Anyone seen United 93?

[Dre L]

Someone cue up dueling banjos, I need to hear music to these threads.

 

[Jim Thompson]

I just left the "Ignorant Folks" post by AdamCKach and find myself in another one yet again...

:lol::lol::lol:

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

R Shek - Spoken like a true Republican...

PROBLEM #1 - I am NOT a Republican, I am however a gun-toting, Missouri-Born, Arkansas Resident, Born-Again Christian, Pro-Life, Anti-Big Government, Anti-Illegal Immigrant , Reagan Conservative. The Republican party today is not.



BTW, I did vote for Clinton, one of my biggest regrets in life.

BTW, R Shek, if Bush is doing so great, why is his popular vote at 32%. Welcome to the minority

Based on a poll. Do I need to give ANOTHER lesson on what polls really mean? I mean, Jez, Kerry lead in most of the polls and look where it got him. Just because Mr. Clinton took a poll to see what time would be best to go pee-pee doesn't mean that polls are great. Reagan was in the 30's for a good portion of his presidency, and today he is highly reguarded by most educated people who are willing to look past the end of their noses. Sometimes doing the right thing is unpopular.



For Christ's Sake, Saddam had 93% favorable ratings in Iraqi polls.... polls and statistics can be used by anyone for anything. Get over yourselves and your damn polls.

You all deserve it for electing Dick and Bush into office

And PROUD OF IT!

thank you mr president for those low low gas prices, thank you mr president for homeland security, thank you mr president for making me feel safe as a us citizen to travel to foreign countries to learn about other cultures, thank you mr president for allowing out sourcung of american jobs, thank you"

Last time I checked, this is still a capitalist society. Socialism, however is not. You want the government in every part of your life (except your bedroom, as in the gay rights case out of Texas). Ya know, Venezuela, Cuba and China are looking for a few good english-speaking socialists to spread their word. What ever happened to taking personal responcibility? If you don't like something, come up with a better solution or stop using the product.



Bush doesn't have anything to do with gas prices (but you can blame Kennedy, Durbin, Schumer, both Clintons and Carter for the rediculous EPA restrictions they signed into law, banning drilling in ANWR and keeping any new refineries from being built). Bush does not have anything to do with foreign air travel. Bush does not have anything to do with jobs comming or going overseas (BTW, more jobs have been created by importing jobs than exporting them, how many Hyundai, Toyota, BMW, Kia, etc plants have been built here?).

 

[Thomas Rogers]

BTW, Bush is OUR president, we all voted for him, one way or another. If you voted for the "other guy" then you and yours DIDN'T do your job of getting the person you wanted elected, but regardless Bush is STILL your president If you voted for Bush, then you got your guy elected, but that doesn't mean he doesn't make mistakes and you don't need the help from both parties.



There has been much whinning like little children in this world over Bush. People blame Bush for being devisive, but that's a two-way street.



Everybody (speaking to the country now) should stop pissing in each others ears and solve some problems.



The man has the job, everyone who VOTED and even those who didn't are responsible for him having that job, now let's get some work done!



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

(BTW, more jobs have been created by importing jobs than exporting them, how many Hyundai, Toyota, BMW, Kia, etc plants have been built here?).

Are you speculating or can you back it up? How many jobs have been, or going to be lost, because of Hyundai, Toyota, BMW, Kia, etc plants have been built here?





Tom

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

THE FACTS ABOUT INSOURCING



U.S. subsidiaries employ 5.4 million Americans.



U.S. subsidiaries support an annual payroll of $307 billion and pay, on average, 31% more than all U.S. companies.



U.S. subsidiaries heavily invest in the American manufacturing sector. 34% of the jobs at U.S. subsidiaries are in manufacturing -- more than double the proportion of manufacturing at all U.S. companies.



U.S. subsidiaries manufacture in America to export goods around the world -- accounting for over 20% of all U.S. exports.



