Vote '04

**Mcwop** · 01-13-2004, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
500,000 new jobs? Very interesting, where did you get that statistic? Would the same sources provide any data regarding lost jobs or the net effect? Or maybe even the types of jobs?

Your opinion has been noted.

As to lost jobs since Bush came to office they have mainly been tech related, since the tech bubble burst. Here is one reference.

I can say that among several tech vendors that I work with there were a total of 500 jobs lost, and that was 85% of these vendor's employees. Tech companies stocked up on programmers and related people to build software, once built, they needed far fewer to upgrade and maintain. Same thing throughout the telecomm industry. Massive infrastructure upgrades are done for now, and fewer people are needed. Also note that these were fairly decent paying jobs.

My feeling is that many of these jobs will not come back anytime soon - no matter what any politician does.

**Buster Highmen** · 01-13-2004, 03:24 PM

OK, while that may be true, it doesn't address my question.

So allow me to insert greased poodle vacuum technology as the next big rave up at the gas station where we bored out the ovals and tuned those Stromberg 97s.

**Mcwop** · 01-13-2004, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
OK, while that may be true, it doesn't address my question.

So allow me to insert greased poodle vacuum technology as the next big rave up at the gas station where we bored out the ovals and tuned those Stromberg 97s.

Try Here. Gives data by industry.

**summit** · 01-13-2004, 04:03 PM

The problem with the 1/2 million new jobs is that the jobs created tended towards the low wage service or seasonal jobs while the types of jobs that they replaced (ie jobs that dissapeared before) were higher paying manufacturing and technology jobs.

Clark and Dean are pro gun in that they aren't in favor of taking all the guns away from everyone. But look into details...

Dean is anti "assault rifle," anti CCW, pro registration, and pro ballistic fingerprinting.

Clark is anti "assault rifle." ("If you want to fire those types of weapons, there is a place for you in the army.") I don't know where he stands on the other issues.

**lemon boy** · 01-13-2004, 04:15 PM

Dean, the gov. of VERMONT is anti gun and anti CCW? yeeahhhhhhhhh

Check out VT's CCW rules, I guess you could say he's anti-CCW because they DO NOT HAVE A PERMITING SYSTEM, you can just flat out carry.

He has to be for some limited controls shooting for the dem ticket.

BTW- guns are such a BS issue, there's always a spectrum and really, the only unelectable position is that somebody wants to actually disarm 'Murikans as opposed to implementing some reasonable controls.

EDIT- From his website, spoken almost like a libertarian.

Vermont has one of the lowest homicide rates in the United States. During my 11 years as Governor, the highest number of murders in a single year was 25 and the lowest number was five. Over half of these were domestic assaults, and the majority were not committed with a firearm.

If you say “gun control” in Vermont or Wyoming, people think it means taking away their hunting rifle. If you say "gun control" in New York City or Los Angeles, people are relieved at the prospect of having Uzis or illegal handguns taken off the streets. They’re both right. That’s why I think Vermont ought to be able to have a different set of laws than California.

I believe the federal gun laws we have -- like the Brady Bill -- are important, and I would veto any attempt to repeal or gut them. The Assault Weapons Ban expires next year, and it should be renewed. Although President Bush has claimed he supports renewing it, he is talking out of both sides of his mouth; his staff has signaled that he doesn’t want or expect Congress to renew the ban, and that is wrong.

I don’t think we need a lot of new federal laws. But we do need to do a few things at the federal level, like requiring Insta-Check on all retail and gun show sales. We also must do a better job of enforcing the laws on the books. President Bush promised to be tough in enforcing gun laws, but his Administration has prosecuted only about 2% of all gun crimes and they are virtually ignoring 20 of the 22 major federal gun laws on the books. That is an abysmal record, and as President, I’d make tough enforcement a reality, not just political rhetoric.

After that, I would let the states decide for themselves what, if any, additional gun safety laws they want. Just as we resist attempts by President Bush to dictate to the states how we run our school systems and what kind of welfare programs to have, we need to resist attempts to tell states how to deal with guns beyond existing federal law and fixing a few loopholes and problems.

**Buster Highmen** · 01-13-2004, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Mcwop
Try Here. Gives data by industry.

OK, but I do not see where it says that 500,000 nrew jobs have been created.
The overall data is interesting:
>>>>
Table B. Seasonally adjusted unemployment rates and changes
due to revision, January-December 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
Month and year | As first | As | Change
| published | revised |
| | |
---------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
2003 | | |
| | |
January..............| 5.7 | 5.8 | 0.1
February.............| 5.8 | 5.9 | .1
March................| 5.8 | 5.8 | .0
April................| 6.0 | 6.0 | .0
May..................| 6.1 | 6.1 | .0
June.................| 6.4 | 6.3 | -.1
July.................| 6.2 | 6.2 | .0
August...............| 6.1 | 6.1 | .0
September............| 6.1 | 6.1 | .0
October..............| 6.0 | 6.0 | .0
November.............| 5.9 | 5.9 | .0
December.............| 1/ 5.7 | 5.7 | .0
---------------------------------------------------------------
<<<<
This data indicates that the net change in new jobs is negligible for this year. That may be a significant point.

