Tired of hearing bad news about the economy? Don't click.

[Moneyguy1]

Purry
.
I can think of one offhand..The Philippines. Perhaps not the best example, but Cuba as well. And, where, in the world, does the U.S. have colonies? Has the U.S. permanently taken over any country by force and annexed it?

And, without the help of the U.S. (like it or not) Europe and Asia would be very different places right now. I was also careful to point out that the U.S. has made some very basic mistakes as well, sticking their nose in where it did not belong.

Like it or not, Canada, which for the most part is more like the U.S. than some would dare admit, lives under the protective umbrella that is provided by the cooperative effort of both countries. And that is how it should be. And, while you are at it, name the countries that are overall more tolerant and willing to air their "dirty laundry" for the rest of the world to see. The U. S. is not a perfect society, but until you can name one that is more inclusive, and factually prove your point, your point is not valid.

Your comments are disingenuous at best and naieve at worst. This is a global community now. Isolationism is not an option. Wake up. Join your military. Do something rather than carp about us.

Yeah, I am in that 50 to 60 YO group and I served, Have you?

Sorry for the rant. I respect your views but lay off the inflammatory wording. Disagree if you must, but be civilized about it.

[cmccuist]

Originally posted by Superman
But you guys who think the ROCKY-RAMBO-HARRY CALLAHAN-TERMINATOR style of "leadership" is cool.....well.......you and the rest of the 8 year-olds just keep right on cheering Dubya. While the rest of the world shakes its head in disgust.

And all you girls who think that diplomacy, treaties, appeasement, the UN, the Peace Corps, ambassodors, Neville Chamberlain and trying to "understand" the terrorists is going to work... you just keep thinking those happy thoughts.

[Superman]

I understand, Craig. And I'll return to a comment I have made several times. does Dubya plan on killing ALL the brown-faces in the Middle East? If genocide is his goal, then I suspect he will miss a few and trouble will continue. I don't really think that genocide is his goal though, which means that, when he's done, there will be MILLIONS of live brownfaced muslims left. When that happens, then come and tell me about how silly diplomacy is.

[island911]

Yeah, super " killing ALL" or diplomacy. That is what's called a false choice argument.

Did we "kill all" the nazi's, to win that war? Did we "kill all" the Jap's, to win that war? . .. musta been diplomacy . ..since there are still Japanese. . .and nazis for that matter.

It would be great if you lib's tried a bit harder to not argue like "8 year-olds".

[Purrybonker]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1

Yeah, I am in that 50 to 60 YO group and I served, Have you?

Sorry for the rant. I respect your views but lay off the inflammatory wording. Disagree if you must, but be civilized about it.

Ditto. - I appologize for ranting. Now I'll shift to being sardonic instead...

You're right - as you have said..

"Even in the Middle East, we have a stated goal of someday getting out and letting them govern themselves."

I just can't understand why those Iraqis are being so darned unreasonable about this, can you?

But actually - on this fundamental liberal/conservative hand wringing thing...

I don't think that even the most extreme conservative would argue that civilization is becoming progressively liberal over time. Each successive generation is generally more liberal (culturally) than their predecessors. But because the political power base is always held by the "outgoing" generation (60 year old white men these days) - governments tend to trail the actual political leanings of the population.

But the US two-party system further stiffles cultural evolution - exacerbating the detachment of the emerging generation from the political process. This isn't just rhetoric - it's a big part of the reason why the US lags behind the cultural evolution of the world and has amongst the lowest voter counts on the planet.

Like it or not - the conservative of today will soon be extinct (and will to some extent be villified by subsequent generations) just like every generation of conservatives before him. It's just that the US system forestalls their extinction longer than it does elsewhere in the world.

[cmccuist]

I would submit that communism and socialism are liberal ideologies and there are a lot of old white men who are pretty convinced that those are legitamate forms of government.

If that is civilization's destiny, I hope we can forestall that as long as possible, if not indenfinitely.

[Superman]

Now here's a logical, rational argument that would help this Board if more folks used it:

"It would be great if you lib's tried a bit harder to not argue like "8 year-olds". "

Island, there is a difference between those wars and this one. This hatred they have for us, is a hatred of imperialism and colonialism. They hate us for doign what Dubya is doing. He's fueling the fire. When he;s done, he'll pretend like there are now less people that hate us. But the opposite will be true. You know it and I know it. Or at least, I give you credit for knowing it. Perhaps I shouldn't.