New foreign direct investment (FDI) in the U.S. totaled $39.9 billion in 2003.



In 2003, U.S. subsidiaries reinvested $38.6 billion in their U.S. operations.



U.S. Subsidiaries have spent $27.5 billion on U.S. research and development activities.

http://www.ofii.org/insourcing/

Honda North America, Inc. announced expansion of its Alabama plant at the end of 2002 – a doubling to 300,000 Odyssey minivans and V6 engines. The new production line starts this spring with expectations to achieve full production by the end of 2004. This brings Honda’s employment in Alabama to 4,300.



Mercedes-Benz US International, a subsidiary of Germany’s DaimlerChrysler, is expanding its plant in Vance. The vehicle manufacturing facility already employs 2,400 and the $600-million expansion will add 2,000 new jobs.



Toyota Motor North America, the U.S. division of the Japanese automotive manufacturer, recently announced the Phase 3 expansion of its Huntsville engine plant that will include a $250 million plant as well as 300 new jobs. Construction is expected to begin on Phase 3 in early 2005, with new production on V-8 engines for Toyota Tundra and Sequoia pickups to begin by 2006. The latest Huntsville expansion will almost double the size of the facility and bring the total investment there to $490 million. This expansion will be the second since May 2003 when the Huntsville plant produced the company's first V-8 engine outside Japan.



DENSO Corporation, the Japanese auto parts maker, is building a new manufacturing facility in Osceola. The new plant will employ 500 people manufacturing air conditioners and radiators for customers such as Toyota.



Nestle, the Switzerland-based company, opened a new production facility in Jonesboro. The facility will produce many of Nestle’s prepared food products. The $165 million plant currently employs nearly 400 with expectations of employing nearly 1000 once the facility is fully operational.

http://www.ofii.org/insourcing/recent_expansions.doc



These are just a few out of Alabama and Arkansas alone...

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

"We understand that our multinationals . . . are going to create jobs all over the world. By the way, Americans should realize that foreign companies employ a lot of people here. Pennsylvania has almost 400,000 people employed by foreign owned companies. We're not against that. . . ."



~ Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) in a May 14th interview with Lou Dobbs

A recent poll of economists by the Wall Street Journal found that only 16 % of them saw outsourcing as having a significant impact on the overall job picture. [1] This was the conclusion of no less a distinguished economist than John Kenneth Galbraith in his book, The Economics of Innocent Fraud published by Houghton Mifflin in 2004. One such delusion is that somehow the Chinese and Indians can not move into highly qualified sectors and outcompete the U.S. and European nations there. While the Indians and Chinese are building or expanding their auto industries, economists engage in platitudes to defend outsourcing.



Economist Thomas Sowell from the University of Chicago said “anything that increases economic efficiency--whether by outsourcing or a hundred other things--is likely to cost somebody's job. The automobile cost the jobs of people who took care of horses or made saddles, carriages, and horseshoes.” [1] Walter Williams, another economist, said “we could probably think of hundreds of jobs that either don't exist or exist in far fewer numbers than in the past--jobs such as elevator operator, TV repairman and coal deliveryman. ‘Creative destruction’ is a discovery process where we find ways to produce goods and services more cheaply. That in turn makes us all richer.” [2] Nationally, 70,000 computer programmers lost their jobs between 1999 and 2003, but more than 115,000 computer software engineers found higher-paying jobs during that same period. [3] However, economists do concede that labor is not always perfectly mobile and that some workers may have difficulty getting new jobs. Some economists suggest that government training programs be provided.

Wikipedia

Evalueserve, a research and intellectual property firm, estimates the demand supply gap in the labor market will reach 5.6 million jobs by 2010 and the industries that will face this shortfall include IT and healthcare. Emerging areas like biotechnology and nanotechnology will create a substantial demand for labor.



Evalueserve estimates that for every $100 of call-center work offshored by US companies, $143 is invested back into the US economy. This figure is $133 for IT services work and $142 for high-end knowledge services like equity research, and risk management.



