you want he president to fail, you want America to fail". The president is ONE man with a political view. That one man does not represent every American political view. Thus, wanting his political view to fail does not constitute wanting the whole country to fail. The whole country did not vote for Obama. If that was the case, we have a dictatorship.

Typical anti American rant.

[Ninja05]

Originally Posted by actinanass

When Rush first said that, I didn't agree with it. However, I do disagree with the point most of YOUR side suggest. The point that says "if you want he president to fail, you want America to fail". The president is ONE man with a political view. That one man does not represent every American political view. Thus, wanting his political view to fail does not constitute wanting the whole country to fail. The whole country did not vote for Obama. If that was the case, we have a dictatorship.

That whole line of dumb ass reasoning started with Bush and the Iraq war. It allowed for torture, no bid contracts, wars, tax breaks during wars, and a general feeling of those opposing anything Bush said as "unpatriotic".

You are right on your theory - the problem is - more than Rush said it - your Senate Leaders openly said it and campaigned on it. They actually put into practice - remember refusing health compensation for 9/11 workers?

The problem is when you are so forceful in your reasoning and ideas that you see no other alternative. When you have said that One man is the devil, a muslim, the anti-christ, an actual bane to America, wants to see America fail, is a Communist, is a black radical - compromise means you to are these things. When you embrace it - wanting to see the President fail turns into a blind faith that harms the country. Fuck talk radio hosts - your leaders (from Tea Party Repubs to the ole guard), were all in. Rhetoric like that should stay on Sirus and AM radio, yet it has infiltrated your entire party.

[Upgrade Dave]

Originally Posted by actinanass

When Rush first said that, I didn't agree with it. However, I do disagree with the point most of YOUR side suggest. The point that says "if you want he president to fail, you want America to fail". The president is ONE man with a political view. That one man does not represent every American political view. Thus, wanting his political view to fail does not constitute wanting the whole country to fail. The whole country did not vote for Obama. If that was the case, we have a dictatorship.

Whatever a President's political affiliation, wishing him to fail has real world consequences that an enormously rich White man like Rush Limbaugh would be immune to. A failing President equals a failing country.

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by actinanass

When Rush first said that, I didn't agree with it. However, I do disagree with the point most of YOUR side suggest. The point that says "if you want he president to fail, you want America to fail". The president is ONE man with a political view. That one man does not represent every American political view. Thus, wanting his political view to fail does not constitute wanting the whole country to fail. The whole country did not vote for Obama. If that was the case, we have a dictatorship.

Bro, I agree with this:

Originally Posted by Upgrade Dave

Whatever a President's political affiliation, wishing him to fail has real world consequences that an enormously rich White man like Rush Limbaugh would be immune to. A failing President equals a failing country.

. . . because he said much that same as what I was going to say, but with far fewer words -- an example of less being best.

[actinanass]

Originally Posted by thoughtone

Typical anti American rant.

Pot calling the kettle black...

Originally Posted by Ninja05

That whole line of dumb ass reasoning started with Bush and the Iraq war. It allowed for torture, no bid contracts, wars, tax breaks during wars, and a general feeling of those opposing anything Bush said as "unpatriotic".

You are right on your theory - the problem is - more than Rush said it - your Senate Leaders openly said it and campaigned on it. They actually put into practice - remember refusing health compensation for 9/11 workers?

The problem is when you are so forceful in your reasoning and ideas that you see no other alternative. When you have said that One man is the devil, a muslim, the anti-christ, an actual bane to America, wants to see America fail, is a Communist, is a black radical - compromise means you to are these things. When you embrace it - wanting to see the President fail turns into a blind faith that harms the country. Fuck talk radio hosts - your leaders (from Tea Party Repubs to the ole guard), were all in. Rhetoric like that should stay on Sirus and AM radio, yet it has infiltrated your entire party.

The whole "unpatriotic" thing started by saying America caused 9-11, and we are no different than other evil countries. This is where the unpatriotic" thing started with. The fact that a whole party "minus Libermann" basically said that Bush lied about WMD's *even when there's fact that Gore admitting that Saddam had to go* basically made the whole democratic party seem unpatriotic due to wanting to leave a war that they supported. It was politics over our military, and country.