But the other issue you raise with regard to job types:a lot of high paying jobs have been lost. I suspect that those jobs were not held by Joe Sixpack.

The point is that the economy is ALWAYS an important issue, despite the wishes of the Bush supporters.

And in the large, once folks can get past the hype and spinmeisters, one can see that Dean is not the Limbaughian Liberal that the Rebumblicans would like us all to believe.

Besides, I'd rather be a dope smoking liberal than a pill popping Facsist.

**grrrr** · 01-13-2004, 04:52 PM

I don't see Dean as fiscally conservative. Reviewing his agenda, he is proposing a whole lot of programs that would cost money.

He is pro farm support, pro union, pro subsidized education, pro federal job creation, pro subsidized childcare, pro subsidized housing, pro expansion of medicare.

I believe in strong social systems, education and healthcare. I just don't think the federal government is the right venue for solving those problems.

The republicans are no better, they simply substitute their interest groups for the democrats.

For example, the federal government collects taxes which funds "homeland security". In that program, we have been sent masses of expensive equipment which serves us no use on a day-to-day basis It sits in a storage room. We have no money to fund training with the equipment, and we had no say in what equipment we were given. Across the country, this program has cost billions, and the results are by and large the same.

Another program funds 350 million in direct grants for improved firefighting at the local level. Less 18% for beauracracy. In order to get that money, thousands and thousands of hours of grant writing and administration were expended by local fire departments.

Most of the fire departments that got grants were the well-funded ones that can afford to have someone spend two or three weeks writing a grant. The poor rural departments aren't getting shit, because their volunteer fire chief doesn't have the time to apply.

Imagine instead, that the federal government doesn't collect those taxes, and the locla fire departments collect them as local taxes. More equitable, less waste.

This, by the way, was a Clinton program that has since increased under Bush. Pushed by my esteemed (by someone other than me) colleagues.

Looking at Dean's proposals, there are lot more "the federal government is here to help" proposals. I don't have a lot of faith.

**Buster Highmen** · 01-13-2004, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by grrrr
I don't see Dean as fiscally conservative. Reviewing his agenda, he is proposing a whole lot of programs that would cost money.

He is pro farm support, pro union, pro subsidized education, pro federal job creation, pro subsidized childcare, pro subsidized housing, pro expansion of medicare.

I believe in strong social systems, education and healthcare. I just don't think the federal government is the right venue for solving those problems.

The republicans are no better, they simply substitute their interest groups for the democrats.

Dean is a fiscal conservative in that he believes in a balanced budget. Strictly speaking:
Of or relating to government expenditures, revenues, and debt: a fiscal policy of incurring budget deficits to stimulate a weak economy.

As for funding strong social systems, therein lies the conundrum. While the fed mechanisms are mangled, they're better than the special interest mechanisms. And I, for one, greatly object to Pat Robertson getting my tax dollars. Local funding is too fractured and weak to be of any consequence.

For example, the federal government collects taxes which funds "homeland security". In that program, we have been sent masses of expensive equipment which serves us no use on a day-to-day basis It sits in a storage room. We have no money to fund training with the equipment, and we had no say in what equipment we were given. Across the country, this program has cost billions, and the results are by and large the same.

More evidence that Homeland Security is a sack of shit. It's a foil for the stripping of our civil rights.

Another program funds 350 million in direct grants for improved firefighting at the local level. Less 18% for beauracracy. In order to get that money, thousands and thousands of hours of grant writing and administration were expended by local fire departments.

Most of the fire departments that got grants were the well-funded ones that can afford to have someone spend two or three weeks writing a grant. The poor rural departments aren't getting shit, because their volunteer fire chief doesn't have the time to apply.

Imagine instead, that the federal government doesn't collect those taxes, and the locla fire departments collect them as local taxes. More equitable, less waste.

Consider the locales in depressed areas like Forks or Silverton. Do you really think that a local tax is going to fly there? In these instances there's no alternative but Fed funding.
Selling a tax always bites, no matter whether it's local or federal. And even though the grant writing is sort of broken, it's at least a mechanism.

This, by the way, was a Clinton program that has since increased under Bush. Pushed by my esteemed (by someone other than me) colleagues.

Looking at Dean's proposals, there are lot more "the federal government is here to help" proposals. I don't have a lot of faith.

If you believe in strong social systems as you say, you have to decide how to implement them. Local funding is too weak and fractured for education, research, defense, etc.

KQ · 01-13-2004, 05:34 PM

Iowa's largest newspaper endorses John Edwards

DES MOINES, Iowa - Iowa's largest newspaper, the Des Moines Register, endorsed Sen. John Edwards for president yesterday, calling him "a cut above the others."

