I Hate Democrats

.
How sad that you feel so superior to others, that you consider yourself "enlightened". Your pompus judgement of others is so sad. You are indeed the saddest case I've seen at TR. Pitiful, absolutely pitiful.

.
It was an honest question. But, as usual, Chas evaded providing an honest answer.

Chas said that Maxwell is "closed-minded".

Maxwell responded as follows:

When people say that, they simply show a total lack of regard for someone else who has a difference of opinion and/or a different set of values.

I don't think I've ever called anyone closed-minded because we disagree on principles. What makes me closed-minded on this issue and you not? Why aren't you the closed-minded one?

Answer the question, Chas.

How many honest questions have you evaded in this discussion, Chas? A half-dozen at least.

for a very entertaining flame session.

Would anyone care to sponsor a live telecast debate between TheChas and Maxwell?

Perhaps one of those filthy rich Democrats which Max listed would be happy to sponsor such a debate.

"Flaming" is par for the course at TR, but is a definite no-no in a genuine debate.

But tell me Chas -- if you are being literal and not satiricial -- it sounds like you have had a spiritual awakening.

Have you found Jesus in the Democratic Party?

you bash him because he didn't put his money behind someone you like.

WAHHHHHHHHHHH!

Those tears and $3.43 get you a Mocha Latte at Starbucks.

.
Your messages really do lack merit. Is that the best you can do? I see that kind of thing coming from 12 year olds on the playground.

"Certainly, when what is sold is an intangible service by an individual trader or a dishonest employee of a small company, there is the opportunity for that service to be hidden from official scrutiny and the tax on that is thus lost."

So what's the dishonest employee going to do with the money? The same as bank robbers, drug dealers and prostitutes do now.... buy stuff. Then the tax will be paid.

There will always be theft and other frauds, but under an income tax system, none of it is recovered, whereas under a sales tax system, at least some of it is.

"If you earn over $200,000 a year, you will come out WAY better under the unfair tax."

As you should!!!! It's called the fruits of your labor!

Why should someone be penalized for achievment?

I simply don't grasp the mindset that desires one person to be allowed to take by force what someone else worked for.

"If you earn under $50,000, even with the rebate, you will be paying a lot more in tax under the unfair tax."

Not really. You're paying it now, you just don't realize you're paying it now. Can you really not see that?

.
What's the difference between being closed-minded and showing convictions to one's principles?

What's the difference between being open-minded and lacking true principles?

Is it ever okay to be close-minded? If so, under what circumstances? If not, why not?

Is it always okay to be open-minded on all issues? If not, why not, and what kind of issues would be the exception?

Is there ever a point when a once open-mind becomes a closed-mind because of thoughtful consideration of an issue?

And on and on the questions could be formed. Phrase a question a bit differently, and answer that one.

Discuss, if you feel so inclined (and if you're "open-minded" enough to try).

I'd rather be like me than be like you.

Besides...I noticed two of my rather logic postings you haven't replied to...especially the one dealing with tax study done in 1997. Couldn't read that in 20 minutes, could ya?

You're weak...mentally. Deal with it. All the mud slinging in the world you do can't cover it.

I still get a laugh out of you quoting an solar expert as a climatological expert. That was the pinnacle of your intellectual incompetence.

Just keep yapping...you're removing all doubt.

He wasn't truly that independent. He has a LOT of business ties especially in the defense and research sectors.

Buffett is one who has had to maintain the independence from having close ties with business to keep his highly rated investments that way.

Perot did have great ideas, I agree. I voted for the man. But, I just had to consider whether or not his long history of very close associations would not come into play later. I know he financed his own campaign out of his own pocket, but old friends show back up when you least expect it.

A friend in need...is a friend indeed.

.
....applies to you.

And I'm still waiting for you to reply to my questions in other threads.

As to my mental capacity (or however you phrased it), it's not worthy of comment.

.
You refer to a report that's not available, in its entirety, without paying $100 for it. Sorry, jck, that bird won't fly. And that's why I can't (and won't) comment on it. Unlike you, I avoid commenting on things I haven't read.

But I ask you again, can you point to some reputable economic opposition to the FairTax plan as presented?

Here's a free report on this specific proposal:

http://find.cato.org/search?q=FairTax&site=cato_all&client=cato_all&restrict=Cato&lr=lang_en&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cato.org%2Ftemplates%2Fsearch%2Fcato.xslt&getfields=summary

See: Simplifying Federal Taxes: The Advantages of Consumption-Based ...

