Giuliani

[IDBillzFan]

WHOA! Where did THAT come from?

 

Is Guliani above criticism because he used 9/11 to garner support for Bush?

 

Do you HONESTLY think he was thinking 'Thank God that Bush was president' DURING the attacks!? NO... And if you believe that, I have some swamp land in Florida that makes PRIME real estate. It's all political rhetoric!

 

When have I EVER defended Kerry to the hilt? NEVER... he has a LOT of questions that need to be answered, but I'm sorry, but what Rudy did was not right. It's about time someone stopped making 9/11 and swift boat vets their whole campaign. NEITHER one of them talk about real issues!

 

ENOUGH with the 9/11 and military record CRAP already. Don't put your glamour boys up on podiums, and use tragic events to prop up you candidacies. THIS goes for BOTH sides. What Guliani did is the same as what Kerry did with those 'staged' reunions of his.

 

I will NOT back down off of this one. ANY mayor of ANY city would have acted the way he did when faced with that sort of attack. He's anything BUT a holier-than-thou figure, BELIEVE ME. Just ask his ex-wife.

12694[/snapback]

 

Here's a real simple idea I hope you Polly's can grasp.

 

You go to a job interview within the large corporation for which you work. You want a promotion. Someone asks you "So what are you qualifications." Your answer is that you're more experienced at the position, knowledgeable, and the most qualified person for the job. You cite some examples of your past performance. They also ask you about the time you were in a car wreck with three coworkers, including your boss, and managed to provide CPR to the two people and save their lives. You say it just happened unexpectedly and you did the best you could under the circumstances.

 

The company checks your references, and one of them happens to be your boss. Your boss says "And not only that, but during a tragic accident, he saved our lives because he was calm, level headed and strong.

 

You don't get the job. Why? Because the company thinks you're exploting the accident instead of seeing it for what it was; an example of your capabilities.

 

I don't expect this to make sense to the Polly's because whenever they're faced with truth, you get a "whoop de damn do.'

 

But if you think Bush is not and should not show the best part of his resume to the world while he's in the biggest interview of his life, you truly are blind to real life.

 

"Take the Hot Pockets out of the microwave, TaRAYza, cuz 'The Apprentice' is coming on any minute and I just love when the Donald says "you're fired. Oh, there's a world out there? Shut the fuggin' blinds."

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

Here's a real simple idea I hope you Polly's can grasp.

 

You go to a job interview within the large corporation for which you work. You want a promotion. Someone asks you "So what are you qualifications." Your answer is that you're more experienced at the position, knowledgeable, and the most qualified person for the job. You cite some examples of your past performance. They also ask you about the time you were in a car wreck with three coworkers, including your boss, and managed to provide CPR to the two people and save their lives. You say it just happened unexpectedly and you did the best you could under the circumstances.

 

The company checks your references, and one of them happens to be your boss. Your boss says "And not only that, but during a tragic accident, he saved our lives because he was calm, level headed and strong.

 

You don't get the job. Why? Because the company thinks you're exploting the accident instead of seeing it for what it was; an example of your capabilities.

 

I don't expect this to make sense to the Polly's because whenever they're faced with truth, you get a "whoop de damn do.'

 

But if you think Bush is not and should not show the best part of his resume to the world while he's in the biggest interview of his life, you truly are blind to real life.

 

"Take the Hot Pockets out of the microwave, TaRAYza, cuz 'The Apprentice' is coming on any minute and I just love when the Donald says "you're fired. Oh, there's a world out there? Shut the fuggin' blinds."

12844[/snapback]

 

Did this man do these things? NO:

 

1. Embellish or make the tragedy out to be his personal triumph, the basis for why he is a great employee? Bush and his speakers were NEVER that simplistic about the whole thing... they tell us time and time again that they were great when the time came to act, and that is something people who are REAL heroes NEVER do.

 

2. Base his whole job interview on just the merits of his heroism, and his strength? NO. REAL people in job interviews don't do that. They HAVE to answer the tough questions about their past work history, their character, their decision-making, and their overall ability as an intelligent person. BUSH NEVER, EVER has to do this in a realistic, face-to-face situation like an interview with serious, thought-provoking questions.

