Footwedge;1225479 wrote:Alan West, Rush Limbaugh, Al Sharpton, Jess J......all race batters that see no merit at all in turning the page. They are all scum.

I find it a little strange that Obama is in 100 percent agreement that Blacks can and should work hard to become successful. Yes, Obama has said that publicly in speeches, yet this asshole West continues to single out Obama.

Are you saying West should back off Obama because he's black? :rolleyes:

Gosh a ruddies I wonder why they want Obama, they can look at the Bush Presidency that began with a black unemployment rate under 8% and saw it doubled. And then see how the Republicans want to shed the safety net programs. And pass voter id laws that help disenfranchise blacks.
http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2010/african_american_history/

isadore;1225551 wrote:.. they can look at the Bush Presidency with a black unemployment rate under 8% and saw it doubled under Obama.

Fixed it for ya - not sarcasm, I literally corrected a factual mistatement.

Those evil Republicans, putting blacks to work instead of giving them welfare and unemployment handouts. How unamerican!!!

gut;1225556 wrote:Those evil Republicans, putting blacks to work instead of giving them welfare and unemployment handouts.

Where have you been? Welfare checks, Food Stamps, and Medicaid are part of the Great American Reparations program paid for by taxpayer dollars to compensate blacks for the evils of centuries of slavery. It's racist of you to even suggest that creating a positive economic environment that insures jobs growth for not only blacks but all Americans is the fastest way to increase prosperity for everyone.

Besides welfare checks and Food Stamps guarantee Democrat votes and we'll even supply you with subsidized transportation to get you to the polling places. What a deal!

bigdaddy2003;1225486 wrote:You put Limbaugh and West in the same category as Sharpton and Jackson? Hm and what else would Obama say? It's not like he is going to come out in speeches and say he wants everyone in the country to fail and live off of the government.

Are you serious? Yes...the exact same category. Exactly, exactly,exactly. All 4 are race baiters to a tee. Only difference is that West is a politician...and he needs to learn to watch his mouth.

gut;1225556 wrote:Fixed it for ya - not sarcasm, I literally corrected a factual mistatement.

Those evil Republicans, putting blacks to work instead of giving them welfare and unemployment handouts. How unamerican!!!

Maybe the outsourcing of high paying jobs...which is a staple of Mitt, you, and the core belief held by conservatives has something to do with it?

gut;1225556 wrote:Fixed it for ya - not sarcasm, I literally corrected a factual mistatement.

Those evil Republicans, putting blacks to work instead of giving them welfare and unemployment handouts. How unamerican!!!

as anyone can tell from reading the chart, your statemenet is false. Gosh read the chart, Clinton nearly cut black unemployment in half, then Bush more than doubled it. And now Republicans want to increase black suffering by cutting the safety net.
http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2010/african_american_history/

Footwedge;1225574 wrote:Maybe the outsourcing of high paying jobs...which is a staple of Mitt, you, and the core belief held by conservatives has something to do with it?

You mean the outsourcing of overpaid mfring jobs? If you were calling the shots and some UAW workers wants $30/hr to do the same job as a guy in Mexico willing to take $10 you and I both know what you would decide, unless you're stupid or a liar.

gut;1225740 wrote:You mean the outsourcing of overpaid mfring jobs? If you were calling the shots and some UAW workers wants $30/hr to do the same job as a guy in Mexico willing to take $10 you and I both know what you would decide, unless you're stupid or a liar.

Hey, this has nothing to do with Big Labor greed and abuse. The eeeevil neo-cons led by "W" are subsidizing Mexican authorities to keep their labor rates lower than the United States.

gut;1225740 wrote:You mean the outsourcing of overpaid mfring jobs? If you were calling the shots and some UAW workers wants $30/hr to do the same job as a guy in Mexico willing to take $10 you and I both know what you would decide, unless you're stupid or a liar.

Bad example. A really bad example in fact. Your numbers are wayyy off. But since you brought up Mexico...have you ever thought as to why the onslaught of Mexican workers into our country directly corresponded to 1992 to the present day, when NAFTA was signed?