Geesh, jck, are you always so coy and evasive?

something more than "The strong will of the people"....

The reason I think it will have a hard time passing is:

Even worse than the lust for money is the lust for control. Unfortunately, there are some sick individuals in our legislature that absolutely love manipulating the little people in their little lives, and would gladly do it without any pay at all.

They probably tortured animals as children.

Well by reading you post, I would say the Democrats.

So I decided to do a little search and see. I will say up front my search wasn't an in depth search. I did not put much time into it. I merely went to google and typed in richest senators. I opened a few pages to see what they had to say. I came accross this page

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/senators.finances/

Now this does some what agree with your "top 10" but a closer look shows that the Republicans out number the Democrats by four as far as senators goes. Now this list is two years old. But I don't feel that it is that out dated.

As far as going through the richest people and thier political sides and who gave to what cause, I'm not going to waste my time. I'm sure I could come up with the same kind of list that points at the Republicans.

As far as your dislike of Warren Buffet, it looks to me like your option is based on his Democratic affiliation. Just my guess.

But curiously, how would you feel about an independent being in office? Or are you happy with the two parties we are stuck with now?

.
I was only pointing out that he was far removed from being an independent, and he's about as liberal in his views as John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. Actually, I neither like or dislike him. If anything, I admire him for his business savvy, and how he made so many "average" people quite wealthy.

My guess is that AmericanVoter, the guy who suggest that Buffet would be a good president, doesn't know the first thing about him except the fact that he has about a gazillion zeros behind his net-worth number. But just because a person attained great wealth in his private life, it doesn't automatically mean he could solve all the financial woes of an entire nation. Besides, one guy sitting in the White House can't change decades of flawed legislation that has, over the past forty years, taken 10 trillion (yes, trillion) dollars from the citizen who earned them, and gave them to citizens (or non-citizens) who did not. I shudder to think what the projected transfer-of-wealth programs will cost us over the next forty years if the madness doesn't stop.

Buffet could not wave any magic financial wand to fix this mess. It would take drastic legislation in congress. And not only could he not do it, even if he wanted to, but his stated political views would suggest that we'd get a lot more of the same. My only point, however, was that Warren Buffet is not an independent.

And anyone who espouses unilateral nuclear disarmament can only be one of two thing. Either he's extremely naive' in "trusting" every other nation in the world, especially nuclear-card carrying nations, to play nice from now till forever, or he's lying about the nuclear ace (or aces) he would hide up his sleeve. Such talk is nonsense, especially for a commander in chief.

----------

You asked how I felt about independents, in general, and/or the current two-party system.

I actually supported, very actively, I might add, and voted for Ross Perot in 1992. In hind-sight, however, I wouldn't do it again. But in the spirit of never saying never, it would take an extremely viable third-party presidential candidate who actually had a chance of winning to capture my vote again.

I'm actually a libertarian in principle, but I would never vote for the Libertarian candidate for a national office, at least not today. The reason is two-fold. The current Libertarian Party is actually too extreme, and in today's political reality their agenda could never come to pass, at least not in one fell swoop, and not in any near future. So their platform just gets shot down from day one; they don't have a chance of winning. A slower and longer-term approach is more reasonable.

A third-party vote also denies a vote to a person's "second choice" candidate (either the Dem or the Repub). That's tantamount to a half-game drop in the standings, if I could use a sports analogy (or a half-game lead by the last-choice guy). In 1992, for example, my least favorite candidate was Bill Clinton, but I actually helped him by denying George HW Bush my vote.

We have a strongly embedded two-party system, like it or not, and for better or for worse. And the majority party gets to chair the congressional committees, and they decide which bills are even presented to congress; the majority party gets more of a say, if not all of the say, in the appointed federal judiciary; the majority party sets the agenda; and so on. An independent will not contribute to that majority, so even an independent Senator or Representative wouldn't get my vote, at least not right now. And the last thing I want is another Democrat majority in congress.

I think it's a more practical expectation to try and change the Republican Party from within, to go back to the more libertarian base of the 1960s Republican Party of Barry Goldwater. Conservatism used to resemble libertarianism a lot more than it does today, and those are the roots that should be focused on. You have to be in the field of play if you expect to win the game, and a third-party candidate can't even get past the nose-bleed seats of the outfield bleachers. And I want to at least be on the field.