 

Your theorectical interview just doesn't match up with the real politicians... they ALWAYS get off easy; they are born actors these days.. staged, trite, and a living sound bite.

 

ANOTHER name... I dunno what a 'Polly' is, but frankly, every time I get a name, I'm going to say something now. Someone has to.

[IDBillzFan]

Did this man do these things? NO:

 

1. Embellish or make the tragedy out to be his personal triumph, the basis for why he is a great employee? Bush and his speakers were NEVER that simplistic about the whole thing... they tell us time and time again that they were great when the time came to act, and that is something people who are REAL heroes NEVER do.

 

2. Base his whole job interview on just the merits of his heroism, and his strength? NO. REAL people in job interviews don't do that. They HAVE to answer the tough questions about their past work history, their character, their decision-making, and their overall ability as an intelligent person. BUSH NEVER, EVER has to do this in a realistic, face-to-face situation like an interview with serious, thought-provoking questions.

 

Your theorectical interview just doesn't match up with the real politicians... they ALWAYS get off easy; they are born actors these days.. staged, trite, and a living sound bite.

 

ANOTHER name... I dunno what a 'Polly' is, but frankly, every time I get a name, I'm going to say something now. Someone has to.

12862[/snapback]

Polly - A parrot that says the same thing over and over and over regardless of what is happening around them because all they see from their caged existence is the package of crackers on the table.

 

Bush stood this country upright when it needed him most and to ignore that one characteristic of strength is, in fact, being a Polly. The option; a man who has made three different decisions on what HE would do in Iraq and has said NOTHING to America about what he would do about the rest of the world beyond the fact that he spent four months in Vietnam.

 

Sorry, but when people fly planes into our buildings, THAT becomes my priority. You want to bring everyone home and wait for them to try it again? Great. I suspect if you were coach of a soccer team you'd just bunch all your players around the goal. "We don't care if we win...just as long as we don't lose."

[VABills]

Polly  - A parrot that says the same thing over and over and over regardless of what is happening around them because all they see from their caged existence is the package of crackers on the table.

 

Bush stood this country upright when it needed him most and to ignore that one characteristic of strength is, in fact, being a Polly. The option; a man who has made three different decisions on what HE would do in Iraq and has said NOTHING to America about what he would do about the rest of the world beyond the fact that he spent four months in Vietnam.

 

Sorry, but when people fly planes into our buildings, THAT becomes my priority. You want to bring everyone home and wait for them to try it again? Great. I suspect if you were coach of a soccer team you'd just bunch all your players around the goal. "We don't care if we win...just as long as we don't lose."

12875[/snapback]

Soccer sucks. Don't ever use that reference again. In general this is a football board. If you can't come up with a football analogy, then you need to go find another board.

[GG]

And I believe the conservative line has always been let the corporations run free, unregulated, free of government interference, free to do what they want at the expense of the rest of America, like the good ol days of the late 19th century.

 

I agree with your assessment of the social services issue; it needs reform badly. However, we must also strive to solve many of the other issues, such as affordable health care and illegal immigration enforcement. We CANNOT afford to have people who don't pay taxes using our services when they are illegals. It's not right.

12742[/snapback]

 

Are those true conservative talking points, or soundbites from a union memo?

 

Conservatives are for strong business, which provides the jobs and economic growth. Conservatives rail against excessive government regulation, which impedes growth and by extension, job creation. Please point to a conservative source that advocates a pure laissez faire economic policy. What I think you will find are calls to end regulatory policies that are ineffective and are not cost effective in the long term. The CA energy crisis was a prime example. While the supply market was deemed to be unregulated, the demand market stayed fixed, and was ripe for a disaster.

 

Our economic model is the best in the world, and we are the only ones that are keeping a global recession from reappearing. It would be nice if our friends in Europe & Japan finally got their economic houses in order, because the USA's economic engine can only do so much.

 

As to the free wheeling capitalists of the 19th century, would they also be the ones that turned the USA from an agrarian state into a massive economic power, that also coped with an unprecedented immigrant movement? If things were really so bad here in 19th century, why were people willing to brave ocean crossings to work in NYC's sweathsops instead of hanging out in their home countries?

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

Are those true conservative talking points, or soundbites from a union memo?

