PDA

View Full Version : "Bush Boom" Ahead



KYPhinFan
10-14-2003, 04:29 AM
In September alone 57,000 new jobs were created.

Several Top Economists on Wall Street project a "Bush Boom" to take effect soon as a result of the tax cuts for working families.

As that weird lady on SNL says:
"Discuss"

Barbarian
10-15-2003, 02:46 AM
Yipee... well, it's a small step in the right direction, but it's hardly a big boom...


ALTHOUGH MORE AMERICANS were drawing a paycheck last month, the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 6.1 percent, and some analysts said they saw persistent signs of weakness in the labor market. On average, it takes well over 100,000 new jobs each month just to absorb the growing population and new job-seekers, but the fact that the economy added jobs for the first time since January supported the view of bullish analysts and investors.

So basically, were not sinking nearly as fast as we had been for the past 7 months... but were still sinking.

it's a better sign than what we have had recently, but you'll excuse me if I don't start doing cartwheels just yet.

PhinPhan1227
10-15-2003, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Barbarian
Yipee... well, it's a small step in the right direction, but it's hardly a big boom...



So basically, were not sinking nearly as fast as we had been for the past 7 months... but were still sinking.

it's a better sign than what we have had recently, but you'll excuse me if I don't start doing cartwheels just yet.

Treading water and sinking are two different things. What I still find amusing is that people freak out about a 6.1% unemployment rate. I work in the staffing industry and prior to the .com boom, the industry standard was that roughly 6% of the population was just flat out unemployable. The rates we saw during the boom were artificial...people were being hired because they had a pulse, not because they were actually qualified.

Barbarian
10-16-2003, 06:15 AM
who says were treading water?

The unemployment rate is a fairly accurate but not the end all be all, as people run out of unemployment benefits and new people enter the job market that are unable to apply for those benefits arent counted in the 6.1% that is why they made a point to mention that about 100,000 new jobs need to be created each month to truely keep our people "treading water"

Like I said, were not sinking as fast, but that 57,000 new jobs statistic, while definately a small step in the right direction, is still very much a baby step and by no means that big of a sign...

show me 100,000 jobs per month for 3 months... then I'll be smiling and happy that people are getting back to work, but 57,000 just isn't going to cut it.

KYPhinFan
11-10-2003, 02:09 AM
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2003


The Labor Department announced this morning that the U.S. economy added 126,000 new jobs in October after a revised gain of 125,000 in September – for a total of 286,000 new jobs since August.

The new data, more than double the figures initially reported, shows improvement in the labor market. Employment has now grown three months in a row, for a total jobs gain of over a quarter million. Read the raw data here.

All signs indicate that the labor market is gaining strength and the U.S. economy is poised for recovery.

All Signs Point to Strong Economic Growth

The economy is responding to President Bush’s pro-growth economic policies and all signs point to a strong recovery. Last week’s third quarter GDP announcement showed the fastest pace of economic growth in nearly twenty years.

Recent economic data is encouraging, but there is still work to be done. The President will not be satisfied until everyone who wants a job has one.

President Bush is working closely with members of Congress to encourage them to take action on his six-point plan for economic growth. Congress needs to make progress on these important priorities, including energy legislation, making health care costs more affordable, opening new markets to American products, and reducing the lawsuit burden.

Looking good, Dubya!

PhinPhan1227
11-10-2003, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian
Yipee... well, it's a small step in the right direction, but it's hardly a big boom...



So basically, were not sinking nearly as fast as we had been for the past 7 months... but were still sinking.

it's a better sign than what we have had recently, but you'll excuse me if I don't start doing cartwheels just yet.

Unemployment is down to 6.0. Try to bear in mind that rapid growth isn't healthy either. Bring jobs back much faster than this and you would see inflation go through the roof.

DeDolfan
11-12-2003, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by KYPhinFan
In September alone 57,000 new jobs were created.

Several Top Economists on Wall Street project a "Bush Boom" to take effect soon as a result of the tax cuts for working families.

As that weird lady on SNL says:
"Discuss"

57,000 entry level type and minimum wage jobs mostly was what I read. But Bush will take credit for it because of "his" tax cut tho. He'll need all the help he can get or he's another one termer just like his Daddy.

PhinPhan1227
11-13-2003, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


57,000 entry level type and minimum wage jobs mostly was what I read. But Bush will take credit for it because of "his" tax cut tho. He'll need all the help he can get or he's another one termer just like his Daddy.

Manufacturing is up, as are almost every other economic indicator. What I find funny are those individuals who hate Bush so much they'd rather see the economy fail rather than see Bush win a 2nd term. Kind of like those fans who hate Fiedler/Griese so much they'd rather see the Phins lose than see those guys succeed. It's sad really.

DeDolfan
11-13-2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Manufacturing is up, as are almost every other economic indicator. What I find funny are those individuals who hate Bush so much they'd rather see the economy fail rather than see Bush win a 2nd term. Kind of like those fans who hate Fiedler/Griese so much they'd rather see the Phins lose than see those guys succeed. It's sad really.

Ah, spoken like a true right winger!! ;) I like your comparison. Pretty much on it! :lol:

PhinPhan1227
11-13-2003, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Ah, spoken like a true right winger!! ;) I like your comparison. Pretty much on it! :lol:

Lol...I'm actually a devout moderate. I lean to the left on social issues, and right on economic issues. I'd prefer that government stay out of our wallets AND our bedrooms.

DolFan31
11-23-2003, 03:21 PM
Unfourtantely, as trickle down economics will show you, this "boom" is only temporairly as with all other trickle down tax cuts. I want to see unemployment go down. I want the economy to recover. But this isn't the way to do it. Also, the tax cuts will give us more harm than good in the long-haul.

PhinPhan1227
11-25-2003, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by DolFan31
Unfourtantely, as trickle down economics will show you, this "boom" is only temporairly as with all other trickle down tax cuts. I want to see unemployment go down. I want the economy to recover. But this isn't the way to do it. Also, the tax cuts will give us more harm than good in the long-haul.

Unemployment is coming down...but bear in mind that unemployment is always the last indicator to come down. What you want to keep an eye for is manufacturing. If that comes up(which it has), employment will follow.

PhinPhan1227
11-25-2003, 09:52 AM
In fact....

" News > Economy


U.S. economic growth revised up

Broadest economic gauge grew at a blistering 8.2 percent clip in 3Q, faster than originally thought.
November 25, 2003: 8:31 AM EST



NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The U.S. economy grew in the third quarter at an even faster pace than originally reported, the government said Tuesday.

Gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of economic activity, grew at an 8.2 percent annual rate in the quarter, the fastest pace since the first quarter of 1984, after growing at a 3.3 percent pace in the second quarter, the Commerce Department reported.

Originally, GDP growth was reported at a 7.2 percent annual rate. Economists, on average, expected the reported growth rate to be revised to 7.6 percent, according to Briefing.com. "

TerryTate
11-25-2003, 10:56 PM
Trickle Down economics doesnt work, i remember that in my economics class, while i am too lazy to find out which presidents tried it and failed miserably throughout history, I hope you do your own research....

DolFan31
11-26-2003, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by ultimateFINFAN
Trickle Down economics doesnt work, i remember that in my economics class, while i am too lazy to find out which presidents tried it and failed miserably throughout history, I hope you do your own research....

Ronald Regan. Im a big political buff.

KYPhinFan
11-30-2003, 08:16 PM
Im a big political buff.

Same here! Ronald Reagan was the last president to try trickle down economics. I wouldn't even hazard to call him a miserable failure.

JFK also believed in tax cuts, but didn't live long enough to enact any, as he was too busy dealing with those pesky commies.

DeDolfan
12-01-2003, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by KYPhinFan


Same here! Ronald Reagan was the last president to try trickle down economics. I wouldn't even hazard to call him a miserable failure.

JFK also believed in tax cuts, but didn't live long enough to enact any, as he was too busy dealing with those pesky commies.

Nothing wrong with tax cuts. It's just that times have to be right and this timing of late was not right. The goverment needs to be run just like any household. You can't spend more than what you make, except for maxing out your credit cards and then you can buy no more and have to pay the piper. That's about where the gov is right now. Instead of holding the line and paying down debt as well as the everyday costs, "we" get a tax cut (mine is about $6.00/wk and gas prices took care of that). OK, that's fine individually and that depends on what individual you are but the gov cut their paycheck and it doesn't add up. And to top that off, bush cons congress for 87 bil to "rebuild" Iraq which is benefiting his vice's cronies the most. And we're talking funds that were "supposed" to come from iraq's own oil reserves to begin with for rebuilding and now it's adding to our own deficit.
Oh well, we are securing the future for our descendants, the "RIGHT" way !!

zach13
12-02-2003, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by KYPhinFan


Same here! Ronald Reagan was the last president to try trickle down economics. I wouldn't even hazard to call him a miserable failure.

JFK also believed in tax cuts, but didn't live long enough to enact any, as he was too busy dealing with those pesky commies.

Incorrect, JFK did enact a tax cut as did Reagan, both of those tax cuts preceded economic booms.

