Please help us here?!

In the Last eight years, Republicans took over the White House, Congress,
and the Supreme Court.

You are telling us now, the current economic situation was something caused
by Democrats?!

According to the 35 Articles of Impeachment for George W. Bush, presented
last week in the House of Representatives, the reason oil is $150 a barrel,
is because of the oil shortage the US occupation of Iraq created!

Please have a little decency, and refrain yourself from regurgitating the
garbage from regressive (reactionary) radio!

There are people here, on this newsgroup suffering severe economic
consequences, because of the policies of the current administration.

Omer

I don't see how felatio performed in the oval office on a past president,
has any relevance with what you just stated!

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:21:56 -0400, Carter wrote:


On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:11:22 -0400, Carter wrote:

"jakdedert" wrote in message
news
Add to that the fact that lack of access to quality health care
is in itself a major cause of poverty. In addition, paying for a
single health issue has caused many formerly solvent individuals
and families to slip below the poverty level.
William Sommerwerck wrote:

A _major_ cause? I don't think so.

Carter wrote:

Maybe we are just playing semantics with the word "major", but I would
respectfully suggest you look up the number of people in the last 10 to
15 years that have been 'rightsized', 'downsized' or otherwise lost
their job and benefits. It is in the *millions*. Do you think that is
"major"?

flipper wrote:

You're presuming they don't find another job.

Many do,

Define "many."

but -generally- speaking,

You mean politically speaking.

the 'new' jobs pay significantly less
and typically have few or no benefits.

That is an accurate repeat of the political argument.

I'm sorry to rain on your parade,
but it is a matter of record that a large portion of the good
manufacturing jobs (read 'well-paying') have gone overseas

Well, I'm sorry to rain on your parade but the percent loss of
manufacturing jobs in the U.S., at 11% from 1995 to 2002, is virtually
identical to the decline in manufacturing jobs world wide. It was even
steeper in China with a 15% decline over the same time frame.

As for 'offshoring', the cute little term for jobs going to other
countries (because "outsourcing" is only outside the parent business
and not necessarily 'another country'), it works both ways and the
number of jobs 'inshored' exceeds the number 'outshored' by over 3 to
1.

and that the
replacement jobs, if they can be found, are at a much lower salary with
significantly less benefits.

Again, that's the 'argument' but the numbers show otherwise and the
3-1 'inshored' jobs are often higher paying.

It doesn't take much to figure that one out because 'cheap labor' is
not usually the 'selling point' for moving a job to the U.S.

Actual government statistics show that the
number of people without health care is sharply up

That's a completely different issue as all companies, small and large,
are trying to deal with high medical costs but it's small business,
which make up the vast majority of jobs, that are hardest hit because
they don't have the size and depth to absorb it.

and salaries are
down. I would encourage you to look it up.

I have looked it up and the claims are unsubstantiated. This exact
same 'debate', with all the same claims, has been going on for over 30
years, now, and all through that period median income has risen, then
fallen, then risen, then fallen, then risen... and on and on. So, at
any cherry picked 'snapshot' in time one can argue 'wages are down'
but the overall trend has been upward, as well as the total number of
employed, through all the so called 'offshoring' that is supposedly
killing the work force.

If, as the argument perpetually goes, "America is losing jobs," and
the 'handful of replacements' are all 'lower paying jobs', how can it
be, then, that there are more people employed with a higher median
income than in either 1982 or 1992?

In the 'good ole days' before 'downsizing' 5.25% unemployment was
considered *full* employment but nowadays it's touted as a 'disaster'.

An interesting point, but numbers notwithstanding, you seem to be
implying the economy is in fine shape. I sincerely hope you are correct.

I implied no such thing. The economy is a hell of a lot more complex
than the Simple Simon slogans folks bandy about and, at the moment,
$150/barrel oil has the potential to screw things up worse than any
other single thing, barring a nuclear holocaust, of the last 70 years,
especially since the Democrats are hell fire dead set on repeating
every colossal mistake they made getting us into this predicament,
along with a few new Duesies.


Finally, please present your views to the *millions* that have been
'rightsized' and 'downsized' and see how much sympathy you viewpoint
garners (but I'll caution you to watch out for the tar and feathers).
:-)

You think they would feel better if near twice as many were unemployed
due to double digit inflation and double digit interest rates, like in
1980?

It's easy to 'point a finger' and fire up a crowd. And since you
brought up tar and feathers, fans of old western movies will recognize
this as the proverbial lynch mob.

Doesn't mean you hung the right dude, caught the real killer, or
'solved the problem'. Just means there was a blow hard good at
demonizing, pointing fingers and manipulating people; what we nowadays
call a 'politician'.

This country is in more trouble than even $150/barrel oil and you're
about to get a good demonstration of why over the next 5 months. Just
watch as the demonizing and finger pointing begins over which of our
own is to be 'hung', all in the name of 'fairness' and 'justice', mind
you, as is usually the case when firing up a lynch mob.