The North Carolina Democrat said the endorsement came as a "complete surprise."

"This is a huge moment in this campaign - we have extraordinary momentum" going into next Monday's caucuses, Edwards told a crowd at the Heartland Senior Services Center in Ames. "On Jan. 19, we're gonna shock the world!"

The editorial acknowledged that Edwards, a 50-year-old freshman senator, has less political experience than some other candidates and initially, "we were inclined to write him off as the possible Democratic presidential nominee." But after watching him campaign over the past several months, "our editorial board came to conclude he's a cut above the others."

John Edwards

**grrrr** · 01-13-2004, 05:54 PM

Buster, the citizens of Forks get to choose the level of fire and EMS service they want. They are responsible for their own protection, they should pay for it. Federalizing it means the decision is taken out of local hands - the people no longer see the results of their decisions.

There are things that must be done on a federal level - CDC, NASA, defense. That certainly doesn't mean that all things are best done by the feds.

Adding more federal programs (and adding taxes to pay for them) may fit your definition of a fiscal conservative. I can just hear the "Do you want another tax and spend liberal?" commercials spooling up.

Tax levy increases went down in flames across this (traditionally Democratic) state last month. Ahnold got elected in California. Is this really time to be advocating more government at any level?

**mr_gyptian** · 01-13-2004, 06:44 PM

I stress 500,000 new jobs created. The beauty of our capitalist system is the creative destruction that keeps our economy growing consistently over time. The educated people that lost their jobs should have worked for company's that make money.

Because consulting firms and banks aren't throwing jobs out like candy is not Bush's fault. You run your business irresponsibly you deserve what you get. Whether you're a restaurant owner that gets sticky fingers or a CFO setting up offshore entities to hide debt. It's all the same, you end up with out a job. Maybe in the clink if you're Jeff Fastow. you want to blame a president for it, go ahead.

Come to think of it, judging by the amount of snow the Aspen area, specifically Snowmass has recieved this year. I'm sure Bush is doing his old buddy Ken Lay a favor by depressing his "weather button" on the rich and famous that populate Aspen. All the while, Summit county languishes in 20" base land.

Is anyone looking into this??

**tuffy109** · 01-13-2004, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by SummitCo 1776

The only problem with those two are antigun.

this is what the country needs more of; horrible grammar-gun totin' voters who are ready for when England attacks.

**Foggy_Goggles** · 01-13-2004, 07:22 PM

The net employment figure is best documented by "Non-Farm Payrolls" which was released last Friday documenting only 1K jobs (net) were created in November. Job creation is not happening while GDP is growing because of increases in productivity. I'll let you decide who's fault it is.

**Buster Highmen** · 01-13-2004, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by mr_gyptian
I stress 500,000 new jobs created. The beauty of our capitalist system is the creative destruction that keeps our economy growing consistently over time. The educated people that lost their jobs should have worked for company's that make money.

Because consulting firms and banks aren't throwing jobs out like candy is not Bush's fault. You run your business irresponsibly you deserve what you get. Whether you're a restaurant owner that gets sticky fingers or a CFO setting up offshore entities to hide debt. It's all the same, you end up with out a job. Maybe in the clink if you're Jeff Fastow. you want to blame a president for it, go ahead.

Come to think of it, judging by the amount of snow the Aspen area, specifically Snowmass has recieved this year. I'm sure Bush is doing his old buddy Ken Lay a favor by depressing his "weather button" on the rich and famous that populate Aspen. All the while, Summit county languishes in 20" base land.

Is anyone looking into this??

I defer to your astounding lighter than hot air legerdemain in which you simultaneously credit Bush for creating 500,000 jobs and insulate him from any responsibility.

**Buster Highmen** · 01-13-2004, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by grrrr
Buster, the citizens of Forks get to choose the level of fire and EMS service they want. They are responsible for their own protection, they should pay for it. Federalizing it means the decision is taken out of local hands - the people no longer see the results of their decisions.

I'm not sure I buy that argument. They and other small rural communities don't have the financial backing to choose without fed support. Similarly for schools, libraries, health care and roads.

There are things that must be done on a federal level - CDC, NASA, defense. That certainly doesn't mean that all things are best done by the feds.

Adding more federal programs (and adding taxes to pay for them) may fit your definition of a fiscal conservative. I can just hear the "Do you want another tax and spend liberal?" commercials spooling up.

Tax levy increases went down in flames across this (traditionally Democratic) state last month. Ahnold got elected in California. Is this really time to be advocating more government at any level?

I don't mean to infer that all things should be done by the Feds. But realistically, very few can be done by local efforts, especially when the Eyeman types are running rampant.
Corruption runs at every level, local funding won't preclude it. You want the structure, you have to pay for it.

I respect what you're getting at. But are you willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater?