US Unemployment Rate 20%, could it be?
Posted 26 May 2003 - 10:19 AM
Yes, we are responsible for putting him Saddam in power. He turned out to be a bad guy. Sh*t happens.
Still talking about the American Indians? Red Cloud, a famous chief, once said, and I'm paraphrasing, 'They [meaning the Europeans] beat us at our own game. We would move in to hunting grounds and fight the tribe there and take it over. That is what the whites did to us, and they won'.
And by the way, why are you guys always having to go back in time? The Indians have little to do with Iraq. I work with a guy who is a 1/4 American Indian, and he ain't complaining. Oh yea, and he also gets a tax break every year because he is part Indian. From the very same government that once decimated his people. Imagine that. Things apparently change, at least here.
You don't speak for the Iraqui people. Most want the US there. And we will stay there until we can leave behind a functioning democracy. UBL did the US a favor, and he ruined the Islamic extremist movement. By having his 9/11, he galvanized a nation into protecting itself. You can put down the US by saying it's a wheezing giant, but what the US has done militarily shows quite the opposite. We are not going to live in a world theocracy run by mullahs living by medieval mores, which is what they ultimately want. It's a war, and we will win, that is certain.
Posted 27 May 2003 - 06:57 AM
Even at home they are using Sept 11 to justify dismantling their own form of democracy.
Clutching desperately to the Spt 11 propoganda to justify
foreign policy only bring greater condemation.
Robert Mueller director of the FBI in a speach on the 19 April
at the Commonwealth Club in San Fransisco admitted that they have found no documentary evidence to link any hijacker
to Sept 11 either in the U.S. or Afghanistan where volumns of
documents were collected.
The public is as likely to hear the truth about Sept 11 as they did
the assasination of Kennedy.
If Cuba doesn't like the type of government evolving in the U.S.
why don't you let them decide for you you don't want it and
set up what they think you should have?
It might not occur to you that many people don't want your plutocracy anymore then theocracy. And you talk about democrcay which involved people making their own choice
and not being dictated too.
You are the one going back into history, Eric. Who do you want to take us back to Caeser Augustus, Kubla Khan ?
Posted 27 May 2003 - 10:31 AM
I have no idea what you are talking about. You must sit down every day and read the ANSWER manifesto. Sounds just like it.
"Clutching desperately to the Sept 11 propoganda to justify
foreign policy only bring greater condemation."
Hilarious. Sounds quite dramatic. Who is clutching desparately? The American people support the war on terrorism. I don't see any desparation here in the US. Quite the opposite, actually. Condemnation from who? You, Germany, France, the UN? Who cares? Oh wait, France wants to be friends again so they can get contracts in Iraq. Pathetic.
Yes we have set up puppet regimes in the past (yawn). Yes the CIA did get out of control. Yes, because of that, Congress dismantled the CIA to the point where people like UBL were able to get away with 911. I don't think that was in the best interest of the 'plutocracy', yet it happened. Why is that Bader?
Once again, thanks to Bin Laden, the US is regaining its senses, and while the days of Manifest Destiny and Teddy Roosevelt may be past, we will protect ourselves from this sh*t called terrorism.
You don't seem to understand that the American people and their representatives have been working to correct past wrongs commited by the US government all along. With a representative government, that tends to happen. This is not a plutocracy. That is stupid propaganda. Certainly the rich have power, but Jimmy Carter unfortunately proved that anybody can be president.
Cuba is a dictatorship, in case you haven't noticed. It is a police state. People do not choose a leader there.
Hey Bader, where are you from, anyway? Can I take cheap shots at your country? Because no country is without sin, as no person is.
By the way, speaking of history, I think the Italian government owes me for the enslavement of my German and Scottish forefathers by the Romans 1500 years ago. That still bugs me. No reparations, no nothing. They haven't even apologized. Even Clinton did that.
I could write your response Bader, it is so predictable. I see through you. You are not responding dynamically to my posts.
You have a few points you just repeat over and over, in various formats. Start thinking when you answer me, please.
