View Full Version : Sarkozy Wins
abreu
05-06-2007, 05:36 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/06/france.election/index.html
PARIS, France (CNN) -- Conservative Nicolas Sarkozy greeted news of his election Sunday to a five-year term as France's president with a vow to serve as a leader for all people of France.
"The president of the republic must love and respect all the French," he told cheering supporters at his campaign headquarters. "I will be the president of all the French people.
Sarkozy won with 52 percent of the vote, according to polls for France's state-run network, France 2.
"The French people have called for change. I will carry out that change, because that's the mandate I have received from the French people."
Sarkozy added that he wanted to tell his "American friends that they can rely on our friendship ... France will always be next to them when they need us."
But, he added, "Friends can think differently."
He then called on the United States "not to impede" in the fight against global warming. "On the contrary, they must lead this fight because humanity's fate is at stake here." (Watch Sarkozy's victory speech Video)
U.S. President George W. Bush called Sarkozy to congratulate him on his victory, a White House spokesman said in a written statement.
Sarkozy said he would also work to form a link between Europe and Africa. "We have to overcome hatred to give way to the great dreams of peace and civilization," he said. "It's time to build a great Mediterranean union."
Sarkozy said he would put in place an immigration policy "that is going to be controlled" and a development policy "that is going to be ambitious."
But he said that France would "stand next to" those who are persecuted by tyrants, dictatorships."
"We are going to write together a new page of our history. This page, my dear fellow citizens, I am sure it will be great."
Socialist Segolene Royal, a 53-year-old mother of four, acknowledged her defeat -- with 47 percent of the vote -- in a speech to supporters moments after the polls closed at 8 p.m. (2 p.m. ET).
"Keep the faith, keep intact your enthusiasm," she said at her party's headquarters. "I will keep on fighting the fight that we have started today." (Watch Royal's speech Video)
Sarkozy, a former interior minister, and Royal were in a run-off after emerging as the top candidates from the first round of voting on April 22.
Sarkozy will replace Jacques Chirac, a conservative who has been France's president since 1995. His election makes him the first French president born after World War II.
Voting was brisk. According to official figures, more than 75 percent of registered voters had been to the polls by 5 p.m. (9 a.m. ET).
Sarkozy voted in the affluent Paris suburb of Neuilly-sur-Seine where he lives, while Royal cast her vote in the western Poitou Charentes region, where she is regional president.
The campaign has been dominated by a debate over how to improve economic growth and reduce unemployment among the young, but its most explosive moments focused on immigration.
Appealing to right-wing voters, Sarkozy said France could not provide "a home for all the world's miseries."
On Friday, Royal said a Sarkozy presidency could trigger violence and brutalities in suburbs with high immigrant populations, prompting Sarkozy to condemn her "threatening comments."
CNN correspondent Hala Gorani reported extra security in some areas around Paris where police have previously clashed with youths of North African origin. There are no official figures on the number of North African immigrants and their French-born descendants in France. Unofficially, the number is estimated at between 3 and 6 million.
Prior to the election results being made public, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said a Sarkozy victory would be favorable to the United States.
"Clearly, his views are more in line with ours," Lugar told CNN's "Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer."
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., concurred: "I do. I do," he told CNN. "I mean, it would be nice to have someone who is head of France who doesn't almost have a knee-jerk reaction against the United States.I really have no clue about Sarkozy, but I decided that Conservative > Socialist
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/06/france.election/index.html
I really have no clue about Sarkozy, but I decided that Conservative > Socialist
Yes, because a label is much more indicative of a person than say...the person.
Ed Who?
05-06-2007, 06:44 PM
Yes, because a label is much more indicative of a person than say...the person.
Yeah, shame on Abreu. You should be careful using the "Socialist" label for someone who's running on the Socialist ticket.
"Communist Swine" is so much more accurate, and relates more closely to our own group of invertebrates.
Yeah, shame on Abreu. You should be careful using the "Socialist" label for someone who's running on the Socialist ticket.
"Communist Swine" is so much more accurate, and relates more closely to our own group of invertebrates.
Wow. Totally not what I was getting at, but OK.
I was thinking more along the lines as to why a lot of Republicans may not vote for Rudy because he wouldn't represent much of what the Republican agenda has become (socially, that is), but he would still be on the Republican ticket. In the same respect, the guy that won (or lost for that matter) may not truly represent the title of said party completely...thus, judging by a label rather than a person.
Thanks for clearing up my meaning before interpreting wrongly.
Ed Who?
05-06-2007, 06:56 PM
Wow. Totally not what I was getting at, but OK.
I was thinking more along the lines as to why a lot of Republicans may not vote for Rudy because he wouldn't represent much of what the Republican agenda has become (socially, that is), but he would still be on the Republican ticket. In the same respect, the guy that won (or lost for that matter) may not truly represent the title of said party completely...thus, judging by a label rather than a person.
Thanks for clearing up my meaning before interpreting wrongly.
On a primary ticket, I agree that many Republicans are going to side with those who seem more conservative. But you also have to remember that the two other frontrunners at this point, McCain and Romney, are also relatively moderate. If Fred Thompson enters the fold, you'll see a big groundswell in popularity towards him. He's pretty well-known from his acting exploits, and politically he identifies better with GOP voters.
If Giuliani gets the nomination for the GOP, you'd be hardpressed to convince me Repubs are going to vote Democrat. It's also highly likely that a third party candidate will not split the GOP ticket with a centrist, since your middle-of-the-roaders are going to vote for the centrist. And even though they might bitch, the hardliners are going to set aside pride, since they sure as hell don't want that ticket split. A moderate Republican can live with a Democrat president, while a very conservative Republican would have a lot of problems with it.
On a primary ticket, I agree that many Republicans are going to side with those who seem more conservative. But you also have to remember that the two other frontrunners at this point, McCain and Romney, are also relatively moderate. If Fred Thompson enters the fold, you'll see a big groundswell in popularity towards him. He's pretty well-known from his acting exploits, and politically he identifies better with GOP voters.
If Giuliani gets the nomination for the GOP, you'd be hardpressed to convince me Repubs are going to vote Democrat. It's also highly likely that a third party candidate will not split the GOP ticket with a centrist, since your middle-of-the-roaders are going to vote for the centrist. And even though they might bitch, the hardliners are going to set aside pride, since they sure as hell don't want that ticket split. A moderate Republican can live with a Democrat president, while a very conservative Republican would have a lot of problems with it.
I don't disagree. But it has nothing to do with the point I was making. Judging a person solely on their party, as opposed to their actual positions is about the worst way of picking a person that I can think of.
Say Giuliani would win the Republican and Lieberman won the Democratic (not possible, but hypothetically)...how many righties would vote the other side?
Party should not be used to judge the people...the people themselves (their ideas) should be what your judgment is based on. You may disagree...Abreu may disagree...but my guess it that it's possible that a lot of shitty people could be elected if the decision was made solely on the party, not the person.
Ed Who?
05-06-2007, 07:18 PM
Say Giuliani would win the Republican and Lieberman won the Democratic (not possible, but hypothetically)...how many righties would vote the other side?
The bigger question is...why in the hell hasn't Lieberman become a Republican yet? He'd be a huge player in the party if he'd come over. You'd think he would love to put the knife in the backs of those who tried to railroad him out of office.
The bigger question is...why in the hell hasn't Lieberman become a Republican yet? He'd be a huge player in the party if he'd come over. You'd think he would love to put the knife in the backs of those who tried to railroad him out of office.
Because for almost any other position I can think of, he was on the left side.
abreu
05-06-2007, 08:26 PM
Well, if her label was something like "leftist" or "liberal", I would have looked into it
However, based on my knowledge of French politics, and the fact that she was classified as a socialist led me to believe she was anti-US and completely against my political views.
LSU, you are right, I shouldn't have assumed.
I went to Wikipedia, and she is ridiculously left, I would say socialist.
Ed Who?
05-06-2007, 09:05 PM
Well, if her label was something like "leftist" or "liberal", I would have looked into it
However, based on my knowledge of French politics, and the fact that she was classified as a socialist led me to believe she was anti-US and completely against my political views.
LSU, you are right, I shouldn't have assumed.
I went to Wikipedia, and she is ridiculously left, I would say socialist.
Abreu, you were right to begin with.
Here's the correct line of thinking:
France = Leftist armpit of EUrinal.
Socialist in France = someone who makes V.I. Lenin look like Pat Buchanan.
Don't listen to liberals, they're bad for your health.
Abreu, you were right to begin with.
Here's the correct line of thinking:
France = Leftist armpit of EUrinal.
Socialist in France = someone who makes V.I. Lenin look like Pat Buchanan.
Don't listen to liberals, they're bad for your health.
Yes Abreu, listen to those that tell you hating an entire continent of those who are our only allies is a smart idea.
Well, if her label was something like "leftist" or "liberal", I would have looked into it
However, based on my knowledge of French politics, and the fact that she was classified as a socialist led me to believe she was anti-US and completely against my political views.
LSU, you are right, I shouldn't have assumed.
I went to Wikipedia, and she is ridiculously left, I would say socialist.
Hey, at least now you know her views, and if you don't like her based on that, cool beans.
Oh. Let's not forget, too, that Bush's strongest ally has been a Lefty in the EUrinal. Tony Blair that is...if I'm not mistaken is from one of the dirty liberal parties in the UK...
But let's not let that get in the way of good debate.
Hotpapa666
05-07-2007, 02:20 AM
Abreu, you were right to begin with.
Here's the correct line of thinking:
France = Leftist armpit of EUrinal.
Socialist in France = someone who makes V.I. Lenin look like Pat Buchanan.
Don't listen to liberals, they're bad for your health.
Spoken by someone who has clearly never been to France, or just prefers America's sprawling wasteland of strip malls. And clearly has no idea what socialism is, a governing philosophy that values such things as the right to work, the right to fair wages, the right to health care...
Of course, Rush or someone like him calls it the "EUrinal" so you need to pick it up and start using it. :rolleyes:
BTW, Socialism is a really bad to run a country, it cripples economy and freedom, right? Why are the EU economies going great and the US economy stagnates? Why is The Euro kicking the dollars ass for, what, the fifth year in a row? Why is it easier to travel in and around Europe than ever, while it gets harder in the US? Why is it easier to voice your opinion and protest in Europe? ETC....