 

Conservatives are for strong business, which provides the jobs and economic growth.  Conservatives rail against excessive government regulation, which impedes growth and by extension, job creation.  Please point to a conservative source that advocates a pure laissez faire economic policy.  What I think you will find are calls to end regulatory policies that are ineffective and are not cost effective in the long term.  The CA energy crisis was a prime example.  While the supply market was deemed to be unregulated, the demand market stayed fixed, and was ripe for a disaster.

 

Our economic model is the best in the world, and we are the only ones that are keeping a global recession from reappearing.  It would be nice if our friends in Europe & Japan finally got their economic houses in order, because the USA's economic engine can only do so much.

 

As to the free wheeling capitalists of the 19th century, would they also be the ones that turned the USA from an agrarian state into a massive economic power, that also coped with an unprecedented immigrant movement?  If things were really so bad here in 19th century, why were people willing to brave ocean crossings to work in NYC's sweathsops instead of hanging out in their home countries?

12924[/snapback]

 

 

Conservatives who are hard-line WANT the government to de-regulate everything; I have NO DOUBTS about that. I wrote that paragraph myself, without any references or help. WHAT IMPEDES GROWTH is corporations exporting our jobs overseas, while at the same time getting screwed by unions at home. I have mentioned that dual blame issue earlier. I am glad to see that you do not favor total deregulation.

 

Our economic model is ONLY the best in the world if:

 

We still have the educated workforce to keep UP with it. Based upon the continuing troubles of quality education, we are heading for a fall in that area.

 

We recognize the need for a better environmental policy. If this goes at the present rate, we won't have the same country we do now 100 years from now. If we let the forces of oil continue to dominate our energy, then we are SCE-REWED. The money we put into FINALLY solving the energy problem will be the best investment EVER MADE in terms of non-genetic science.

 

The 19th century's largest contributors of human misery had to 'cope' with an immigration problem! Now that is funny, because I didn't know having a large workforce with no unions or regulation was a big PROBLEM!

 

Why do you think standards such as child labor laws, hour laws, health regulations, and required inspections were enacted in the FIRST place? BECAUSE big business was too wrapped up in the bottom line, and most did NOTHING to improve working conditions. I'm sure those immigrants REALLY enjoyed those sweatshops, and flocked to the USA just to work there.

 

BTW, my immigrant ancestors were ALL farmers, so luckily they didn't have to live under the same working conditions as those in the cities. I can't IMAGINE what it's like to work in a coal mine or a copper mine for many, many hours under the worst of human conditions.

 

That's my MAIN problem with the conservative philosophy; it leaves LITTLE ROOM for humanity, and it will ALWAYS be its fatal weakness, IMO.

[GG]

Conservatives who are hard-line WANT the government to de-regulate everything; I have NO DOUBTS about that. I wrote that paragraph myself, without any references or help. WHAT IMPEDES GROWTH is corporations exporting our jobs overseas, while at the same time getting screwed by unions at home. I have mentioned that dual blame issue earlier. I am glad to see that you do not favor total deregulation.

 

Our economic model is ONLY the best in the world if:

 

We still have the educated workforce to keep UP with it. Based upon the continuing troubles of quality education, we are heading for a fall in that area.

 

We recognize the need for a better environmental policy. If this goes at the present rate, we won't have the same country we do now 100 years from now. If we let the forces of oil continue to dominate our energy, then we are SCE-REWED. The money we put into FINALLY solving the energy problem will be the best investment EVER MADE in terms of non-genetic science.

 

The 19th century's largest contributors of human misery had to 'cope' with an immigration problem!  Now that is funny, because I didn't know having a large workforce with no unions or regulation was a big PROBLEM!

 

Why do you think standards such as child labor laws, hour laws, health regulations, and required inspections were enacted in the FIRST place? BECAUSE big business was too wrapped up in the bottom line, and most did NOTHING to improve working conditions. I'm sure those immigrants REALLY enjoyed those sweatshops, and flocked to the USA just to work there. 

 

BTW, my immigrant ancestors were ALL farmers, so luckily they didn't have to live under the same working conditions as those in the cities. I can't IMAGINE what it's like to work in a coal mine or a copper mine for many, many hours under the worst of human conditions.