Statistics reveal that US economy loses an average of $231,289 for every job protected in the country. It leads to an annual loss of over $100 billion.



Bill Clinton promoted outsourcing as a key budget-balancing instrument and acknowledged that efficiency in government is directly related to a lower encumbrance on the taxpayer and that private companies can offer a service at a lower price tag with higher quality. The outcome of this drive towards efficiency can be seen in the form of low prices and high standard of living.

http://www.intertangent.com/023346/Articles_and_News/1490.html



Hmmm.... all the facts to support my statement in under 10 minutes.



Funny, it's pretty difficult to find hard facts on "how many jobs are outsourced". It's quite easy to find out how many are insourced. However, the facts are there. Open your eyes and you can see them. If you are not a high-school graduate, you may have a problem. If you will only accept a job that makes $100,000 or more a year, you may have a problem. But everyone else can find a job if you WANT one... you may be forced to move, change careers, get more education, etc. but they are there.



Question:

How many jobs have been, or going to be lost, because<

 

[Tom Schindler]

In 2000, 11.3% of the nation was in Poverty. In 2004, the number has risen to 12.7%.



In 2000, Median Household Income (in 2004 dollars) was $46,058, in 2004 the number was $44,389.



In 2000, the number of personal bankruptcy was 1,203,080, the number rose to 2,026,047 in 2005.



In 2000, the Unemployment Rate was at 4%, in 2004 it was at 5.5%.



Things aren't as good as we would think they are.





Tom

 

[TrainTrac]

Do you have sources for your figures, Tom?

n 2000, the number of personal bankruptcy was 1,203,080, the number rose to 2,026,047 in 2005.

The only reason this figure rose in 2005 was because people were rushing to file before the new law making the guidelines for filing for bankruptcy more difficult went into effect.

In 2000, the Unemployment Rate was at 4%, in 2004 it was at 5.5%.

That's actually not too bad. 4% is actually considered full employment. Most people within that 4% are folks who are unable to work, or simply don't want to.



Here are the latest unemployment statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Both the number of unemployed persons, 7.0 million, and the unemployment

rate, 4.7 percent, were little changed in March. The jobless rates for the

major worker groups--adult men (4.1 percent), adult women (4.1 percent),

teenagers (15.7 percent), whites (4.0 percent), blacks (9.3 percent), and

Hispanics (5.4 percent)--showed little or no change over the month. The

unemployment rate for Asians was 3.4 percent, not seasonally adjusted.



Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 211,000 in March to 135.0 million,

seasonally adjusted. Over the year, payroll employment has grown by 2.1 mil-

lion. The March increase was concentrated in the service-providing sector,

with gains in several industries, including professional and business services,

leisure and hospitality, retail trade, and health care. (See table B-1.)



Employment in professional and business services increased by 52,000 over

the month. The gain was spread among most of the sector's component industries,

including architectural and engineering services, computer systems design, man-

agement and consulting services, and services to buildings and dwellings. Over

the year, employment in professional and business services was up by 469,000.



Leisure and hospitality employment rose by 42,000 in March. Within the

industry, employment in food services and drinking places continued to grow,

with a gain of 33,000 over the month. In March, retail trade employment in-

creased by 29,000, with most of the growth occurring in general merchandise

stores (26,000). Employment in wholesale trade continued its upward trend

and has risen by 232,000 since its most recent low in August 2003.



Health care added 24,000 jobs in March; over the year, employment in the

industry has risen by 293,000. Over the month, job growth occurred in hos-

pitals (8,000) and in ambulatory health care services (16,000), which includes

doctors' offices and home health care.



Employment in financial activities rose over the month. Credit inter-

mediation and insurance carriers each added 7,000 jobs, following similar-

sized increases in February.



In the goods-producing sector, mining employment continued to expand in

March, rising by 6,000. Most of the gain occurred in support activities for

mining, particularly those related to oil and gas. Since its most recent low

in April 2003, mining employment has increased by 97,000.