Do you know what the carpetbaggers did during reconstruction in the south? Think carpetbagging in Mexico.

believer;1225759 wrote:Hey, this has nothing to do with Big Labor greed and abuse. The eeeevil neo-cons led by "W" are subsidizing Mexican authorities to keep their labor rates lower than the United States.

Big labor has nothing to do with my argument. I am all for free market forces under fair international rules. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Footwedge;1226121 wrote:Big labor has nothing to do with my argument. I am all for free market forces under fair international rules. BIG DIFFERENCE.

So what's your beef with NAFTA then?

Footwedge;1226117 wrote:Bad example. A really bad example in fact. Your numbers are wayyy off.

I undershot. UAW employees AVERAGE $75k/yr wages and benefits...and that was 10 years ago. Before the recent cuts forced on them because they had become uncompetitive they were making $20-$25/hr, excluding benefits.

I wasn't trying to be exact in my numbers, but it doesn't change the point - unskilled labor has no entitlement or demand to $20+ per hour when someone else can do the job just as well for less than half the price.

But I'll ask one more time and see if you finally answer - what is your criteria for manufacturing jobs that "belong" in the US? Or perhaps you don't have an answer because it's just a talking point that sounds "American" with no real justification.

gut;1226900 wrote:So what's your beef with NAFTA then?

I had to chuckle at that one because I was thinking the very same thing. :thumbup:

gut;1226902 wrote:But I'll ask one more time and see if you finally answer - what is your criteria for manufacturing jobs that "belong" in the US? Or perhaps you don't have an answer because it's just a talking point that sounds "American" with no real justification.

I'm one of the folks who laments at the loss of good paying American manufacturing jobs.

But if we Americans - in general - place a value on free enterprise, why should we then qualify that by insisting that our government step in and limit that free enterprise to within our own borders?

If American companies can produce widget "A" in Mexico at a labor rate of $10 as opposed to $30 an hour in the United States and then be able to sell those widgets to American consumers at a much more affordable price in our eeeeevil Big Box stores, then so be it.

As Americans we need to re-evaluate the WHY and HOW we came to such high labor costs that forced and enticed American companies to seek eeeevil profitability for their shareholders by offshoring that labor.

If we decide that manufacturing should once again play a larger role in the American jobs market, then Americans need to do some soul searching on what it's going to take to compete with labor markets in Asia, India, and Mexico.

Government over-regulation contributed to the decline of the American manufacturing jobs. WHY, then, would we want the government to step-in and "fix" that problem through protectionist laws?

believer;1226936 wrote:I had to chuckle at that one because I was thinking the very same thing. :thumbup:



I'm one of the folks who laments at the loss of good paying American manufacturing jobs.

But if we Americans - in general - place a value on free enterprise, why should we then qualify that by insisting that our government step in and limit that free enterprise to within our own borders?

If American companies can produce widget "A" in Mexico at a labor rate of $10 as opposed to $30 an hour in the United States and then be able to sell those widgets to American consumers at a much more affordable price in our eeeeevil Big Box stores, then so be it.

As Americans we need to re-evaluate the WHY and HOW we came to such high labor costs that forced and enticed American companies to seek eeeevil profitability for their shareholders by offshoring that labor.

If we decide that manufacturing should once again play a larger role in the American jobs market, then Americans need to do some soul searching on what it's going to take to compete with labor markets in Asia, India, and Mexico.

Government over-regulation contributed to the decline of the American manufacturing jobs. WHY, then, would we want the government to step-in and "fix" that problem through protectionist laws?

If someone comes to my house, and they tell me, "Hey, I know how to fix your laptop," and then they proceed to break my laptop (a source of income for me), I'm not going to invite them back to fix what they broke, as I fear they are inept, and cannot do so.

Apparently, people don't see this logic translating to the federal government.