Hotpapa666
05-07-2007, 02:27 AM
Oh yeah, and what are the odds that this guy starts throwing his political weight around to show us that he really stands by Bush? When will the French troops start making their way to Iraq? I'm guessing about as quickly as the last conservative President made the play to send his nations sons off to Iraq (for those who can't connect the dots, Cirac was the Pres. and he sent no troups.
Iron Jaw
05-07-2007, 04:51 AM
Spoken by someone who has clearly never been to France, or just prefers America's sprawling wasteland of strip malls. And clearly has no idea what socialism is, a governing philosophy that values such things as the right to work, the right to fair wages, the right to health care...
Of course, Rush or someone like him calls it the "EUrinal" so you need to pick it up and start using it. :rolleyes:
BTW, Socialism is a really bad to run a country, it cripples economy and freedom, right? Why are the EU economies going great and the US economy stagnates? Why is The Euro kicking the dollars ass for, what, the fifth year in a row? Why is it easier to travel in and around Europe than ever, while it gets harder in the US? Why is it easier to voice your opinion and protest in Europe? ETC....
Keep in mind, France just went through a period of civil unrest. Nationwide riots, spurred initially by the accidental deaths of two teens (blamed on the police - the two teens ran from the police, then hid in a power station and were electrocuted), were rampant in France during the latter part of 2005. The riots were nationwide, forcing Chirac to declare a three-month state of emergency. The poor, immigrant and working class communites were the primary protesters/rioteers. They cited severe unemployment, low paying jobs without benefits, racial discrimination, immigrant discrimination and a host of other issues. And the protests were directed against the government of Chirac who was basically a socialist - and early in his political career he was a member of the French Communist Party.
Thus, I presume the protesters and rioters against the Chirac government will probably not be happy with the election of the conservative, "law and order" candidate Sarkozy. Evidenced by the protest and minor riots that took place after the election results were announced.
I suspect, the election of Sarkozy was a direct result of the lack of law and order that prevailed during the French unrest.
Hotpapa666
05-07-2007, 06:02 AM
Chiroc is a conservative. So is this guy. This guy served in the Chirac cabinet as minister of the interior.
Spoken by someone who has clearly never been to France, or just prefers America's sprawling wasteland of strip malls. And clearly has no idea what socialism is, a governing philosophy that values such things as the right to work, the right to fair wages, the right to health care...
Of course, Rush or someone like him calls it the "EUrinal" so you need to pick it up and start using it. :rolleyes:
BTW, Socialism is a really bad to run a country, it cripples economy and freedom, right? Why are the EU economies going great and the US economy stagnates? Why is The Euro kicking the dollars ass for, what, the fifth year in a row? Why is it easier to travel in and around Europe than ever, while it gets harder in the US? Why is it easier to voice your opinion and protest in Europe? ETC....
Great post. I completely agree and this needed to be said.
I find that there is so much irrational hatred. Why would we hate the EU? They are so much closer to our viewpoint than anyone else besides Australia, and those we buy off. It's ridiculous to have that hatred towards them, and is definitley Limbaugh-like. When will people learn that guy is a frickin' joke, and if his policies ruled our country we would be in a bad, bad way.
Ed Who?
05-07-2007, 10:18 AM
Great post. I completely agree and this needed to be said.
I find that there is so much irrational hatred. Why would we hate the EU? They are so much closer to our viewpoint than anyone else besides Australia, and those we buy off. It's ridiculous to have that hatred towards them, and is definitley Limbaugh-like. When will people learn that guy is a frickin' joke, and if his policies ruled our country we would be in a bad, bad way.
First of all, I, like, never listen to Limbaugh. So nice try.
Second, if you'd pay any attention, France and Russia have been working against us all along. Saddam was a close ally of Chirac. It's highly likely that Chirac was instrumental in not only getting Saddam his WMDs, but also getting them out of there prior to our invasion. Russia has been spending a good bit of time trying to help Iran get into the nuclear age.
Many of the European countries lack the resolve to stand up to the Islamists. Note how Royal was quick to throw the, "If Sarkozy wins, there will be rioting" card. Why did she throw that? Because she wants to side with the terrorists, she wants to give them concessions, she wants to fight our interests. And if you look at the groups in this country, which groups seem to want to concede ground to the Islamic groups?
This is from Yahoo...I didn't read the whole thing, but I LOVED the bold parts. Classic.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070507/ap_on_re_eu/france_election&printer=1;_ylt=AoBvE7uMvzktSCBPojho3RRbbBAF
France's Sarkozy seeks parliament allies
By ANGELA DOLAND, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 10 minutes ago
French president-elect Nicolas Sarkozy plans to waste no time making France a friendlier place for business — and a less inviting place for criminals and would-be immigrants — but first he must win control of parliament in new elections next month.
Sarkozy, a U.S.-friendly conservative and an immigrant's son, defeated Socialist Segolene Royal by 53 percent to 47 percent with about 85 percent voter turnout Sunday.
The win gave Sarkozy a strong mandate for his vision of France's future: He wants to free up labor markets, calls France's 35-hour work week absurd and plans tougher measures on crime and immigration.
"The people of France have chosen change," Sarkozy told cheering supporters in a victory speech that sketched out a stronger global role for France and renewed partnership with the United States.
Exit polls offered some surprises. Some 46 percent of blue-collar workers — traditionally leftist voters — chose Sarkozy, according to an Ipsos/Dell poll. Forty-four percent of people of modest means voted for him, as did 32 percent of people who usually vote for the Greens and 14 percent who normally support the far-left. The poll surveyed 3,609 voters and has a margin of error of about 2 percent.
A headline Monday in Les Echos newspaper, a financial daily, read: "President Sarkozy: a wide majority for reforming the country in depth." In Le Figaro newspaper, Jean d'Ormesson wrote: "Fasten your seatbelts. This will be quite a ride."
Sarkozy's is certain to face resistance from powerful unions to his plans to make the French work more and make it easier for companies to hire and fire.
Over the next few days, Sarkozy "will retire to somewhere in France to unwind a little ... and to start organizing and preparing his teams," said Francois Fillon, an adviser often cited as the leading candidate for prime minister.
With his family, Sarkozy left his Paris hotel Monday — dressed casually in jeans — en route to his retreat. The location was not revealed.
The new president, 52, plans to take over power from outgoing 74-year-old leader Jacques Chirac on May 16. Fillon said Sarkozy's new government would be installed May 19 or 20.
The election left little time for celebrating: Legislative elections are slated for June 10 and 17, and Sarkozy's conservative UMP party needs a majority to keep his mandate for reforms. A win by the left would bring an awkward power-sharing with a leftist prime minister, which would put a stop to his plans.
Sarkozy has drawn up a whirlwind agenda for his first 100 days in office and plans to put big reforms before parliament at an extraordinary session in July. One would make overtime pay tax-free to encourage people to work more. Another would put in place tougher sentencing for repeat offenders, and a third would toughen the criteria for immigrants trying to bring their families to France.
On election night, scattered violence was reported across France. Police reported that 270 people were taken in for questioning and that 367 parked vehicles had been torched. On a typical night in France, about 100 cars are burned.
There had been fears that the impoverished suburban housing projects, home to Arab and African immigrants and their French-born children, would erupt again at the victory of a man who once labeled young delinquents "scum." That blunt comment, and Sarkozy's tough anti-crime tactics as interior minister, helped fuel riots that raged for three weeks in housing projects in 2005.
Late Sunday, small bands of youths hurled stones and other objects at police at the Place de la Bastille in Paris, across town from a giant street party celebrating Sarkozy's win. Some youths bared their backsides at riot officers, and police fired volleys of tear gas. Other fights with the police broke out in Toulouse, Lyon, Rennes and Nantes, police said. Two police unions said firebombs targeted schools and recreation centers in the Essonne region just south of Paris.
In Sarkozy's victory speech, he reached out to all those he has alienated in the past, promising to be president "of all the French, without exception."
"I want to tell them that tonight, this is not the victory of one France over another," said Sarkozy, who is often portrayed as the enemy of youths in the housing projects.
Among the electoral surprises was that Sarkozy took 43 percent in the Seine-Saint-Denis region north of Paris, an area with a large immigrant population and high unemployment that was the epicenter of the 2005 rioting.
pnkpanther
05-07-2007, 10:32 AM
oddly as far as nations go, our history is closest to france's of anyones
First of all, I, like, never listen to Limbaugh. So nice try.
Second, if you'd pay any attention, France and Russia have been working against us all along. Saddam was a close ally of Chirac. It's highly likely that Chirac was instrumental in not only getting Saddam his WMDs, but also getting them out of there prior to our invasion. Russia has been spending a good bit of time trying to help Iran get into the nuclear age.
Many of the European countries lack the resolve to stand up to the Islamists. Note how Royal was quick to throw the, "If Sarkozy wins, there will be rioting" card. Why did she throw that? Because she wants to side with the terrorists, she wants to give them concessions, she wants to fight our interests. And if you look at the groups in this country, which groups seem to want to concede ground to the Islamic groups?
Your hate was for the whole EU. Wake up buddy, the whole world isn't going along with your bullshit fight against the Islamists. You sound like the president. Resolve and Islamists.
Yes, France and Russia helped Saddam moved his WMDs. You really believe that? Your right, you must not listen to Limbaugh, he is more grounded than that.
Hotpapa666
05-07-2007, 10:49 AM
First of all, I, like, never listen to Limbaugh. So nice try.
Second, if you'd pay any attention, France and Russia have been working against us all along. Saddam was a close ally of Chirac. It's highly likely that Chirac was instrumental in not only getting Saddam his WMDs, but also getting them out of there prior to our invasion. Russia has been spending a good bit of time trying to help Iran get into the nuclear age.
Many of the European countries lack the resolve to stand up to the Islamists. Note how Royal was quick to throw the, "If Sarkozy wins, there will be rioting" card. Why did she throw that? Because she wants to side with the terrorists, she wants to give them concessions, she wants to fight our interests. And if you look at the groups in this country, which groups seem to want to concede ground to the Islamic groups?
You really believe the bold? Honestly. Do you really believe that the French got Saddam WMDs (I would like to know the who, what, when, where and how of that story as well) and then got them out (I would also know to know the 5 Ws of that baby too). I really want to read your explaination for this comment.