Here is a quote from Kennedy on his tax cuts:

"An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget - just as it will never produce enough jobs or profits."

Personally, I agree with both Kennedy and Reagan. The more money we can keep out of the hands of the government, the better

PhinPhan1227
12-03-2003, 11:01 AM
Not to trouble anyone with facts...but if Bush is benefiting his VP and cronies so drastically, why is it that Halliburtons stock price is roughly 50% of it's value when Bush took office?



Originally posted by DeDolfan


Nothing wrong with tax cuts. It's just that times have to be right and this timing of late was not right. The goverment needs to be run just like any household. You can't spend more than what you make, except for maxing out your credit cards and then you can buy no more and have to pay the piper. That's about where the gov is right now. Instead of holding the line and paying down debt as well as the everyday costs, "we" get a tax cut (mine is about $6.00/wk and gas prices took care of that). OK, that's fine individually and that depends on what individual you are but the gov cut their paycheck and it doesn't add up. And to top that off, bush cons congress for 87 bil to "rebuild" Iraq which is benefiting his vice's cronies the most. And we're talking funds that were "supposed" to come from iraq's own oil reserves to begin with for rebuilding and now it's adding to our own deficit.
Oh well, we are securing the future for our descendants, the "RIGHT" way !!

DeDolfan
12-03-2003, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Not to trouble anyone with facts...but if Bush is benefiting his VP and cronies so drastically, why is it that Halliburtons stock price is roughly 50% of it's value when Bush took office?




"Uncooked books" perhaps? Doesn't matter, Haliburton is the main benefactor. Why wasn't it put out for bids like all government contracts are SUPPOSED to be. It's things like that that look shady and can't help his reelection bid.

PhinPhan1227
12-03-2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


"Uncooked books" perhaps? Doesn't matter, Haliburton is the main benefactor. Why wasn't it put out for bids like all government contracts are SUPPOSED to be. It's things like that that look shady and can't help his reelection bid.

Check the history of such bids. In times of crisis the military frequently hands the contract to a single company(the open bid process was almost non-existant during WWII). The reason for that is that the bidding process for billion dollar bids can take up to a year to complete. Do you really think that Iraq's citizens were going to wait a year before anyone even STARTED rebuilding? Bottom line is, if you're going to accuse someone of filling their own pockets, it would be nice if there was ANY evidence that those pockets were being filled, rather than being emptied. Likewise if Halliburton is benefiting unfairly, it would be nice to see some evidence of that as well.

DeDolfan
12-03-2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Check the history of such bids. In times of crisis the military frequently hands the contract to a single company(the open bid process was almost non-existant during WWII). The reason for that is that the bidding process for billion dollar bids can take up to a year to complete. Do you really think that Iraq's citizens were going to wait a year before anyone even STARTED rebuilding? Bottom line is, if you're going to accuse someone of filling their own pockets, it would be nice if there was ANY evidence that those pockets were being filled, rather than being emptied. Likewise if Halliburton is benefiting unfairly, it would be nice to see some evidence of that as well.

Oh, so the stock "price" means that their pockets are being emptied??? That "stock price" does not tell it all. If "they" were losing money, they wouldn't even be there in the first place. Wake up and take a looksee. You'd be surprised of what you may see. do you think that all of this is merely conincidental? Do you think the papers and media is just going to provide us with all this "proof" ?? Granted, it would be nice to actually see some of this evidence, but when the gov is involved in such things, that just ain't gonna happen.

Mr.Murder
12-03-2003, 11:56 PM
The GDP has included military spending, minus the 86 billion afghan deal, minus the 87 billion Iraq budget, Minus the 400 plus billion defense budget, our GDP is a sham. The holiday season always sees a short term job boom, it will not roll over or produce good pay level jobs or benefits.
The GDP growth minus defense spending cannot even cover the Interest of the debt. The repubs are selling our kid's future away as well. At least we are safer, minus a power outage for 5 states that was accredited to "a lightning strike at the Niagra dam power facility" which turned into a "tree that took out a power line in Ohio." Kind of funny NORAD's lightning tracker showed no storm weather over the dam, suppose the "BOOM " that was heard was perhaps a terror strike from the Canada side of Niagra's power facility? Laden is big time into engineering and could have done it. Two weeks after the blackout we had a major INTEL sweep of Canada, after the fact perhaps?

It was not BUSH's fault, it was a TREE. And more ENRON sauce jobs for legislation to fix it!

Bush even criticised Clinton's stablization of SE Europe as an election issue stating the "EXIT STRATAGY" was a key to any troop deployment. Seems like he forgot that fact for his own term. He seems to forget lots of facts, Rice and Powell have also.Easy to forget 16 words with a conclusion of their authenticity (LACK OF) indented so no doubt of its unwise conclusion for war would be used to justify such.

PhinPhan1227
12-04-2003, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Oh, so the stock "price" means that their pockets are being emptied??? That "stock price" does not tell it all. If "they" were losing money, they wouldn't even be there in the first place. Wake up and take a looksee. You'd be surprised of what you may see. do you think that all of this is merely conincidental? Do you think the papers and media is just going to provide us with all this "proof" ?? Granted, it would be nice to actually see some of this evidence, but when the gov is involved in such things, that just ain't gonna happen.

Well, considering that Cheneys only remaining link to Halliburton is in stock, yes, I'd say that the price is a very good indication of how much or how little money Cheney is making for himself. Bottom line, if you can show ANY way in which Cheney, Bush, or anyone else has made money so far because of the war, I'd be interested in seeing it. Otherwise, you're just throwing out "conspiracy theory" garbage with even less proof than the UFO wacko's provide.

PhinPhan1227
12-04-2003, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
The GDP has included military spending, minus the 86 billion afghan deal, minus the 87 billion Iraq budget, Minus the 400 plus billion defense budget, our GDP is a sham. The holiday season always sees a short term job boom, it will not roll over or produce good pay level jobs or benefits.
The GDP growth minus defense spending cannot even cover the Interest of the debt. The repubs are selling our kid's future away as well. At least we are safer, minus a power outage for 5 states that was accredited to "a lightning strike at the Niagra dam power facility" which turned into a "tree that took out a power line in Ohio." Kind of funny NORAD's lightning tracker showed no storm weather over the dam, suppose the "BOOM " that was heard was perhaps a terror strike from the Canada side of Niagra's power facility? Laden is big time into engineering and could have done it. Two weeks after the blackout we had a major INTEL sweep of Canada, after the fact perhaps?

It was not BUSH's fault, it was a TREE. And more ENRON sauce jobs for legislation to fix it!

Bush even criticised Clinton's stablization of SE Europe as an election issue stating the "EXIT STRATAGY" was a key to any troop deployment. Seems like he forgot that fact for his own term. He seems to forget lots of facts, Rice and Powell have also.Easy to forget 16 words with a conclusion of their authenticity (LACK OF) indented so no doubt of its unwise conclusion for war would be used to justify such.


Take a look at the economic figures dating back to the 2nd quarter and they are all on the upswing. This isn't JUST GDP...or any other single economic benchmark, it's EVERY single economic benchmark. Just out of curiosity, if the numbers are still solid in February, what excuse will you use then?

DeDolfan
12-04-2003, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Well, considering that Cheneys only remaining link to Halliburton is in stock, yes, I'd say that the price is a very good indication of how much or how little money Cheney is making for himself. Bottom line, if you can show ANY way in which Cheney, Bush, or anyone else has made money so far because of the war, I'd be interested in seeing it. Otherwise, you're just throwing out "conspiracy theory" garbage with even less proof than the UFO wacko's provide.

Not really. Think about this. By your own admission, Cheney's only link still to Haliburton is his stock. This is true but the dubious nature of all this gov contract,etc. is a conflict of interest on his part and any edge Haliburton gets is more than likely an eventual advantage for Cheney, et.al. ;)

PhinPhan1227
12-04-2003, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Not really. Think about this. By your own admission, Cheney's only link still to Haliburton is his stock. This is true but the dubious nature of all this gov contract,etc. is a conflict of interest on his part and any edge Haliburton gets is more than likely an eventual advantage for Cheney, et.al. ;)

Actually, the way his stock is managed right now, all proceeds go to charity. That being said, you still haven't explained the genius of enriching yourself by having your stock price cut in half. If that's part of some complex scheme, Cheney must REALLY be slick to have turned the rules of economics 101 on it's side.

DeDolfan
12-04-2003, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Actually, the way his stock is managed right now, all proceeds go to charity. That being said, you still haven't explained the genius of enriching yourself by having your stock price cut in half. If that's part of some complex scheme, Cheney must REALLY be slick to have turned the rules of economics 101 on it's side.