Now, back to Obama, the right did not fake their opposition to what Obama policies stood for. There was no mass support for a government mandate for health care. TARP, and stimulus two did not have mass appeal throughout both parties. In fact, the only thing I can see both parties agreeing with Obama about is getting Bin Laden. The difference between the Rush's in the world to the Michael Moore's is the fact that Rush wanted Obama's policies to fail because, historically, they do not work. Moore hatred towards Bush is because, a lot of things Bush supported worked. Just set the record straight, here's my proof:

1. we have yet to have a successful terrorist attack on our soil.

2. the bush tax cuts is still law.

3. Obama did not close Guantanamo Bay.

4. No public trials for terrorists.

Originally Posted by Upgrade Dave

Whatever a President's political affiliation, wishing him to fail has real world consequences that an enormously rich White man like Rush Limbaugh would be immune to. A failing President equals a failing country.

That's not always true. Before 94, Clinton was having the worst time of his life, but the country still grew stronger. Eventually, he smarten up, and start working with the Republicans. Something Obama won't do. The far left will turn on Obama the same way they turned on Clinton. Obama is stepping into Carter/LBJ area right now. Right now, any conservative candidate that can speak like they have some sense can beat Obama.

Originally Posted by QueEx

Bro, I agree with this:

. . . because he said much that same as what I was going to say, but with far fewer words -- an example of less being best.

[Upgrade Dave]

Originally Posted by actinanass

The whole "unpatriotic" thing started by saying America caused 9-11, and we are no different than other evil countries. This is where the unpatriotic" thing started with. The fact that a whole party "minus Libermann" basically said that Bush lied about WMD's *even when there's fact that Gore admitting that Saddam had to go* basically made the whole democratic party seem unpatriotic due to wanting to leave a war that they supported. It was politics over our military, and country.

We're not going to relitigate whether Bush lied about WMD are we? There's a huge difference between Clinton and Gore thinking one thing and Bush committing troops and engaging in nation building, something he campaigned against.
One side accusing another of being "unpatriotic" goes back much, much further but it's convenient to act like it just started this century.

Now, back to Obama, the right did not fake their opposition to what Obama policies stood for. There was no mass support for a government mandate for health care. TARP, and stimulus two did not have mass appeal throughout both parties. In fact, the only thing I can see both parties agreeing with Obama about is getting Bin Laden. The difference between the Rush's in the world to the Michael Moore's is the fact that Rush wanted Obama's policies to fail because, historically, they do not work. Moore hatred towards Bush is because, a lot of things Bush supported worked. Just set the record straight, here's my proof:

1. we have yet to have a successful terrorist attack on our soil.

2. the bush tax cuts is still law.

3. Obama did not close Guantanamo Bay.

4. No public trials for terrorists.

Wow, so much misinformation it's hard to know where to start.
First, TARP was a Bush law. Not surprising to see Republicans continue to run from this, one of their own laws. So take that off the Obama docket.
Obama ran with healthcare insurance reform as a major issue and he won decisively. McCain was against it and lost. The mandate, originally a GOP idea as late as 2007-8, came in an attempt to compromise with a party that wasn't compromising in good faith.
Historically, what Obama supports always works. It's conservatism and supply side economics which are proven losers.
1. We've had several succesful terrorist attacks on American soil, all of them under Bush, including the anthrax attacks immediately after 9/11, one at UNC Chapel Hill in 2006, and another in 2006 in San Fransisco (this one was by a lone wolf).
Conservative media is lying to you but I'm starting to think you want to be lied to.

2. Bush tax law is still in effect because Republicans got a few treacherous Democrats to side with them in blocking letting them expire. They are tremendously unpopular and are the driving force behind the deficit that Republicans pretend to be against.

3.Obama tried but met resistance from both parties because no one wanted to have their name in a political ad about "giving rights to terrorists". Again, it was Democrats and Republicans. All the while terrorists are being tried and held on American soil right now with no incident and towns with empty supermax prisons are begging for the prisoners.

4. See number 3.

That's not always true. Before 94, Clinton was having the worst time of his life, but the country still grew stronger. Eventually, he smarten up, and start working with the Republicans. Something Obama won't do. The far left will turn on Obama the same way they turned on Clinton. Obama is stepping into Carter/LBJ area right now. Right now, any conservative candidate that can speak like they have some sense can beat Obama.

Now you're lying. Obama has tried working with the Republicans from the beginning and has been met with a historic number of filibusters and holds on nominations.
The Republican idea of compromise is "Do it our way" and that's not compromise. Now that he doesn't need them, Obama is fighting them and he should, while he is, he's reenergizing the Left, moderates and hard liners.
It's not about speaking like they have sense, it's about being able to beat Obama after he's ended one war, is winding down another one, and the economy is turning around. They have to contend with all that and say they could do a better job without lying about his record.