Maybe I was a little harsh. I guess I mean this. Conservatives are no longer adhering to traditional conservative values. Our country is no longer adhering to traditional American values (no not Christianity and strict interpretation). More and more they just want to be told that it is ok to hate. That is what you hear. On right wing talk radio especially, but also on left-wing too. It maybe due to the fact that right-wingers still dominate the airwaves. (yes Vegas, I will admit there is irrational hatred for GWB).
That said I can't stand hating whole groups of people. Has the guy you supported been a disaster in pretty much every way? Hate liberals and protesters. Jobs leaving your country to go to Indochina and India? Hate immigrants. Are you uncomfortable with society (probably more likely with yourself:) )? Hate gays. Would you like a better paycheck and to feel more comfortable at a mall? Hate welfare moms. Are you a bit upset at the way the war is going? Hate France and the EU and anyone who didn't support it. Can't beat GWB? hate him. Years of failed world policy by the left and right create a global terror problem kill 3000 Americans? Hate Muslims.
It isn't working. It is failing miserably. The world is getting worse.
Now this post wasn't meant to be directed at anyone in particular, but rather the way I see irrational hatred in our country. It also isn't meant solely for our country, but for every country. Even France, who has had many problems with hate recently. Everything done wrong in this country, every disaster has been the product of hate. I for one am tired of it. If you want to go around trashing everyone not like you than go ahead. Just know that it pushes us back, rather than forward. I am happy to work with those of a conservative mindset. I will not work with those that hate. Conservatism does not equal hate.
Thats just the way I see it. Flame away,
IBC
Hatred ever kills, love never dies. Such is the vast difference between the two. What is obtained by love is retained for all time. What is obtained by hatred proves a burden in reality for it increases hatred.
Gandhi
C'mon guys. Wouldn't you believe that there was an elaborate plot to move untold numbers of WMDs out of the country in the days leading up to the war rather than to think that all the intel the Admin based their predictions on was wrong, especially since some high ranking officials have said the intel was wrong?
Just as people talk about the conspiracy theories about some things Bush does, i.e., if he's so stupid, how will he pull off something that huge and nobody will leak it...how would there be 2 countries of people or more being involved in a mass exodus of weapons be able to keep it under wraps for so long? If the evidence was there that this occurred, it would have been released long long ago.
You really believe the bold? Honestly. Do you really believe that the French got Saddam WMDs (I would like to know the who, what, when, where and how of that story as well) and then got them out (I would also know to know the 5 Ws of that baby too). I really want to read your explaination for this comment.
I think there is proof of who supplied Saddam with his WMDs, and it isn't France.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/images/bestfriends.jpg
C'mon guys. Wouldn't you believe that there was an elaborate plot to move untold numbers of WMDs out of the country in the days leading up to the war rather than to think that all the intel the Admin based their predictions on was wrong, especially since some high ranking officials have said the intel was wrong?
Just as people talk about the conspiracy theories about some things Bush does, i.e., if he's so stupid, how will he pull off something that huge and nobody will leak it...how would there be 2 countries of people or more being involved in a mass exodus of weapons be able to keep it under wraps for so long? If the evidence was there that this occurred, it would have been released long long ago.
No no no. France and Russia helped moved weapons to Iran and Syria. Gas up the jets, its time to go to WWIII!
No no no. France and Russia helped moved weapons to Iran and Syria. Gas up the jets, its time to go to WWIII!
Hey, this sounds like the old format of the NHL all-star game...
The United States vs The World.
pnkpanther
05-07-2007, 11:08 AM
all i know is a vote for a democrat is a vote for a terrorist dropping from sky killing me
all i know is a vote for a democrat is a vote for a terrorist dropping from sky killing me
Why do you hate our freedom (tm).
Hotpapa666
05-07-2007, 11:19 AM
C'mon guys. Wouldn't you believe that there was an elaborate plot to move untold numbers of WMDs out of the country in the days leading up to the war rather than to think that all the intel the Admin based their predictions on was wrong, especially since some high ranking officials have said the intel was wrong?
Just as people talk about the conspiracy theories about some things Bush does, i.e., if he's so stupid, how will he pull off something that huge and nobody will leak it...how would there be 2 countries of people or more being involved in a mass exodus of weapons be able to keep it under wraps for so long? If the evidence was there that this occurred, it would have been released long long ago.
Well, the obvious answer is cover up. We can find evidence of a campfire in the desert 2,000 years ago but we can't find evidence of any of the following: Importation of, Manufacture of, Recent Storage of, Transport of, Exportation of, Record of WMDs to include, biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.
The rag-tag military left after Iraq Part One was, just by happen-stance, a well trained team built for top level cover-up the likes of which the world had never seen. They sprung quickly into action to protect Cirac who they loved more than their own mothers, to "Clean-up the situation".
If anyone steals my movie idea I will go ape shit.
Vegas
05-07-2007, 12:40 PM
BTW, Socialism is a really bad to run a country, it cripples economy and freedom, right? Why are the EU economies going great and the US economy stagnates? Why is The Euro kicking the dollars ass for, what, the fifth year in a row? Why is it easier to travel in and around Europe than ever, while it gets harder in the US? Why is it easier to voice your opinion and protest in Europe? ETC....
Why European economies lag behind the U.S.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009657
As is increasingly admitted, the economic performance in nearly every Continental country is generally poor compared to the U.S. and a few other countries that share the U.S.'s characteristics. Productivity in the Continental Big Three--Germany, France and Italy--stopped gaining ground on the U.S. in the early 1990s, then lost ground as a result of recent slowdowns and the U.S. speed-up. Unemployment rates are generally far higher than those in the U.S., U.K., Canada and Ireland. And labor force participation rates have been lower for decades. Relatedly, the employee engagement and job satisfaction reported in surveys are mostly lower, too.
Why European economies lag behind the U.S.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009657
As is increasingly admitted, the economic performance in nearly every Continental country is generally poor compared to the U.S. and a few other countries that share the U.S.'s characteristics. Productivity in the Continental Big Three--Germany, France and Italy--stopped gaining ground on the U.S. in the early 1990s, then lost ground as a result of recent slowdowns and the U.S. speed-up. Unemployment rates are generally far higher than those in the U.S., U.K., Canada and Ireland. And labor force participation rates have been lower for decades. Relatedly, the employee engagement and job satisfaction reported in surveys are mostly lower, too.
From opinion journal. And I'm not saying the facts are incorrect...but is there another side of the story? Logic that leads in another direction rather than the viewpoint this individual has?
Vegas
05-07-2007, 12:44 PM
From opinion journal. And I'm not saying the facts are incorrect...but is there another side of the story? Logic that leads in another direction rather than the viewpoint this individual has?
I would hope that we could agree that the Wall Street Journal is a credible source when it comes to publishing economic data, even in their editorial pages.
I would hope that we could agree that the Wall Street Journal is a credible source when it comes to publishing economic data, even in their editorial pages.
An opinion is an opinion whether or not it's in a reputable source. And again, as I said, I'm not saying his facts are incorrect...but faulty logic can be based on hard facts...thus, the question of another side of the story. I'm not even saying there is one...I'm asking if there is.
Vegas
05-07-2007, 12:48 PM
An opinion is an opinion whether or not it's in a reputable source. And again, as I said, I'm not saying his facts are incorrect...but faulty logic can be based on hard facts...thus, the question of another side of the story. I'm not even saying there is one...I'm asking if there is.
The economies in Europe have been lagging for several years and we're hearing in this thread that socialism is such a great thing and how it results in a better economy than in the US, which is simply not true.
The economies in Europe have been lagging for several years and we're hearing in this thread that socialism is such a great thing and how it results in a better economy than in the US, which is simply not true.
All of Europe or just parts? The pound kills the dollar if that's any indication of economics.
Jiddy78
05-07-2007, 06:56 PM
The economies in Europe have been lagging for several years and we're hearing in this thread that socialism is such a great thing and how it results in a better economy than in the US, which is simply not true.
How long has it been since you've been there? Granted, I only visited three of the big cities, but it looked like they were doing every bit as good as us...and I was paying hellamore as I work more for the dollar that stretches thin over there...
What is...truth?
Hotpapa666
05-07-2007, 07:12 PM
Vegas,
I'm not an economist and will never pretend to be. The problem with the article you post is that looks at stuff like productivity; I'll admit that Europe is less productive than America. But only using the top 3 seems a little disengenuous. Why not look at over-all production with-in the EU or with thein the nations that use the Euro. I thought that countries like Portugal and Spain were making huge strides.
On unemployeement, I don't know how the EU measures unemployeement. If they do it like we do in America that is a fair assesment. If they measure the people who truly don't have jobs then I bet the EU rate is at good as if not better than the US rate which is measured by people who are activily seeking employeement.
Their money kicks our money's ass because our fool hardy government keeps printing money and selling it around the world to prop up its policies. This doesn't matter for the average consumer who buys tons of shit from Asia (China has floated it's money to the dollar for awhile now). But for anyone who buys goods from Europe it really stings. Which accounts for part of the lag in their production centers.
Tourism is big bucks and isn't mentioned.
While the US economy continues to grow it gets more and more top heavy as wages stagnate or regress. As evidence by the growing gap between the middle class and the rich. This is something that is checked somewhat in more socialist countries. I know, it a very unAmerican idea but some countries and their citizens feel it is their duty to treat their citizens with respect, dignity and to provide them with basic Human Rights.
Vegas
05-07-2007, 07:40 PM
I know, it a very unAmerican idea but some countries and their citizens feel it is their duty to treat their citizens with respect, dignity and to provide them with basic Human Rights.
This is still the most desired country in the world to which people want to immigrate. It really can't be too bad as far as human rights and getting treated with respect and dignity.
And your figures about the income gap come from highly selective data. How many CEOs are there that make the really big bucks. If you take the Fortune 500 companies, that would cover most of them. And if you take out those 500 from the equation, income equality isn't an issue.
This is still the most desired country in the world to which people want to immigrate. It really can't be too bad as far as human rights and getting treated with respect and dignity.
And your figures about the income gap come from highly selective data. How many CEOs are there that make the really big bucks. If you take the Fortune 500 companies, that would cover most of them. And if you take out those 500 from the equation, income equality isn't an issue.