O-Trap;1224584 wrote:Hey, as of late, I've been just as critical of Republican candidates as I have been of Democrat candidates, but I still think an ID should be mandatory, and given the ease with which a person can obtain one, I don't see why anyone is pushing so hard against it.

Granted, there may be people who fight for voting being contingent on an ID card for the reasons you say, but one could just as easily say that there are Democrats who oppose it just to make sure that people they can count on to vote in their favor will do so even if they don't get an ID. At worse, there may even be some who hope that such people will find a way to vote more than once, because the ends justify the means in their minds.



Why should a need for an ID ... something very easy to get as a citizen of the US ... cause disenfranchisement?



I've said, numerous times, that I think a Romney presidency will be equally detrimental, so that's not it.

1. When I lump in "conservatives" generally it's a safe bet that I'm not talking about Ron Paul guys who dislike Romney and Obama equally. I'm talking about the folks who will play for team Republican no matter what. Ron Paul guys like yourself are on a different wave-length generally.

2. True, maybe there are Democrats out there saying "I hope they don't pass the I.D. law so those illegals will vote for me cus I've bought their vote, etc." but as has been indicated; there is very little evidence of any of this. And, if the integrity of these elections was the real key issue...More would be being done to ensure that folks who don't have I.D. were getting it.

Perfect Example: My Uncle is a quadriplegic in a nursing home and hasn't had a photo I.D. since before he broke his neck. The same goes for several of the people who live there. He's lucky enough to have family that will take him to get an I.D. but plenty of others there do not. How are these handicapped people going to go get I.D.'s...why isn't the state helping them in some way to make sure they can? Is the secretary of state coordinating with nursing homes to ensure they take their people out to get ID's?

Granny in her walker is not committing voter fraud. That is the same type of argument we here from conservatives/libertarians with regard to the TSA isn't it? I'd be all for these "integrity" measures if there were accompanying policies to help these types of folks get IDs.

Just because it's "easy" for you to get an I.D. doesn't mean it's as easy for a lot of people. I mean, how many people beyond those who are politics wonks have even heard about the Voter ID requirements? Why isn't there a better information campaign to go along with these Voter ID laws and why do resolutions for such policies keep getting rejected by Republican controlled legislatures?

3. There is evidence of Republican politicians stating clear their intentions to use this to swing the election for Romney.

Pennsylvania House Republican Majority Leader said this:

"Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."

Maybe you genuinely believe it integral for clean elections but these Republicans in power across the nation do not care about that. They care about getting Barry Saetoro out of office at all costs.

4. State's are cherry picking what state issued photo-identification counts. Hunting licenses are valid but Student I.D.'s aren't? Why? It's not because Republicans care about the people trying to vote being who they say they are. Because they don't want liberals (who are clearly deluded) voting in BHO again. It's for their own good, etc.

Maybe you don't think that...but you ought to admit that this is how many of these so-called Conservatives are thinking.

believer;1226936 wrote:I had to chuckle at that one because I was thinking the very same thing. :thumbup:



I'm one of the folks who laments at the loss of good paying American manufacturing jobs.

But if we Americans - in general - place a value on free enterprise, why should we then qualify that by insisting that our government step in and limit that free enterprise to within our own borders?

If American companies can produce widget "A" in Mexico at a labor rate of $10 as opposed to $30 an hour in the United States and then be able to sell those widgets to American consumers at a much more affordable price in our eeeeevil Big Box stores, then so be it.

As Americans we need to re-evaluate the WHY and HOW we came to such high labor costs that forced and enticed American companies to seek eeeevil profitability for their shareholders by offshoring that labor.

If we decide that manufacturing should once again play a larger role in the American jobs market, then Americans need to do some soul searching on what it's going to take to compete with labor markets in Asia, India, and Mexico.

Government over-regulation contributed to the decline of the American manufacturing jobs. WHY, then, would we want the government to step-in and "fix" that problem through protectionist laws?

An overvalued dollar is your answer; not "over-regulation." But, Americans would never allow devaluing the dollar and increasing the price of Red Bulls and Gas to make domestic manufacturing more competitive.