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by actinanass

Pot calling the kettle black...

Hypocrite!

1. we have yet to have a successful terrorist attack on our soil.

2. the bush tax cuts is still law.

3. Obama did not close Guantanamo Bay.

4. No public trials for terrorists.

1. Whose watch did 911 fall under? Obama has none.
2. So where are the jobs? Who is fighting to maintain those rich tax cuts?
3. Congress (republican dominated) has blocked the acquisition of a state prison in Illinois to hold captives currently held in Cuba who would not be put on trial — a sort of Guantanamo North.
4. Congress (republican dominated) has imposed restrictions on financing trials of Guantanamo captives on U.S. soil.

[actinanass]

Originally Posted by Upgrade Dave

We're not going to relitigate whether Bush lied about WMD are we? There's a huge difference between Clinton and Gore thinking one thing and Bush committing troops and engaging in nation building, something he campaigned against.
One side accusing another of being "unpatriotic" goes back much, much further but it's convenient to act like it just started this century.



Wow, so much misinformation it's hard to know where to start.
First, TARP was a Bush law. Not surprising to see Republicans continue to run from this, one of their own laws. So take that off the Obama docket.
Obama ran with healthcare insurance reform as a major issue and he won decisively. McCain was against it and lost. The mandate, originally a GOP idea as late as 2007-8, came in an attempt to compromise with a party that wasn't compromising in good faith.
Historically, what Obama supports always works. It's conservatism and supply side economics which are proven losers.
1. We've had several succesful terrorist attacks on American soil, all of them under Bush, including the anthrax attacks immediately after 9/11, one at UNC Chapel Hill in 2006, and another in 2006 in San Fransisco (this one was by a lone wolf).
Conservative media is lying to you but I'm starting to think you want to be lied to.

2. Bush tax law is still in effect because Republicans got a few treacherous Democrats to side with them in blocking letting them expire. They are tremendously unpopular and are the driving force behind the deficit that Republicans pretend to be against.

3.Obama tried but met resistance from both parties because no one wanted to have their name in a political ad about "giving rights to terrorists". Again, it was Democrats and Republicans. All the while terrorists are being tried and held on American soil right now with no incident and towns with empty supermax prisons are begging for the prisoners.

4. See number 3.






Now you're lying. Obama has tried working with the Republicans from the beginning and has been met with a historic number of filibusters and holds on nominations.
The Republican idea of compromise is "Do it our way" and that's not compromise. Now that he doesn't need them, Obama is fighting them and he should, while he is, he's reenergizing the Left, moderates and hard liners.
It's not about speaking like they have sense, it's about being able to beat Obama after he's ended one war, is winding down another one, and the economy is turning around. They have to contend with all that and say they could do a better job without lying about his record.

Tarp was Bush's law, I agree. However, if you don't remember, Obama agreed with it to. Bush was in a political no win situation.

I don't care how it happened, Obama had the power to push for the end of the Tax cuts. He could of veto it if he wanted to. Obama wanted what Clinton wanted. Political cover. When Clinton raise the Capital Gains Tax, he got republican support *because Republicans made adjustments on social programs*. Obama could of raise taxes on day one. I wonder why he didn't do it?

You consider the Anthrax attacks terrorism?


BTW, political games like "calling an opposing side unpatriotic* been here since the founding of this country. I was stating the recent thread of such actions.

Obviously the Liberal media lies are acceptable right?

I get it, you believe in liberals. They're obviously for you right?

Originally Posted by thoughtone

Hypocrite!






1. Whose watch did 911 fall under? Obama has none.
2. So where are the jobs? Who is fighting to maintain those rich tax cuts?
3. Congress (republican dominated) has blocked the acquisition of a state prison in Illinois to hold captives currently held in Cuba who would not be put on trial — a sort of Guantanamo North.
4. Congress (republican dominated) has imposed restrictions on financing trials of Guantanamo captives on U.S. soil.

I guess you're mad...

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by actinanass

Tarp was Bush's law, I agree. However, if you don't remember, Obama agreed with it to. Bush was in a political no win situation.

I don't care how it happened, Obama had the power to push for the end of the Tax cuts. He could of veto it if he wanted to. Obama wanted what Clinton wanted. Political cover. When Clinton raise the Capital Gains Tax, he got republican support *because Republicans made adjustments on social programs*. Obama could of raise taxes on day one. I wonder why he didn't do it?