 

That's my MAIN problem with the conservative philosophy; it leaves LITTLE ROOM for humanity, and it will ALWAYS be its fatal weakness, IMO.

13012[/snapback]

 

And the biggest problem with liberal philosophy is wrapping yourself with a feel good blanket that does more harm to the long term economic health of your constituents. The conservative focus on the individual's ability to help himself is somehow construed as a lack of compassion for humanity as a whole.

 

Let me go out on a limb, and say there is no such thing as humanity, but a vast collection of individuals in an organized society. You cannot deal with humanity as a whole. There will always be people in need. But you should put policies in place that will be the most effective for a large majority of the individuals in your society, and that will trickle down to the people in need.

 

If recognizing that item makes me inhumane, that's fine.

 

I continue to use CA as an example. While it may seem more humane to implement the worker protection and benefits policies that the state is famous for, it raises the cost of doing business in the state. This benefits the workers in the short term, but it hammers the state's long term prospects, as many businesses will close or choose to open doors elsewhere. CA has already seen a net migration of non-immigrant population in the last decade, and more importantly, jobs.

 

You hit on education's declining standards. Interesting point to bring up, as it has been under control of liberals for the last 35 years. Where do you think that the biggest impediments to education overhaul are coming from?

 

Libertal rhetoric is filled with fears of corporate America ruining the country. On every corner, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Media are out to ruin the foundation of what we are. But the true foundation of what we are, is a continuing disruption of the status quo. There is always someone with a better idea of how to do something, and if that idea is good, it will destroy the old economic model. Interesting how few people in Internet chatrooms bemoan the loss of 100,000's of telecom jobs in the last decade, because the Internet has made the old telecom networks obsolete. Ask yourself the question of whether there's a greater benefit to the new telecom networks or keeping those people employed and maintaining the old networks?

 

This pattern will continue with other industries, including oil. The reason, there's so much emphasis on it, is because oil is relatively cheap. Once the price of fossil fuels gets out of hand, then there will be a bigger push to develop alternative energy sources (provided you can overcome the NIMBYisms).

 

Lastly, the history of 19th & early 20th century industrialization of the US is written through the prism of organized labor. While the conditions of factories & plants were horrific by our standards, they were no worse than death by starvation in the home countries. You have to look at what was happening in industrialized cities relative to the conditions elswehere in the US and across the world at that time. Through their labor struggles, the comminists and socialists were actually protesting the changing of the feudal order into capitalism, but still saw the workers as serfs.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

And the biggest problem with liberal philosophy is wrapping yourself with a feel good blanket that does more harm to the long term economic health of your constituents.   The conservative focus on the individual's ability to help himself is somehow construed as a lack of compassion for humanity as a whole. 

 

*How is offering basic protection to the workforce HARMING long-term economic health? They have been in place for a LONG time now on a federal level, and yet the economic growth of the United States has expanded and expanded, still making us the strongest economy in the world. I can't speak for California, but it seems to me that there is such a thing as going too far. That's why I am NOT a liberal; that would be going too far when it comes to social services and protection.

 

Let me go out on a limb, and say there is no such thing as humanity, but a vast collection of individuals in an organized society.  You cannot deal with humanity as a whole.  There will always be people in need. But you should put policies in place that will be the most effective for a large majority of the individuals in your society, and that will trickle down to the people in need. 

 

*I mean humanity as an ADJECTIVE, not as a NOUN, as in show a humanity. This trickle-down theory of Reaganomics isn't used anymore, and for good reason. The 1980's taught us well what corporate greed can do, that's for sure.

 

If recognizing that item makes me inhumane, that's fine.   

 

I continue to use CA as an example.  While it may seem more humane to implement the worker protection and benefits policies that the state is famous for, it raises the cost of doing business in the state.  This benefits the workers in the short term, but it hammers the state's long term prospects, as many businesses will close or choose to open doors elsewhere.  CA has already seen a net migration of non-immigrant population in the last decade, and more importantly, jobs.

 

*Californians are leaving because the state is becoming swamped with immigrants, and the quality of living is not as it once was is what I gather.

