Cat Forum banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,839 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Editorial
The View From Crawford

Published: August 12, 2005

The most surprising thing about the public's dissatisfaction with President Bush's handling of the economy, as expressed in recent polls, is the administration's apparent astonishment at Mr. Bush's low marks. His advisers have offered various explanations. Treasury Secretary John Snow says that strong consumer spending indicates that people don't feel as bad about the economy as they tell pollsters. He also suggests that part of the problem is that "less educated people have seen their incomes and wages grow more slowly." Before a meeting with top economic advisers in Crawford this week, the president cited the high cost of energy and health care as weighing on "the future of economic growth."

There may be some truth to that. But the overarching explanation is that people are feeling insecure because they understand that today's economy is built on shaky fundamentals. Average Americans may not sit around fretting about America's outsized budget and trade deficits, and its unprecedented foreign indebtedness. But many of them - as buyers, borrowers and employees - are concerned about the increasingly bubbly housing sector.

The economy's shortcomings are nowhere more obvious than in the job market. Nearly four years into an economic expansion, job growth is still substantially slower than in previous recoveries. Wages for 80 percent of the work force are barely keeping pace with inflation, and aid for the workers hurt by global trade is paltry. Because Mr. Bush fails to acknowledge the lackluster job and wage growth, he fails to respond appropriately. The administration's insistence that the economy is getting better all the time - a stance that is based on statistical aggregates that are often divorced from individuals' actual experience - only intensifies the anxiety that people feel.

After the meeting in Crawford, participants said health care costs had been a major topic of discussion, though they wouldn't say what, if any, policies the president might pursue. Instead, they crowed about the administration's postvacation plans: to redouble efforts to privatize Social Security and to embark on "tax reform," which is premised, in part, on permanent tax cuts for the wealthy and would therefore mean bigger deficits, drastic cuts in government services or higher taxes for everyone else.
At his vacation home, Mr. Bush told reporters that "the economy of the United States is strong and the foundation for sustained growth is in place." The view from Crawford is clearly rosier than from where most Americans sit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,859 Posts
Slightly unrelated, but pertaining to jobs in America:

Why jobs head north

There has been fierce competition among states hoping to attract a new Toyota assembly plant. Several Southern states reportedly offered financial incentives worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

But last month Toyota decided to put the new plant, which will produce RAV4 mini-SUVs, in Ontario, Canada. Explaining why it passed up financial incentives to choose a U.S. location, the company cited the quality of Ontario's work force.

What made Toyota so sensitive to labor quality issues? Maybe we should discount remarks from the president of the Toronto-based Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, who claimed that the educational level in the Southern United States was so low that trainers for Japanese plants in Alabama had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech equipment.

But there are other reports, some coming from state officials, that confirm his basic point: Japanese auto companies opening plants in the Southern U.S. have been unfavorably surprised by the work force's poor level of training.
Think Bush is listening? .... Neither do I.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,839 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
aphrodeia said:
Slightly unrelated, but pertaining to jobs in America:

Why jobs head north

There has been fierce competition among states hoping to attract a new Toyota assembly plant. Several Southern states reportedly offered financial incentives worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

But last month Toyota decided to put the new plant, which will produce RAV4 mini-SUVs, in Ontario, Canada. Explaining why it passed up financial incentives to choose a U.S. location, the company cited the quality of Ontario's work force.

What made Toyota so sensitive to labor quality issues? Maybe we should discount remarks from the president of the Toronto-based Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, who claimed that the educational level in the Southern United States was so low that trainers for Japanese plants in Alabama had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech equipment.

But there are other reports, some coming from state officials, that confirm his basic point: Japanese auto companies opening plants in the Southern U.S. have been unfavorably surprised by the work force's poor level of training.
Think Bush is listening? .... Neither do I.

Another BIG reason that plant went north was because Canada has national health care for all of it's citizens. Toyota would be saving itself a nice chuck of money by not having to provide health insurance for it's employees.

No, Bu$h & Co. never listen. They just keep on repeating their same old mantra, all the while believing that if they repeat themselves often enough the sheeple will eventually come to think of it as the truth (they hope).

Yeah, when..............:pig
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,550 Posts
pookie769 said:
[

No, Bu$h & Co. never listen. They just keep on repeating their same old mantra, all the while believing that if they repeat themselves often enough the sheeple will eventually come to think of it as the truth (they hope).