I'd say that things are better than most people realize, because the average American gets their info from the evening news, or New York Times, and doesn't take time to look beyond that and find out more information.

 

[Mark Grumpy]

Both the number of unemployed persons, 7.0 million, and the unemployment

rate, 4.7 percent, were little changed in March. The jobless rates for the

major worker groups--adult men (4.1 percent), adult women (4.1 percent),

teenagers (15.7 percent), whites (4.0 percent), blacks (9.3 percent), and

Hispanics (5.4 percent)--showed little or no change over the month. The

unemployment rate for Asians was 3.4 percent, not seasonally adjusted.

And you could probably take out two of them lowering the number quite a bit - I would suspect many of the women are hosewives i.e. fully "employed" and many of the teenagers are between schools.



grump

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

In 2000, Median Household Income (in 2004 dollars) was $46,058, in 2004 the number was $44,389.

In 2004 dollars? Please! Compare apples to apples. 4 years won't make much of a difference in dollar valuation (unless it's 1978 and Jimmy Carter is president). Do you also know that you are paying on average nearly $2,000 less in federal taxes? Real after-tax incomes are UP 10% from December of 2000. (http://www.factcheck.org/article260.html)

The latest figures on wages from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, released Sept. 16, show that average hourly earnings for rank-and-file workers (about 80% of the private workforce) were 2.6% higher in August than they had been when Bush took office, even after adjusting for inflation.

In 2000, the Unemployment Rate was at 4%, in 2004 it was at 5.5%.

Nine months prior to the 1996 presidential election, Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers cheerfully reported that the "American economy has performed exceptionally well over the past 3 years." While that may not surprise you, you may however be surprised to learn that President George W. Bush's economic record is, in many ways, better than the record Clinton ran on for reelection.



Compared with the "exceptional" years of 1993, 1994, and 1995, the first three years of George W. Bush's presidency featured:



- lower inflation

- lower unemployment

- faster productivity growth

- faster labor compensation growth (i.e., wages and benefits)

- 29.4 percent ($6.9 trillion) more economic output

- 45 percent ($960 billion) more exports; and

- an economic growth rate 81.2 percent as fast as that under Clinton

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/carter200402260852.asp

Unemployment Rate:

Jan 2004: 5.6% (After GWBush's 1st three years)

Jan 1996: 5.6% (After Bill Clinton's 1st three years)



Poverty Rate For Families (Two-Year Average) -2001-2002: 9.40% (GWBush's 1st two years)

1993-1994: 12.95% (Clinton's 1st two years)

1993-2000: 10.50% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)



Percent of People Below 50 Percent of Poverty Level (Two-Year Average) -

2001-2002: 4.95% (GWBush's 1st two years)

1993-1994: 6.05% (Clinton's 1st two years)

1993-2000: 5.31% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)



Homeownership Rate -

GWBush's 1st three years:

4th Quarter 2000: 67.5% (before GWBush)

4th Quarter 2003: 68.6% (after 3 years of GWBush)

Difference: +1.1%



Bill Clinton's 1st three years:

4th Quarter 1992: 64.4% (before Clinton)

4th Quarter 1995: 65.1% (after 3 years of Clinton)

Difference: +0.7%

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092602/posts/

Sorry, your numbers don't hold up.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

BTW, the personal bankruptcy rate in 2005 was "artificially inflated" due the change in Nov of that year (if memory serves) of the personal bankruptcy laws. Bush passed laws that made it harder for people to press the "bankruptcty reset" button and wipe the slate clean. The huge increase in 2005 was all the families applying BEFORE the new laws came into affect and they could no longer walk away from (as much of) their debts.



I think Bush did a great thing there!



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Of course, you are going to dismiss those facts because the go against what you say.



