discussion We are so screwed.

[DkRk]

The topics, the cheers, the discussion, the fact that one of those people could end up leading the US, the country with the biggest army, short of china, scares the bejesus out of me. Though I am consoled that the US is slowly, well relatively anyways, tearing itself apart with debt.

I can't see how anyone could possibly be 'consoled' by this...

Plus, remember, these are debates put on by the party, for the party faithful. The questions posed are meant to throw some meat to the fired up faithful, and the candidates are out to grandstand, instead of giving thoughtful insights. It's all just to create jingoistic, pro-party hype.

Go to any campaign rally in Canada, and it's all the same thing. But when the candidate is chosen, and has to try and appeal to the other 95% of the population, you'll notice a change in tone.

Don't read too much into these 'debates.' They're all gong-shows. In fact, trying to read the future of a country, and its people based on them isn't at all practical.

 

[BVickery]

Go to any campaign rally in Canada, and it's all the same thing. But when the candidate is chosen, and has to try and appeal to the other 95% of the population, you'll notice a change in tone.

Don't read too much into these 'debates.' They're all gong-shows. In fact, trying to read the future of a country, and its people based on them isn't at all practical.

Quoted for the truth.

If you want to see the fur fly, stay tuned for the DNC debates. Its not sure if Obama will even be the parties nomination. The reason for this is the liberal/progressive base of the party (which pretty much runs it even though it IS a minority) are not happy with him since he didn't push the liberal agenda enough (and whenever he did push the liberal agenda there was MASSIVE backlash from the public).

 

[BVickery]

The problem with the current crop of Tea Party republicans is that they're opposed to taxes for the rich. In Obama's speech last week, he mentioned how he wanted to close tax loops for the rich and make everyone pay their fair share. Personally, I don't see an issue with everyone paying say 10% (to use an arbitrary number) but the tax system they have right now allows the super rich to pay a lower percentage than poorer people. But when Obama said that, the Democrats all applauded, the Republicans remained silent. They'd much rather cut services as much as possible, and cut taxes if possible. Look at Texas. Rick Perry slashed the firefighting budget dramatically, and now the state has out of control wildfires. (source: Politics of fighting wildfires: Did Rick Perry's Texas do enough on its own? - CSMonitor.com) and the state needs to ask the federal government for money to pay for it. I can see cutting non-essential services, but touching the basics: Police, fire, medical, and school services just seems insane. There's been cases where firefighters have watched a house burn down because people didn't pay their fire fees. That's unthinkable in Canada where it comes out of your taxes. (source: Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground | WPSD Local 6 - News, Sports, Weather - Paducah KY | Local)

Health care, schools, police, fire services, the military. This is all important stuff, and the Tea Party would find ways to cut all of it, if it meant cutting taxes.

No such thing as a Tea Party Republican. The actual TEA party is NOT an official part of the Republican party. They vote in the primaries since that is the party (at least supposed to be) of fiscal responsibility and personal freedoms. The democratic party is controlled by a group of people who's beleifs are anathema to the core principals of the TEA party.

The thing you need to remember about Gov.'s is the first thing they put on the chopping block are the popular/needed programs of a state. They do this so the Union will then start to cry on how much they need their firefighters/police. Which we do. You will NEVER see a Politician EVER suggest that the first thing to start cutting the budget is to slash their own salaries some, or limit their perks etc.

 

[BVickery]

Way I see it....the longer you put off the coming correction, the bigger/the more massive the correction/hangover is going to be when it does happen.

To me the economy is like a legal ponzi/pyramid scheme, everyone is getting in on it...till one day it collapses and it starts all over again. If you don't have new workers continually coming in at the bottom of the economy...it is going to collapse eventually.

The way it is set up now, I fully agree. Another thing is the way Unions are run. It actually hinders and biased against the younger workers. It also protects lazy workers and those who shouldn't even be in their job to begin with.

Under Obama its going to get worse since he is very much pro-Union (which in essence is anti-business now). The goal of a Union is no longer to protect the worker from injustice or injury, its to secure for them a bigger and bigger piece of the pie (profits for Non-Govt and Tax Revenue for the Public Unions).

If you don't believe me, take a look on the U.S map where the job growth is positive and the areas that are negative. Give you a big hint, if the state is Heavily unionized and regulated the job growth is in the negative. If the state is a 'Right to Work' state (IE Unions don't hold a strong sway) the job growth is pretty positive. Take another step, look at GM, Chrysler, and now Ford. They are having labor issues and problems keeping their costs under control because of the UAW. The reason for this is the VERY generous pension plans the UAW forced upon the car makers. It is estimated that for every person who is collecting a pension the company needs about 10 ppl working to pay into the pot.