[cmccuist]

Originally posted by Superman
I understand, Craig. And I'll return to a comment I have made several times. does Dubya plan on killing ALL the brown-faces in the Middle East? If genocide is his goal, then I suspect he will miss a few and trouble will continue. I don't really think that genocide is his goal though, which means that, when he's done, there will be MILLIONS of live brownfaced muslims left. When that happens, then come and tell me about how silly diplomacy is.

W is not approaching genocide by even the most "liberal" reasoning. If he were interested in genocide, we wouldn't be sending in troops. We would be dropping nukes.

The W doctrine is to punish governments that aide and harbor terrorism. The US went to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties - even to the point of putting US troops in harms way. That doesn't sound like genocide to me.

I'm all for diplomacy when used in the right circumstances. Diplomacy is fine for working with countries that aren't crazy.

[Moneyguy1]

I have to agree with Supe on this one.

Not to belabor a point, but the so-called "sensitivity' issue is simply taking into account the customs and mores of the countries involved, NOT showing "sensitivity" to those individuals or groups that are out to kill us.

It is disingenuous of the VP and his wife (as I have said before) to dismiss this aspect of diplomacy. Their comments make it sound like cultural sensitivity is a weakness. And, just to make things even more complex,Congress, in authorizing the war, simply gave the President the keys to the gas pump. That I find nearly unforgivable on both sides of the aisle. More and more it appears, at least to me that one of the reasons for the invasion was revenge, pure and simple. Too bad a little more thought was not placed on the "mission" before it was carried out. Perhaps it might not have been Iraq after all.......We have an administration that seems to be made up of "War Lovers" who, with the exception of Mr. Powell, have never seen a war up front and personal, but seem to think that unilateral retaliation is the answer. They seem to do well initially, but lack the "sensitivity" to win those "hearts and minds".

Let's make something perfectly clear. Any progress in Iraq is being made by the footsoldiers doing the best in a bad situation, trying what the common American does best, and trying to do it with a hammer in one hand and a rifle in the other. Our civilian leadership is cluleless as to everyday activity in that culture (the "sensitivity" issue), and our men and women have had to follow a very fast learning curve. They are to be respected and congratulated. Thrust into what was a totalitarian mindset and trying to project democracy. I can think of nothing more daunting.

If small bands of individuals can spread us thin enough and slow down our economy, they can, over time, bleed us dry and win. This is a fight we cannot take on alone. It will be The death of a thousand cuts...It takes global committment and unprecedented cooperation, something we should be working on constantly.

[techweenie]

Expressed a different way, the 9/11 attacks showed enormous sensitivity to the balance of target value in a dollar sense and target value in an emotional sense to Americans.

About 11 months later, there was talk of a 'dirty bomb' being set off in Vegas, and that would have had huge economic impact, but really didn't make sense in terms of what would hurt Americans' pride.

It's a fatal weakness to fail to understand your enemy. It's also a fatal weakness to disregard the sensitivities of a culture you hope to win over to your side.

My personal opinion is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been waged with an unusual degree of sensitivity. But we can do even better.

[Superman]

Bob makes an excellent point. The death of a thousand cuts. With a handful of box cutters, these guys have coaxed us to spend bazillions of dollars, used up an arsenal of weapons, endured the deaths of a thousand soldiers and taken on a bit of political upheaval. Bin Laden is very possibly feeling like this strategy is working even better than he'd hoped. Now, if he can coax us into fighting on another front.......

[Moneyguy1]

From Knight-Ridder Newspapers Bob Fernandez

"PHILADELPHIA- Waiting for a job interview in the Accu Staffing office in Cherry Hill, Pa., the other day, 35 year old Seth Rosen was seeking to catch one of the biggest waves of this economic expansion- a part time job.

Rosen is a computer systems analyst who has been without full time work in his profession since 2001. To earn money this summer, he resorted to digging ditches and other manual labor for a construction company.

He has plenty of company. Even as the unemployment rate has declined in 2004 and economic output is expanding, the growth n the U.S. labor market is coming from part time-workers who clock less than 35 hours a week and typically aren't offered health benefits.