This is somewhat related, but mostly not. I was watching PBS the other night, I think, (because it was in HD) and they had some special on Ireland and how it was becoming a big time immigration gem because the economy is really on the upswing.
Also, I caught something for a few minutes on some other show that talked about switzerland or one of those countries over there and the tax rate was something like 60%, but hardly anyone bitched about it because the quality of life was so good otherwise.
Or maybe it was all a bad dream.
Jiddy78
05-07-2007, 08:16 PM
This is still the most desired country in the world to which people want to immigrate. It really can't be too bad as far as human rights and getting treated with respect and dignity.
And your figures about the income gap come from highly selective data. How many CEOs are there that make the really big bucks. If you take the Fortune 500 companies, that would cover most of them. And if you take out those 500 from the equation, income equality isn't an issue.
I think you are omitting steps 2, 3 and 4 or so in that 6 degrees of separation formula.
Vegas
05-07-2007, 08:20 PM
I think you are omitting steps 2, 3 and 4 or so in that 6 degrees of separation formula.
I don't think so. But even so, the income gap that is claimed is based on a small number of jobs compared to the size of our economy.
Some of you guys might want to check out figure 1 in the following article
http://www.unicef-icdc.org/publications/pdf/repcard1e.pdf
Of course its UNICEF and they are left as left can be.
Iron Jaw
05-07-2007, 09:14 PM
Chiroc is a conservative. So is this guy. This guy served in the Chirac cabinet as minister of the interior.
I know that Chirac and Sarkozy are members of the same French Conservative party. The general thought though is that Chirac's conservative ideals are to the left of the most liberal democrats in the U.S. Chirac was once a communist - a proud member of the French Communist party. In fact, he was once denied a student visa to study in the United States because of his associations with the communists. Over the years he has evolved into a pure politician, doing what is necessary to win. Chirac may be called a conservative (French style) based upon his party association, but he tends to lean to the left - that early communist ideology never completely left him.
Chirac's leanings appear to be considerably to the left of Sarkozy. Though he ran his last campaign on "law and order," as Sarkozy has included into his current platform, law and order under Chirac's recent tour of duty took a nosedive. The people of France made the decision to move further to the right with Sarkozy - the socialists have not had control in over 12 years, and they were the primary alternative to the Conservatives.
abreu
05-07-2007, 09:33 PM
Sarkozy supports Israel. Supports abolishment of the 35-hour workweek, and wants to make overtime tax-free. When asked about the poor, he said "I'm willing to help them, but they better be prepared to wake up early"
I like this guy. I just hope he follows through.
Ed Who?
05-07-2007, 09:43 PM
Sarkozy supports Israel. Supports abolishment of the 35-hour workweek, and wants to make overtime tax-free. When asked about the poor, he said "I'm willing to help them, but they better be prepared to wake up early"
I like this guy. I just hope he follows through.
Anytime a government official admits that a citizen can spend his or her own money better than said government, it's a step in the right direction.
Hotpapa666
05-08-2007, 01:03 AM
This is still the most desired country in the world to which people want to immigrate. It really can't be too bad as far as human rights and getting treated with respect and dignity.
And your figures about the income gap come from highly selective data. How many CEOs are there that make the really big bucks. If you take the Fortune 500 companies, that would cover most of them. And if you take out those 500 from the equation, income equality isn't an issue.
I don't know if your conjecture about the US being the most deisre country is world holds any truth but it has no bearing on the U.S. record on Human rights. On rights like The right to work, the right to fair compensation, the right healthcare, etc. we lag far behind many countries in the world.
The idea that there is widening gap between the very rich and the middle class is an old and well established one. I didn't say anything about a gap in income. Here's an article from 04 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/13/national/main635936.shtml. It uses the latest census numbers.
Here's one from '05 written a source you are probably more comfortable with, The Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0614/p01s03-usec.html.
I could keep posting but a simple Google search will fill your day with reading on the subject.
I don't know if your conjecture about the US being the most deisre country is world holds any truth but it has no bearing on the U.S. record on Human rights. On rights like The right to work, the right to fair compensation, the right healthcare, etc. we lag far behind many countries in the world.
The idea that there is widening gap between the very rich and the middle class is an old and well established one. I didn't say anything about a gap in income. Here's an article from 04 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/13/national/main635936.shtml. It uses the latest census numbers.
Here's one from '05 written a source you are probably more comfortable with, The Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0614/p01s03-usec.html.
I could keep posting but a simple Google search will fill your day with reading on the subject.Dude, I have been saying on this site for a while. It never seems to get anywhere.
Hotpapa666
05-08-2007, 02:01 AM
Dude, I have been saying on this site for a while. It never seems to get anywhere.
I'm not trying to steal your fire, or your fight for that matter. I just went where the debate took me.
For some reason the Republicans seem to stop responding when painted into a corner. We'll see what happens this time.
Vegas
05-08-2007, 11:27 AM
I don't know if your conjecture about the US being the most deisre country is world holds any truth but it has no bearing on the U.S. record on Human rights. On rights like The right to work, the right to fair compensation, the right healthcare, etc. we lag far behind many countries in the world.
The idea that there is widening gap between the very rich and the middle class is an old and well established one. I didn't say anything about a gap in income. Here's an article from 04 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/13/national/main635936.shtml. It uses the latest census numbers.
Here's one from '05 written a source you are probably more comfortable with, The Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0614/p01s03-usec.html.
I could keep posting but a simple Google search will fill your day with reading on the subject.
I still question the data (or at least manipulation of the data) that says the "gap" between rich and poor is growing, but it's a pretty moot point either way. The rich are not getting richer at the expense of the poor. Nobody can make a reasonable point that they are. Our overall economy and society continues to prosper.
The fact is that the government's own surveys of the living conditions of the poor surveys indicate that most poor Americans today are better housed, better fed, and own more property than average Americans throughout most of the century. Expenditures per person among the poorest fifth of households equal those of the average household in the early 1970s (adjusted for inflation).
In a world where the poorest people live like millionaires, would it really be so terrible if the richest people were trillionaires? We aren't there yet obviously, but I suspect those who denounce income inequality today would still be denouncing it under those circumstances, too.
hannitykillspuppies
05-08-2007, 12:01 PM
First of all, I, like, never listen to Limbaugh. So nice try.
Second, if you'd pay any attention, France and Russia have been working against us all along. Saddam was a close ally of Chirac. It's highly likely that Chirac was instrumental in not only getting Saddam his WMDs, but also getting them out of there prior to our invasion. Russia has been spending a good bit of time trying to help Iran get into the nuclear age.
Many of the European countries lack the resolve to stand up to the Islamists. Note how Royal was quick to throw the, "If Sarkozy wins, there will be rioting" card. Why did she throw that? Because she wants to side with the terrorists, she wants to give them concessions, she wants to fight our interests. And if you look at the groups in this country, which groups seem to want to concede ground to the Islamic groups?do you have any proof of this "highly" likely scenario?
hannitykillspuppies
05-08-2007, 12:10 PM
I still question the data (or at least manipulation of the data) that says the "gap" between rich and poor is growing, but it's a pretty moot point either way. The rich are not getting richer at the expense of the poor. Nobody can make a reasonable point that they are. Our overall economy and society continues to prosper.
The fact is that the government's own surveys of the living conditions of the poor surveys indicate that most poor Americans today are better housed, better fed, and own more property than average Americans throughout most of the century. Expenditures per person among the poorest fifth of households equal those of the average household in the early 1970s (adjusted for inflation).
In a world where the poorest people live like millionaires, would it really be so terrible if the richest people were trillionaires? We aren't there yet obviously, but I suspect those who denounce income inequality today would still be denouncing it under those circumstances, too.harping on data manipulation again. any data can be manipulated to serve any purpose or argument.
homeless people live like millionaires?
I still question the data (or at least manipulation of the data) that says the "gap" between rich and poor is growing, but it's a pretty moot point either way. The rich are not getting richer at the expense of the poor. Nobody can make a reasonable point that they are. Our overall economy and society continues to prosper.
The fact is that the government's own surveys of the living conditions of the poor surveys indicate that most poor Americans today are better housed, better fed, and own more property than average Americans throughout most of the century. Expenditures per person among the poorest fifth of households equal those of the average household in the early 1970s (adjusted for inflation).
In a world where the poorest people live like millionaires, would it really be so terrible if the richest people were trillionaires? We aren't there yet obviously, but I suspect those who denounce income inequality today would still be denouncing it under those circumstances, too.
I guess the data suggests the opposite, as I have seen it. The very article he posted said that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the middle class. Also, that the middle class were shouldering the tax burden once held by the richest in America. It sucks, and Bush lied his ass off about those tax cuts.
pnkpanther
05-08-2007, 03:06 PM
I still question the data (or at least manipulation of the data) that says the "gap" between rich and poor is growing, but it's a pretty moot point either way. The rich are not getting richer at the expense of the poor. Nobody can make a reasonable point that they are. Our overall economy and society continues to prosper.
The fact is that the government's own surveys of the living conditions of the poor surveys indicate that most poor Americans today are better housed, better fed, and own more property than average Americans throughout most of the century. Expenditures per person among the poorest fifth of households equal those of the average household in the early 1970s (adjusted for inflation).
In a world where the poorest people live like millionaires, would it really be so terrible if the richest people were trillionaires? We aren't there yet obviously, but I suspect those who denounce income inequality today would still be denouncing it under those circumstances, too.
why? look at numbers, smaller % of american's are controlling a larger % of America's wealth, thats the "facts"
why? look at numbers, smaller % of american's are controlling a larger % of America's wealth, thats the "facts"
Yes it is a fact. I really don't think there is any way around that. Now the cause it what we should be debating.
In a world where the poorest people live like millionaires, would it really be so terrible if the richest people were trillionaires? We aren't there yet obviously, but I suspect those who denounce income inequality today would still be denouncing it under those circumstances, too.
The poor like millionaires? Tell that to the 7.7 million families living below the poverty line. Do you know what the poverty line is? 19k/year for a family of 4. Get your facts right. That was an outrageous statement not backed up by anything. Do you personally live on less than 19k? Add 3 more people.