Posted 29 May 2003 - 10:32 AM
This time I closed the curtains behind me so it will be harder to see through me.
But I note you first said you had no idea what I was talking about
so was that the predictable part or do we have a contradiction?
I doubt if the CIA is/was ever out of control. They have more than one funding source so that means more than one budget
and more than one master.
They had so many warn them about the jet-fuel missles and
the big dumping/buying of shares in anticipation included high
placed CIA staff, there is no case to say they were caught off guard on Sept 11.
The bigger issue for me is why NORAD wasn't allowed to function
and intercept the hyjacked planes? Were they run down too?
Did al qaeda sneek in the back door and throw the fire alarm
when the planes would have been picked up off course?
Four planes Eric all close together. It would have been just like when the fire alarms went off at the down town Manhatten fire
station after the planes hit and the staff would have been just a keen to do their job in Norad as the fireman.
Can you believe Bin Laden didn't even know about NORAD
because there was no plan that allowed for the time it takes for
them to intercept. Can one believe he knew they wouldn't act that morning or believe he pentrated even NORAD?
I agree with a comment you made in the earlier post about what
damage OBL did to the militant muslim cause. That is why I doubt
he has left the CIA payrole.
It wasn't necessary for the plot to succeed. If it had been nipped
in the bud or intercepted the seriousness and the closeness
to a similar event happening was sufficient to do what they did
after Sept 11 - declare war on terrorists, invade Afghanistan
etc. So the big question is why was it allowed to follow through?
That has no bearing on external U.S only internal.
So whats been happening internally?
You say they are addressing the faults of the past. Others are
concerned about the faults of the present!
Was the voting system one of the faults of the past. From now on
the Court will decide who is president?
Will the CIA as we have know it retire because they can just
sellect old varsity papers to get a report on countries and regimes
to act out foreign policy as they did with Iraq?
Consider Eric what the patriotic career intelligence staff must have felt when the world learnt that Blair and Bush put out a dosier on Iraq as if from CIA-MI5 and it was an old varsity paper?
Cleaning up the past?
I know about Cuba. The point was - how would you like some other country tell yours what to do? Cuba would be the last straw.
You asked a question regarding Set 11 and plutocratic interests.
It put them into Afghanistan and Iraq- the oil and gas of the
little "Stans" north of afghan. and Iraq oil is at their feet. The commonist motive I am aware of for the U.S. going to these places
amongst the general public is the oil.
I appreciate the nature of your Scottish roots. My mother has never forgiven the Campbells for their massacre of the Mc Donalds
even though she is not hundreds of years old. They are my strongest family line ( plus English,French and a wee drop of Jewish ) so if you hear of any reparation for McLeans, McDonalds, Robertsons or Burns give us a yell.
Posted 29 May 2003 - 11:06 AM
No, I routinely and predictably have no idea what you are talking about, since you are constantly citing events and facts that I am not aware of.
Obviously you think about this stuff alot. But I must say that your knowledge base, from what I'm reading, is just wrong in most instances. Rather than address all the points, I'll just address one, to make my point. You think Usama Bin Laden is on the CIA payroll? That says it all. That's just wrong and kinda kooky, no offence. By your thinking, everything wrong in the world, even things that appear to not be in the interest of the US, are ultimately caused by the US. It is such an conspiratorial anti US world view that it seems paranoid.
Push for reparations from Italy. Europeans and Jews all suffered under the Roman armies. Yes, it was a long time ago, but I think we can make our case and get some money out of this. Of course, that is just a symbol of Italian acknowledgement of past sins, but money is so much more concrete than a simple apology, which Italy hasn't done either. I really think this thing can take off.
Still don't know what country you live in. Hmmm...France?
Posted 30 May 2003 - 09:48 AM
I am actually open about OBL and many things largely because
the origin of many things in recent years have been from
unsubstantiated US propoganda which is often found to be
false, chops and changes and often an insult to one intelligence.
