What's funny is that you honestly think you have contributed something to this thread. Your clearly biased articles (see the quote I took from your last piece of "evidence") seek to find miniscule slivers of the economy such as manufacturing hourly wages and extrapolate that to the overall economy. Andy, the broad indicators of GDP and unemployment rate are great because they take into account all of these miniscule slivers (of which only the negative ones will be pointed out by the sources that you personally will read...) and aggregate them up to a total figure. T_J has posted the facts on real wages and you've done nothing to dispute those in your biased article that you recently googled and regurgitated in this thread. Andy, you simply haven't convinced anybody by posting your partisan drivel. Sorry, but you'll have to do better.
Yet nobody has proof for the accusations the anyone on this board is gleeful about U.S. failures in Iraq, or that we support either the terrorists or Saddam. TJ came the closest simply becuase he addressed the issue. He issued no proof, and some accusations in his response, but his respons was at least on topic.
FranchiseBlade -- ask yourself this question: Do you and other liberals post threads in this forum that highlight negatives or positives on the War on Terror? Obviously the answer is negatives. If you don't believe me, do a thread search for threads that were started by you, No Worries, glynch, wnes, and the rest of the libs. Quit acting like you don't know what I'm talking about. It's incredibly obvious.
The two options on the table were (a) taking Saddam out of power or (b) leaving Saddam in power. If you voted for (a) does that mean you supported Saddam? Its intuitive to say yes, but I think if you're applying strict logic, no. I was trying to think of a good analogy that meets both sides point and maybe the California recall is a good one. A vote against the recall is not an endorsement of whatshisname the sitting Governor necessarily because it could be a vote against the recall process. Functionally the vote did support whatshisname's staying in power, even though that is not necessarily the motivation to vote 'no.' That's where these disagreements are coming from IMO. Similarly, I think dissent demanding immediate withdraw from Iraq emboldens our enemies. It is well documented that domestic demands to do so projects an image of the weakminded decadent American public. All you have to do is bloody them and they will capitulate and fail to see anything through. Al Queda drew this conclusion from Somalia. On the other hand, dissent against the way Bush justified the intervention, or the way the intervention is being handled - does not effect this in the same way IMO. Your criticism could be that we should INCREASE troops in Iraq, for example. In either case I don't think such dissent is traitorous or explicit support for Al Queda, although again functionally the former may work against us rather than for us in our battle with AQ.
What you view as negative threads others view as facts about an unjust war. That's the point of the thread. If you can post facts that refute the negative threads, then do so; without slandering posters about being unpatriotic or a Saddam lover.
Actually, the funny part is your ability to ignore all evidence and analysis and expect everyone to just agree that the economy is "booming" based on average GDP growth. I was actually clicking on this thread to post 5...4...3...2...1... until source disparagement. I was too late. You do realize that the person who wrote that article is a Republican who worked in the Reagan White House, right? Oh, that's right, anyone who doesn't agree with your severely skewed worldview is "clearly biased." Real wage growth is off by over 2.5% in the last year alone. That is an overall number, not a "miniscule sliver of the economy." To make matters worse, the only people experiencing wage increases are people at the very top, and their massive increases STILL aren't enough to completely offset the reductions the rest of us have seen over the past four years. GDP growth is a great measure of how the richest among us are doing, to be sure. However, the declining wage rate happening at the very same time we are experiencing high employment. Even though we are at a lower unemployment rate than we have been in a while, the number of paid hours worked is up by less than one percent. The rich are doing extremely well while the rest of us, those who GDP growth does not directly affect, are doing worse. I will redily admit that I googled ALL of those articles. They were the first ones that popped up and were all good examples of the FACTS that YOU DEMANDED!!! Fact: Real wages have declined significantly in the last year alone, a fact that has been evidenced by my last post. T_J made an unsupported claim about wage rates, I don't call that a "fact." I know you cannot fathom it, but I am an independant, not a Democrat, and as such, it would be difficult to describe me as "partisan." I dislike Bush as a result of his unfounded claims about and subsequent war with Iraq, but the only "partisan" in this thread are clearly evident. I won't ever even try to convince you, your twin, or basso as none of you have the ability to analyze factual information. However, I provided facts and evidence that your twin's baseless claims do not belie.
And if you use said search function, you will find that in NONE of these thread was there anything approaching the "glee" that you accuse anti-war folks of wallowing in. Those of us who are against the war will, as a matter of supporting our opinion, present evidence that buttresses our arguments. That doesn't put us in league with the terrorists, nor does it make us Saddam sympathizers, nor does it imply that we want to troops to fail or that we regard the troops as any less than the heroes that they prove themselves to be every single day. However, by posting the blatantly false claims that you do, you put yourself in the same class with one of the most disgusting Americans ever to sully our reputation with his mindless, hateful, vitriolic garbage: Joe McCarthy. As long as you continue to spew said garbage, you will forever remain on the same level with him and as such will have to use a telescope to see up to the level of whale turds.