Vegas
05-08-2007, 04:30 PM
The poor like millionaires? Tell that to the 7.7 million families living below the poverty line. Do you know what the poverty line is? 19k/year for a family of 4. Get your facts right. That was an outrageous statement not backed up by anything. Do you personally live on less than 19k? Add 3 more people.
Read it again. It's a hypothetical. The entire society gets richer. At the point where the poor are living like millionaires, the richest will live like trillionaires.
hannitykillspuppies
05-08-2007, 04:32 PM
Read it again. It's a hypothetical. The entire society gets richer. At the point where the poor are living like millionaires, the richest will live like trillionaires.
but the entire society is not getting richer.
Read it again. It's a hypothetical. The entire society gets richer. At the point where the poor are living like millionaires, the richest will live like trillionaires.
But that doesn't take into account the money needed to make people trillionaires...wouldn't the companies have to make that money? And in order to increase the profits raise prices? Thus, if everything costs more, a million bucks wouldn't go as far as it used to...???
How else do you propose the trillionaires get their trillions?
It's all relative. Stuff costs $10 instead of $1, so having that extra zero at the end is negated.
Vegas
05-08-2007, 04:33 PM
But that doesn't take into account the money needed to make people trillionaires...wouldn't the companies have to make that money? And in order to increase the profits raise prices? Thus, if everything costs more, a million bucks wouldn't go as far as it used to...???
How else do you propose the trillionaires get their trillions?
It's all relative. Stuff costs $10 instead of $1, so having that extra zero at the end is negated.
You're assuming things are zero sum, which is not the case. Wealth is created and it's not at someone else's expense.
Read it again. It's a hypothetical. The entire society gets richer. At the point where the poor are living like millionaires, the richest will live like trillionaires.
This just hasn't worked in the past. things don't trickle down like that in theory. You know when poverty dropped? Clinton's presidency. Did he lower taxes on the rich? I see it also went down during Reagans presidency as we recovered from the disaster of the 70's. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/55/Poverty_59_to_05.png/800px-Poverty_59_to_05.png
You're assuming things are zero sum, which is not the case. Wealth is created and it's not at someone else's expense.
How is wealth created? By profit? How is profit created?
Vegas
05-08-2007, 04:35 PM
This just hasn't worked in the past. things don't trickle down like that in theory. You know when poverty dropped? Clinton's presidency. Did he lower taxes on the rich? I see it also went down during Reagans presidency as we recovered from the disaster of the 70's. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/55/Poverty_59_to_05.png/800px-Poverty_59_to_05.png
Are you telling me that people in general are not richer than they were during the 70's?
And I agree that there was a huge economic disaster during the 70s. It took Ronald Reagan's tax cuts to fix those problems.
Vegas
05-08-2007, 04:36 PM
How is wealth created? By profit? How is profit created?
Wealth comes from profit. Profit comes from productivity.
Wealth comes from profit. Profit comes from productivity.
What is productivity?
Vegas
05-08-2007, 04:39 PM
What is productivity?
Making things that sell. And the higher the skill level and innovation required to make those things, the better.
Making things that sell. And the higher the skill level and innovation required to make those things, the better.
And the more you pay your work force for said skills. Thus, you need to put a premium price on a premium product.
And if you can make it cheaper, you do so that you can increase your profits...but then to make it cheaper, you must pay less wage...so we're back to square one...
Vegas
05-08-2007, 04:44 PM
And the more you pay your work force for said skills. Thus, you need to put a premium price on a premium product.
And if you can make it cheaper, you do so that you can increase your profits...but then to make it cheaper, you must pay less wage...so we're back to square one...
But you are assuming that the demand is fixed, which it is not. Take any innovative product. As competition increases, prices drop and more units sell.
I worked in a specialized laser field for several years. We had price reductions of 20% per year compounded. Our profits went up almost every year as did our wages and stock prices. We just worked harder and sold more lasers.
But you are assuming that the demand is fixed, which it is not. Take any innovative product. As competition increases, prices drop and more units sell.
I worked in a specialized laser field for several years. We had price reductions of 20% per year compounded. Our profits went up almost every year as did our wages and stock prices. We just worked harder and sold more lasers.
How is the demand not fixed for a fixed item. And by fixed, I mean it's not a consumable like gas or food. Like a TV. Granted there are those that need the latest and greatest technology, but many more people only buy new when they need it, not when they want it...so at some point the market doesn't increase, but tapers off...then a newer model comes out and some of the technophiles scoop it up...but for those that can live with last generation technology, they may go through 2 or 3 "new" versions before needing a replacement.
I don't know if that's exactly what you're talking about...especially if you're talking lasers and I'm talking TVs. But I don't see how you can completely dissociate richness from poorness. That is, for some to get more money, there has to be less money somewhere else, at least in the real world. In the 'hypothetical' you described, maybe that's not the case. But thinking real world, how do people make more money without someone else making less somewhere down the line...or not really making less per se, but rather, not making more to adjust for inflation and such...
Are you telling me that people in general are not richer than they were during the 70's?
And I agree that there was a huge economic disaster during the 70s. It took Ronald Reagan's tax cuts to fix those problems.
No, I am not necessarily saying that. I am saying that we have a similar number of poor, and poor is really poor. And the 70's sucked, so now sucks too.
Persons in Family Unit 48 Contiguous States
1 $9,800
2 $13,200
3 $16,600
4 $20,000
5 $23,400
If the economy is so good, and trickle down works, why is poverty growing like crazy under this administration? Can you explain it better than we have? Would you like to dispute the numbers? They are not relative Vegas.
Vegas
05-08-2007, 04:59 PM
How is the demand not fixed for a fixed item. And by fixed, I mean it's not a consumable like gas or food. Like a TV. Granted there are those that need the latest and greatest technology, but many more people only buy new when they need it, not when they want it...so at some point the market doesn't increase, but tapers off...then a newer model comes out and some of the technophiles scoop it up...but for those that can live with last generation technology, they may go through 2 or 3 "new" versions before needing a replacement.
I don't know if that's exactly what you're talking about...especially if you're talking lasers and I'm talking TVs. But I don't see how you can completely dissociate richness from poorness. That is, for some to get more money, there has to be less money somewhere else, at least in the real world. In the 'hypothetical' you described, maybe that's not the case. But thinking real world, how do people make more money without someone else making less somewhere down the line...or not really making less per se, but rather, not making more to adjust for inflation and such...
Let's look at TVs since you brought it up. I'm old. When I was a kid, we had a basic black & white TV. I remember the big day when we bought it. It was an exciting day. That set cost over $100 at the time, which was a good amount of money. It wasn't too long after that when color TVs started to become more popular. We didn't have one, because we couldn't afford one. The rich bought them and it was a desirable business to pursue as rich people were buying them. Prices came down gradually and they reached a point where we bought one. It was Christmas day, 1971. That set cost $220, which was still a pretty good amount of money at that time.
Time goes by and regular TVs aren't such a lucrative business to be in as prices eroded to the point where even in today's devalued dollars the sets that we bought back in the day are far cheaper. Rich people moved on to buying bigger and newer technology TVs.
As far as economic growth goes, you seem to be really stuck in the zero sum thing. Let's look at the stock market. If I make a dollar in the stock market, that hardly means someone else lost a dollar. I can buy a stock today and sell it to you at a profit after a month. You can hold it for another month and you can sell it at a profit as well. As long as the underlying company continues to make a profit, the stock will go up.
If someone has an idea and starts a business, works hard, and makes a profit, who is the loser?
Vegas
05-08-2007, 05:00 PM
No, I am not necessarily saying that. I am saying that we have a similar number of poor, and poor is really poor. And the 70's sucked, so now sucks too.
Persons in Family Unit 48 Contiguous States
1 $9,800
2 $13,200
3 $16,600
4 $20,000
5 $23,400
If the economy is so good, and trickle down works, why is poverty growing like crazy under this administration? Can you explain it better than we have? Would you like to dispute the numbers? They are not relative Vegas.
CEO pay going up doesn't at all mean that people are moving into poverty. Wages and standard of living are increasing.
Let's look at TVs since you brought it up. I'm old. When I was a kid, we had a basic black & white TV. I remember the big day when we bought it. It was an exciting day. That set cost over $100 at the time, which was a good amount of money. It wasn't too long after that when color TVs started to become more popular. We didn't have one, because we couldn't afford one. The rich bought them and it was a desirable business to pursue as rich people were buying them. Prices came down gradually and they reached a point where we bought one. It was Christmas day, 1971. That set cost $220, which was still a pretty good amount of money at that time.
Time goes by and regular TVs aren't such a lucrative business to be in as prices eroded to the point where even in today's devalued dollars the sets that we bought back in the day are far cheaper. Rich people moved on to buying bigger and newer technology TVs.
As far as economic growth goes, you seem to be really stuck in the zero sum thing. Let's look at the stock market. If I make a dollar in the stock market, that hardly means someone else lost a dollar. I can buy a stock today and sell it to you at a profit after a month. You can hold it for another month and you can sell it at a profit as well. As long as the underlying company continues to make a profit, the stock will go up.
If someone has an idea and starts a business, works hard, and makes a profit, who is the loser?
With the stock stuff, as you said, it's dependent on company profit. Where does the profit come from? Someone paying money for a product or service of that company? How is the price of that product or service set? By demand? Cost of production? Work force? If that product is too expensive and not selling enough units, how do you make it profitable? Either scrap it or make it so that less money goes into making it. How do you make it so that less money goes into it? Cheaper parts or cheaper labor? Where do cheaper parts and labor come from?
As for you last question, I don't think there is a loser in that simple scenario. But expanding it to everything the person needs to start the business (upfront money...from a bank? Will the bank overextend him to put a little jingle in their pocket? Where's Jiddy?). Then there's the parts and labor as described above.
To me, I think if we're going to have a premium economy, people have to be willing to PAY for quality, not expect the best at a cheap price. And in that regard, companies have to be willing to produce and market a premium product for a reasonable price (they've got to get theirs, no doubt, but keep it reasonable...if you ask "what is reasonable?" I have no answer...too many variables). And the companies need to provide a good wage. Nothing spectacular, I'm not asking for blue collar workers to be making 200k or anything like that...and the people that buy the quality product need to understand that their premium dollar is going to a company that is producing a good product and treating the employees well, thus the premium price.