And, there's nothing about manufacturing jobs that are inherently "better paying." There has been a flood of manufacturing jobs into the South and many of those folks make barely above minimum wage.

Good paying jobs have disappeared because of an erosion in bargaining power.

BoatShoes;1227106 wrote:1. When I lump in "conservatives" generally it's a safe bet that I'm not talking about Ron Paul guys who dislike Romney and Obama equally. I'm talking about the folks who will play for team Republican no matter what. Ron Paul guys like yourself are on a different wave-length generally.

2. True, maybe there are Democrats out there saying "I hope they don't pass the I.D. law so those illegals will vote for me cus I've bought their vote, etc." but as has been indicated; there is very little evidence of any of this. And, if the integrity of these elections was the real key issue...More would be being done to ensure that folks who don't have I.D. were getting it.

Perfect Example: My Uncle is a quadriplegic in a nursing home and hasn't had a photo I.D. since before he broke his neck. The same goes for several of the people who live there. He's lucky enough to have family that will take him to get an I.D. but plenty of others there do not. How are these handicapped people going to go get I.D.'s...why isn't the state helping them in some way to make sure they can? Is the secretary of state coordinating with nursing homes to ensure they take their people out to get ID's?

Granny in her walker is not committing voter fraud. That is the same type of argument we here from conservatives/libertarians with regard to the TSA isn't it? I'd be all for these "integrity" measures if there were accompanying policies to help these types of folks get IDs.

Just because it's "easy" for you to get an I.D. doesn't mean it's as easy for a lot of people. I mean, how many people beyond those who are politics wonks have even heard about the Voter ID requirements? Why isn't there a better information campaign to go along with these Voter ID laws and why do resolutions for such policies keep getting rejected by Republican controlled legislatures?

3. There is evidence of Republican politicians stating clear their intentions to use this to swing the election for Romney.

Pennsylvania House Republican Majority Leader said this:

"Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."

Maybe you genuinely believe it integral for clean elections but these Republicans in power across the nation do not care about that. They care about getting Barry Saetoro out of office at all costs.

4. State's are cherry picking what state issued photo-identification counts. Hunting licenses are valid but Student I.D.'s aren't? Why? It's not because Republicans care about the people trying to vote being who they say they are. Because they don't want liberals (who are clearly deluded) voting in BHO again. It's for their own good, etc.

Maybe you don't think that...but you ought to admit that this is how many of these so-called Conservatives are thinking.

Fair enough, and your example is a good one.

What we need to do, then, is find a solution for those who are genuinely willing, but not able, to obtain such an ID without enabling those who are able, but not willing. I think that's what needs discussed. I DO think an ID should be required, but I agree that we need to discuss how to empower those who would otherwise be responsible citizens to do so.

BoatShoes;1227110 wrote:Good paying jobs have disappeared because of an erosion in bargaining power.

This tends to happen in a down economy, as fewer people are hiring, making competition for an employee's services more scarce. It's not something I think can be effectively manipulated through artificial means, though.

Voter ID's in Texas for this example are free....Democrats still complained...

BoatShoes;1227110 wrote: Good paying jobs have disappeared because of an erosion in bargaining power.

That's the global labor dynamic. How do you fight that? American competitiveness IS a good thing for many, many people, in so far as many pension and retirement funds are invested in the markets. In order to provide those benefits the markets (i.e. companies) need to continue to do well and be competitive.

It's also a dirty little secret that our education system is completely out of step with the global economy. As we move toward more automation, we need SKILLED labor to operate and maintain these machines, NOT more people pursuing degrees in Art History. And so you have to find good people, hire and train them, something that's difficult to make the investment in an uncertain economy and regulatory environment. And the final kick to the nuts is the American worker has to be at least as mobile as companies to go where the good jobs are (ND and TX are booming). But after years of pushing home ownership, and its subsequent collapse, people lack mobility and so you have whole cities, even states, dying under the crushing weight to subsidize those displaced workers.