 

You hit on education's declining standards.  Interesting point to bring up, as it has been under control of liberals for the last 35 years.  Where do you think that the biggest impediments to education overhaul are coming from?

 

*Under control of liberals?? OHHH, so THAT'S why teachers don't get paid what they deserve, and are stuck with children who have ignorant parents? There is something wrong when people want quality education, but are not willing to pay GOOD teachers what they deserve. Programmers, systems analysts, etc get paid 100k plus, and yet good teachers have to settle for 30-40k at the MOST in secondary schools.

 

Libertal rhetoric is filled with fears of corporate America ruining the country.  On every corner, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Media are out to ruin the foundation of what we are.  But the true foundation of what we are, is a continuing disruption of the status quo.  There is always someone with a better idea of how to do something, and if that idea is good, it will destroy the old economic model.  Interesting how few people in Internet chatrooms bemoan the loss of 100,000's of telecom jobs in the last decade, because the Internet has made the old telecom networks obsolete.  Ask yourself the question of whether there's a greater benefit to the new telecom networks or keeping those people employed and maintaining the old networks?

 

*Times change, industries change. I have ALWAYS recognized that fact, and I DO NOT advocate saving those jobs when the demand has naturally petered out. It just doesn't make sense.

 

This pattern will continue with other industries, including oil.  The reason, there's so much emphasis on it, is because oil is relatively cheap.  Once the price of fossil fuels gets out of hand, then there will be a bigger push to develop alternative energy sources (provided you can overcome the NIMBYisms).

 

*Well, there should have BEEN a push a WHILE ago. We need a HUGE increase in R&D NOW, or we are billsfanone.

 

Lastly, the history of 19th & early 20th century industrialization of the US is written through the prism of organized labor.  While the conditions of factories & plants were horrific by our standards, they were no worse than death by starvation in the home countries. You have to look at what was happening in industrialized cities relative to the conditions elswehere in the US and across the world at that time.   Through their labor struggles, the comminists and socialists were actually protesting the changing of the feudal order into capitalism, but still saw the workers as serfs.

 

*Marx and Engels were trying to make us see the ends of capitalism, and frankly, I don't see it. You cannot COMPARE the situation in the industrialized cities to the one in the country, because you CANNOT HELP NATURE, but you CAN HELP WORKING CONDITIONS. And to that end, the working conditions remained the same for years.... why? Because the upper class who operated these factories wanted profit, profit, profit, and didn't care a hoot for the worker. THAT'S WHY unions came about in the first place. If the employers had actually made a conscientious effort to ENSURE their workers were taken care of HUMANELY, then unions would not exist. However, they took too much advantage, and therefore unions were created.

 

I like this debate a lot. It is great.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

Yeah the truth, like "As I watched the towers fall, I said 'Thank God George Bush is our president.'"  Nice.  The symbols of New York come crashing to the ground with thousands of people in them and all he can think of is partisan politics.

12560[/snapback]

 

He said that? Does sound like a bit of a stretch. I remember thinking something like that during that time, but more like the thank god it's not Clinton in charge. Or Gore. But not at that precise moment of the buildings falling. I was more horrified than anything then. All those people. But, this is the RNC. And this is political theartre. There was certainly plenty of it in Boston. And there is going to be mention of 9-11. There has to be. For there not to be any mention of 9-11 at the 2004 Republican convention, that would be like there being no mention of slavery at the 1864 convention.

[GG]

*How is offering basic protection to the workforce HARMING long-term economic health? They have been in place for a LONG time now on a federal level, and yet the economic growth of the United States has expanded and expanded, still making us the strongest economy in the world. I can't speak for California, but it seems to me that there is such a thing as going too far. That's why I am NOT a liberal; that would be going too far when it comes to social services and protection.

 

The question is what are basic protections, and how much is due to regulation vs companies installing the protectioin because they need to hire and retain the best workers?

 

*I mean humanity as an ADJECTIVE, not as a NOUN, as in show a humanity. This trickle-down theory of Reaganomics isn't used anymore, and for good reason. The 1980's taught us well what corporate greed can do, that's for sure.

 

There's no differentiation from corporate greed vs personal greed.