.
.....did no one pick-up on mine?

I've waited for you to reply in other places as well...two others in this thread alone up above here...for a couple days.

You seem to stop posting when you want to, so I'll pay you the same courtesy at this point.

Go back to thinking you're right and letting Bush and his guys sneak behind your back and fool you into thinking you're living free getting so much freedom by giving you rhetoric.

Your ignorance will lead to your personal sadness.

The only thing worse than the guy who'll stab you is the guy who'll stab you in the back.

Just remember that.

Not read it? You piety is nauseating.

Evidently you didn't read it.

it's available in the National Tax Journal...I'll leave it to you to find the volume.

It outlines how numbers given for sales tax stability are often misrepresentative and misleading.

It shows how national income tax is more stable than national sales tax in the short term. And again, government funding is forecast and determined by short-term economics. And, we were discussing about income for government.

I'm not being evasive. I have you given you a very reputable report that shows in detail why most reports about sales tax stability are inaccurate, and why national income tax is better for stability in the short term.

That's pretty damn direct.

There is a case to be made for unilateral nuclear disarmament - and here is my stab at it.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you have 10,000 nuclear weapons of various types and ages.

Your closest rival may have a similar number. You both have excess capacity in case much of your arsenal gets wiped out in a first strike.

But in reality, you know that even if you are hit with a first strike, you still have a massive retaliatory strike left that could wipe out your worst enemy.

I'm not suggesting a total disarmament, and I don't know if thats what Buffet is thinking. But if you decommission your older nukes, you save money on maintenance, don't lose any deterrence factor, but most important of all, you send a signal. Let me reduce 1000 nukes, and then ask you to come to the table to negotiate a bilateral reduction of many more.

North Korea and China combined only have a fraction of the nuclear weapons that the US has, and yet the US is still deterred from some actions by that capability. Russia has decommisioned many nukes, but has enough to deter China many times over.

James

Few of us are old enough but I, alas, am!

One of my favourite groups way back when I was a hippy...

:D

As long as you can debate the Democrat side with as much enthusiasm as you do the Reublican side. You don't have to believe it, you just have to be able to debate it and prove your points.

However, keep in mind that if we have the debate and you get the Democrat's side, you'll be showing Chas how to actually debate a point of view using facts and figures instead of emotions and feelings.

I dont have any of their albums, but I do have some Winwood.

It went over my head until Neil mentioned it.

I was fixated on how I Hate Democrats scans and Republicans just doesn't fit.

James

Any reference to any religion is frowned upon.

Education is a complex issue. I don't believe Darwin should be excluded, but neither should creationist views. After all, we are raising our children to function in our society and, like it or not, belief is a big part of it.

After all, those people who claim that the creationists are wrong are doing so because that's their "belief". Ironic isn't it?

.
I have a couple of Traffic record albums (among my collection of 7,500, give or take, LPs and 78s).

I'll have to break out a Traffic record and play it.

My most rare record, by the way, is a Beatles 1964 pressing of the LP "Ain't She Sweet". I loved the British invasion. (The one of 1964, not 1812). I was in grammar school.

Only the rich can compete anymore. Forget the parties, rich people run the world. Show me a list of the poor people in politics. Those politicians with less means are bought and sold by rich backers.

A man like Warren Buffett already has lots of money and power, just like the rest of his opponents, therefore he could compete with the other parties. He is successful at building an unbelievable fortune. Maybe he could apply those principles to eliminating our national deficit.

We are in dire straits in America these days. None of our politicians are doing anything for us lately except showing how incredibly inept and corrupt they are. They're supposed to be working in our behalf. I'm tired of watching the partisan fighting. I think a viable, equally rich, third party might change the game. Perot tried to do it, but it has to be more organized.

Perot is still a businessman, but his ideas were honest and fair, unlike today's businessman. He was a businessman with values from a different era. He had his own ideas and no one could ever buy him. Thats my remembrance of him.

I can still hear his famous quote in my head about NAFTA, the "giant sucking sound of American jobs heading south to Mexico." He was right, and that was in the early 90's before all the major offshore outsourcing took place.

.
You said, "(Perot) wasn't truly that independent. He has a LOT of business ties especially in the defense and research sectors."

So friggin' what? Therefore what? Perot absolutely hates the Bush family. And he absolutely hated Jimmy Carter for his debacle in the desert in 1980.