Utopia, I know. And there's much more to it, but what can you do?
As for the poor, I don't think we will (or should) try to eliminate the poor. In some respects, I agree with Vegas and Ryr and the others on the right when it comes to the idea of "if you don't put effort into life, you'll get exactly that back from life". There are a few let's say...less desirable people in my family...cousins and such. No effort at all...didn't try to work hard at much in life...but some have 3 kids...and the only reason they have 3 kids is because they started with 2 boys and wanted a girl. For some background, he's a manager (or was) at Domino's and she "made" $5 an hour at daycare, but then that became too little because of the 3 kids to have in daycare while she worked at daycare. Oh, not only that, but in back to back years, they bought new vehicles. I don't mean a used car that was new to them...NEW vehicles.
That doesn't sit well with me.
But on the other hand, there are those people out there that work their asses off day to day doing hard jobs in industry, construction, whatever fields, and they're still struggling...that's where the disconnect is. The people that do work hard that couldn't go to college for whatever reason that do 40+ hours a week plus OT to put a little bacon on the table. Those are the people that deserve a little fairness in the working world.
But again, I'm seeing that as part of my utopia right now.
Jiddy78
05-08-2007, 05:17 PM
Let's look at TVs since you brought it up. I'm old. When I was a kid, we had a basic black & white TV. I remember the big day when we bought it. It was an exciting day. That set cost over $100 at the time, which was a good amount of money. It wasn't too long after that when color TVs started to become more popular. We didn't have one, because we couldn't afford one. The rich bought them and it was a desirable business to pursue as rich people were buying them. Prices came down gradually and they reached a point where we bought one. It was Christmas day, 1971. That set cost $220, which was still a pretty good amount of money at that time.
Time goes by and regular TVs aren't such a lucrative business to be in as prices eroded to the point where even in today's devalued dollars the sets that we bought back in the day are far cheaper. Rich people moved on to buying bigger and newer technology TVs.
As far as economic growth goes, you seem to be really stuck in the zero sum thing. Let's look at the stock market. If I make a dollar in the stock market, that hardly means someone else lost a dollar. I can buy a stock today and sell it to you at a profit after a month. You can hold it for another month and you can sell it at a profit as well. As long as the underlying company continues to make a profit, the stock will go up.
If someone has an idea and starts a business, works hard, and makes a profit, who is the loser?
Mmmmm...The delicious value of second-hand paper. The biggest fallacy in all the land....But hey, that's how they want to play the game. Ruin the easy way...Promote the hard one. Makes sense to the winners. :cool:
CEO pay going up doesn't at all mean that people are moving into poverty. Wages and standard of living are increasing.
Ummm, look at the graphs I posted please. More poverty now.
Vegas
05-08-2007, 05:24 PM
I have another real world example. I was at a contract manufacturer last December in Phoenix. It was a very impressive outfit. They are a multi-million dollar business. The whole business started out in the founder's garage. He started doing sheet metal work. He was working for a company that was refusing a bunch of work as they didn't see it as part of their core. He did the work after hours and quickly made enough money to quit his job. He bought some more equipment and hired a couple of people. He worked hard and had more success. He bought more equipment and hired more people. He now has over 500 employees.
Where were the losers in this? He has purchased literally millions of dollars of capital equipment, buildings, and provides a lot of jobs.
I have another real world example. I was at a contract manufacturer last December in Phoenix. It was a very impressive outfit. They are a multi-million dollar business. The whole business started out in the founder's garage. He started doing sheet metal work. He was working for a company that was refusing a bunch of work as they didn't see it as part of their core. He did the work after hours and quickly made enough money to quit his job. He bought some more equipment and hired a couple of people. He worked hard and had more success. He bought more equipment and hired more people. He now has over 500 employees.
Where were the losers in this? He has purchased literally millions of dollars of capital equipment, buildings, and provides a lot of jobs.
Before I read this and comment on it for real, I have to ask...
You've had a lot of jobs. Are you a migrant worker?
hannitykillspuppies
05-08-2007, 05:26 PM
Wealth comes from profit. Profit comes from productivity.
oil companies aren't banking record profits due to productivity.
Vegas
05-08-2007, 05:26 PM
Ummm, look at the graphs I posted please. More poverty now.
Your graph clearly shows a lower percentage of people living in poverty.
Vegas
05-08-2007, 05:26 PM
Before I read this and comment on it for real, I have to ask...
You've had a lot of jobs. Are you a migrant worker?
I've had 5 jobs since college. I graduated in 1982.
Jiddy78
05-08-2007, 05:27 PM
Where's Jiddy?).
Knee deep in hookers and booze baby...
http://www.secondwind.org/hooters1.jpg
I have another real world example. I was at a contract manufacturer last December in Phoenix. It was a very impressive outfit. They are a multi-million dollar business. The whole business started out in the founder's garage. He started doing sheet metal work. He was working for a company that was refusing a bunch of work as they didn't see it as part of their core. He did the work after hours and quickly made enough money to quit his job. He bought some more equipment and hired a couple of people. He worked hard and had more success. He bought more equipment and hired more people. He now has over 500 employees.
Where were the losers in this? He has purchased literally millions of dollars of capital equipment, buildings, and provides a lot of jobs.
How much do the employees make? How much do they charge for their work? How much did the workers make that produced the extra equipment he was able to afford?
Certainly that guy is a winner. But are all the employees he has and all the employees of the companies he buys from winners?
I've had 5 jobs since college. I graduated in 1982.
I graduated in 1995. I've had no jobs.
I'm a visionary.
Vegas
05-08-2007, 05:30 PM
How much do the employees make? How much do they charge for their work? How much did the workers make that produced the extra equipment he was able to afford?
Certainly that guy is a winner. But are all the employees he has and all the employees of the companies he buys from winners?
Based on the cars I saw in the parking lot and the attitude among the employees, I can pretty safely say he pays pretty well.
And he is in a competitive business. If he isn't charging fair prices, he'd be out of business quickly.
Based on the cars I saw in the parking lot and the attitude among the employees, I can pretty safely say he pays pretty well.
And he is in a competitive business. If he isn't charging fair prices, he'd be out of business quickly.
You should know that the quality of cars do not equal the quality of pay.
But, I hope they are getting good pay.
But still, that business is dependent on other businesses which are dependent on other businesses and so on. Somewhere along the way, I think it wouldn't be surprising to find a few that aren't as generous as this fellow.
And I do not mean to sound like I think all businesses step on people, that's not the case at all, I know there are some very good businesses that are very appreciative of the time and effort their employees put in.
hannitykillspuppies
05-08-2007, 05:34 PM
Your graph clearly shows a lower percentage of people living in poverty.
we're going to ignore the fact there are more people in the country now than then?
Vegas
05-08-2007, 05:36 PM
You should know that the quality of cars do not equal the quality of pay.
But, I hope they are getting good pay.
But still, that business is dependent on other businesses which are dependent on other businesses and so on. Somewhere along the way, I think it wouldn't be surprising to find a few that aren't as generous as this fellow.
And I do not mean to sound like I think all businesses step on people, that's not the case at all, I know there are some very good businesses that are very appreciative of the time and effort their employees put in.
There are plenty of good and bad people running businesses. But my whole point is that wealth was created. It took some ideas and some hard work, but there were no losers. The economy is not zero sum.
There are plenty of good and bad people running businesses. But my whole point is that wealth was created. It took some ideas and some hard work, but there were no losers. The economy is not zero sum.
The money was not created. Without money, there's no wealth. The money came from people that would've gotten their business elsewhere (even if the company he previously worked for wouldn't do it). He may be very competitive...but the jobs he gets would take away from somebody else's jobs, no? Wouldn't the person losing the business be a "loser" in that scenario? Now maybe rightfully so a loser if he's charging too much or his workers aren't doing a good enough job...
Vegas
05-08-2007, 05:45 PM
The money was not created. Without money, there's no wealth. The money came from people that would've gotten their business elsewhere (even if the company he previously worked for wouldn't do it). He may be very competitive...but the jobs he gets would take away from somebody else's jobs, no? Wouldn't the person losing the business be a "loser" in that scenario? Now maybe rightfully so a loser if he's charging too much or his workers aren't doing a good enough job...
You're really stuck on zero sum when it's not true.
Let's try another example. I have a friend that had a problem with his motorcycle. He had an idea for a way to fix it. His idea worked. He decided that there was a market for his idea. He started a business with $150 in his garage. He sold his idea to dealers all over the country and made millions. He employed a lot of people for over 30 years when he retired and sold the company. His product wouldn't have existed had he not come up with the idea. Customers loved his product. Employees had jobs. There were no losers.
You're really stuck on zero sum when it's not true.
Let's try another example. I have a friend that had a problem with his motorcycle. He had an idea for a way to fix it. His idea worked. He decided that there was a market for his idea. He started a business with $150 in his garage. He sold his idea to dealers all over the country and made millions. He employed a lot of people for over 30 years when he retired and sold the company. His product wouldn't have existed had he not come up with the idea. Customers loved his product. Employees had jobs. There were no losers.
Had he not come up with the idea, how many people would've bought new motorcycles to replace the defective ones?
Didn't new motorcycle sales then take a hit?
Vegas
05-08-2007, 05:48 PM
Had he not come up with the idea, how many people would've bought new motorcycles to replace the defective ones?
Didn't new motorcycle sales then take a hit?
What would have happened to the old motorcycles? They would have vaporized? They would more likely have been sold as used and there would still have been a big market for his product.
You're really stuck on zero sum when it's not true.
It may not be true, but for whatever reason, I can find some way that whatever is created takes business away from what had already been established...at least for the examples given.
I don't know if that means anything or not...
Vegas
05-08-2007, 05:51 PM
It may not be true, but for whatever reason, I can find some way that whatever is created takes business away from what had already been established...at least for the examples given.
I don't know if that means anything or not...
It clearly doesn't mean anything, because our economy continues to grow. That growth comes from businesses similar to those I have described.
If the economy is zero sum, where do you suppose economic growth comes from?
What would have happened to the old motorcycles? They would have vaporized? They would more likely have been sold as used and there would still have been a big market for his product.
Now we're talking about 2 worlds, which are mutually exclusive. The first is the world where this guy didn't have the idea. The second is the world where he did.