 

I have to disagree that trickle down doesn't work. Because it doesn't produce immediate effect, naturally the term has been co-opted to mean it doesn't work at all. But if you want to really study the economic effects of Reagonimcs, see the boom of the Clinton years. Notwithstanding the Rosen, Reagan's policies sowed the seeds for the huge expansion, which to Clinton's (really Bob Rubin's) credit, he was wise enough to embrace. Also in historic terms, this recession has been negligible.

 

If you are referring to the rash of criminals that are going through the courts right now, all that proves is that there are criminals at all levels. The outrage should be if they committed frauds, but got a slap on the wrist. What the last two years showed is that the system works. Hopefully, it also taught investors to be wise with their money (right)

 

*Californians are leaving because the state is becoming swamped with immigrants, and the quality of living is not as it once was is what I gather.

 

The immigration issue is a red herring for the reaal problems. If immigrants were the issue, then businesses wouldn't leave because the cost of labor would be very cheap. CA is doing its best to emulate France by mandating benefit rich standards on private sector employers. At a certain poiunt, the companies pack up and leave.

 

*Under control of liberals?? OHHH, so THAT'S why teachers don't get paid what they deserve, and are stuck with children who have ignorant parents? There is something wrong when people want quality education, but are not willing to pay GOOD teachers what they deserve. Programmers, systems analysts, etc get paid 100k plus, and yet good teachers have to settle for 30-40k at the MOST in secondary schools.

 

I guess it depends upon the districts, but around here teachers make $80K-$90K. Funny part is, teachers at private schools make less, and there are waiting lines to work in private schools. Thus, the old adage holds that it is not about the money.

 

You cannot argue that the educational system has been under liberal control for over a generation. It is also the humane liberal mindset on focusing on the least common denominator of the educational system that is failing a large majority. It is the blanket of humanity that has failed to get tough with the students and parents in the urban school systems. These are the systems that are in biggest need of reform, and are also the largest battlegrounds for forcing change. Imagine a NYC school system, that has a budget larger than many countries, not being held accountable to a mayor, governor, or anyone else. It took a succession of two GOP mayors to finally break the system.

 

*Times change, industries change. I have ALWAYS recognized that fact, and I DO NOT advocate saving those jobs when the demand has naturally petered out. It just doesn't make sense.

 

That's why it's wise for government to stop playing God in determining which industries live and which industries die. Doesn't it seem funny now, when EU blocked the Sprint/Worldcom merger from happening 4 years ago because the two would have too much market power?

 

*Well, there should have BEEN a push a WHILE ago. We need a HUGE increase in R&D NOW, or we are billsfanone.

 

Again, market forces will decide of when the new stuff will come on line. There's still much to be done to curb our reliance on fossils. I'll waive my flag next time I pass a bunch of Suburbans/Expeditions one their way to a peace rally.

 

*Marx and Engels were trying to make us see the ends of capitalism, and frankly, I don't see it. You cannot COMPARE the situation in the industrialized cities to the one in the country, because you CANNOT HELP NATURE, but you CAN HELP WORKING CONDITIONS. And to that end, the working conditions remained the same for years.... why? Because the upper class who operated these factories wanted profit, profit, profit, and didn't care a hoot for the worker. THAT'S WHY unions came about in the first place. If the employers had actually made a conscientious effort to ENSURE their workers were taken care of HUMANELY, then unions would not exist. However, they took too much advantage, and therefore unions were created.

 

Marx & Engels couldn't see the rationale of capitalism. To them, it would simply be an extension of feudalism, where the capital would still be constrained among the ruling class. They were not the first, nor the last to take a good concept, and carry it to a wrong conclusion. M & E could not divorce themselves from money and labor, ignoring innovation and value of information. As capitalism has evolved, it is clear that information is the most important ingredient in capitalism. The better flow of information balances out the supply/demand curves in any transaction. (This could be a thread in itself)

 

Union supporters chafe at the idea that unions were simply an early information tool in the industrial age. They were a natural outgrowth of workers realizing that the conditions could be better, and organizing together to force change. That was 100 years ago!!!

 

You cannot compare the status of employers & workers in the 19th century to today. It may sound cliche, but the world was different. Views that nationalities, races and people of one culture were inherently superior were not uncommon. Workers knew their place, because personal freedom was not a concept that was ingrained in every individual.