Then again, Clinton came after 12 year of Republican rule in the White House. GW Bush came in after 8 years of Democratic rule in the White House. Is GW Bush's numbers because of the Democratic rule? Was Clintons numbers because of the Republican rule. Did it go up, or down, because of the previous president?



Anyone can look at the numbers and read anything they want from them. Unemployment is up. Was it because things were good and now the "damage" has been done and it will take time for the economy to react? The housing bubble is going to bust and I personally feel alot of families are going to loose alot of money in it. Was it caused by Bush? The price of goods is raising faster then wages are. We are taking a pay cut without even knowing it. I got a 3.5% raise this year. What did the price of goods raise? Did my raise cover the costs? Fuel alone will put a major strain on a budget. Cost of electric is going up. So is the price of natural gas. Are our raises reflecting those increases? We spend more money on the things we need to live. Things like electronics are not needed to survive, but things like food, clothing, and energy, to name a few are required to live. It gets cold in the winter. You have to heat your house. I have to have a car to drive to and from work.





Tom

 

[Rick Kent]

Your numbers were dismsissed because you did not cite sources in your original reply. .



The AFL/CIO "Facts" site you link in you latest message would not be considered an unbiased source. The have a definate agenda and motive to spin the "facts" in their favor. From their mission statement on their website"



"The mission of the AFL-CIO is to improve the lives of working families—to bring economic justice to the workplace and social justice to our nation. To accomplish this mission we will build and change the American labor movement."



This thread started asking about a movie about hijackers on an airplane. Maybe we should make a movie about thread hijackers: My Sport Trac 93.



Why doesn't everyone go to the "lets argue about the economic statistics" website!



The Spirit of Dano

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

In addition to what Fred said, your numbers are dismissed as only comming from (1) source, biased or not. True facts can be supported by at least (2), preferably 3 or more references that are considered to be fair sources. Union "facts"... sure that's fair. How much money does the AFL/CIO give to Democrats? How much to Republicans? I rest my case.



3.5%? I wish I got that in the past 18-24 months... I've received... 0% raise in 2 years. Trust me, I know how raises and pay affect lifestyle.



But you know what???



Due to proper budgeting, titheing, the Glory of God and cutting back on other expenses, not only has my family been able to prosper, but also to pay cash for my medical bills (I was diagnosed with seminomic cancer in January, had surgery and radiation treatments all since then). We can still afford to take our first vacation in 5 years of marriage. All our bills are paid on time. We've cut $2000 out of our $4000 credit card debt. All this with a 19 month old child to fend for as well. Two student loans, one car loan and a home loan being paid on (1) salary.



I do not bitch about my pay. I work for a living for someone else. I am at their mercy. If they don;t like me or I cost them more than I make for them, I'm out the door.



Making enough money to support my family, that's my responcibility, not Pres. Bush's, not Jimmy Hoffa Jr, not The Donald, not anyone but me. If my current job doesn't do it, I have two options:



1) Work a second job

2) Find a new first job





You cite about 12 years of Republican Rule vs 8 years of Democrat rule. Economically speaking, any affect on the economy that a president has (with the exception of a tax cut with rebate) usually takes 6-8 years to take full effect on the national economy. Reagan's Trickle Down theory took 6-9 years due to the complexity of the issue. That puts it square into the beginning of the economic expansion seen under Clinton. So when Clinton raised taxes, it took ~6 years to affect the economy fully... 2000/2001.



The tax rebate checks that were sent out by the Bush admin had an immediate affect as it was instantly more cash in everyone's pocket. The full effect of the tax cut (as long as it is made permanent won't be fully realized for another year or two, though the initial effects have been seen for the past two years.



Tax cuts speed the economy up, tax hikes slow the economy down. The effects are longer lasting than anything that the Federal Reserve Bank can do. It's Fiscal Policy.

 

[TrainTrac]

Another fact to consider:



During those "12 years of Republican Rule", the Congress was controlled by the Democrats. Then again, the Republicans haven't exactly lived up to the Contract With America that won them control of the House in 1994.