I thought i just did explain. So you really think all his proceeds go to charity? How can there be any "proceeds" if the stock has dropped in half. It's kinda easy saying your proceeds go to charity when there isn't any to go to speak of. This all is happening by accident, but of course that is what they'd like you to believe. And by all means, you are free to believe whatever you'd like. ;)

Mr.Murder
12-04-2003, 11:03 PM
You are wrong, net employment levels are still down. That is the only way to measure the benefit for the average American who comprises a majority consensus of votes and make up the largest percentage of Armed forces and guard members currently in action.
And selling off steelworker jobs is an upgrade compared to fruitpicking? Manufactured industry has a carry-over employment affect. The orange industry has, well a limited cieling of expansion(already maxed out).
1227 the latest fashion for repub backers suits includes kneepads since you are on Cheney's nuts or letting Bush/Bashcroft bugger our bill of rights and job security it has recieved top endor*****ts. Limbaugh is even in a 'Rush' to get one since he has assumed the victim's prone posture as a hypocrite with a habit. These handy suits have hidden pockets to smuggle extra scripts from the doctor and soft money stash . Velcro jacket labels so you can change lobbyist I.D. and slogan/cause. From antiterror to free trade (free trade is a contradictory statement as well, a fitting repub rally cry) to leave no child behind (underfunding except for testing lobby) you can be Mr. PR on a per issue basis!

ohall
12-04-2003, 11:18 PM
THREE things are going on here IMO. 1st businesses are doing their best to squeeze as much out of a smaller work force until they have to hire new employees. I think most understand this happens from time to time, it's cyclical.

2nd there are more and more baby boomers retiring so the work force is shrinking just because of that and increases the unemployment #'s. The generation after the baby boomers did not have as many children as they did so this also shrinks the work force.

3rd what took place in the late 90's was a false boom IMO. One created basically on loan, and due to the Y2K scam, and the Internet boom. Many things that needed to be done were put off, such as going after terrorist after 1993 the WTC bombings. Like paying our military good wages rather putting them on unemployement. Declaring war on anything is not cheap. We are now taking care of those short comings.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
12-05-2003, 11:37 AM
Net employment levels will probably always be below their late 90's high...because those numbers were artificial. Economists always maintained that between 4-5% of the available workforce was just "unemployable". Further, you've got a shrinking workforce in the US.



Originally posted by Mr.Murder
You are wrong, net employment levels are still down. That is the only way to measure the benefit for the average American who comprises a majority consensus of votes and make up the largest percentage of Armed forces and guard members currently in action.
And selling off steelworker jobs is an upgrade compared to fruitpicking? Manufactured industry has a carry-over employment affect. The orange industry has, well a limited cieling of expansion(already maxed out).
1227 the latest fashion for repub backers suits includes kneepads since you are on Cheney's nuts or letting Bush/Bashcroft bugger our bill of rights and job security it has recieved top endor*****ts. Limbaugh is even in a 'Rush' to get one since he has assumed the victim's prone posture as a hypocrite with a habit. These handy suits have hidden pockets to smuggle extra scripts from the doctor and soft money stash . Velcro jacket labels so you can change lobbyist I.D. and slogan/cause. From antiterror to free trade (free trade is a contradictory statement as well, a fitting repub rally cry) to leave no child behind (underfunding except for testing lobby) you can be Mr. PR on a per issue basis!

DeDolfan
12-05-2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by ohall
THREE things are going on here IMO. 1st businesses are doing their best to squeeze as much out of a smaller work force until they have to hire new employees. I think most understand this happens from time to time, it's cyclical.

2nd there are more and more baby boomers retiring so the work force is shrinking just because of that and increases the unemployment #'s. The generation after the baby boomers did not have as many children as they did so this also shrinks the work force.

3rd what took place in the late 90's was a false boom IMO. One created basically on loan, and due to the Y2K scam, and the Internet boom. Many things that needed to be done were put off, such as going after terrorist after 1993 the WTC bombings. Like paying our military good wages rather putting them on unemployement. Declaring war on anything is not cheap. We are now taking care of those short comings.

Oliver...

Retirees are not included in the unemployed figures are they?

PhinPhan1227
12-05-2003, 01:52 PM
If you factor in total number of jobs, than yes they do. America has a shrinking workforce, so total number of jobs will never fully recover, regardless of what the economy looks like.

Mr.Murder
12-06-2003, 01:39 AM
So what you are saying is that one to two percent of the unemployment numbers are bush's baby, that equals three million jobs to fit that number? The other people were not working already so they cannot be part of the 4-5% you claim a grace level for.Those numbers do not add up to lower totals that you claim. The real numbers are higher, a lot of people have already maxed out.
Bring another excuse 1227 convince yourself more ...

Bling
12-06-2003, 02:14 PM
Why do people blame Bush because of economy/jobs? As a president, how much more can you do to help the economy than lower taxes?

DolFan31
12-06-2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by blingbling2334
Why do people blame Bush because of economy/jobs? As a president, how much more can you do to help the economy than lower taxes?

If you are a Republican president with a Republican congress and Republican Supreme Court then you share a lot more responsibility than other presidents who've had to deal with "balance of powers".

PhinPhan1227
12-08-2003, 11:47 AM
Quite honestly, no President has more than a glancing influence on the economy. This isn't China, were the gov plans out the economy. The market drives 85% of the economies success or failure. Of course, some Dems think that Bill Clinton created the dot com boom.

Mr.Murder
12-10-2003, 04:07 PM
This isn't China, China has a trade surplus, the world's largest, to the nation of Mexico. The country of CHina has bought our debt up more than anyone except Switzerland and is followed by Japan.
Shrubya went to China, the owner of our country called him up. The need of a translator to find a Chinese way to say W's "Hey Boss how am I doin' ?" speech cost over 80 Billion and will be listed in our next appropriations budget.
George looked like a lost CHimp hearing a man speak Chinese in front of him. He probably directly insulted him and all of the world is laughing while American viewers soundbite said "The Chinese Minister praised Bush"...
The Emporer wears some clothes in China, thanks to Bush. He gave the guy the shirt off our backs.

PhinPhan1227
12-11-2003, 10:21 AM
BUSH gave China the shirt off our backs? Granted, I disagree with granting them MFN status, and we also need to tighten the screws on them with trade restrictions...but that's still a FAR cry from Bill Clintons actions. Bush MAY have given China the shirt off our backs, but at least he didn't give them the gun out of our holster the way Bill Clinton did.



Originally posted by Mr.Murder
This isn't China, China has a trade surplus, the world's largest, to the nation of Mexico. The country of CHina has bought our debt up more than anyone except Switzerland and is followed by Japan.
Shrubya went to China, the owner of our country called him up. The need of a translator to find a Chinese way to say W's "Hey Boss how am I doin' ?" speech cost over 80 Billion and will be listed in our next appropriantions budget.
George looked like a lost CHimp hearing a man speak Chinese in front of him. He probably directly insulted him and all of the world is laughing while American viewers soundbite said "The Chinese Minister praised Bush"...
The Emporer wears some clothes in China, thanks to Bush. He gave the guy the shirt off our backs.

Mr.Murder
12-11-2003, 04:49 PM
"Gun out of holster?" That rhymes with" buns of Ann Coultier. "
What gun did he give them? The pro-NRA libs giving commies guns is a new take. Elaborate please.

PhinPhan1227
12-12-2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
"Gun out of holster?" That rhymes with" buns of Ann Coultier. "
What gun did he give them? The pro-NRA libs giving commies guns is a new take. Elaborate please.

Bill Clinton was responsible for giving the Chinese a bigger technological bump than the Soviets got from the Rosenbergs.


• Named Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown treated his post as just another place to wheel and deal. He was irrepressible, on one occasion okaying the sale of new American engines for China to put in its cruise missiles. The engines had been built as military equipment but Brown reclassified them as civilian.

• Neither was Brown above doing a little business on the side. The Saudis wanted some American planes; Brown told them: You want the planes, you also want a phone contract with ATT. Cost of the planes and hardware: $6 billion. Cost of the phone contract: $4 billion. Part of the deal, it turned out, was an ATT side agreement with a firm called First International. The owner: Ron Brown

• Former London Sunday Times correspondent James Adams wrote a book in which he described the Chinese success with the Clinton crowd as "an espionage coup of epic proportions."

• According to the New York Times, Clinton removed $2 billion in trade with China from national security scrutiny. Among the results: 77 supercomputers – capable of 13 billion calculations per second – that could scramble and unscramble secret data and design nuclear weapons. These were purchased by the Chinese without a peep stateside. At least some of them would be used by the Chinese military.

• With the transfer of the Panama Canal, four of Panama's ports ended up being controlled by a company partially owned by Hutchison-Whampoa Ltd., which in turn was owned by Li Ka-Shing, a billionaire so close to the Chinese power structure that he was offered the governorship of Hong Kong.

Another owner of the Panamanian ports was China Resources Enterprise, called an "agent of espionage" by Senator Fred Thompson. CRE was also a partner of the Lippo Group, owned by the Riady family that played a central if mysterious role in the rise of William Clinton. According to congressional testimony by ex-JCS [Joint Chiefs of Staff] chief Admiral Thomas Moorer, Hutchison-Whampoa won the right to pilot all ships through the Panama Canal, including U.S. naval vessels.

• President Clinton signed national security waivers to allow four U.S. commercial satellites to be launched in China, despite evidence that China was exporting nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan and Iran, among other nations. One of these satellites belonged to Loral. Nine days later a Chinese Long March rocket carrying a $200 million satellite belonging to Loral failed in mid-flight.

