I always find it curious that I can get 10-15 jobs within the next month for a minimum of $40K a year, but the rest of America can't find work to save their lives. Quite amazing, really ...
-
Comment -
LOL. 40k/year buys a house these days? Go back about 8 years, sir. There probably aren't 1000 applicants for that very same job. And they'd probably hire a fresh college grad over someone with experience and references. And there haven't been mass layoffs in any sector of the job force. Right?Comment -
Actually, two people making $40K a year will allow a down payment on a house in today's market. And if you think there are 1000 applicants for every job at that level, you should quit your day job and go straight on the comedy circuit.
And if you've invested wisely over the past 8 years, as the Dow has skyrocketed over 13K, money has not been much of a problem. After all, Clinton from 1992-2000, left so many Americans with so much money because of his amazing leadership ... all people had to do was invest it properly and they'd be in great shape, no???Comment -
So what you're saying is that college grads who immediately get married out of school and foreign tourists are the beneficiaries of the Bush administration policies. That's a WIDE demographic. Impressive really. And yes, considering there was NO DEFICIT, gas prices were stabilized, jobs were abundant, inflation was minimal, and the Dow and NASDAQ peaked at record levels under the Clinton administration, some might actually say that things were going well compared to now. Crazy, right?Comment -
First off, the Dow peaked under Clinton? ... it was over 13,000 then? ... really? And, by the way, if you want to give credit for the Clinton years, better give a helping of it to Bush Sr. and Mr. Greenspan ... just to be intellectually honest ...Comment -
Umm. Record levels for then, genius. I will give credit to Alan Greenspan and at least Clinton had the intelligence to reappoint him as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Although, I would love to hear your thoughts on how much good Bush Sr. accomplished in his tenure. Obviously, he did such a great job, the public thought he deserved a vacation.Comment -
By that logic, Bush Jr. has done an outstanding job since the American public decided he didn't need a vacation ...Comment -
That's your best defense? Umm. For future reference, correlation does not imply causality.Comment -
For reference today, that wasn't a defense. That was a fact. You insinuated Bush Sr. was voted out of office because he did a poor job. Bush Jr. was voted in a 2nd time. Draw your own conclusion -- you Dems usually do
Comment -
That's an interesting point, and one that bears additional info, I believe.Originally posted by moneyline
One interesting note to start is how there are still some in the GOP that put some of the blame on G.H.W. Bush's failed re-election bid in 1992 on Alan Greenspan for not doing more for the economy leading up to the '92 voting. I don't necessarily agree with that, but that is an opinion that has been tossed about by 41 and some GOP leaders.
I do agree with you that Greenspan was a good, level source overall at the Fed while he was the chairman for nearly two decades. And current President Bush would seem to agree, or at least did agree about four years ago when he re-upped Greenspan's tenure in May 2004:
In fact, if you recall, just who President Bush and John Kerry were expected to name to replace Greenspan in 2006 was an issue, albeit minor, in the '04 elections.http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Stor...7D&siteid=mktw
"Alan Greenspan has done a superb job as chairman of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System, and I have great confidence in his economic stewardship," Bush said in a statement read by White House spokesman Scott McClellan
As for how some of those feelings have changed, at least in public rhetoric, in the last four years is also interesting...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
"My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan writes. "Not exercising the veto power became a hallmark of the Bush presidency. . . . To my mind, Bush's collaborate-don't-confront approach was a major mistake."
Greenspan accuses the Republicans who presided over the party's majority in the House until last year of being too eager to tolerate excessive federal spending in exchange for political opportunity. The Republicans, he says, deserved to lose control of the Senate and House in last year's elections. "The Republicans in Congress lost their way," Greenspan writes. "They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither.""House Speaker Hastert and House majority leader Tom DeLay seemed readily inclined to loosen the federal purse strings any time it might help add a few more seats to the Republican majority," he writes.When Bush and Cheney won the 2000 election, Greenspan writes, "I thought we had a golden opportunity to advance the ideals of effective, fiscally conservative government and free markets. . . . I was soon to see my old friends veer off to unexpected directions."
He says, "Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences." The large, anticipated federal budget surpluses that were the basis for Bush's initial $1.35 trillion tax cut "were gone six to nine months after George W. Bush took office." So Bush's goals "were no longer entirely appropriate. He continued to pursue his presidential campaign promises nonetheless."Comment -
The funny thing is I'm not a Democrat. You still fail to comprehend an elementary misstep in correlational logic. FYI, Bush Sr. was voted out of office for which one of the reasons was promising "no new taxes" and then being forced into signing a Democratic bill which raised taxes to pay for the record deficit that he and Reagan had run up in the 8 years prior.Comment -
Hey moneyline, Jesus was a socialist.
Either that or an anarchist.
But keep hailing Caesar.Comment -
And Bush Jr. was reelected because people felt like he was doing a good job in office ...
(or perhaps the voters are just a self-loathing bunch)
And DH, I know this might throw you off a bit, but Jesus answered to a much higher power. His priorities were dedicated to a much longer life than the one we experience here on earth.Comment -
All this time I thought he was a Capricorn. Oh well, learn something new everyday I guess.Originally posted by Dark HorseComment -
Jesus actually supported giving to Caeser what was Caesers -- taxes and the like. Did you miss that part of the Bible during your readings???Comment -
'What belongs to Caesar', being the point.
Or did you miss that to this very day?Comment -
Taxes, or $$$$$, being one of the things that did belong to him. As well as other earthly things ...
(souls, on the other hand, did not)Comment -
Doesn't throw me off. Just saying that the way he lived, and what he told others (paraphrasing: 'give away your riches to the poor and then come back' to a would-be disciple) fits much closer with socialist than with capitalist ideas.Originally posted by moneyline
And he also stood up against the false authorities of his day. Something you certainly don't seem familiar with.Comment -
His message was neither socialist nor capitalist ... His message was God-centered ... believe in Him, follow Him and you will achieve true riches ... not the monetary kind.