You consider the Anthrax attacks terrorism?


BTW, political games like "calling an opposing side unpatriotic* been here since the founding of this country. I was stating the recent thread of such actions.

Obviously the Liberal media lies are acceptable right?

I get it, you believe in liberals. They're obviously for you right?




I guess you're mad...

Whose mad? Ignorant!

Originally Posted by actinanass

And this is why I don't post anymore. I can't deal with stupidity.

This is why you don't post anymore, ignorant:

Originally Posted by actinanass

I would like to see how ignorant I will be when Palin is running against Obama.

[Upgrade Dave]

Originally Posted by actinanass

Tarp was Bush's law, I agree. However, if you don't remember, Obama agreed with it to. Bush was in a political no win situation.

You didn't see me saying TARP was a bad thing (though it could have been better), just pointing out that it was Bush's law, not Obama's.

I don't care how it happened, Obama had the power to push for the end of the Tax cuts. He could of veto it if he wanted to. Obama wanted what Clinton wanted. Political cover. When Clinton raise the Capital Gains Tax, he got republican support *because Republicans made adjustments on social programs*. Obama could of raise taxes on day one. I wonder why he didn't do it?

Wonder no more, I'll tell you because it's easily researched.
To veto extending the Bush tax cuts would have raised taxes on everyone in the middle of a recession, which would have taken much needed money out of circulation at the worst possible time. His idea was to cut the deficit by ending the BTC for the upper earners while maintaining them for the middle and working classes. Unfortunately the opposition party wouldn't compromise on that so he sought out other compromises like extending unemployment benefits, something else that was expiring for many workers.

You consider the Anthrax attacks terrorism?

I do because they were. These weren't random acts of violence. They targeted media outlets and politicians.

BTW, political games like "calling an opposing side unpatriotic* been here since the founding of this country. I was stating the recent thread of such actions.

Okay, as long as we recognize that it goes back much further.

Obviously the Liberal media lies are acceptable right?

I get it, you believe in liberals. They're obviously for you right?

Which lies?

[actinanass]

Originally Posted by Upgrade Dave

You didn't see me saying TARP was a bad thing (though it could have been better), just pointing out that it was Bush's law, not Obama's.



Wonder no more, I'll tell you because it's easily researched.
To veto extending the Bush tax cuts would have raised taxes on everyone in the middle of a recession, which would have taken much needed money out of circulation at the worst possible time. His idea was to cut the deficit by ending the BTC for the upper earners while maintaining them for the middle and working classes. Unfortunately the opposition party wouldn't compromise on that so he sought out other compromises like extending unemployment benefits, something else that was expiring for many workers.



I do because they were. These weren't random acts of violence. They targeted media outlets and politicians.




Okay, as long as we recognize that it goes back much further.



Which lies?

1. This is what makes my side different than yours. I can admit that a president I like did something I can't stand. I wish your side could do the same.

2. You can't have it both ways. If he wanted to stop the Bush tax cuts, just stop it, and create you're own tax cut bill. Obama had the power to do that. My overall point is, the Democratic party *the modern version* are too pussy to stand up, and do what they really believe in. They have to have the cover of Republicans so they won't look like the bad guy. This is why your side acts as if the republicans don't want to work with them. The Republican stance is "if you want to fix this, come to our side, and lets fix it right". This is where it comes down too.

Originally Posted by thoughtone

Whose mad? Ignorant!



This is why you don't post anymore, ignorant:

Why so sensitive?

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by actinanass

Why so sensitive?

Why so ignorant?

Originally Posted by actinanass

I would like to see how ignorant I will be when Palin is running against Obama.

[Upgrade Dave]

Originally Posted by actinanass

1. This is what makes my side different than yours. I can admit that a president I like did something I can't stand. I wish your side could do the same.

That's an odd thing to say when prominent Republicans like Sean Hannity won't even give President Obama credit for killing Osama bin Laden. On the other hand, Obama gets hammered from the Left on many of his decisions, that's apparent in any Obama thread on the Main board and from Liberal outlets and speakers like Keith Olbermann, Cenk Uyger, Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow. I'm starting to think you just make this stuff up and hope no one knows any better.

2. You can't have it both ways. If he wanted to stop the Bush tax cuts, just stop it, and create you're own tax cut bill. Obama had the power to do that.