So if you want the biggest ponzi scheme in the U.S economy, its not the economy itself, its the Unions embedded in it.

 

[chrisk]

The way it is set up now, I fully agree. Another thing is the way Unions are run. It actually hinders and biased against the younger workers. It also protects lazy workers and those who shouldn't even be in their job to begin with.

Under Obama its going to get worse since he is very much pro-Union (which in essence is anti-business now). The goal of a Union is no longer to protect the worker from injustice or injury, its to secure for them a bigger and bigger piece of the pie (profits for Non-Govt and Tax Revenue for the Public Unions).

If you don't believe me, take a look on the U.S map where the job growth is positive and the areas that are negative. Give you a big hint, if the state is Heavily unionized and regulated the job growth is in the negative. If the state is a 'Right to Work' state (IE Unions don't hold a strong sway) the job growth is pretty positive. Take another step, look at GM, Chrysler, and now Ford. They are having labor issues and problems keeping their costs under control because of the UAW. The reason for this is the VERY generous pension plans the UAW forced upon the car makers. It is estimated that for every person who is collecting a pension the company needs about 10 ppl working to pay into the pot.

So if you want the biggest ponzi scheme in the U.S economy, its not the economy itself, its the Unions embedded in it.

I can't argue with you here as I don't have enough info, but I would like to see a credible source for:

1. a map showing unions vs job growth as you mention in this post

2. salary info on those states with high job growth

Job growth does not look as good when you replace a $40/hr job with a $10/hr job. Not saying that low-skill jobs should pay $40/hr, but politicians like to brag about replacing a high-skilled manufacturing job with a coffee-shop cashier position here in Canada.

 

[Shadowmeph]

I watch a bit of some debate last night which had the repubs trying to make it seem like the US problems are all Obama's fault ,which they are not at all the repubs plans down there are pretty smart in that they all have a debate and every one of them try to make Obama look bad hehe

 

[Andy]

Obama was handed an utter pile of crap ... there's no denying that ... but he hasn't really stepped up to the plate when it comes to dealing with the issues. Spending more and more isn't the answer unfortunately. It's easier to rebuild after hitting rock bottom than it is to put the issues off and leave them for someone else to deal with. Personally I believe the automotive and bank bailouts should not have happened ... at least not at such a large scale. They needed to let some of them fail and set an example.

 

[DkRk]

Obama was handed an utter pile of crap ... there's no denying that ... but he hasn't really stepped up to the plate when it comes to dealing with the issues. Spending more and more isn't the answer unfortunately. It's easier to rebuild after hitting rock bottom than it is to put the issues off and leave them for someone else to deal with. Personally I believe the automotive and bank bailouts should not have happened ... at least not at such a large scale. They needed to let some of them fail and set an example.

Given his situation, I'd say he's done a very reasonable job. I don't think a lot of people realize the impact of his healthcare initiative, which consumed much of his term.

And those bailouts, though I don't agree with them in principle, were necessary. As much as I hate rewarding failure, the biggest stakeholder in the companies being bailed out was John Q. Public: the guys on GM's assembly lines, and all the employees below management at AIG - people like you and I. Plus TARP (Bank) and the automotive bailouts were done under the Bush administration; AIG was nationalized under a Republican president. Obama bears the brunt for things he wasn't even responsible for. However, I feel the bailouts ended up benefiting the very people who should have been punished for their profligacy.

 

[belgolas]

To all who think Canada is doing bad in the London area alone there are over a billion dollars worth of new construction jobs. This is the busiest time in a long time. I know St. Thomas and London got hit hard loosing a lot of manufacturing but all those jobs are getting replaced. The only problem is most of those jobs require more than a high school education. Everywhere there is construction going on.

Edit: Over a billion dollars worth of construction started this year.

 

[Borg]

To all who think Canada is doing bad in the London area alone there are over a billion dollars worth of new construction jobs. This is the busiest time in a long time. I know St. Thomas and London got hit hard loosing a lot of manufacturing but all those jobs are getting replaced. The only problem is most of those jobs require more than a high school education. Everywhere there is construction going on.

Edit: Over a billion dollars worth of construction started this year.

So, in other words, you don't know what's going on.