Therefore what? State your conclusion.

You said, "Buffett is one who has had to maintain the independence from having close ties with business to keep his highly rated investments that way."

Are you serious? He literally took over businesses, GEICO, for example, and I could name many others. "Business" is presumably the property of Republicans, but Buffet is definately a Democrat. Your premise and your conclusion don't match.

What a fool you are. Platitudes and "feel good" nonsense. That's all you spew.

You make up some stupid premise, and draw a stupid conclusion, sSo it's no surprise that stupid comes to mind when I read your messages.

.
....is absolutely amazing.

A$$ - hole in the ground - doesn't know the difference - describes you and many others.

Ignorance run amok.

Incredible. Absolutely incredible. It's no wonder why I wonder where we're going and why we're in this handbasket.

.
Neither one of you guys, jck or AmericanVoter, know what you're talking about.

From a variety of sources:

http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/FTBs/FTB-001.html

http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-08-04.html

http://www.ppionline.org/documents/Naftaban.pdf#search='nafta%20success%20clinton'

Okay, guys. Why has NAFTA failed? And be specific. No silly and unfounded platitudes.

Geesh, why do you people just spew such nonsense without even attempting to verify what you claim. You say what might sound good to justify your desired conclusion.

Get a clue, why don't you? Ignorance run amok indeed!

from "taking money from one citizen to give it to another."

Which is the whole point of what I am saying. The constitution says nothing at all about social welfare and for a very simple reason -- the concept of Government funded welfare simply did not exist 200 years ago at the time the constitution was drawn up.

In those days, anyone who couldn't or chose not to find "gainful employment" had to resort to begging, stealing, robbing banks, horse-rustling, gambling or murdering to keep body and soul together.

And we are talking worldwide here. Quite likely some "primitive" cultures did in fact have a system for looking after those who could not or would not work.

Today I would imagine that government-funded welfare exists in all industrialised societies, but it seems that it is only certain Americans who bitch about it.

In Australia we have a comprehensive welfare system and I have never heard ANYONE of any political persuasion complain that some of their tax money goes towards supporting unemployed persons.

and the proximity, especially in the cities. Also the sense of entitlement to, instead of gratitude for, seems to be very great in many places (a little genuine gratitude can be very disarming, and would probably go a long way toward quelling most of the complaints!).

It's somewhat functional for the time being, since there are more people pulling the wagon than riding on it. But I sometimes wonder how much longer that's going to be true, and what's going to happen then.

.
.....that the person making an opposing argument hasn't done it well enough to be convincing.

I won't change my mind on some issues, and it means I'm not open-minded. Chas won't change his mind on certain issues, and it means he's enlightened. Go figure.

Keep along in your pecuniarily-driven dreamworld.

BTW...you still using that Conservative think-tank CATO for your references, I see.

Enjoy your one-man utopia, hok si.

"People like Chas amaze me at their fear of taking control back from the government. Fear and ignorance -- the two things that will keep the FairTax plan from becoming reality."

I think that was Goebbles comment to Hitler on how to control the german people enough to get rid of the jews, he managed the ignorance, Hess handled the fear.

The giant sucking sound hasn't come from Mexico. True some jobs have gone there. But the agreement has also meant that US companies can more freely sell into Mexico.

The outsourcing of hi tech jobs did not go to Mexico - nothing to do with NAFTA. Some hi tech jobs went to Canada, and some Canadians lost their jobs working for companies with US parents when consolidations happened and they chose to consolidate in US locations, closing down Canadian ones. But most IT offshoring went to a non NAFTA signatory - India.

From a Canadian perspective, I can tell you the dispute mechanism sucks. Five times, the US has lost the ruling on softwood lumber, and 5 times the US has been able to stall, and demand another ruling. In the interim they have charged 3.5 billion in unfair duties.

Overall, despite some reservations, Canada has done ok. NAFTA spelled the end of the auto pact - the rule that said that US car companies had to export as many Canadian cars to the US as US cars imported into Canada. Many thought that would kill the Canadian auto industry, but it is thriving, at least in comparison with US plants.

jck - what do you blame on NAFTA?

James

The small shops were workers used to make between 10 and 15 dollars per hour moved to Mexico. There are several in Mid-Michigan that just picked up and went down there. It got rid of the union AND allowed them to cut the wages down to $5 per hour in many cases.