A subsequent lawsuit charged that the circuit board from the highly classified encryption device in the satellite was found to be missing when the Chinese returned debris from the explosion to U.S. authorities, even though a control box containing the circuit board was recovered intact. After the crash, NSA reportedly changed the encoded algorithms used by U.S. satellites because of the apparent release of highly classified information.

• President Clinton approved a waiver allowing the launch of another satellite on board a Chinese rocket, despite a recommendation by the Department of Justice that the waiver would have a significant adverse impact on any prosecution arising from its pending investigation of Loral.

• The New York Times reported in 1998 that the Defense Technology Security Administration said Loral's unauthorized release of sensitive technology to the Chinese gave rise to at least three "major" violations of U.S. national security, three medium violations and 12 "minor" infractions.

• Throughout these dealings, the CEO of Loral, Bernard Schwartz, contributed at least $1.5 million to the Democrats, making him the single largest contributor to these groups during the period in question.

• Softwar newsletter reported that that some of the radios and cell phones being used by Chinese police in their campaign against dissidents were those sold to the Chinese by Motorola after Clinton overrode human rights objections by the State Department.

• Three major players in the China scandal – John Huang, Charlie Trie and Johnny Chung – were all allowed by the Justice Department to cop pleas.

• Carol Cameron of Fox News reported that cover stories provided by Chinese operatives to hide China's illegal campaign contributions may have come from or been approved by President Jiang Zemin. Transcripts of FBI wiretaps obtained by Fox News also pointed to the possibility that President Clinton may have known of both the illegal donations and what was to be said if they were discovered.

Johnny Chung told Congress he was under orders from the Chinese to keep the whole thing quiet. His orders, he said, came from a suspected Chinese intelligence operative named Robert Luu, who worked for a Los Angeles law firm. In a phone conversation tapped by the FBI, Chung was told by Luu to say the campaign money came from the so-called princelings: Chinese leaders' grown sons, who live, study and often live lavishly in the West.

A transcript of the wiretap, obtained by Fox News, contains the following:

LUU: "Shove the blame on the shoulders of the princelings."

CHUNG: "So blame it on the princelings. Do not implicate the Chinese government."

LUU: "Yes. Chairman Jiang agreed to handle it like this; the president over here also agreed."

• Newsweek quoted intelligence officials as saying that the Chinese "penetration is total. They are deep into the [U.S. nuclear weapons] labs' black programs."

• In an AP story ignored by major media, former CIA Director R. James Woolsey accused the Clinton administration of pursuing a policy of appeasement toward China and likened it to the way Britain and France dealt with Nazi Germany on Czechoslovakia before World War II.

• Last year, the Wall Street Journal wrote: "Top business executives are issuing a blunt warning to federal lawmakers: Vote against the trade deal with China, and we will hold it against you when writing campaign checks. Phil Condit, chairman of Boeing Co., and Robert N. Burt, chairman and chief executive of FMC Corp., said a coming vote to facilitate China's entry into the World Trade Organization will be a measure of every lawmaker's friendliness to business.

• Operating with an interim top secret clearance (but without FBI investigation or foreign security check) Commerce official Huang requested several top secret files on China just before a meeting with the Chinese ambassador. Huang and the Riadys then held a meeting with Clinton. Not long after, Huang went to work as a Democratic fund-raiser, but remained on Commerce's payroll as a $10,000-a-month consultant. Huang raised $5 million for the campaign. About a third of that was returned as having come from illegal sources. Among the problem contributions: $250,000 to the DNC from five Chinese businessmen in order to have a brief meeting with Clinton at a fund raiser.

• Macao businessman Ng Lap Seng, closely linked to a couple of major Chinese-owned enterprises, was regularly bringing in large sums of money to the United States, according to customs records. On one occasion, he arrived with $175,000 and then two days later met with Charlie Trie and Mark Middleton at the White House. That evening Ng sat at Clinton's table at a DNC fund raiser.

Not a big fan of the source, but I can't fault the facts presented.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/21/181251.shtml

Mr.Murder
12-12-2003, 12:49 PM
Nice try to spin. This topic is "BUSH BOOM". It should be Bush Broom when his *** gets swept out of office it will be. Another one termer like his double cross daddy. Texas VP= shoot the president and take over early, damn someone teach that guy to shoot better.


Clinton is a globalist like Bush yes, but his inroads were supposed to be linked with democratic inroads to their political system and the oversight for such is COMPLETELY IGNORED by Bush. Bashcroft is busier spying on US citizens than he is on seeing that fair policy is politically leveraged via Rice and Powell for another superpower who has bought up our debt and sells most of our goods.

The Clintons had 2 SAC bases in their state and knew very well the role of strategic weapons and their effect on politics and still do. Perhaps a suit type from the war lobby assured them this is not the most upgraded format to use and we could override the info given away with new and better technology. See also the help given Russia for precoldwar technology as a WW2 allie and Einstein's stay in Swiss nation with his younger female cousin as his common law marriage as sources and you will see a clear pattern of deliberate escalation of arms technology relative to defense sector spending concurrent. ONE country comes across as the fulcrum for political and monetary deals per se but such is another thread and a matter of history.
Then again for us to assume we have a lead on Asia in programming software and applications of technology would be like saying their college level secondary school training that beats some undergrad courses here is substandard to our underfunded 'leave the morons behind act'.
Chaos theory, linguistic analysis, and mathematical probabilty laws all unite to prevent ANY encryption from being unsolvable in fast time real life application no law of averages favors such. Phonetic and syllabaic combinations are solvable in any language and limited by the languages via each's own inherent alphabet via numbering systems bordering numerology theories conclusions. The best chances of hiding info as such would be via languages using clicks in a pulse sequence verbally ad infinitum or dead languages using symbols in place of words with a rotation of meaning to each as part of an interrelated format which would then be compromised since for every sender there is a reciever, and thus never secure for certain as the human element is concerned.

Ah, the human element and its inherent flaws is a limitation of Shrubya PER ISSUE. CLinton started inroads but kept higher order jobs secure here and expanded some upper end possiblities there for America in the process. BUSH SOLD THEM EVERYTHING. You said as much yourself that ENRON donated both parties BUSH and BILL both... why would the same principle not apply with China? Wait! Leaving Taiwan to China's discretion is part of insuring we have a secure region there! Put that on Clinton this time. We are the conspiracy theorist and you are the realist. REALITY- Bush selling America's debt to CHina and Asian allies as well.
The difference is this - ONE leader kept leverage and the other did not. Bush is too stupid to even deliver one-liners without a stuttered and stammered follow-up that leaves no doubt how stupid he truly is across the board. He understands that he gets paid a lot by others and says what they tell him to do per issue. He is smart enough to act dumb at times to escape scrutiny of the press which is rife with its share of corrupt oversight. But he cannot delvier the goods and has yet to at any time in his career with statesmanship or effectiveness.
He is too stupid to inspire confidence in any matter he does and such is obvious. His laughter in the face of reporters while visiting Blair when being asked why America stresses free trade with companies that are neither democratic or honored for labor law standards reinforces this fact.
So Bush's main free trade priority in South America was Columbia who killed more trade Union workers(2,000+) within this year than the rest of the world combined is something we should be proud of?

PhinPhan1227
12-15-2003, 09:32 AM
Wow...I have to hand it to you Murder, you've got tremendous skill at digression. I don't think I've ever seen anyone bring so much extranious crap into a discussion in my life. Bottom line is that while I disagree with several of GW positions and actions while President, he's still done more, and been more effective than his predicessor. And most likely he'd be more effective than anyone currently in the Dems stable...except possibly Lieberman. I'd quite possibly vote for him over GW. But since he won't win the nomination, I won't have to face that choice.

Mr.Murder
12-15-2003, 06:06 PM
Yeah killing people who organize for better standards of living is a very American policy, see also Gen. Custer... nice double take that you ignore when the economic policy overweighs public rights. The same M.O. we used for Saddam via Halliburton/Cheney/Rumsfeld not too long ago when they were allies. So what if he gasses people with weapons we gave them.
Most of those mass graves victims are people who died during the time of Cheney's subversive aid, it is why patholigists are being ignored for the most part in this issue. A majority of them are from the Iran/Iraq war when trench warfare met our old gas ordinance and was delivered with gps assistance for target oversight.

PhinPhan1227
12-16-2003, 11:22 AM
Ok...EXACTLY who did we kill that was just organizing for better standards of living?



Originally posted by Mr.Murder
Yeah killing people who organize for better standards of living is a very American policy, see also Gen. Custer... nice double take that you ignore when the economic policy overweighs public rights. The same M.O. we used for Saddam via Halliburton/Cheney/Rumsfeld not too long ago when they were allies. So what if he gasses people with weapons we gave them.
Most of those mass graves victims are people who died during the time of Cheney's subversive aid, it is why patholigists are being ignored for the most part in this issue. A majority of them are from the Iran/Iraq war when trench warfare met our old gas ordinance and was delivered with gps assistance for target oversight.

Mr.Murder
12-16-2003, 06:02 PM
Columbians in south american nation, the first Bush Free trade prize, has killed over 2,000 workers in the last calendar year- source AFL-CIO, from free trade debate on cspan.