Another thought that's reoccurring to me is you probably need to leave this political discourse alone. You're horrible at it and terribly misinformed. That's what happens when you listen to untrustworthy sources.
Obama did present his own idea, let the BTC for upper earners expire while keeping them for middle/working class people. Is this in dispute? Republicans fought it and had several Blue Dog conservative Democrats side with them so he didn't have the votes and the alternative would have been to let all of them expire in the middle of a struggling economic recovery. Since Obama takes his responsibility to govern seriously, he thought that was out of the question and came up with several other compromises which included extending unemployment benefits.

My overall point is, the Democratic party *the modern version* are too pussy to stand up, and do what they really believe in. They have to have the cover of Republicans so they won't look like the bad guy. This is why your side acts as if the republicans don't want to work with them. The Republican stance is "if you want to fix this, come to our side, and lets fix it right". This is where it comes down too.

It's not "my side", I'm not a Democrat, never have been. I'm a liberal.
The Democratic Party can be too cautious but much of that is because they actually have the "big tent" the Republican Party talks about having and end up with members with different, often clashing agendas. In the House, under Pelosi, the Democrats got over 300 bills passed that were stopped by Republicans or Blue Dogs like Ben Nelso and Blanche Lincoln, both of whom are or will be gone by 2012.
In a moment of honesty, you agreed with my earlier criticism of the GOP. You're right, that's exactly how they think compromise works: come to our side. That's not compromise. Compromise is meeting in the middle.

[Lamarr]

Originally Posted by thoughtone

So where are the jobs? Who is fighting to maintain those rich tax cuts?

Jobs require capital investment! No intelligent person will invest in a country where you recieve such a low return on investment. High interest rates invite investment, whereas, low interest rates chase away investment. OUR INTEREST RATE IS 0%.

Instead of arguing about tax cuts, maybe our politicians on both sides, can come together and figure out why America has become uncompetitive. Politicians pick the dumbest shit to argue about instead of properly identifying the root cause of the problems they attempt to solve.



oh yeah

Originally Posted by actinanass

Tarp was Bush's law, I agree. However, if you don't remember, Obama agreed with it to. Bush was in a political no win situation.

TARP was some BS designed to benefit the same Wall St. bankers that created the collapse. W & Paulson presented it, Obama sold it to the Dems. A democrat house/senate passed it. Goldman Sachs gets more bonuses

That's the difference between Republicans and conservatives, Republicans will compromise "free market" principles and present incompetent legislation in the spirit of bipartisanship.

"I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 16, 2008

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by Lamarr

Instead of arguing about tax cuts, maybe our politicians on both sides, can come together and figure out why America has become uncompetitive. Politicians pick the dumbest shit to argue about instead of properly identifying the root cause of the problems they attempt to solve.



oh yeah

You can repeat your broken record rhetoric over and over, but your question, statement, whatever it is was answered twenty years ago. How many times do I have to post before it sinks in to your thick skull!

"We have international competitors that could not unload their cars off the ships if they had to comply..."

Ross Perot, 1992 presidential debate.

[Upgrade Dave]

It would probably help our companies be more competitive if they didn't have to foot the bill for their employees health care but that's socialism.

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by Upgrade Dave

It would probably help our companies be more competitive if they didn't have to foot the bill for their employees health care but that's socialism.

Lamarr and his mythical "free markets."

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by Lamarr

Instead of arguing about tax cuts, maybe our politicians on both sides, can come together and figure out why America has become uncompetitive. Politicians pick the dumbest shit to argue about instead of properly identifying the root cause of the problems they attempt to solve.

I could not agree with you more -- notwithstanding the fact that I believe that part of your motivation in making the statement is really to say that - - the shit they really should be arguing about are the things that I (YOU) believe are important.

[Lamarr]

Originally Posted by thoughtone

How many times do I have to post before it sinks in to your thick skull!

Do you even comprehend some of the references you use?

It argues my point exactly! Re-examine the policies put in place by NAFTA that make this country, and small business, uncompetitive.

The "giant sucking sound" he is referring to is the jobs that have left the counrty, due to the profit motive. Make trade a 2-way street, where both sides play by the same rules, it will de-incentivize the offshoring of operations. Listen 2 the clip dawg!

But since no one has the balls to challenge NAFTA or any other "managed trade" agreements, it further proves our politicians have sold out to foreign interests. Un-American,if you ask me

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by Lamarr

Do you even comprehend some of the references you use?

It argues my point exactly! Re-examine the policies put in place by NAFTA that make this country, and small business, uncompetitive.