 

Still, the employment conditions in industrialist Northeast was highly competitive and the villains that have been ingrained in history, may not have been cold blooded killers - as a reporter from an obscure paper rag wrote in his book.

 

The trouble I have with the leftist arguments about corporate America, is that the soundbites are taken stock from M & E's tomes, and are largely irrelevant today.

[Thurman's Helmet]

I am simply stunned at the sheer ignorance or partisan stupidity of our left leaning brethren on this topic.

 

 

Is anything sacred to these people?

[SactoBillFan]

Polly  - A parrot that says the same thing over and over and over regardless of what is happening around them because all they see from their caged existence is the package of crackers on the table.

 

Bush stood this country upright when it needed him most and to ignore that one characteristic of strength is, in fact, being a Polly. The option; a man who has made three different decisions on what HE would do in Iraq and has said NOTHING to America about what he would do about the rest of the world beyond the fact that he spent four months in Vietnam.

 

Sorry, but when people fly planes into our buildings, THAT becomes my priority. You want to bring everyone home and wait for them to try it again? Great. I suspect if you were coach of a soccer team you'd just bunch all your players around the goal. "We don't care if we win...just as long as we don't lose."

12875[/snapback]

 

I hate to say this LA, but your definition of Polly, well sounds a lot like you. Any new or original thoughts?

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

I have to disagree that trickle down doesn't work.  Because it doesn't produce immediate effect, naturally the term has been co-opted to mean it doesn't work at all.  But if you want to really study the economic effects of Reagonimcs, see the boom of the Clinton years.  Notwithstanding the Rosen, Reagan's policies sowed the seeds for the huge expansion, which to Clinton's (really Bob Rubin's) credit, he was wise enough to embrace.  Also in historic terms, this recession has been negligible.

 

The huge expansion of the Clinton years and the Reaganomics period were separated by a recession. Natural cyclic economics, I know, but it cost Bush I his job. The boom of the Clinton years was mainly due to the HUGE leap forward we took in the field of computers, the opening of the East, and the rise of Wal-Mart! The stock prices in the tech field SKYROCKETED, and this gave us a HUGE boost. This tech boom had nothing to do with Reagan... it was innovation after innovation breaking through!

 

If you are referring to the rash of criminals that are going through the courts right now, all that proves is that there are criminals at all levels.  The outrage should be if they committed frauds, but got a slap on the wrist.  What the last two years showed is that the system works.  Hopefully, it also taught investors to be wise with their money (right)

 

YES, they should be wise with their money, and their actions show people how corrupt people can be, and checks are required.

 

The immigration issue is a red herring for the reaal problems.  If immigrants were the issue, then businesses wouldn't leave because the cost of labor would be very cheap.  CA is doing its best to emulate France by mandating benefit rich standards on private sector employers.  At a certain poiunt, the companies pack up and leave.

 

Yes, California is overdoing it... I see your point. It's the very liberal element that is forcing that change, and they are wrong for doing it. France is paying DEARLY for their mistakes, and Germany is just NOW getting hit with excessive worker benefit mistakes. The Germans are flipping out!! (Volkswagen prime example)

 

I guess it depends upon the districts, but around here teachers make $80K-$90K.  Funny part is, teachers at private schools make less, and there are waiting lines to work in private schools.  Thus, the old adage holds that it is not about the money

 

You cannot argue that the educational system has been under liberal control for over a generation.  It is also the humane liberal mindset on focusing on the least common denominator of the educational system that is failing a large majority.  It is the blanket of humanity that has failed to get tough with the students and parents in the urban school systems.  These are the systems that are in biggest need of reform, and are also the largest battlegrounds for forcing change.  Imagine a NYC school system, that has a budget larger than many countries, not being held accountable to a mayor, governor, or anyone else.  It took a succession of two GOP mayors to finally break the system.

 

THAT MUCH?!?! Ohh HELL, I didn't know that! Here on the East Coast, teaching jobs are hardly above $40k in the public schools to start. That IS wild! The teachers there have nothing to complain about then when it comes to pay

 

Yes, parents are a joke these days a lot of times... and of course, real punishment is TABOO. SAD.