World 1: He doesn't have the idea
The defective motorcycles are scrapped or something much more expensive is done to repair them. Person buys new motorcycle.
World 2: He does have the idea.
The defective motorcycle gets fixed, so he keeps his motorcycle.
Now, if you're talking that the one doesn't get fixed and gets sold and the next guy uses the "fix" to repair the motorcycle, then either the guy just created the idea and is now in transition from world 1 to world 2. That is, the fix wasn't available to the first guy, but now is for the second guy.
Alternatively, the first guy didn't want to waste time with the fix, and just sold it, and the new owner used the fix.
Either way, there's 2 worlds. Either with the fix or without it.
With the fix, the guy saves his bike for cheap and people get jobs making the repairs. Those are the winners. The losers are the bike makers that would've been able to sell a few more bikes to those that wanted to replace their defective bikes.
Without the fix, the guy sells or scraps his bike because he can't use it. He's the loser here because he doesn't have his bike anymore. That compounds if he goes to buy another bike and has to pay "new bike" prices. He's out that money...but in the same respect, the bike manufacturer is the winner because of the bike sales.
"Winner" and "loser" are relatively relative, relative to winning and losing.
It clearly doesn't mean anything, because our economy continues to grow. That growth comes from businesses similar to those I have described.
If the economy is zero sum, where do you suppose economic growth comes from?
Arbitrary value of the dollar or whatever currency is used. The dollar is worth about half of the pound, but about a third or so more than Canadian...and that fluctuates...based on what?
Vegas
05-08-2007, 05:59 PM
Arbitrary value of the dollar or whatever currency is used. The dollar is worth about half of the pound, but about a third or so more than Canadian...and that fluctuates...based on what?
The economy grows based on arbitrary??
The economy grows based on arbitrary??
Where does money come from? A value placed on a good? Where is that value derived? Where does a nation's wealth come from? Ours used to be gold, but we've far exceeded that...I'm not saying some dude just says the dollar is worth x amount today...there are factors that determine the dollar's worth. But those factors can be added to or subtracted from depending on who wants to make what point.
If one day people decided gold wasn't as cool as we've always thought it was, what would happen to the "worth" of gold? Or diamonds? Or anything material?
Vegas
05-08-2007, 07:59 PM
Where does money come from? A value placed on a good? Where is that value derived? Where does a nation's wealth come from? Ours used to be gold, but we've far exceeded that...I'm not saying some dude just says the dollar is worth x amount today...there are factors that determine the dollar's worth. But those factors can be added to or subtracted from depending on who wants to make what point.
If one day people decided gold wasn't as cool as we've always thought it was, what would happen to the "worth" of gold? Or diamonds? Or anything material?
The value of currency is based on arbitrary exchange rates, I might agree with that. But that's hardly the same thing as wealth or economic growth.
ryr8828
05-08-2007, 07:59 PM
Where does money come from? A value placed on a good? Where is that value derived? Where does a nation's wealth come from? Ours used to be gold, but we've far exceeded that...I'm not saying some dude just says the dollar is worth x amount today...there are factors that determine the dollar's worth. But those factors can be added to or subtracted from depending on who wants to make what point.
If one day people decided gold wasn't as cool as we've always thought it was, what would happen to the "worth" of gold? Or diamonds? Or anything material?
If gold was as plentiful as gravel it wouldn't be worth anything. Same thing with diamonds.
If gold was as plentiful as gravel it wouldn't be worth anything. Same thing with diamonds.
I agree. But there are rare things out there that are worth jack. Of course, most of them aren't sparkly.
Your graph clearly shows a lower percentage of people living in poverty.
Really? I think the number is as high now as it was in the late 50's. It was almost as bad in the 70's (in a serious economic downturn), but not quite as bad. Much less people in poverty in the 90's, especially after 93 or so. You don't see that?
pnkpanther
05-09-2007, 10:46 AM
The economy grows based on arbitrary??
i think both sides tend to cook the books
true economic growth is built from saving and spending excess wealth, not borrowing like we do.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/55/Poverty_59_to_05.png/800px-Poverty_59_to_05.png
Again
Vegas
05-09-2007, 11:19 AM
Again
That chart basically shows the direction of the economy, does it not? During times of economic expansion, the number and percentage of people in poverty shrinks and during times of recession the number grows. This shouldn't surprise anyone.
But it doesn't show a direct correlation between CEO pay and people living in poverty. The two are not related. And it doesn't show that the definition of poverty continues to be at increased income levels.
That chart basically shows the direction of the economy, does it not? During times of economic expansion, the number and percentage of people in poverty shrinks and during times of recession the number grows. This shouldn't surprise anyone.
But it doesn't show a direct correlation between CEO pay and people living in poverty. The two are not related. And it doesn't show that the definition of poverty continues to be at increased income levels.
I never claimed there was. These are poverty stats. It has risen during Bushes term despite the economic expansion. How do you explain that? Clintons term it plummeted during economic expansion. How do you explain that.
Vegas
05-09-2007, 11:48 AM
I never claimed there was. These are poverty stats. It has risen during Bushes term despite the economic expansion. How do you explain that? Clintons term it plummeted during economic expansion. How do you explain that.
During Clinton's term, there was mostly economic expansion and poverty went down, which follows what I said above. When Bush took office, the economy was already in recession and poverty was already going up. That trend was clearly already established during the last years Clinton.
Another factor is the huge numbers of illegals entering the country. They are living in poverty (per our definition) even though they are living larger than they ever did in their country of origin.
During Clinton's term, there was mostly economic expansion and poverty went down, which follows what I said above. When Bush took office, the economy was already in recession and poverty was already going up. That trend was clearly already established during the last years Clinton.
Another factor is the huge numbers of illegals entering the country. They are living in poverty (per our definition) even though they are living larger than they ever did in their country of origin.
That is from the US Census bureau. Do they count undocumented workers?
Vegas
05-09-2007, 12:04 PM
That is from the US Census bureau. Do they count undocumented workers?
Yes.
During Clinton's term, there was mostly economic expansion and poverty went down, which follows what I said above. When Bush took office, the economy was already in recession and poverty was already going up. That trend was clearly already established during the last years Clinton.
According to this graph that is untrue. The recession started after (debatable, I know).
Vegas
05-09-2007, 12:10 PM
According to this graph that is untrue. The recession started after (debatable, I know).
Definitely debatable. Clinton took office with the economy roaring to life and left while it was going into recession. He was quite fortunate with his timing.
But one of the real problems that we have is that we are getting far too many low skilled or unskilled illegals coming into the country. I fault both Clinton and Bush for not doing a thing about it. As a matter of fact, I fault Bush more because the problem has accelerated during his time in office and he keeps talking about creating yet another class of visa on top of the 78 or so whatever that already exist.
Definitely debatable. Clinton took office with the economy roaring to life and left while it was going into recession. He was quite fortunate with his timing.
But one of the real problems that we have is that we are getting far too many low skilled or unskilled illegals coming into the country. I fault both Clinton and Bush for not doing a thing about it. As a matter of fact, I fault Bush more because the problem has accelerated during his time in office and he keeps talking about creating yet another class of visa on top of the 78 or so whatever that already exist.
We agree that immigration is an issue, and I agree that Clinton and Bush have ignored/come up with bad solutions for it. I think we would disagree, as evidenced by past convos, on what to do about it.
I would disagree that the economy was roaring in 92. I think it took two years or so if my memory serves me correctly.
My overall question stays this: Why is the Bush economic expansion not helping the poor nearly as much as past economic expansions? The poverty rate has leveled, but not dropped.
http://mediamatters.org/static/img/poverty_clinton_bush.gif
Ed Who?
05-09-2007, 12:24 PM
I never claimed there was. These are poverty stats. It has risen during Bushes term despite the economic expansion. How do you explain that? Clintons term it plummeted during economic expansion. How do you explain that.
The much maligned Trickle Down Economics pretty much explains this phenomenon.
Economic expansion means that companies are profitting, and thus returning those profits to both investors and to reinvestment.
That reinvestment tends to lead to expansion of departments, facilities, support staff, etc. When that happens, they hire. And not just the skilled jobs, but also the supporting roles.
After that peaks, some businesses will undoubtedly get outperformed and fail...those people lose their jobs, become unemployed, and struggle to find work when places have stopped hiring (in general).
And this is an oversimplification. Growth and depression are of course net, and some businesses will succeed during a downturn. But in general spending stops, and people lose jobs. Just a fact of life.
But to get back to your point, I agree with Vegas. I think the rise in "undocumented workers" has caused that number to get skewed. Interesting that the rate pretty much stays the same throughout the Bush Presidency, while the overall # goes up by around 5 MM people. According to the 2005 numbers, we were pretty close to the peak of poverty when Clinton took office, yet the rate was about 3 % lower.
Vegas
05-09-2007, 12:25 PM
We agree that immigration is an issue, and I agree that Clinton and Bush have ignored/come up with bad solutions for it. I think we would disagree, as evidenced by past convos, on what to do about it.
I would disagree that the economy was roaring in 92. I think it took two years or so if my memory serves me correctly.
My overall question stays this: Why is the Bush economic expansion not helping the poor nearly as much as past economic expansions? The poverty rate has leveled, but not dropped.
Two reasons. First, as mentioned before the definition of poverty includes people who have a higher standard of living than the middle class had during the 70s. Second, we have a ridiculous number of unskilled workers coming into our country, which inflates the number of poor.
Published on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 by the Independent / UK
Poverty Gap in US Has Widened under Bush
by Andrew Gumbel
The number of Americans living in severe poverty has expanded dramatically under the Bush administration, with nearly 16 million people now living on an individual income of less than $5,000 (£2,500) a year or a family income of less than $10,000, according to an analysis of 2005 official census data.
The analysis, by the McClatchy group of newspapers, showed that the number of people living in extreme poverty had grown by 26 per cent since 2000. Poverty as a whole has worsened, too, but the number of severe poor is growing 56 per cent faster than the overall segment of the population characterised as poor - about 37 million people in all according to the census data. That represents more than 10 per cent of the US population, which recently surpassed the 300 million mark.
The widening of the income gap between haves and have-nots is nothing new in America - it has been going on steadily since the late 1970s. What is new, though, is the rapid increase in numbers at the bottom of the socio-economic pile. The numbers of severely poor have increased faster than any other segment of the population.