The "giant sucking sound" he is referring to is the jobs that have left the counrty, due to the profit motive. Make trade a 2-way street, where both sides play by the same rules, it will de-incentivize the offshoring of operations. Listen 2 the clip dawg!

But since no one has the balls to challenge NAFTA or any other "managed trade" agreements, it further proves our politicians have sold out to foreign interests. Un-American,if you ask me

You always base your views on half information, wrong information or no information. You argue returning to some mythical free market era and then refuse to point to a time when it existed. When Perot made this statement, NAFTA was not in effect. George HW Bush signed the NAFTA agreement om December 17, 1992, fast tracking it for the Clinton administration to sign in to law on December 8, 1993. Perot was not arguing to return to Free Market principles, something that hadn't existed, he was arguing that competitor nations should be made to have the same standards of business, trade and labor as the United States if we were to enter in to international trade agreements. Now as Perot stated, the wages of Americans are falling to the same levels has the nations that have lower living standards. We are become competitive, but at the level of third world nations.

I don't expect you to understand this. It is epidemic on the conservative/libertarian side. Ron Paul has gotten your brain filled with garbage.

[Lamarr]

Originally Posted by thoughtone

George HW Bush signed the NAFTA agreement om December 17, 1992, fast tracking it for the Clinton administration to sign in to law on December 8, 1993.

The deal went into effect Jan. 1, 1994 with Al Gore saying "This is a really good deal for America".

Boy, was he WRONG! Do you agree?

Originally Posted by thoughtone

Perot was not arguing to return to Free Market principles, something that hadn't existed, he was arguing that competitor nations should be made to have the same standards of business, trade and labor as the United States if we were to enter in to international trade agreements. Now as Perot stated, the wages of Americans are falling to the same levels has the nations that have lower living standards.

Perot was telling you this was a "managed trade" agreement and NOT a "free trade" agreement, where the agreement benefited importing nations (a one-sided deal). Do we agree on this?

Originally Posted by thoughtone

I don't expect you to understand this.

Whats really your point, cause you aint sayin shit!

Are these trade deals good for the citizens of the country?

Shouldn't we move to exit from these one-sided deals like Jimmy Hoffa suggests?

Republicans will compromise "free market" principles and present incompetent legislation in the spirit of bipartisanship.

What the hell are Democrats thinkin about? Fix the problem, Don't continue the problem

Un-American, if you ask me

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by Lamarr

The deal went into effect Jan. 1, 1994 with Al Gore saying "This is a really good deal for America".

Boy, was he WRONG! Do you agree?



Perot was telling you this was a "managed trade" agreement and NOT a "free trade" agreement, where the agreement benefited importing nations (a one-sided deal). Do we agree on this?



Whats really your point, cause you aint sayin shit!

Are these trade deals good for the citizens of the country?

Shouldn't we move to exit from these one-sided deals like Jimmy Hoffa suggests?

It's like I'm talking to a brick wall!

[thoughtone]

^^^^^

[thoughtone]

"...how does it stop being disruptive, and that is when their jobs come up from a dollar an hour to 6 dollars and ours go down to 6 dollars an hour, then it’s level again. But in the mean time you’ve wreck the country with these kinds of deals. We’ve gotta cut it out!"

It's like he knew the future!



source: New York Times

Factory Jobs Gain, but Wages Retreat

Angela Shoemaker for The New York Times
William Masden, left, a G.E. employee, with Jerry Carney, president of IUE-CWA Local 761.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Manufacturers are hiring again in America, softening a long slide in factory employment. But for a new generation of blue-collar workers, even those protected by unions, the price of employment is likely to be lower wages stretching to retirement

That is particularly true of global manufacturers like General Electric. With labor costs moving down at its appliance factories here, the company is bringing home the production of water heaters as well as some refrigerators, and expanding its work force to do so.

The wages for the new hires, however, are $10 to $15 an hour less than the pay scale for hourly employees already on staff — with the additional concession that the newcomers will not catch up for the foreseeable future. Such union-endorsed contracts are also showing up in the auto industry, at steel and tire companies, and at manufacturers of farm implements and other heavy equipment, according to Gordon Pavy, president of the Labor and Employment Relations Association and, until recently, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s director of collective bargaining.

“Some companies want to keep work here, or bring it back from Asia,” Mr. Pavy said, “but in order to do that they have to be competitive in the final prices of their products, and one way to be competitive is to lower the compensation of their American workers.”