Another benifit companies had in Mexico is the non-existant environmental regulations, so the cost of business went down.

Maytag also just recently picked up and moved to Mexico. This has hurt the middle class that has little to no education and only have hard work to offer. We now have the highest unemployment in the country and out Democratic governor is doing nothing to help this.

CAFTA will proceed to kill the local sugar beet industry which is big in Michigan.

Perot was right that NAFTA was the beginning of jobs disappearing in this country. He was honest about it. I like that.

Its all about big companies using cheap foreign labor and making lots of money. The middle class is not benefiting because of free trade agreements. Where are the jobs? They're in India, China, Singapore. Not Mexico though because all of the workers are already working illegally in this country. Basically, the jobs are everywhere but here. The only people that truly benefit from free trade agreements are the rich and big business.

Oh sure, the rest of us can buy lots of cheap China goods now. Big whoop. Let them eat cake.

Seriously Max, look at the state of our country. Our government is a bad joke. Lately its been better than watching the movies I rent because of Plamegate.

We need real, honest and competent leadership that can represent someone other than the rich, whomever that might be.

.
The 20th century British economist William Beveridge stated that an unemployment rate of 3% was full employment. Other economists have provided estimates from 2% to 7%, depending on the country, the time period, and the economists' political biases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_employment

For the sake of argument, perhaps we can agree that having a zero unemployment rate is unattainable. And again, for the sake of argument, perhaps we can agree that having an unemployment rate at around 3 to 4 percent, because of a variety of factors and variables, is about the best we can possibly hope for. Why does this matter? And why do I bring this up? Because it sets the premise for me to challenge what I just called your silly platitudes.

You said, "NAFTA was the beginning of jobs disappearing in this country."

You asked, "Where are the jobs?"

You said, "Basically, the jobs are everywhere but here."

Okay, AmericanVoter. Here's your chance to backup what you claim with real facts, and not silly platitudes. What's your basis for making those statements? Compare before NAFTA and after NAFTA, and tie it into NAFTA as a root cause. But before you answer, here's mine to challenge them.

In 1993, the year NAFTA passed congress, the unemployment rate in the USA was 6.9 percent.

In 1994, it was 6.1 percent.

In 1995, it was 5.6 percent.

Shall I continue? Okay, I'll continue.

In 1996, it was 5.4 percent.

In 1997, it was 4.9 percent.

In 1998, it was 4.5 percent.

In 1999, it was 4.2 percent.

In 2000, it was 4.0 percent.

The rate went up for each of the next three years, and has gone down again each of the last two.

Now I'm not going to claim that all of the factors that contributed to the declining unemployment rates thoughout the 90s was a direct result of NAFTA. But you suggested that jobs were disappearing because of NAFTA. And to reference the information I posted at the beginning of this message, I don't think you can suggest it would have been even better than it was if not for NAFTA. The numbers simply do not support your assertion. So how do you reconcile the obvious flaw in your argument?

The only sucking sound I hear is coming from your messages -- your reasoning literally sucks!

And remember, AmericanVoter, no silly platitudes in your reply, but only sound reasoning supported by facts.

I do agree with one thing you said, however. You said, "Our government is a bad joke."

Yes, it is. So let's reduce its size and scope by about 50 percent (or more) so, perhaps, we can get the last laugh instead of always having the joke be on us.

you start about how NAFTA is bad because of job loss and then talk about the jobs going to India?

Try that post again.

from PBS in 2004:

"While the USTR [United States Trade Representative] reports on the positive statistic that "total trade among the three NAFTA countries has more than doubled, passing from US$306 billion in 1993 to almost US $621 billion in 2002," the Economic Policy Institute has found that "between 1994 and 2000, the U.S. lost more than 3 million jobs and job opportunities?equal to 2.3% of the labor force." Read state by state reports from Jobs with Justice on job losses attributed to NAFTA.

A new study from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "NAFTA'S PROMISE AND REALITY: Lessons from Mexico for the Hemisphere," finds that NAFTA "has been neither the disaster its opponents predicted, nor the savior hailed by its supporters." A review of the report in the NEW YORK TIMES explains that the CEIP study "concludes that the pact failed to generate substantial job growth in Mexico, hurt hundreds of thousands of subsistence farmers there and had 'miniscule' net effects on jobs in the United States."