Yeah, when..............:pig
:fust :fust :fust
IMO comments like sheeple are the reason Bush won. Bush didn't win, Kerry's SUPPORTERS lost him the election! The so-called tolerant party was spewing so much hatred people went to the poles in record numbers. If anyone could possibly consider voting for Bush they were either stupid or evil, what do you think that accomplished, it drew the middle people to the right. You'd think people would learn someday.
If you don't like Bush, that's fine. But when you sound like Michael Moore, you also sound JUST LIKE Rush Limbaugh. And people will discount anything you have to say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,859 Posts
jennifer2 said:
The so-called tolerant party was spewing so much hatred people went to the poles in record numbers.
Because only one side was vitriolic... *scratches head*

I've caught a lot of flack for voting for Kerry. Apparently, I'm a tree-hugging, pinko, Commie, Marxist, anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-moral, anti-Constitution, anti-democracy baby killer. Oh, and I hear that I love terrorists. It's certainly not just the 'tolerant' party who are cruel. (And I'm still waiting for the eighty-seven Kerry signs, stolen from our block on Halloween, to be returned.)

There's ugly all around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,550 Posts
I'm sure it was on both sides, like I said, Moore=Limbaugh.
BUT, as someone who literally didn't make up my mind who I was voting for until I was in the booth because I didn't like either of them. I did see it more from the moveon.org crowd and the likes.
It seemed like everytime I turned on the TV it was either Susan Sarandon/Tim Robbins/Janine Garafalo or someone equally biased talking about how evil Bush was and how stupid anyone would have to be to vote for him. I have to say I don't remember once turning on one of those shows and seeing someone "holywood" on the other side bashing Kerry. It seemed like it was always Actor vs retired so and so.
And there are people on BOTH sides of the political spectrum that are so blindly biased that they can't talk about it rationally.
If Bush says the sky is blue and you find yourself arguing that it's not blue any idiot can plainly see it's aqua.
Or Kerry says that the grass is green and you find yourself arguing that only an idiot would say it's green when it's obviously olive.
Well, then you fit into the irrational part of the political spectrum, and quite frankly *I* discount everything you have to say from that point forward.
So, I stand by what I said, comments like "sheeple" were a factor in what brought so many people out to this last election.

Jennifer
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,839 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
jennifer2 said:
pookie769 said:
[

No, Bu$h & Co. never listen. They just keep on repeating their same old mantra, all the while believing that if they repeat themselves often enough the sheeple will eventually come to think of it as the truth (they hope).

Yeah, when..............:pig
:fust :fust :fust
IMO comments like sheeple are the reason Bush won. Bush didn't win, Kerry's SUPPORTERS lost him the election! The so-called tolerant party was spewing so much hatred people went to the poles in record numbers. If anyone could possibly consider voting for Bush they were either stupid or evil, what do you think that accomplished, it drew the middle people to the right. You'd think people would learn someday.
If you don't like Bush, that's fine. But when you sound like Michael Moore, you also sound JUST LIKE Rush Limbaugh. And people will discount anything you have to say.

Sheeple = people who blindly follow, without thought or question, what the lead sheep does (says). No, I like the word. It succinctly sums up a type of person that exists in this world, without having to go into alot of further explanation. The word speaks for itself. (Sheeple: think Jim Jones, self styled preacher who started his own church and back in the late seventies [I believe] he managed to convince 700+ poor souls to drink posioned Kool-Aid and commit mass suicide. Now those folks are what I'd call extreme sheeple, but sheeple none the less).

It is that type of easily led people that frighten me as they can be led by a political party of either good or evil (i.e. Nazi Germany).

I did NOT say anyone who voted for GWB was a sheeple. You, for example, are definately not a sheeple. You obviously gave the matter a lot of thought beforehand & I applaud you for that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,550 Posts
My problem with words like sheeple is the attitude behind them. There are too many people out there that feel that if someone disagrees with them on a controversial topic then that person is just "buying into hype" or something similar. The reason certain topics are controversial is that there are no right or wrong answers. Two intelligent people can look at the same information and come to two completely different conclusions. But too many people just assume that the other side didn't do their homework and just did what they were told to do. There are a lot of people that just can't imagine that someone could look at the same information they've looked at and come up with a different conclusion than the conclusion that they have formed, so therefore the other person obviously has flawed reasoning.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top