One shouldn't be surprised the US being singles out given it's
claim by its actions that it is god on earth and even those who want to neutral are evil if they are not with them.
The parallels between the US recently and the Third Reich are too alarming to sit by and be a silent couch potatoe.
The issue of claims on Ancient Rome. Who is the modern Rome?
Those who put Hussein in office should pay for the damage he has done and the embargo, then we could add the priceless
antiquities stolen from their museums, plus personal losses.
But I guess we will agree to differ on that- again.
I'm a Kiwi Eric.
Posted 30 May 2003 - 05:09 PM
By DIANE STAFFORD
You've been out of work for 18 months and know 15 others who are vainly job hunting. You suspect that the 5.8 percent unemployment figure for April is government propaganda.
In your world, things are much worse off. And, guess what, in your world, you're right.
The "real" unemployment rate for you is 9.8 percent. You can look it up. It's every bit as real as the 5.8 percent that was reported in the media. So what's the deal?
The deal is that there are six government-sanctioned definitions of unemployment. The six measures produce a broad range of unemployment numbers. For April 2003, the range was a scant 2.5 percent to a scary 9.8 percent.
One of the midrange numbers, dubbed U-3 and defined as "total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force," is the official unemployment rate.
To understand the statistical spread, start with three basic definitions used by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Posted 31 May 2003 - 08:53 AM
Quit dwelling on paranoid sources and negative sources. Think positive. Get up, get out, and do something good for yourself and/or your country.
Just yesterday at work I was discussing with a coworker getting into a whole other profession, on top of what we are doing. It is not a job being offered to us, it is something we are creating together. That is the beauty of a free country, that you can simply create a business, provide a service, whatever, and succeed as best you can on your own merit.
In the US there is absolutely no reason an able bodied person cannot find work. The help wanted ads go on and on where I live, and it isn't that big a city, relative to many. You may earn less than you are used too, or you may need to learn a different skill set. So you work a fifty hour week instead of forty, or work 2 jobs, or learn a new skill. Whatever it takes. Sitting around whining is just depressing. It is not a good outlook mentally or emotionally.
When I was a young, pot smoking, ne'er do well, I was once unemployed and received unemployment benefits for as long as I could. All you have to do is show that you are looking for work, and they keep giving you money. It's not alot of money but at the time it allowed me to laze about. I certainly do not mean to indict all unemployed people, definitely not. But from my own experience I'm adding an element to your dire statistics that you don't mention. And how about all the people working on the side without declaring it to the US? In my line of work (computer support), you could [and some do] make a nice living simply doing home computer repair on a cash only basis, tax free. You could even do it while receiving unemployment checks at the same time! Why don't you mention that? It's a real phenomenon, and happens across many professional genres.
Doom and gloom, doom and gloom, that's all you see. The world is much less compicated than you make it out to be, and can be much more fun than you let it be.
Aah, New Zealand!. Let me start digging in the dirt.. ;^)
Posted 02 June 2003 - 09:45 AM
based on a common experience which amounts to stereotyping
the whole issue and the problems move on unaffected because
the public is divided and politicians (governments) play games with statistics to sidestep the problems as SmallMind has shown which I pointed out wayback.
I read a letter to the editor not so long ago which was written in response to the negative/positive tug-o-war which goes on all over the western world, that the writer had responded to 3000
advertised jobs and was still trying. The obvious obstruction was his age, in the early fifites. You can't retrain aging back down to thirty two.
A lot of people are cynical about human nature and the social
security policies of governments. Because some are proud of
their free-loading and a permanent life-style based on that pitence the right-wing types stereotype all human nature accept
theirs and other achievers as been the same as these
bludgers. Yet I would expect that the vast majority of people
was be the same as Eric. Their self-respect and creativetly
would eventually overrule any temporary "timeout" from the rat race.
The problems of unemployment and under employment are real
and the greatest threat to the family unit, the basis of western
society is financial stress. The labels such as unemployment
tend to lock people into narrow intellectual squares that
are smaller than the problem.