In the United States, job losses associated with the trade deficit increased six times more rapidly between 1994 and 2000 than they did between 1989 and 1994, according to figures from the Economic Policy Institute. Even critics of NAFTA acknowlege that these statistics cannot be directly attributed to NAFTA. The EPI paper does not condemn further trade liberalization: "There is no doubt that, in the long run, a system of both freer trade and fair trade which ensures that all participants play by a well-definied set of humane, market-based rules can maximize incomes for most, if not all, countries around the world.... Existing trade agreements should be repaired and rebuilt before moving ahead with another round of broad, new trade details."

Sources: UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE; ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE; NAFTA SECRETARIAT "

So, NAFTA has done little if any good for the United States, while hurting a lot of farmers in Mexico.

BTW, several pharmaceutical corporations (Lilly, Pfizer, etc) within 2 years of the passing of NAFTA moved the majority of their North American pharmaceutical manufacturing to Mexico, where labour cost was approximately 70% less than in the states, and then could under NAFTA ship their product back across the border and increase their profits substantially.

This is an example of how corporates used the NAFTA agreement as a profitability tool, not as a way to benefit the North American goods market.

As for India and China and the jobs lost to them, it is simply the ignorance of American legislators not to realize one simple fact: for every skilled job that leaves the United States and goes overseas, they lose a chunk of the taxbase which this country's government is run on. The wages someone gets in going from being a PC assembly worker or technical phone support person to being a waiter at Chili's or burger flipper at their neighborhood McDonalds doesn't fiscally equate to "non-relevant job losses". It is little by little eroding the financial base of this country.

It is about time that government officials step up and start making legislation that doesn't cripple business, but in turn won't allow corporate profiteering to continue to deteriorate the fiscal well-being of our government and working class.

NAFTA, in essence, is just another example of how government officials agreed to a trade agreement that had enough loopholes to let those in business who are basically their financial campaign backers in the corporate sector take advantage of the system once again.

But his politics are too liberal for me.

I still enjoy his "drunken Caribbean country rock and roll" or whatever he calls it that he does with the Coral Reefer Band.

Despite his left-wing politics, it is still amazing that Buffet can both have a successful recording career, run his chain of Margaritaville restaurants, and be in charge of Berkshire-Hathaway. :-)

"Pink Sports Coat and White Crustacean" is a classic album by Buffet.

.
...and a pink carnation.

And it was Marty Robbins, not Warren Buffet!

And that was dang nice of you to invite us over for Margaritas! I like mine made with Jose Cuervo Gold and Grand Marnier -- salted rim, of course.

I got the colors reversed. I watched "Reservoir Dogs" recently and got Mr. Pink and Mr. White confused with each other. :-)

Anyway, I am sure it is Warren Buffet that did the album of that name. The Marty Robbins song is "White Sports Coat and Pink Carnation", but Mr. Buffet substituted "Crustacean" with a picture of him with a Florida Lobster on the album cover.

The fact that he has not allowed a stock split of Berkshire-Hathaway (BRK.A), so now that it is priced at about $86,000 per share, shows he is an elitist. It keeps the common man from owning shares in his company. If he did a 1000-1 stock split, then it would be $86 per share and regular people could invest. But his elitist attitude insures only the very wealthy and institutional investors can share in his wealth.

In contrast, Microsoft (MSFT) has undergone multiple stock splits, to keep the price per share at about $25, so regular middle-class people can invest in it. Most companies do stock splits whenever their price per share gets too high to keep the price per share low enough for small investors to buy, but not the elitist Warren Buffet with his Berkshire-Hathaway empire, the "Borg" of companies assimilating all that he can find.

.
....on the stock splits, or lack thereof.

But do you think the guy who mentioned Buffet in the first place will change his mind? Not a chance.

Max, I said "Perot was right that NAFTA was the beginning of jobs disappearing in this country. He was honest about it. I like that."

I was talking about how Perot summed up the effects of NAFTA in that one honest statement that he made. I liked that honesty. No bull. I want a government that tells the truth. There are plenty of studies to go around Max. I am not impressed by your unemployment percentages because they don't tell the whole story. Those percentages only reflect people collecting unemployment benefits and not the ones whose benefits have run out. It doesn't reflect the underemployed either.

What about people that you personally know in the technology field. Do they have job security anymore? Our jobs are undervalued today because of the effects of globalization and our government hasn't done anything to address the plight of the American worker in this new environment. They are not working for the middle class anymore, they work for the rich and big corporations.