That leads some economists to question the staying power of the recovery. "It's premature to say the economy has recovered" said Andrew Reamer, economist and owner of Andrew Reamer and Associates in Newton Mass. He said that while indicators such as corporate profite and gross domestic product "look great," there are fewer full time workers than three years ago and 12 percent more part timers.

Using July as a base month, the economy has shed 100,000 full time jobs from the depths of the recession in July 2001 through last month, according to the Labor Department household survey data that is not adjusted for seasonal fluctuations. The nation has 114.3 million full time workers.

At the same time, the economy has added 2.5 million pert timers, an 11.6 percent gain, to 24.4 million workers in the three years. This includes self employed people who do not consider their jobs full time."

Later on in the article:

"While the official unemployment rate is 5.5 percent, the "underemployment" rate in the nation is 9.6 percent. The underemployment rate calculates those people in part time jobs but who want full time positions and those who have stopped looking for jobs because they don't believe they would get hired."

Still later

"A separate payroll survey of businesses by the Labor Department shows that job growth is primarily taking place in occupations that don't pay well, such as restaurants and retail stores."

[techweenie]

Whoever wrote that is clearly a tool of SATAN.

[cmccuist]

Originally posted by techweenie
Whoever wrote that was clearly a tool of SATAN.

If by "tool of SATAN" you mean Knight-Ridder fish-wrap hack, you would be correct.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by cmccuist
If by "tool of SATAN" you mean Knight-Ridder fish-wrap hack, you would be correct.

Attack the messenger, nothing new there...

But if he'd written instead about an economy that was flourishing and was creating lots of jobs, you'd praise him for his wisdom and journalistic brilliance.

[Moneyguy1]

I did check the Labor Bureau numbers. They are reported correctly.

Like I said in another thresd: Anyone sufficiently immersed in an ideology will always find fault with a view that does not conform to their own.

[cmccuist]

Originally posted by widebody911
Attack the messenger, nothing new there...

I only attack messengers who are tools of SATAN (reporters).

Seriously, the economy is sending mixed messages. The unemployment rate is low, but with "employment" being a subjective term. However, consumer prices are down, factory output is up and housing starts are up. So if you pick and choose, the economy is either doing fine or tanking.

[Moneyguy1]

Craig:

That is what the article was trying to say.

An individual formerly at $20 per now working at $10, is not adding to the "unemployment" figures, but is definitely "underemployed". And, without basic benefits, is a potential public cost if medical help is required, once assets are liquidated. Part timers are technically "employed" but not making what they could or did.

I did not type in the entire article. There is considerably more that contributed to some increased production etc, but is offset by other news.

As for housing starts...Did you know that lumber prices are up nearly 50% over a year ago? Concrete is in short supply as well. Want building supplies? Just go to Iraq. Wonder what these increases are doing to the cost of housing/financing/long term debt/and so on.

We, here in this BB live for the most part in a comfortable bubble; barely aware of the "outside" economy. Outside that bubble, folks are not all doing as well, unaware that the day of fiscal reckoning is coming ever closer; the piper (national debt, personal indebtedness) must be paid.

My line of business, guys...watching people make bad economic decisions and trying to talk them out of it.

[cmccuist]

Just for my own knowledge, do you think refinancing your house to get some equity out is a good idea or a bad idea? I think people will never own their house if they keep refinancing.

As far as the national debt, I can't help but wonder when someone in gov't is going to address this. When will the debt become so large that it is unmanagable?

[widebody911]

Originally posted by cmccuist
Just for my own knowledge, do you think refinancing your house to get some equity out is a good idea or a bad idea? I think people will never own their house if they keep refinancing.

That's the joker at the bottom of the house of cards we call an 'economy'. Joe and Suze buy a house for $100k. A year later, they have $2k in equity, but it's appreciated to $150k, so they take out $40k to buy a pimpin' SUV. The next year the house is appraised at $225k, and they take out $50k to pay off some credit cards, remodel the kitchen, and buy a boat. Lather, rinse repeat. Bad idea. When the market 'corrects', now you owe $190k on a $100k house.

I know this chick in Sacramento that bought a townhouse for ~$60k that's now 'worth' ~$225k, and she's taken $100k out in 'equity'.

As far as the national debt, I can't help but wonder when someone in gov't is going to address this. When will the debt become so large that it is unmanagable?

It already is. It's the crazy aunt in the basement that nobody wants to talk about.