The shrunken pay scale for newcomers — $12 to $19 an hour versus $21 to $32 an hour for longtime workers — threatens to undo the middle-class status of even the best-paid blue-collar jobs still left in manufacturing. A similar contract limits the wages of new hires at a nearby Ford Motor Company stamping plant, but neither G.E.’s 2,000 hourly workers nor Ford’s 2,900, nor their unions nor the mayor, Greg Fischer, have objected.

Quite the contrary, all argue that job creation must take precedence over holding the line on wages, given that the unemployment rate in this Ohio River city is above 9 percent and several thousand people apply for every unfilled, $13-an-hour factory job. “The trade-off is absolutely worth it,” Mayor Fischer said, arguing that while the city is actively subsidizing G.E.’s expansion here, mainly through tax rebates, that is not enough. “You must have a globally competitive wage to create jobs,” the mayor insisted.

The generational setback implicit in a “globally competitive wage” is evident at G.E.’s Appliance Park, the complex of factories where G.E. makes refrigerators, washing machines, dishwashers and other household appliances. Six years into the adoption of lower wages for new hires, half of the hourly workers are paid at the reduced scale.

In an earlier era, that would have been a source of friction, perhaps protest. Now it isn’t, and in an interview William Masden, 62, earning $31.78 an hour after 42 years at Appliance Park, attempted an explanation. The younger workers still get annual raises, he noted, and by the time they top out, he and his peers — the oldest baby boomers — “won’t be here any longer to remind them of what they are missing.”

Linda Thomas, 37, one of the first to be hired in 2005 under the new arrangement, amends that explanation. Her hourly wage, $18.19, has almost topped out, although it is nearly $14 an hour less than Mr. Masden’s. But she keeps silent. Too many unemployed people, she explained, would clamor for her job and her wage if she were to protest.

“You don’t want to rock the boat,” Ms. Thomas said. “You take a chance on losing everything you have if you do.”

Mr. Masden’s final years at G.E., doing safety checks, and Ms. Thomas’s willingness, however reluctant, to do equivalent work as a forklift driver at a much lower wage illustrate a big reason that General Electric decided to expand production here. A new hybrid electric water heater will be manufactured in Louisville in a factory now being renovated, rather than in China, where G.E. makes its current model. And some production of refrigerators is being repatriated, mainly from Mexico.

“We have gotten to a point where making things in America is as viable as making things any place in the world,” said James P. Campbell, president and chief executive of G.E.’s appliances and lighting division, citing the drop in labor costs as a crucial reason. “They are significantly less with the competitive wage,” he said, “and that is a big help.”

The revival is in an early stage. By 2005, G.E.’s employment in Louisville had fallen to 2,300 hourly workers from a high of 17,000 in the 1970s. At that point, with the company insisting on concessions, Local 761 of the IUE-CWA union, representing the hourly factory workers, agreed to the lower wage scale for new hires. The union has ratified it in subsequent contracts.

Employment, in turn, has finally stopped falling and is beginning to inch up from a low of 2,000 early this year as new hires start to come aboard faster than older workers leave. But the new people are always at the lower wage scale, except for some specialists — like machinists, who earn up to $26 an hour.

“We are getting from the company an $800 million investment in Appliance Park over the next two years, and what we had to do for that investment was accept the ‘competitive wage,’ ” said Jerry Carney, president of Local 761.

Even so, G.E.’s work force in America is slightly smaller than its work force overseas — 133,000 to 154,000. Nearly 80 percent of those in America are in manufacturing, reflecting G.E.’s origins and still its greatest strength. It has 219 factories in this country and 16 more are being built or renovated, including two in Louisville. An additional 230 G.E. plants are overseas, which helps to explain why 53 percent of the company’s $150.2 billion in revenue last year — from all sources — was generated abroad, up from 35 percent a decade ago.

Mr. Carney’s competitive wage — a euphemism that G.E. officials also use — is really, as both sides acknowledge, the price of halting or at least slowing this migration. It is, in effect, the lower tier of a two-tier system first introduced in the 1980s. That system limited those consigned to the lower tier to 20 percent of a company’s work force. In addition, new hires eventually advanced to the higher tier. Bonuses and profit sharing eased the pain, and they still do, but for a new generation of workers, graduation to the upper tier is disappearing, and the lower tier is becoming a new hire’s lifetime wage scale.

“My hope is that we will rebuild wages to their old levels over time as the economy strengthens and the demand for workers rises,” said Thomas A. Kochan, a management expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “But that is by no means a certainty.”