At no time did Jesus tell the people not to respect the laws of the land, however. Never did He say ignore Caeser's mandates.
(He did tell the people to hold God above all others)Comment -
Bush was re-elected for several reasons. Bush's competition was weak. John Kerry was not a likeable candidate. His campaign mismanaged the aggressive and cutthroat tactics from the Bushies. How a guy who served and was recognized with a purple heart in Vietnam is somehow discredited by a draft dodger is ludicrous. Secondly, much of the public had not caught on to the deceitful rationale for the Iraq War. Many were still of the mentality that questioning the commander-in-chief in a time of war was somehow not supportive of the troops. The war was still young and many promises were made regarding the length of occupation and none of the troops were serving their third or fourth tours there yet. The circumstances for Bush getting re-elected were MUCH different and extremely unique. Even running against an almost unelectable candidate, he nearly lost.Originally posted by moneylineComment -
He walked into the temple and threw out (didn't ask nicely) the 'money changers'.
lol
That would make the headlines today. Just not in a very positive way. That took a lot of guts. You're just trying not to make waves, fitting in with Rome and Jesus.
I agree that Jesus didn't care much about politics. So why do you care so much about the Republicans?Comment -
Yep, he didn't earn his 1st term and he didn't earn his 2nd term.
Gotcha. Hopefully, McCain will be similarly unsuccessful or lucky or whatever it is you Dems like to call it nowadays that Clinton (your only success story since the 70s) no longer has power.
And DH, nothing regarding Jesus makes headlines in a positive way nowadays -- showing how lost our society is as a whole ...Comment -
Originally posted by moneyline
So why do you support a corrupt system?Comment -
Hey, genius. I voted for Bush in his first term. How much of a Democrat does that make me? Keep making assumptions. I thought I was putting character back into the White House not a crook. I was appalled at his policies of giving tax breaks to corporations who outsourced OUR jobs to foreign countries. I was appalled at the circus act they gave in front of the UN leading up to the war. I was appalled at the circumvention of the UN and the launch of the war and knew that this would be a long, drawn out struggle. I was appalled at the record deficit that we had run up. I was appalled at the sudden 360 in signing the Kyoto Treaty. And I am appalled that sheep such as yourself continue to support this administration with a Bible in your hand when this President is directly involved in disgracing your 10 commandments and making a mockery of our Constitution.Originally posted by moneylineComment -
I'm sure you could make the claim every system is corrupt ... so I guess support none, question everything and believe in nothing other than yourself.
(interesting plan)
And MF, if you think the UN is anything more than an ineffectual group who believe sanctions and the alpha and omega (don't get me started on their corrupt food program), that's hilarious ... the Kyoto Treaty was, and is, a joke, considering the biggest polluting countries such as India were not a part of it (style over substance if we signed -- Cinton's speciality) ... and if you think the Constitution and the 10 Commandments are synonymous, you are truly funny!Comment -
Let's see.
1) Question everything. That would be a good idea. That would lead to the destruction of everything untrue.
2) Support no corrupt system. Not a bad idea. Did Jesus say you had to?
3) Believe in none other than yourself. This is your own addition, I suppose juxtaposed against your belief that God is outside of yourself.Comment -
Actually, I'd be surprised if you didn't believe ALL systems were corrupt in one way or another, leading you to accept none of them.
(and believing in nothing but yourself is your way of life, DH ... not mine)Comment -
How does that infer synonymity, genius? Yeah, any attempts at reducing global pollution and the impact of climate change is window dressing in your eyes isn't it? Shouldn't we be LEADERS in the effort to save the planet from catastrophe? And its funny how the UN is a joke when it doesn't fit your desires. I'm sure you still consider the war to be a just and dignified cause. Any Christian would...Comment -
Alright, grasshopper.Comment -
Its amazing to me how Bible thumpers are the ones who not only condone but fully support acts of war. Pure hypocrites.Comment -
The UN has been a joke for many years now. This is not a recent phenomenon. They've had little to no power for a long time. We just pointed that out a bit more directly.
And I know, MF, you would have found it more palatable to sit back and do nothing. I guess if you were walking down the street and saw a woman getting beaten, you'd opt to keep walking (or perhaps watch) instead of getting in there, throwing a few blows yourself to extricate her from her attacker. Wouldn't be Christian to use violence to protect her, would it???
(cause that's what you wish we did in Iraq, right???)Comment -
There's a black man knocking on the door of a white congregation. He wanted to join the Church, but they wouldn't let him in. This goes on for three years. Then he dies, gets to Jesus, and sadly tells him about it. To which Jesus says: 'Tell me about it. I've been trying to get into that place for two centuries.'Originally posted by MonkeyF0ckerComment -
What church is that, DH? Or are the churches like all other systems? All corrupt?
You are quickly becoming my favorite contrarian.Comment -
Are you serious? What was the reason we invaded Iraq again? I seem to remember something about chemical, biological, and nuclear stockpiles and ambitions. Where were those again? To use your reference, you'd probably pop a slug in his temple only to find out the woman had just stabbed and robbed him. Oops.Comment -
Tell me something that McCain actually stands for? He's flip-flopped on so many issues, you can even add the UFC and MMA to one of his flip flopping issues.
He fails at something so he re-invents himself and comes back again. He's done it numerous times throughout his political career. Last time was after his immigration bill failed, he fell in line with Bush policies to make a run for the white house.
So I can take a Dem or a Flip-flopper. So I can roll the dice, or I can vote for someone who could be lying to me. I'd rather roll the dice and be burned, than vote for someone whose a career flip-flopper.Comment