The real problem is that the discipline of economics, mis-represented as a science in my view, is inadiquate to meet the
needs of people in modern society.
People need MONEY to live. Employment is merely a means to that end. If modern economies doen't provide enough adiquately paid work then it should reform the systems so money can be
circulated to people other ways as well.
I went to an evening class put on by the local university a few years ago. The subject was the freemarket economy. At one point during the open discussion part the issue of unemploment
came up. One of the ideas abroad in political discussions was
the idea of allowing the minimum wage to go down to $5 an
hour. This was raised. after it was talked about enthusiastically by a few for a while I asked "what sort of an economy would that
support?" There was silence. Then the subject changed.
I expect that most of those present didn't know what I asked.
Forty hours work at $5 is two hundred bucks before tax.
That income would pay rent and one days food, forget about clothes, a car to get to work or visiting doctor.
Who would want to be a manufacturer or retailer in a society where wages get lower and lower so that you can't sell anything
outside of the basics of survival to an increasing percentage of the population. Little wonder the progress of take-overs
as competitors struggle for survival.
The Japanese economy is fixed ina deadpan state partly because
the downward slid of incomes and retirement security is causing
consumers to be frugal out of growing insecurity so the consumer
hasn't been rejuvenating the economy by demand.
The industrial revolution is long gone and the economic thinking that went with it should have moved on as well.
Posted 02 June 2003 - 12:25 PM
There are moments in public life when all is revealed, when the true priorities of a politician or a political party
Posted 04 June 2003 - 10:32 AM
scripture "if riches increase set not your heart upon them"
The issue is the heart of man not the riches.
If the issue was riches being evil it would say get rid of it not-
retain it but watch your heart.
People who are successful financially aren't evil because they are
successful, they could be by the manner they aquired it. Jesus
wasn't a "class'' act. He was better than that.
He never castigated people for their personal failings- let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
The people he castigated were the religious hypercrits who
were committing sacrilege. The Scribs and Pharasee with their
false teaching claiming to represent God, putting people under
religious bondage and the moneychangers who were cheating the people in the temple of God.
He was given gifts like royalty after his birth and he was buried in a rich mans grave, the grave of his uncle who was exceedingly wealthy owning tin and copper mines in Cornwall.
The man he raised from the dead was wealthy.
Jesus also spoke alot about false prophets mis-representing him
so don't take anyone for granted including me, check it out for
yourself. But you probably won't find underpants in a concordance.
Posted 04 June 2003 - 10:28 PM
The reason I know Jesus wore underwear is because he is wearing them on the cross, they being otherwise know as a 'loin cloth'.
Posted 05 June 2003 - 01:43 AM
The new accounting shows the United States is broke.
It shows the true obligations of government are 10 times larger than the Treasury debt held by the public. It shows the current value of these unfunded obligations is a mind-numbing $43 trillion.
It shows, for instance, that past and current generations of Social Security recipients will receive $8.7 trillion more in benefits than they will pay in employment taxes. Our children and grandchildren will pay $1.7 trillion more in employment taxes than they will receive in benefits.
Posted 07 June 2003 - 11:07 AM
Unemployment Rate Rises to 9-Year High
WASHINGTON, June 6 The unemployment rate rose to 6.1 percent in May, its highest level in nine years, the Labor Department (news - web sites) reported today, as the worst jobs slump since the early 1980's continued to spread its pain.
The economy has now lost more than 2.5 million jobs since February 2001, more than was previously thought, according to annual revisions released today by the Labor Department. It is the longest sustained period without job growth since before World War II.
"Companies are still cutting costs," said Mark Vitner, a senior economist at the Wachovia Corporation in Charlotte. "But it looks like the worst of the layoffs are behind us."
Stocks rose in morning trading, largely because investors had expected larger job losses, analysts said. But they later gave back much of their gains. In early afternoon trading, the Standard & Poor 500-stock index was up 3.45 points, or 0.4 percent, at 993.59. Still, stocks are up substantially since March as hopes of an economic rebound have grown.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users