This thread is all over the political map. I'll keep it simple. Saddam gone = Good Our troops in Iraq long term = Bad Going into Afgahnstan after Osama = Good Unable to catch Osama = Bad U.S. deficit = Bad U.S. GDP = Good for now Cost of living = Not so good because of rising healthcare and fuel costs Our Army and Reserves going to Iraq every other year = very, very bad Labeling everyone who disagrees with you as a terrorist sympathiser = fascism Since the Rice alum are throwing their economic superiority around, what do you think about rising home values, over extension of credit, inflation and the possibility of the bottom falling out? Is there a risk of the economy being adversely affected by inflation and rising interests?
I didn't feel like starting a thread today, but to please you T_J, here's another negative article by wnes: Unemployment Rate Skyrockets Among Recent Vets Agence France-Presse | November 14, 2005 http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,80320,00.html WASHINGTON - The return to civilian life for U.S. Soldiers deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan is full of pitfalls, with an unemployment rate three times the national average. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics says that for the first three quarters of 2005, nearly 15 percent of veterans aged 20-24 are jobless -- three times the national average. According to the website VeteransToday, published by veterans for veterans, the high unemployment rate is "partly because most service members seriously injured in Iraq and Afghanistan are in the early stages of their military careers and possess limited transferable job skills or very little civilian work experience". The government is also worried about the number of veterans without a permanent address. "The tragedy of homelessness among veterans persists, even when the economy is robust and unemployment is low," the California Department of Veterans Affairs said. "Homeless veterans require remedial education, job-search and counseling assistance, medical services and transitional housing in order to re-enter the labor market," the agency said in a statement. Some 200,000 persons leave active military service each year. The government wants to convince U.S. employers to hire them. To tackle the problem, the U.S. government launched a series of initiatives to come to their aid. The U.S. Veterans Administration created in October a project titled, "Fulfilling the Commitment -- Coming Home to Work" a public-private effort so they "will have employment opportunities when they return home from the war on terrorism," the Veterans Administration said in a statement. "The young men and women who protect our way of life need to know that they will have the opportunity to work and to take care of their families once they are discharged from military service," said James Nicholson, secretary of Veterans Affairs. The Department of Labor announced Thursday a six-month public relations campaign aimed at veterans returning to work in civilian life. The Veterans Administration also plans a web page, REALifelines, especially for veterans wounded in combat. Job fairs for veterans are also being organized. One of them, earlier this month, was attended by thousands of vets. One of the organizations at the Veterans Job Fair and Career Expo in New York, the National Hire Veterans Committee, encourages employers to recruit veterans on its website www.HireVetsFirst.gov. "Your organization depends on reliable, resilient human capital. Veterans of America's armed forces have the skills, training and character to meet your toughest challenges for today and tomorrow. That's why the President's National Hire Veterans Committee wants you to know that hiring veterans is not just goodwill. It's good business." ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plead to your company to hire some vets, Jorge.
Is it not the responisbility of those who don't believe official story to show reasons why? If I think things aren't going well in Iraq and say so would people on this board not say they want evidence to support my beliefs? So now your saying that posting stories that "highlight negatives " means i don't like america?
Hey Andy, DOW has trading in the range of 10,000 to 11,000 for the last four years. Help this Rice Alum out. What is the real rate of return over the four years per annum? Don't forget inflation. I am prepared to be *boomed*.
It must be incredibly frustrating for people who actually think that you have the capacity to grasp an argument for you to retort with a comment such as the one above. It's like you haven't read a single post in this thread. Here's a link to the Hangout. These guys move a little closer to your pace. Maybe you can keep up with them. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/forumdisplay.php?f=13
Aren't you the same guy who posted a bogus Al-Jazzera site in order to pass propaganda? And you are talking about credibility? Someone here could say that the sun rises in the West, John Paul Jones is a member of The Byrds, and the Torah is the holy book of the Hindus and you have no right to question it. Once again, I do not want to be guilty of the same credibility issues that you mention. If that was not you that posted the bogus site, then I sincerely apologize in advance.
From the US Department of Labor Statistics: Real Wages: 2004: 277.57 2001: 275.38 1998: 271.87 1995: 258.43 1992: 257.95 This proves that you are incapable of interpreting data. You cannot look at the drop over the course of ONE SINGLE YEAR. I can't even believe I would have to tell you this. Oh, let me tell you another thing, Andy - the liberal rags that you read won't mention the historical trends - they will only pick out the stat that makes Bush look the worst. Wow, you just OWNED.
You and your twin bigtexxx should go to work for Karl Rove. He needs some added spin doctors these days to plug up the sinking administration.
If you assume that 4 years ago, the DOW was 10,000 (it was a bit below, but lets call it 10K) and you invested 10K in a DOW fund, you would have gotten roughly $150 per year in dividends, your real rate of return would be $686 (capital gains) plus dividends of $600 less $90 in tax divided by your investment for a total of $1196 divided by your investment for a rate of 11.96% divided by 4 years is just under 3% minus inflation of 3% is a net loss. If my calculations are correct.