 

Again, market forces will decide of when the new stuff will come on line.  There's still much to be done to curb our reliance on fossils.  I'll waive my flag next time I pass a bunch of Suburbans/Expeditions one their way to a peace rally.

 

Marx & Engels couldn't see the rationale of capitalism.  To them, it would simply be an extension of feudalism, where the capital would still be constrained among the ruling class.  They were not the first, nor the last to take a good concept, and carry it to a wrong conclusion.  M & E could not divorce themselves from money and labor, ignoring innovation and value of information.  As capitalism has evolved, it is clear that information is the most important ingredient in capitalism.  The better flow of information balances out the supply/demand curves in any transaction. (This could be a thread in itself)

 

*LAUGH* SUV's are a joke... and they'll be dinosaurs soon enough.

 

Yeah, Communists really were suckers, buying into the working class gets screwed hooey. I guess they didn't believe that government could actually keep control over the forces just enough so that this great INEQUALITY would never get to the point of working class revolution. IT's like reading Nietzsche; pessimism, pessimism, bad, bad...

 

Union supporters chafe at the idea that unions were simply an early information tool in the industrial age.  They were a natural outgrowth of workers realizing that the conditions could be better, and organizing together to force change.  That was 100 years ago!!!

 

You cannot compare the status of employers & workers in the 19th century to today.  It may sound cliche, but the world was different.  Views that nationalities, races and people of one culture were inherently superior were not uncommon.  Workers knew their place, because personal freedom was not a concept that was ingrained in every individual.

 

Still, the employment conditions in industrialist Northeast was highly competitive and the villains that have been ingrained in history, may not have been cold blooded killers - as a reporter from an obscure paper rag wrote in his book. 

 

Ahh, they weren't killers, but they were negligent and interested in profit, profit, profit. I mentioned miners as well, both from the East and West, and children. It was a different time, but people KNEW what was right and what was not, but the poorer people needed money PERIOD, and would do ANYTHING to earn something.

 

I would NEVER compare eras, but I WOULD bring up examples like Addams and Riis to show that people then KNEW what was going on, and used pressure and influence through media to finally get the nation to take notice.

 

The trouble I have with the leftist arguments about corporate America, is that the soundbites are taken stock from M & E's tomes, and are largely irrelevant today.

13580[/snapback]

 

I don't need to take any soundbites from them, because their ideas have proven to be incorrect when put to the test. I think we have evolved beyond them, but we haven't LEARNED from them.

[GG]

The huge expansion of the Clinton years and the Reaganomics period were separated by a recession. Natural cyclic economics, I know, but it cost Bush I his job. The boom of the Clinton years was mainly due to the HUGE leap forward we took in the field of computers, the opening of the East, and the rise of Wal-Mart! The stock prices in the tech field SKYROCKETED, and this gave us a HUGE boost. This tech boom had nothing to do with Reagan... it was innovation after innovation breaking through!

 

You're almost there

 

Read your response over, and go item by item and see if you can't draw a direct correlation to Reaganomics. Since we agree that it takes time for an economic revolution to take hold, it's not beyond reason to see how Reagan's seeds bore fruit 4-6 years after he started full implementation of the policies. He had to deal with a massive recession when he took office, but by the time he left office drastic changes had taken place. A major symbolic feat was accomplished when he was elected, the Dow had hit 1,000 points.

 

Reganomics is equated with supply side & trickle down theory, but it was more than that. It was his policies that began the massive deregulatory movement of the US, lifted up proivate sector employment and paved way for more open trade.

 

The tech boom is directly related to Reaganomics, because his policies freed up more capital for VCs to start funding start-ups. The break up of AT&T (in 1984) began a wild race of technological advances, that were carried further by Clinton's signing of Telecom Act of 1986, which despite its flaws, has a lot more Reagan in it than Johnson.

 

The opening of the East is Reagan's work. WalMart would be nowhere it is today without lowered trade barriers that allowed it to source cheaper products. Clinton continued to play homage by signing NAFTA.

 

Reagan got the business religion back in the sixties. He knew that business shouldn't be treated as a pariah of a necessary evil. He married that to the concept of supply side of bringing more capital to further the growth of business.