PhinPhan1227
12-17-2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
Columbians in south american nation, the first Bush Free trade prize, has killed over 2,000 workers in the last calendar year- source AFL-CIO, from free trade debate on cspan.

Firstly, I wouldn't trust the AFL-CIO to tell me if it was raining outside. Secondly, last time I checked, the Columbians have been killing each other over labor disputes for decades. They didn't start doing it when NAFTA came in.

Mr.Murder
12-17-2003, 05:42 PM
If you are so ANTI-UNION, it is time to take a stand. STOP WATCHING NFL FOOTBALL THEY HAVE A PLAYERS UNION! Repuke hypocrisy knows no bounds...
And your response to Bush's efforts to quell Taiwan efforts for independance are very well stated also- NO REPLY. You only want freedom's cause when it concers a profit margin or a market share gain.

DeDolfan
12-17-2003, 07:08 PM
[chanting]

Go MM, Go MM, Go MM, Go MM, Go MM, Go MM,........ :lol:

PhinPhan1227
12-18-2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
If you are so ANTI-UNION, it is time to take a stand. STOP WATCHING NFL FOOTBALL THEY HAVE A PLAYERS UNION! Repuke hypocrisy knows no bounds...
And your response to Bush's efforts to quell Taiwan efforts for independance are very well stated also- NO REPLY. You only want freedom's cause when it concers a profit margin or a market share gain.

I'm strongly against those Unions who are willing to kill the company and put their members out of work just to satisfy some short term goals. I'm also against those Unions that no longer exist to support their members, but rather exist to support political goals and their leadership. I'm more than happy to see a Union like the NFLPA which first and foremost works for the benefit of the INDUSTRY, rather than the short term goals of it's members. The NFLPA represents everything which is good about Unions, the AFL-CIO represents everything which is bad. Quite twisting my posts...attacking the AFL-CIO is NOT attacking all unions, it's attacking the AFL-CIO. Learn to read!!

Mr.Murder
12-18-2003, 11:47 AM
AFL-CIO has done what that is a detriment to its workers? They still pay their dues. Usual two-take on unions by ya is no surprise, 1227... Columbia's free trade is a farce and inspires antiamerican sentiment at its most fundamental level.
And if you really do not want any union guys telling you it rains, be sure not to take a plane anywhere, air traffic controllers are union workers. Stick to you guns there hypocrite...

PhinPhan1227
12-18-2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
AFL-CIO has done what that is a detriment to its workers? They still pay their dues. Usual two-take on unions by ya is no surprise, 1227... Columbia's free trade is a farce and inspires antiamerican sentiment at its most fundamental level.
And if you really do not want any union guys telling you it rains, be sure not to take a plane anywhere, air traffic controllers are union workers. Stick to you guns there hypocrite...

Take a look at the American automotive industry, and the difference between the Japanese auto industry. Yes, management suffers by comparison, but not as much as the labor environment. When the Union is willing to disrupt/destroy the industry rather than adjusting to it's needs, that's detrimental to the workers themselves.

PhinPhan1227
12-18-2003, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
AFL-CIO has done what that is a detriment to its workers? They still pay their dues. Usual two-take on unions by ya is no surprise, 1227... Columbia's free trade is a farce and inspires antiamerican sentiment at its most fundamental level.
And if you really do not want any union guys telling you it rains, be sure not to take a plane anywhere, air traffic controllers are union workers. Stick to you guns there hypocrite...

Oh, and speaking of the airline industry...why don't you talk to someone who worked for Eastern Airlines. The Unions were a BIG part of the reason that airline is no longer flying and all those people lost their jobs.

Mr.Murder
12-18-2003, 11:52 PM
Elaborate more please... Eastern perhaps was mismanaged? management salaries are at all times and have increased with comaparative discrepancy to workers for said companies across the board...

American automotive industries have moved to countries where the labor rate is .31 an hour... the unions drove them to it huh? The Ford motor corporation is one of the leading outsourcers to China /Taiwan...the Unions really dispruted industry, safety standards, insurance, and decent pay/benefits have no place in the employment field.
Thanks for clarifying that for us 1227...

PhinPhan1227
12-19-2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
Elaborate more please... Eastern perhaps was mismanaged? management salaries are at all times and have increased with comaparative discrepancy to workers for said companies across the board...

American automotive industries have moved to countries where the labor rate is .31 an hour... the unions drove them to it huh? The Ford motor corporation is one of the leading outsourcers to China /Taiwan...the Unions really dispruted industry, safety standards, insurance, and decent pay/benefits have no place in the employment field.
Thanks for clarifying that for us 1227...

Eastern certainly had it's problems. But the company WAS salvagable. Problem was, the Unions involved were completely inflexible when the company was trying to keep it's doors open. As for management, the only mistake made by them was overbuying of airplanes in the '70's in an attempt to dominate their market. This was before management started giving itself 100 million dollar bonus'. The timing for that expansion however turned out badly due to the early 80's recession/increase in gas prices. As such, they wound up with a ton of debt. Management tried to negotiate with Labor to reduce costs to get out from under that debt load, but labor wouldn't budge. As such, the company floundered...was bought and subsequently dismantled...and all those "downtrodden members of the Proletariat" lost their jobs. And since there aren't a lot of other airlines based in South Florida, most of them never got those jobs back. That's a prime example of the Union being more concerned with it's power base, than it's member base.

PhinPhan1227
12-19-2003, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
Elaborate more please... Eastern perhaps was mismanaged? management salaries are at all times and have increased with comaparative discrepancy to workers for said companies across the board...

American automotive industries have moved to countries where the labor rate is .31 an hour... the unions drove them to it huh? The Ford motor corporation is one of the leading outsourcers to China /Taiwan...the Unions really dispruted industry, safety standards, insurance, and decent pay/benefits have no place in the employment field.
Thanks for clarifying that for us 1227...

Free market. If you're an employer who can pay a person $1000/year, to get the same work you were paying someone $75,000 in salary and roughly $150,000/year in total compensation, how do you NOT make that decision? Especially when your Japanese competitors are able to produce THEIR cars in YOUR country more cheaply than you can just by keeping the Unions out of their factories? America is a Free Market. That's EASILY the oldest concept of our nation(first European colonists in America...Virginia tobacco growers).

Mr.Murder
12-19-2003, 10:01 PM
Tobacco growers= slaveholders. After that kill off natives, give their land away and keep moving west. Now instead of having slaves or stealing land we are giving land away to foregin interests to buy it out. Airwaves and utilities too!
For slave labor- see also the free trade associations. Columbia and China. China's vote the first Iraq war in UN Security council earned the WTO status. Columbia's vote was for the same, strangely that nation kills workers wanting better lives and keeps people at subsitence levels.Two more great allies vs. the axis of evil.
With friends like this who needs enemeis? They inspire enough of them....see also Israel.

You said yourself the company overproduced. Sounds like a management oversight at its most fundamental level- market analysis. Many of those guys know what it takes and would not work for less than the job was worth. That is where outsourcing comes in so darned handy for this "preserdent-you-all" feller we have in up 'er in that big ol' white house now. Lookeee at 'em doin' us workin' folks proud. Weeeell Doggie!

DolFan31
12-20-2003, 12:46 AM
Mr. Murder is da man!

PhinPhan1227
12-22-2003, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
Tobacco growers= slaveholders. After that kill off natives, give their land away and keep moving west. Now instead of having slaves or stealing land we are giving land away to foregin interests to buy it out. Airwaves and utilities too!
For slave labor- see also the free trade associations. Columbia and China. China's vote the first Iraq war in UN Security council earned the WTO status. Columbia's vote was for the same, strangely that nation kills workers wanting better lives and keeps people at subsitence levels.Two more great allies vs. the axis of evil.
With friends like this who needs enemeis? They inspire enough of them....see also Israel.

You said yourself the company overproduced. Sounds like a management oversight at its most fundamental level- market analysis. Many of those guys know what it takes and would not work for less than the job was worth. That is where outsourcing comes in so darned handy for this "preserdent-you-all" feller we have in up 'er in that big ol' white house now. Lookeee at 'em doin' us workin' folks proud. Weeeell Doggie!

Lol...you've just summed up beautifully why Marxism/Socialism is such a crackpot notion.

"Many of those guys know what it takes and would not work for less than the job was worth."

Yep...you know what the job is worth, and you're not going to take a penny less. Well congrats...you're now out of a job and earning NOTHING. In the case of Eastern, they took a chance. Every company has to take chances in order to survive. Yes they guessed wrong. Now, had labor been flexible they could have recovered from that mistake. They weren't, and ALL those people lost their jobs as a result. Now, kindly explain to me how no paycheck(and since there are no other airlines based in SoFlo, I do mean NO paycheck), is better than a temporary reduction in pay?