"That was the exact opposite of what we anticipated when we began," one of the McClatchy study's co-authors, Steven Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University, said. "We're not seeing as much moderate poverty as a proportion of the population. What we're seeing is a dramatic growth of severe poverty."
The causes of the problem are no mystery to sociologists and political scientists. The share of national income going to corporate profits has far outstripped the share going to wages and salaries. Manufacturing jobs with benefits and union protection have vanished and been supplanted by low-wage, low-security service-sector work. The richest fifth of US households enjoys more than 50 per cent of the national income, while the poorest fifth gets by on an estimated 3.5 per cent.
The average after-tax income of the top 1 per cent is 63 times larger than the average for the bottom 20 per cent - both because the rich have grown richer and also because the poor have grown poorer; about 19 per cent poorer since the late 1970s. The middle class, too, has been squeezed ever tighter. Every income group except for the top 20 per cent has lost ground in the past 30 years, regardless of whether the economy has boomed or tanked.
These figures are rarely discussed in political forums in America in part because the economy has, in large part, ceased to be regarded as a political issue - John Edwards' "two Americas" theme in his presidential campaign being a rare exception - and because the right-wing think-tanks that have sprouted and thrived since the Reagan administration have done a good job of minimising the importance of the trends.
They have argued, in fact, that the poverty statistics are misleading because of the mobility of US society. A small number of left-wing think-tanks, such as the Economic Policy Institute, meanwhile, argue that the census figures are almost certainly lower than the real picture because many people living in extreme poverty do not answer census questionnaires.
United States poverty league: States with the most people in severe poverty
California 1.9m
Texas 1.6m
New York 1.2m
Florida 943,670
Illinois 681,786
Ohio 657,415
Pennsylvania 618,229
Michigan 576,428
Georgia 562,014
North Carolina 523,511
Source: US Census Bureau
Vegas
05-09-2007, 12:27 PM
I have a question for the libs. We have spent billions upon billions of dollars for the war on poverty with little to no success.
What has any government ever done or what could any government ever do to eliminate poverty?
Ed Who?
05-09-2007, 12:27 PM
My overall question stays this: Why is the Bush economic expansion not helping the poor nearly as much as past economic expansions? The poverty rate has leveled, but not dropped.
How does one determine poverty? One obvious difference between the two would be the price of oil at this point. If poverty factors in costs of living, having to pay higher electric, natural gas, and gasoline bills per month would definitely take a toll on people's pocketbooks.
Two reasons. First, as mentioned before the definition of poverty includes people who have a higher standard of living than the middle class had during the 70s. Second, we have a ridiculous number of unskilled workers coming into our country, which inflates the number of poor.
Does the census count undocumented workers Vegas?
Can you please prove to me that now we have changed the standard of accounting for poor?
How does one determine poverty? One obvious difference between the two would be the price of oil at this point. If poverty factors in costs of living, having to pay higher electric, natural gas, and gasoline bills per month would definitely take a toll on people's pocketbooks.
Family of four making less than 20k per year. Do you think that is poor?
Vegas
05-09-2007, 12:32 PM
Also, since you blame Bush for all of the current poverty, what did Clinton do in 1999 that caused poverty to start to increase so dramatically?
Also, since you blame Bush for all of the current poverty, what did Clinton do in 1999 that caused poverty to start to increase so dramatically?
Nothing, because it didn't start to rise until Bush took office. The first increase was in 01.
Vegas
05-09-2007, 12:35 PM
Does the census count undocumented workers Vegas?
Can you please prove to me that now we have changed the standard of accounting for poor?
I already answered that the census does indeed count undocumented workers.
http://www.ocpp.org/poverty/how.htm
Over the years there have been a number of critiques of the way the government measures poverty. One on-going critique is of the types of income that are included in (or excluded from) the poverty measure. By failing to include income that many low-income people receive in the form of public assistance, some critics maintain that the extent of poverty is over-stated. If the value of food stamps, publicly provided health insurance benefits, and cash welfare payments were counted as income in the poverty calculation, many people would no longer be considered poor.
Another important critique of the official poverty measure is that it is seriously flawed in continuing to assume that families spend one-third of their income on food. This may have been true when the measure was devised 30 years ago, but it is not an accurate reflection of current realities. Families no longer spend one-third of their income on food and two-thirds on other basic needs. Food now accounts for something closer to one-sixth of the family budget. Housing, transportation and utilities are much larger components of family spending.
Furthermore, expenses most families now regard as crucial elements of their household budget are simply excluded from consideration in the poverty calculation. The cost of childcare is not figured in to the thresholds because the families in the 1955 USDA household survey Orshansky used had one wage earner and a stay-at-home parent. Commuting and other travel and work-related expenses that are a part of modern life have a huge impact on family budgets. Expenses associated with today's living have grown. Additional basic expenses mean that more money is required to maintain the same standard of living in today's world. By ignoring these factors, the poverty measure underestimates poverty.
A key issue that critiques of the poverty measure have run in to is cost. Most attempts to establish a new measure of poverty would result in higher numbers of people being counted as poor. There are some corrections that, by themselves, would lower the poverty count (e.g. including public assistance). Correcting all of the acknowledged problems in the poverty count, however, would significantly increase the total number of poor. If the government recognizes the true number of people in poverty, the cost of providing assistance programs would be considerably higher.
Vegas
05-09-2007, 12:36 PM
Nothing, because it didn't start to rise until Bush took office. The first increase was in 01.
Look at your graph again. You see a dramatic increase in 1999.
Look at your graph again. You see a dramatic increase in 1999.
No, I don't. Look at the other graph I posted, it is more precise.
Vegas
05-09-2007, 12:39 PM
No, I don't. Look at the other graph I posted, it is more precise.
http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7372&postcount=104
Look at the top line on the chart that shows the total number. It definitely shows a dramatic increase and a definite trend change in 1999.
I already answered that the census does indeed count undocumented workers.
http://www.ocpp.org/poverty/how.htm
Over the years there have been a number of critiques of the way the government measures poverty. One on-going critique is of the types of income that are included in (or excluded from) the poverty measure. By failing to include income that many low-income people receive in the form of public assistance, some critics maintain that the extent of poverty is over-stated. If the value of food stamps, publicly provided health insurance benefits, and cash welfare payments were counted as income in the poverty calculation, many people would no longer be considered poor.
Another important critique of the official poverty measure is that it is seriously flawed in continuing to assume that families spend one-third of their income on food. This may have been true when the measure was devised 30 years ago, but it is not an accurate reflection of current realities. Families no longer spend one-third of their income on food and two-thirds on other basic needs. Food now accounts for something closer to one-sixth of the family budget. Housing, transportation and utilities are much larger components of family spending.
Furthermore, expenses most families now regard as crucial elements of their household budget are simply excluded from consideration in the poverty calculation. The cost of childcare is not figured in to the thresholds because the families in the 1955 USDA household survey Orshansky used had one wage earner and a stay-at-home parent. Commuting and other travel and work-related expenses that are a part of modern life have a huge impact on family budgets. Expenses associated with today's living have grown. Additional basic expenses mean that more money is required to maintain the same standard of living in today's world. By ignoring these factors, the poverty measure underestimates poverty.
A key issue that critiques of the poverty measure have run in to is cost. Most attempts to establish a new measure of poverty would result in higher numbers of people being counted as poor. There are some corrections that, by themselves, would lower the poverty count (e.g. including public assistance). Correcting all of the acknowledged problems in the poverty count, however, would significantly increase the total number of poor. If the government recognizes the true number of people in poverty, the cost of providing assistance programs would be considerably higher.
I just read an article stating that undocumented workers are not included in most official poverty statistics. Could you point out where this article says that is untrue. I don't see it and I read it twice. I think they are counted in the census, and not counted in official poverty stats.
Edit: I see your point with this, but we haven't changed the way we have counted poverty since 64. If you think that proves some sort of point about poverty stats under Bush and Clinton I disagree.
Vegas
05-09-2007, 12:42 PM
I just read an article stating that undocumented workers are not included in most official poverty statistics. Could you point out where this article says that is untrue. I don't see it and I read it twice. I think they are counted in the census, and not counted in official poverty stats.
That article was attempting to answer your second question about poverty definition. I didn't mean for it to refer to the census.
http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7372&postcount=104
Look at the top line on the chart that shows the total number. It definitely shows a dramatic increase and a definite trend change in 1999.
I believe that is 2000, or 2001. The numbers say 2001. I will post the official numbers in hard form as opposed to graph form this afternoon when I get back from my meeting.
That article was attempting to answer your second question about poverty definition. I didn't mean for it to refer to the census.
See edit. I see what you are saying. We don't account for social services in teh poverty stats. Are people getting more social services under Bush?
Vegas
05-09-2007, 12:50 PM
See edit. I see what you are saying. We don't account for social services in teh poverty stats. Are people getting more social services under Bush?
Yes, they are. The increases in entitlements are built into the systems. Look at what happens when attempts are made to cut the increases in entitlements. Think back to the school lunch "cuts" a few years back. The Republican congress (back when they actually seemed to care about controlling spending) proposed cuts in the rate of increases. There were no cuts, but the Democrats screamed bloody murder and acted like they were trying to take the food right out of the mouths of children. Increases at a lower rate are not cuts.
Ed Who?
05-09-2007, 02:13 PM
Nothing, because it didn't start to rise until Bush took office. The first increase was in 01.
Poverty has risen more dramatically because of oil prices. I had a post ready that detailed what defines "poverty," but the website went down. Basically, poverty is defined by a "poverty line," which is set based on the Consumer Price Index. That index is based on costs to families. Therefore, higher prices = higher poverty line.
I'm answering why the poverty level is higher with a lower unemployment. It's arbitrary, and yes, making less than $20,000 is unfortunate.
Poverty has risen more dramatically because of oil prices. I had a post ready that detailed what defines "poverty," but the website went down. Basically, poverty is defined by a "poverty line," which is set based on the Consumer Price Index. That index is based on costs to families. Therefore, higher prices = higher poverty line.
I'm answering why the poverty level is higher with a lower unemployment. It's arbitrary, and yes, making less than $20,000 is unfortunate.
And that is for a family of 4. As an individual, it would be less than 10k.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.