Thank you Jck for posting the information on NAFTA. Jck is correct. "It is about time that government officials step up and start making legislation that doesn't cripple business, but in turn won't allow corporate profiteering to continue to deteriorate the fiscal well-being of our government and working class."

I couldn't have said it better.

My mission isn't to control anybody, but rather stop other people from controling me (and stop them from controling others, I suppose).

Edited part:

I suppose, on second look, you were talking to jck, the guy who presumes to know everything and what's best for everybody.

.
You really do disappoint me, AmericanVoter. It is so lame to dismiss someone's statistics without challenging them with specific and opposing statistics of your own. Don't just say the numbers I provide aren't accurate, but state specifically why they aren't, and provide what you consider to be the correct ones. Can't you do that? My guess is no, you can't. That's what I mean by silly platitudes -- just a "feel good" statement with absolutely no merit or basis in fact. Come on, dude. Tell me specifically what's wrong with them and provide your own. If you can't do that, you should be disappointed in yourself. Come on! Get with the program. Pretend you're in school with a debate instructor grading you. As it is now, I'm getting an A, while you're getting a low D.

And do a little research. How many jobs has Ross Perot's company exported to India? And how does that reconcile with your claim that Perot cares about, as you put it, "jobs disappearing in this country"? And how does that fall into your definition of "honesty"?

Let us know what you find.

By the way, AmericanVoter, in case you missed it. I strongly supported and voted for Ross Perot in 1992. But the difference between you and me is that I can admit when I made a mistake. And that was a big one.

..except I don't play golf, unless it involves windmills and dinosaurs!! :-)

I'm sure we could work out something more workable than the Germans are trying to do with their "grand coalition".

Jck said "You can have a choice. It simply has to have merit to be considered."

So who is to be the judge of what has merit?

You're hiding behind statistics Max. My post was about what you think personally, not statistics and posted articles. After you read your statistics, do you take them as being true because they came from the government over what you see in your daily life?

Didn't you say you agreed with me in a previous post that our government is a joke, so then why do you believe their statistics?

You don't talk about people you know personally that are tech workers. How do you, personally, think they fare in our new globalized society based on your experiences?

I don't think you'll find those answers in Wikipedia.

.
You are really starting to sound silly. You should quit while you're behind.

By the way, the answer to my question that you avoided addressing is this. Ross Perot "outsourced" 3,500 jobs to India. As far as the, how does it reconcile with his honesty as it pertains to his keeping jobs in America platform, I'll let others speculate on that.

You avoided it because you can't look it up in Wikipedia. You don't know how you feel if you can't look it up.

You're the one in the corner.

.
However, they seemed so silly that I only assumed they were rhetorical in nature

You asked, "Didn't you say you agreed with me in a previous post that our government is a joke, so then why do you believe their statistics?"

Yes, our government is a joke inasmuch as the role it's been taking-on to care for the citizenry from womb to tomb. But I believe the unemployment statistics it releases because they're also generally accepted by business and financial interests, and if the department of labor statistics issued bogus numbers, private interests would expose the fraud, and the media would be all over them. Moreover, the numbers released by the federal government generally reconcile with the same numbers issued by the states. So if the Feds tried to play loose with the numbers, all 50 states would have to do it as well.

You asked, "After you read your statistics, do you take them as being true because they came from the government over what you see in your daily life?"

What I see in my daily life is different than what you may see in your daily life. For example, I don't know anyone who is unable to find a job or otherwise support himself, regardless of what others might say about the "loss of jobs". I could quit my job tomorrow and find a new and comparable job within a week. I don't hang around with people who cry in their beer about how they can't do this or that, so what I see in my daily life is the abundance of opportunity available, with or without government concurrence, and regardless of the unemployment numbers they issue. I don't care if the unemployment rate is listed at 4 percent, 5 percent, 7 percent or 10 percent. I'll support myself and my family regardless of that number. That's "what I see in my daily life".

You asked, "How do you, personally, think they (people I know personally) fare in our new globalized society based on your experiences?"

See my answers above.

My advice to you, AmericanVoter, is that if you see yourself as a loser, and you hang-out with losers, you'll continue to be a loser. That's not advice, though, is it? That's more of an observation. So my advise is to stop hanging around with losers.

So now, AmericanVoter - ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!

.
https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=183299&messageID=1878237