Mr.Murder
12-24-2003, 07:02 AM
Fine move to mexico and work for four bucks a day with NAFTA when they used to make 5 a day and STFU about it because you're such a fan of unchecked capitalism.
Then again you would rather an airplane manufacturer pay workers less than their value for a job so experienced workers leave and the noobs that take over affect quality and then safety hazards/quality downgrades occur.
That is your right for personal matters, but things where others lives are involved you have no right to mitigate those influences onto things that could affect their well being. Then again our safety is not that much a concern to the Bush league, the WMD have gone through their third inspector and found nothing Blix and Ritter both ripped it and the latest clown was a war hawk who said it was definitive they would find something and has not found diddly poo...

Par for the course, risk ours for the roadmap to oil. If all of the leaders were true visionaries like Jeb Bush who said his idea for improvement was to end public education and build more prisons this country would be a much better place. but Bashcroft is taking too long to do it and he has ignored subpoenae and affadavit requests as well of late and even die hard republicans are suggesting he resign now. Nixon all over but worse... at least tricky dick left an environemntal legacy. He was crook but he had standards...

PhinPhan1227
12-24-2003, 10:43 AM
The biggest knock on "liberals" is that they have no grasp of reality, and you've just illustrated the point. For Eastern there were exactly TWO options...either the employees take a pay cut, or the company goes out of business. The jobs weren't moved to Mexico, they CEASED TO EXIST!!! This wasn't about underpaying for what an employee was worth, it was about saving the company AND saving those jobs. And the UNIONS decided that it was somehow in their members best interest to LOSE THEIR JOBS. Noobs didn't come in, foreign workers didn't do the jobs...the JOBS CEASED TO EXIST!!!! That's the reality of the situation. The reality of moving to other jobs to foreign soil? If your competitor is making products for half the cost that you incur to make those same products, you're going to go out of business. You want to keep companies in America, fine...you will have to either raise the wages of workers in other countries, or lower the wages of workers here. Because otherwise, those compnaies who STAY in America are going to see Americans buying their competitors products. Once again, that's the reality. If you want fantasy, meet me in Disney World.

Mr.Murder
12-24-2003, 04:32 PM
No thanks, Rush Rat Limbaugh may meet you there he is a victim of the liberal left and Disney gave him a pink slip at ESPN. Not like he made out a loser they probably gave him more severance than most of us will net for a decade...
So you would rather a guy gets paid less than what his job is worth? They made more planes than the market wanted for that targey already hads they stuck to low production motif the pay scale could have stayed high.
Stop blaming some bungling front office overprojections on line workers. A middle ground perhaps could be reached had there been suitable offer of things other than salary such as improved benefits w/stocksharing but clearly it was a downgrading of gross payroll that would precede a mass layoff anyways and then save the company topsize money for unemployment payroll and they would still fold/leave in the meantinme...
It was a face take on workers' jobs that were already gone across the board and taking less would have precedented lower wages for OTHER workers in the nation so they did the right thing and stood their ground.
You act like a retreat is win for these people whose jobs are highly skilled and specialised. Had they taken less their pink slips would have come anyways and others in the same field would get less than they deserve in the process.
If you wanna meet me at Disney Fine because they may have a clown/comedy character shortage and you are overqualified to take the job. If nothing else you can take the "jobless recovery" lemon of an economy, make lemonade and vend it to the masses. Better yet take that lemon, garnish a tall glass O' texas tea (oil money) and toast to the downgrading of America except for the Bush Oil lobby. They toast our demise and laugh.

DolFan31
12-28-2003, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
The biggest knock on "liberals" is that they have no grasp of reality, and you've just illustrated the point. For Eastern there were exactly TWO options...either the employees take a pay cut, or the company goes out of business. The jobs weren't moved to Mexico, they CEASED TO EXIST!!! This wasn't about underpaying for what an employee was worth, it was about saving the company AND saving those jobs. And the UNIONS decided that it was somehow in their members best interest to LOSE THEIR JOBS. Noobs didn't come in, foreign workers didn't do the jobs...the JOBS CEASED TO EXIST!!!! That's the reality of the situation. The reality of moving to other jobs to foreign soil? If your competitor is making products for half the cost that you incur to make those same products, you're going to go out of business. You want to keep companies in America, fine...you will have to either raise the wages of workers in other countries, or lower the wages of workers here. Because otherwise, those compnaies who STAY in America are going to see Americans buying their competitors products. Once again, that's the reality. If you want fantasy, meet me in Disney World.

No grasp of reality? you guys think you can solve everything with your tax cuts and teach "abstinence only" in classrooms for sex ed. and CUT education as much as you can, among other things.

PhinPhan1227
12-29-2003, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by DolFan31


No grasp of reality? you guys think you can solve everything with your tax cuts and teach "abstinence only" in classrooms for sex ed. and CUT education as much as you can, among other things.

"You guys"? I'm a fiscal Conservative. On most "moral/ethical" issues I fall well over to the Left. Abortion, Gay rights, Sex Ed, etc are all issues that I agree with the Dems/Left. But as much as I agree with those people on THOSE issues, I think that most of them couldn't find their rear ends with both hands when it comes to economic issues. Bottom line, they think the government can spend money better than the private sector, and that's been proven wrong every time.

PhinPhan1227
12-29-2003, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
No thanks, Rush Rat Limbaugh may meet you there he is a victim of the liberal left and Disney gave him a pink slip at ESPN. Not like he made out a loser they probably gave him more severance than most of us will net for a decade...
So you would rather a guy gets paid less than what his job is worth? They made more planes than the market wanted for that targey already hads they stuck to low production motif the pay scale could have stayed high.
Stop blaming some bungling front office overprojections on line workers. A middle ground perhaps could be rached had there been sutiable offer of thing other than salary such as improved benefits w/stocksharing but clearly it was a downgrading of gross payroll that would precede a mass layoff anyways and then save the company topsize money for unemployment payroll and they would still fold/leave in the meantinme...
It was a face take on workers' jobs that were already gone acorss the board and taking less would have precedented lower wages for OTHER workers in the nation so they did the right thing and stood their ground.
You act like a retreat is win for these people whose jobs are highly skilled and specialised. Had they taken less their pink slips would have come anyways and others in the same field would get less than they deserve in the process.
If you wanna meet me at Disney Fine because they may have a clown/comedy character shortage and you are overqualified to take the job. If nothing else you can take the "jobless recovery" lemon of an economy, make lemonade and vend it to the masses. Better yet take that lemon, garnish a tall glass O' texas tea (oil money) and toast to the downgrading of America except for the Bush Oil lobby. They toast our demise and laugh.

You're making assumptions about something which you obviously have no knoweledge. These were not jobs that were going away anyway, and this wasn't GROSS mismanagement by the Eastern executives. It was a gamble that didn't pay off. Jet Blue just bought new planes. If the economy keeps going up they'll reap big rewards from that purchase. If we get hit with another 9/11 and the economy tanks again they'll probably fold. It's called a calculated risk. Hopefully it will pay off for Jet Blue, but for Eastern the economy didin't rebound. NO company can exist without taking SOME risks. Now, as for the job cuts, they were NOT going to "just be laid off anyway". The owner of the company was trying to save the company, not just cut back costs for share holders. If he was trying to do that he never would have bought the planes in the first place(capitol outlay kills stock prices). Now, to the question you've asked over and over, I'll once AGAIN give you an answer...

Q-"So you would rather a guy gets paid less than what his job is worth?"

A-"I'd rather a guy got paid a PORTION of what he's worth, TEMPORARILY, rather than NOTHING at all".

As I said before, there are NO other major airlines based in South Florida. These people who lost their jobs NEVER got them back. They took other jobs which for the most part were unskilled or minimum wage because their skills were not transferable. You think it's bad for a person making 60-80k to take a 10-15k pay cut? That's somehow worse than that person now making 18-24k? The logic here escapes me. Perhaps you could explain how that person is now better off? Especially when he might have been back up to his 60-80k salary after only a few years? Please, explain the logic of putting someone into poverty to save the pride of the Labor Union!

DeDolfan
12-29-2003, 04:52 PM
Even if that "portion" is only minimum wage ??

Mr.Murder
12-29-2003, 07:34 PM
And you addressed how having people work for below market rates leads to lower safety/quality issues ....NOT. It is okay to have them work for less so the experienced noes leaves to where their skill earns just pay... and the noobs to take over contribute to lower quality work in comparison.
Since you are such a free trade maverick give up anything you make past miminum wage, and get others to sign up for a mandatory minimum wage for skilled labor...
Put your money where your mouth is.Lead by example.

PhinPhan1227
12-30-2003, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
And you addressed how having people work for below market rates leads to lower safety/quality issues ....NOT. It is okay to have them work for less so the experienced noes leaves to where their skill earns just pay... and the noobs to take over contribute to lower quality work in comparison.
Since you are such a free trade maverick give up anything you make past miminum wage, and get others to sign up for a mandatory minimum wage for skilled labor...
Put your money where your mouth is.Lead by example.