Neither the nation’s unions nor the government has tracked the number of jobs downgraded to the equivalent of a lower-tier wage scale, or the number of people who, like Ms. Thomas, have gone through the experience of a downgrade: in her case, from $19 an hour at the Ford auto body stamping plant — until she was laid off in 2005 — to a starting wage at G.E. a few months later of $12 an hour.

“At the time I was very angry about the comedown,” she said, “but then I asked a couple of others who had gone through the same experience how they felt and they said, ‘We’re thankful to have a job.’ ”

The decline in unit labor costs is striking. In manufacturing, the wages and benefits invested in each unit of production have fallen in eight of the past 10 years, a net decline of 13.6 percentage points, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. Productivity played a role — modern factories require fewer workers. Still, the decline is the greatest in such a short time since the statistic was first tracked in 1951.

In China, in sharp contrast, unit labor costs in manufacturing have risen in recent years, which means the gap between the United States and China, while still great, is nevertheless narrowing slightly — one reason that G.E. is making its new water heater here instead of there.

“We are at an inflection point in manufacturing in terms of relative cost structures,” said Mark M. Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics. “Ten years ago, it was a no-brainer to locate in China, and now it isn’t so clear whether China is the low-cost place to produce.”

The downshift in wages, however, is not G.E.’s only explanation for the rise in domestic production. In interviews, G.E. executives put almost as much emphasis on “lean manufacturing.” Production workers on a lean factory floor are encouraged to point out inefficiencies in assembly line routines and to participate in altering the routines.

Given the productivity gains implicit in lean practices, G.E. envisions a growing hourly work force at Appliance Park, but one that comes nowhere near its size in the 1970s.

“The trade-off is absolutely worth it; the alternatives are $15 an hour or zero dollars an hour,” Mayor Fischer said.

Mr. Masden, divorced with two grown daughters, and Ms. Thomas, single and childless, reluctantly accept this view. He wonders if the next generation will ever make it into the middle class, as he did. “I never had to think about pay,” he said. “I just kept putting money in my pocket.”

Ms. Thomas doubts that her pay will rise above the $19 an hour she had earned at the Ford plant before her layoff. Two older sisters still employed there are similarly worried.

“They were making $22 an hour and they are now making $15 an hour,” Ms. Thomas said, referring to a concessionary United Automobile Workers agreement. “They were totally upset. But the alternative offered by the company was cut the wage scale or close the plant.”


This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: December 29, 2011

[QueEx]

TCM (Turner Classic Movies) called asking if I would not re-run (BUMP) the "Classics of Actinanass" series.

TCM wondered why the Classics of Actinanass get more attention than its old movies.

I told them:

TCM's classics - are good old movies; but, make believe.

Actinanass Classics - you can't make this shit up!

BUMP

[thoughtone]

^^^^^^^^^^

[Lamarr]

Originally Posted by thoughtone

It's like he knew the future!

Ross Perot's latest interview, Can he still see the future?

Perot is an equal-opportunity critic, unimpressed with both President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney when it comes to addressing the nation’s red ink.

“We’re on the edge of the cliff, and we have got to start fixing it now. Otherwise, we’re leaving a disaster to our children’s and our grandchildren’s future,” he said.

Wolf spoke with Perot as part of an interview for C-SPAN, where additional clips have been posted (the full interview is set to air Monday night).

In it, Perot talks about his fear of the United States being taken over.

“If we are that weak, just think of who wants to come here first and take us over, and the last thing I ever want to see is to see this country, our country taken over because we’re so financially weak we can’t do anything and we’re moving in that direct. … We could even lose our country if we don’t get this fixed and straightened out and nobody that’s running really talks about it, about what we have to do and why we have to do it. They would prefer not to have it discussed.

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by Lamarr

Ross Perot's latest interview, Can he still see the future?

Can Lamerr see the past? You have no credibility. Stop posting. Conspiracy Theorist!

Investigation finds no evidence Holder knew of 'Fast and Furious' gun-running sting

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by QueEx

Black conservatives gather
to talk about gaining strength

But no one from the Republican National Committee
attended Monday's event

McClatchy Newspapers
By Erika Bolstad
January 23, 2012

AAA, I know you "publicly" avoid this board these days; but I also know that you stick your head in the backdoor, frequently.

I was going to ask you this towards the end of January, but it got past me.

So, I'll ask it now: Did you all "Gather" this year (January 2013)? If so, how was the National Committee's turnout this time ???