GOD do you understand the english language?!?!?! The Eastern employees could NOT leave to earn a higher wage elsewhere!!! There was NOWHERE for them to go!!! A guy who maintaines engines on a DC-10 doesn't HAVE anyplace else to go when no other airlines are based in South Florida? ESPECIALLY when the other airlines in other cities already have full staffs. His OTHER option IS minimum wage. The FAIR wage for ANYONE is what the market will bear. I'm a recruiter. When the market took a downturn a few years ago I did take a pay cut because companies didn't need my services as much. Now that things are picking up again I'm able to get the fees I did before. Likewise...the airline industry takes a hit and is earning less money, it's perfectly reasonable for the employees to take cuts in kind. That includes the executives of course, but that was NOT what the Unions were prepared to do with Eastern. Pull your head out of your rectum and recognize that for someone with a highly specialized job, there frequently is NOT an option to just "go somewhere else". A guy who runs the assembly line for Chrysler CAN'T go somewhere else for the same pay if Ford and GM are not hiring. He just doesn't have transferable skills. Unless of course Honda opens a factory, in which case he can take a job with them so long as he's willing to leave the Union behind. This is so simple even you could understand if you took half a minute. The Eastern employees could have kept relatively well paying jobs if they took the cuts. Their Union didn't allow them to take those cuts and those people had to then find jobs which paid them LESS than they would have made if they HAD taken the cuts. And with NO chance to get BACK to those prior levels, because the airline industry was now non-existant in Florida.

DeDolfan
12-30-2003, 10:51 AM
Their union didn't allow them to take those cuts?? Wrong, the union simply makes their recommendation to it's members. The union memeber themselves vote on the contract on the table whether to ratify it or not. Therefore, the members voted not to take the cuts so it was their own doing, not the union itself, altho the union's recommendation was an ill-advised one at best. sure, the union may "push" it's members one way or the other but the member's held their own fate in their own hands.

PhinPhan1227
12-30-2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan
Their union didn't allow them to take those cuts?? Wrong, the union simply makes their recommendation to it's members. The union memeber themselves vote on the contract on the table whether to ratify it or not. Therefore, the members voted not to take the cuts so it was their own doing, not the union itself, altho the union's recommendation was an ill-advised one at best. sure, the union may "push" it's members one way or the other but the member's held their own fate in their own hands.

The Union members vote on the information they are given. It's not the MOST democratic of processes. If all they hear from leadership is that Management is trying to screw them, that's how they're going to vote. I'm not absolving the members of all resoncibility, but any organization as ossified as a major Union is going to be VERY heavily influenced by it's leadership. Do you REALLY think that the rank and file NRA member felt the need to fight for the legalization of armor piercing bullets? Granted a lot of NRA members are ignorant rednecks, but it was the lobbying group of the NRA that fought for that idiotic freedom. ANY group that has grown beyond a certain size eventually evolves to see it's own continuance as a higher priority than whatever it was originally created to accomplish. I'm sure that nobody in the NRA that wasn't nuts ACTUALLY saw the justification in the legalization of AP bullets. But backing down on that issue would be a dimunition of their power, no matter how small...and therefore they fought for it. Same thing with the Unions for Eastern. It WAS in everyones best interest for the employees to take cuts. But that would set a precedent that might have been exploited by other companies, so they sacrificed the Eastern employees. Don't get me wrong, I feel the same way about groups like the NRA, NOW, the Catholic Church, the GOP and DNC. They all exist first and foremost to grow and develop their own power first and foremost. The thing that makes most labor Unions worse than those other groups however is that in most cases, people don't get the option of whether they want to join or not. If you want to work in a Union shop, you have to be a Union member. That's just not American to me.

DeDolfan
12-30-2003, 02:06 PM
Union membership should not be a condition of employment. IMO, you do your job right, you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

PhinPhan1227
12-30-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan
Union membership should not be a condition of employment. IMO, you do your job right, you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

I FULLY agree....doesn't change the fact that there ARE Union shops where the employer has been forced to sign a contract to ONLY hire Union. Those contracts may be illegal in "right to work" states, but not every state is "right to work".

Mr.Murder
12-30-2003, 11:42 PM
They could earn more wages than what Eastern offered, albeit at other locales...
As for your wonderful disinformation presence to aquire votes, it is exactly what the yellowcake lies started... nice of you to bring up such fact presentation stratagies.
So did you give up all of the wages past minimum wage like the wage idealist you claim to be and ask others to sign away their right to get due pay as well? Thought so...

PhinPhan1227
12-31-2003, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
They could earn more wages than what Eastern offered, albeit at other locales...
As for your wonderful disinformation presence to aquire votes, it is exactly what the yellowcake lies started... nice of you to bring up such fact presentation stratagies.
So did you give up all of the wages past minimum wage like the wage idealist you claim to be and ask others to sign away their right to get due pay as well? Thought so...

No...in point of fact, they could not. The rest of the industry was also struggling, so it's not like Delta was in a major hiring stance. Even if they COULD have gotten on with another airline, they would have had to relocate across the country..which would have been a major expense, and STILL would have taken a pay cut since they would have been getting in on the bottom of the totem pole. Bottom line, they WOULD have been better off taking the cuts. Virtually every analysis of the circumstances afterwards was in agreement on that score. As for the rest...again, it's what the MARKET will bear. What makes your argument so mindless is the fact that you don't seem to grasp that concept. If the market will bear paying me 6 figures a year, that's what I charge. It the market will only bear paying me 35k, THAT is what I'll charge. My training, skill, and talent in and of itself entitles me to NOTHING!!!! My worth from an economic standpoint is reflected ONLY in the value I bring to my clients and company. If the market doesn't ALLOW me to bring as much value, my economic worth HAS to go down. That's reality. You seem to think that regardless of the environment, a persons income should remain the same, and that is the exact mindset that caused the fall of the Soviet Union. Obviously you've never been in a position to get paid commisions or bonus'. If you had you'd have a much better appreciation of what it means to be paid for productivity, rather than just being paid for "showing up".

Mr.Murder
12-31-2003, 11:58 PM
Oh wages were too high and it took down russia, thanks for clarifying that... you would rather we all work in a communist style economy where wages stay low? It appears you have mistaken their low wages leading to an economy collapse with their infrastructure/distrubition shortcomings.
Nice to know the people wanting what their jobs are worth is a part of communism. Thos labor unions were all a bunch of commies. Health care for workers, insurcance, worker safety standards, all of those things are communism in action 1227?

And this has what to do with the boom? Three million jobs lost and the workers wanting fair wages/living standards ruined them!
Give up any benefits from your job and only take minimum wage! Make others do so as well! Lead us by example 1227!

PhinPhan1227
01-05-2004, 11:22 AM
Please Murder...take an economics 101 class. "Nice to know the people wanting what their jobs are worth is a part of communism. " If I'm a person who repairs jet engines on a DC-10 in Miami, guess what my job is worth if THERE ARE NO AIRLINES BASED IN MIAMI? Take a guess. Come on...give it a shot. Here..I'll give you a clue...ZERO!!!! Nada, zilch, niente'. No job has ANY inherent worth. The worth of any job is based ONLY on the given market. If the market for my job fell down to minimum wage levels, I'd either have to take that or find a different career. What that Econ 101 class might also explain to you is the reason that Communism failed. Communism relies on a "planned economy". They artificially asign values to labor, materials, etc. That's what you're trying to do with salaries. A salary is determined by the VALUE of the services that individual can provide to THAT company in THAT market. If the market changes, the salary is going to change as well. Maybe that change is up, maybe it's down...it all depends. That's basic economics, but it's something which you and apparently the Union leaders for Eastern's labor were unable to grasp. Now, you made yourself look like an idiot with your "why don't you re-up" crap, why don't we stop the "why don't you work for minimum wage" crap while you're behind? Try something new and exciting...discuss the FACTS, and drop the Union rhetoric. Sounds like fun doesn't it?

Mr.Murder
01-05-2004, 10:20 PM
Actually the communism formualtion is to regulate PRODUCTION. yes you made me stupid on the re-up signup. You are here , the war is there, and you want others to fight it.
So you have surreneder any pay that goes past minimum to show your support of this? WAIT, UP THE STANDARDS HERE- To be competetive 1227, work for .31 cents an hour which is the HIGH END salary for MOST of the "free trade" recipients! Ya like those facts???
Show us all how we need to work for nothing to level the playing field and compete with third world wage scales!Better yet take a 20% wage cut in addition to those hourly pay rates like most of NAFTA's Mexican jobs, just to provide all of these lazy Democrats a REAL TIME MODEL of republiclown policy in action!

PhinPhan1227
01-06-2004, 10:16 AM
I work in an industry which is strongly compensated by production. I generate revinue for the company, and I'm paid accordingly. If I'm not producing, I don't get paid. It's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I'm paid according to the value I bring to the company. I'm not asking to be paid some artificial figure based on what a person thinks they are worth. Again, Communism is a planned ECONOMY. Top to bottom, it's artificial. Jesus man, take a class in economics, seriously!!!

Mr.Murder
01-06-2004, 10:34 PM
Well then anything you make past minimum wage give back to your employer so their profit margins are better and the company is more competetive as a result!
Put your money where your mouth is! The same excuse to let job selloffs occur is the issue and you are not following it! Save your job by taking less money! Lead by example! SHow all those others who want a raise that minimum wage is the path of progress for all!


For that matter, take below minimum! Show us all how less is really more!

PhinPhan1227
01-08-2004, 09:31 AM
You really are clueless. I produce revinue for my company. I get compensated as a result. If I do NOT produce revinue, I do NOT get compensated. If I were in a non-revinue producing position(like admin, or tech-support), than my job/salary would certainly be in jeapardy if the company was struggling. This is so simple that I can only conclude that your ideology is preventing you from grasping this concept. WAGES are not intrinsic. They are based on the MARKET, and the VALUE that a person brings to the company. In 1998 a web developer had a LOT of value for that market, and made a ton of money. In 2004, your average web developer is making only a little over minimum wage. The web developers skills didn't diminish...the market did. Their VALUE diminished. For the Eastern workers, their skills didn't diminish, but the health of the company REQUIRED that for them to KEEP their jobs, they were going to have to take a pay cut. Otherwise, they were going to have to go out and get jobs in a TOTALY different industry and WERE going to go back to minimum wage salaries. Try for just ONE second to put your dogma aside and recognize the reality of BASIC economics!!! Jesus, if you don't have time to take a class....read a freakin book!!!

Mr.Murder
01-09-2004, 08:20 PM
The product prices went down? Looks like all time highs across the board. Oh the OUTSOURCED JOB REVENUES are what went down... unfair trade is the heart of the matter.
So you are on staright commission, higher pay if you sell. Now be a good ol boy and give all your commission past minimum wage back to your boss to show us all you stand on the lowest possible compensation issue FOR ALL. It starts at home, be the shining example of sleflessness and anti-greed that is the heart of unchecked capitalism theory... in fact give up any job benefits you have since free trade has removed that aspect of employer responsibility as well.


Until then quit telling others how their outsourced job fields are part of the grand plan to improve our standards of living and employment options. You seem to think letting these standards decline is somehow better for workers. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... all of those are in some way incorporated in job benefits packages and obviously are less important in other countries.
Show us how you are better off with less pay and no benefits, set the example you uphold as a progress model 1227!

PhinPhan1227
01-10-2004, 02:40 AM
I'd call you a broken record, but that would demean records. What is it about the simple concept of VALUE that is beyond your understanding? I have no need to altruistically give ANYTHING back to my employer, because my activity is what produces HIS revinue. I bring value. By showing up every day I make the company stronger. And I make it stronger in DIRECT proportion to my income. Heck Murder...greed IS good so long as it's governed by ethics(the little part Gordon Gecko left off). Employees have every right to seek out all the pay/benefits they can get, but they have to recognize that without the COMPANY, they will get NOTHING. There has to be a BALANCE. And it was exactly that lack of BALANCE which killed Eastern Airlines. Seriously man, are you just being stubourn, or do you actually lack the capacity to grasp these VERY simple concepts?

Mr.Murder
01-10-2004, 04:15 AM
Value is a relative term is what you are saying. Fine for you, the bottom line is a job pays a certain amount why take less than that? You do it for your job, and that is same standard those workers wanted. You still ignored the fact that working for less would lower the amount of money others could make for the same job and leverage workers lower rights, benefits, and value as a whole across the board in a said field.

But there is no need to confuse such skilled labor aspects this time, Bush is importing as many new workers to work for less as anyone ever has or will and it is certain to make fewer middle class wage scales available... and middle to upper scale market goods/service providers cannot wait to feel negative impacts from such!

As for neo-cons not voting for the prophet "JoeL" as listed in other posts, it is no problem, neither neo-cons or 'Lie'berman are any count on the national stage as will soon be shown...

PhinPhan1227
01-10-2004, 09:57 AM
"the bottom line is a job pays a certain amount "

That statement proves that you don't have a clue. A job does NOT pay a certain amount. A certain individual in a certain market for a certain company earns a certain amount for a certain job. Change any one of those factors and all the other factors will change as well. The market and company changed for Eastern...which neccesitated a complimentary change in salary. Thaty change didn't occur, which killed the company, which FORCED a more DRASTIC change to those salaries. Again, I can't believe an adult would be this clueless of basic economics.

Mr.Murder
01-13-2004, 11:02 PM
Those eastern workers working for less would have made the entire market's rate drop, then once it was done the same top end mismanagement would force them to ask for lower salaries again to stay "competetive". Since company CEO salaries have hit an all time high in discrepancy of comparative salary to line workers, why not decrease those salaries to stay competetive?
Oh nice reply, we see why Bush lauds unfair trade, it allows the front office to stay unbalanced for the business formulae you laud as a necessity to marketing. So those minimum wage maximum salary cileings of yours are voluntary? Yeah thought so. You shouldnt take a pay cut, others should. We understand where you are coming from now.
Thanks for refusing salary cut to make you company more competetive, you could do it right now to help out and are not doing so. I see now why you expect others to have a better standard.

PhinPhan1227
01-15-2004, 12:40 PM
Lol...It's quite telling that you can't recognize the difference between "staying competitive", and "going out of business". If my company was going out of business and I was in a specialized industry, I MIGHT very well take a cut. But since my company is doing well, and I generate revinue, there's no need. As for Eastern, I'm sure that it gives those workers who had to take jobs at McDonalds great satisfaction that losing their jobs didn't result in an overall lowering of the markets pay scale. That must give them a warm fuzzy when they ask Bubba if he wants fries with his Big Mac.

Mr.Murder
01-16-2004, 08:59 PM
Speaking of McRecovery meal deal, that is all Bush has left for people. 'Spose unions would have let those jobs just "move away" instead of keeping our markets secure for crafted work and industry.
Look at the wage rate progression and it is the lowest it has EVER been int he modern era, despite the FACT that CEO salaries went up to new highs. So we are truly working for less money than ever per capita per person minus the very top bracket.
I heard McDonald's went overboard with overqualified jet engine mechanics who were then sold over to Burger King. Lucky for you, you can pick up the chat crown for your supposed won arguments there and crown yourself king. Bush did the same thing, only it was with a court his dad helped install and the crown was our office.

Booms can heard when things implode or collapse, do not confuse such noise with good news. The bush Boom was heard, its numbers show BUST in major areas. All of this for 1,000 new jobs! Counting defense spending and subsidized outsourcing! And a record deficit to boot!

If you are so pro-Iraq and outsourcing, MOVE TO THOSE COUNTRIES WHERE THE JOBS AND MONEY ARE BEING SENT. Competetition is where everyone plays the same rules "free trade" is not doing that.

PhinPhan1227
01-17-2004, 11:33 PM
I completely agree that Executive comp plans are way out of line. The people who should be contesting that are share holders AND employees. I also agree that several of our trade practices, especially with countries with China are out of line. I have no problem with protectioneism if it's competing with protectionsim. Where we disagree is protectionism used against free competition. All of that however has nothing to do with the discussion of Eastern and the fact that the Union and its members cut their own throats. And I highly doubt that those members would have done so if they were getting clean information from their Union leaders. As for the Boom, Production numbers went up again in the last report. Once again, those numbers can't be maintained by the current labor pool. Comapnies will have to hire more people to maintain those numbers. Once AGAIN, basic economics. Take a darned class man!!!!

Mr.Murder
01-21-2004, 12:58 AM
1,000 new jobs, 20 per state! Coming to a Bush-Mart near you! FREE TRADE is an oxymoron! EVERYTHING HAS A PRICE, "free trade"? The only time a line like that is used is to sell something that has no merit otherwise. SInce it has no value, add a value "label" that is by nature contradictory and repreat it until it is agreed upon.
The entire idea of NAFTA was to expand target markets by improving wages there. The oversight is gone, people make less there now.
Bush has not given oversight here, letting wages spiral down and jobs move off per industry. Lack of oversight here has a carryover, nothing is done about it once the American leadership model vansishes. That is the core of this problem. You have presented a great plan when given structure. The same structure you claim is a deterrent isd the only thing to secure a level playing field and viabnle target markets for exports.

The IMF has already issued one warning about the dollar value to America. McKinley/Taft ignored such warnings and steered us into a depression. Seems the latest gold reserve audit was missing a sizeable portion as well. We are the brink of aboslute economic upheavel, interest rates are too low to lower further. Most Americans have borrowed on low interest as well and with jobs outsourced have few chances to recover wage scales/pay creditors.
The next thing will be foreign buyup from a low's dollar's standing turning into a selloff panic. Things are so bad to address them currently would not guanrantee a fix either.
Bush driving record speaks for itself, the economy should not have a chimp at the wheel. The boom being lowered on us, not by America. The effect will not be pretty.

PhinPhan1227
01-21-2004, 09:43 AM
The beauty of THIS discussion is that we only have to wait to find out who is correct. Either things continue upwards, or they take another downturn. Barring another 9/11 attack, the die is set and we only have to wait to see how it all evolves. If you are correct and things do turn back south, I'll be here to eat crow(assuming that I have a computer and can afford an Internet connection...;o), and I hope that you will do the same if things continue to improve. I doubt it, as evidenced by your blind hatred of GW, but that's my hope none-the-less.

Mr.Murder
01-26-2004, 06:46 PM
Well the press is circling like vultures, there will not be much left to evaluat/pity by the time it is said and done. Cheney has a pardon for him, rice, and Rove sitting on W's desk ready to be signed at the 11th hour...