The anti-Bush game

[Arnold]

Very funny, but not work safe.

http://www.emogame.com/bushgame.html

[geldonyetich]

There's some humor there, but for the most part it's hardcore anti-bush propaganda.   I guess this is what happens when some fellow unemployed schmuck has too much time on his hands with a tough job market and a pirated version of Macromedia Director at his disposal.    At least I think he's unemployed... the game appears to be sponsored by a clothing company.

Still, it is pretty educational for folks who don't get overly involved in politics, if very biased.   I'd like to hear some pro-Republicans replies to some of the issues presented in that game, but they don't seem to have a lewd flash game of their own.

The graphic style makes me pine for old Lucasarts Zak McCraken games.

[MrHat]

Wow, I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't somehow written by www.johnkerry.com to promote online awarness or some shit.

[stray]

I'd like to hear some pro-Republicans replies to some of the issues presented in that game, but they don't seem to have a lewd flash game of their own.

I'm not a Republican, but I am conservative (I used to be fairly liberal, but I tend to vote for R's these days). All I want to know is how does Voltron and Hulkamania encourage any kind of meaningful political debate? Is this an attempt to cater votes from "teh Stupid" demographic? I guess it probably serves a purpose then. I admit, in that respect, Republicans are pretty far behind. The Flash game is going to tilt the vote. It's pretty symbolic actually.

[Flashman]

The creator is clearly under the influence of the condition known as BDS or Bush Derangement Symptom where any problem in the world can be traced back to George W. Bush and no conspiracy can exist without him.

It affects otherwise normal people who outwardly appear normal until his name in mentioned whereupon they decend into a kind of frothing manic rage leaving their intelligence and common sense far behind them.

A similar condition was observed in the years 1992-2000 where the object of fixation was one William Jefferson Clinton.

[geldonyetich]

I hope you can do better than "People don't like Bush Jr. because they're paranoid and see fault in everything".    The thing is, all of the political facts in that flash game seem to me to be well researched and correct.   The worst dirt we could dig up on Clinton was all personal faults in his lust for the fillies and some shady financial dealings he had done prior to his presidency.

If one can't meet each issue presented with a rational counterargument, yet is still honestly planning on voting Bush Jr. back into office in this year's elections, I have to lump them in the same catagory as people who are hiding in closets with their hands over their years yelling, "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR THE COUNTRY DISINTEGRATING, LALALALA!"

Largest national debt in nation's history when Clinton had us firmly in the green.    Massive tax cuts for the upper crust.   Highest number of joblessness in decades.   All originating entirely from the beginning of Bush Jr's being voted into office.   Seems pretty cut and dry to me.    Frankly, I'm wondering why we don't just vote the entire Republican party out of office.

Seriously, I like to think I'm open minded, but I actually need to hear some real justification to the Bush Jr administrations' actions.   I'm not finding it anywhere, and it's not from lack of looking.

If there is no such justification and we end up with Bush Jr. once again, I guess we'll get what's coming to us.    I'm no insurgent, I'm just a 1 man:1 vote guy, and so I'll have to roll with the punches like the rest of us.

[schild]

I let it load and got through the first dialogue. Then the hardcore music started and somehow the window closed itself. I'm not sure what happened, I blanked out completely.

[geldonyetich]

There's downloadable versions as well.  Apparently it was made by this company/organization/cult? called Starvingeyes.    Looks like they're heavy into that teen angst angle.

[Sky]

people who are hiding in closets with their hands over their years yelling, "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR THE COUNTRY DISINTEGRATING, LALALALA!"

Shit, I thought I closed the door.

[Flashman]

I hope you can do better than "People don't like Bush Jr. because they're paranoid and see fault in everything".   .

not what i said at all.

[geldonyetich]

Well okay, technically you said that there's people that blame Bush Jr. for everything and that a similar behavior was observed in the Clinton years.    You didn't say, "Aw, some wackos are paranoid and make up shit about any president!", but you really didn't have to.

Even taking what you said at face value, it still isn't a very compelling argument that the current administration doesn't suck major donkey balls.   Nor does it bring up any counterpoints to any of the damning political statements expressed by said lewd flash game.

[Flashman]

Well having to sit through that even with the speakers off and then taking the time to give it a good fisking to post here is beyond the endurance of most mortals and in the end wouldn't change anyone's mind about anything, so whats the point.

But I can 100% say that Bush does not drive around in an ATST.

[Alkiera]

I wish to sue for false advertising.  This is not a game.  There is less game here than progressquest.  Having the NPC dialog written by hat-bearing members of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade doesn't help, either.  I did laugh when Mr. T managed to get out of his bed, "for the children!"

...

Egad, that was long intro.  

As far as the budget deficit issue/bar graph, much of that is due to:
(a) the addition of a major new component to the medicare program, the prescription drug benefit.  Such a thing has actually been tried by the Democratic party for some time, and if we were under a Dem. administration, we'd be hearing about how great this new policy is, rather than how just expensive it is.  It's the first major addition to the medicare program in quite some time, and one which I, as a conservative, personally disagree with.  Bush Jr. pushed this thing in order to try to attract more liberal-leaning voters, forgetting that you cannot appease liberals.  Nothing is ever 'enough' for them.  
(b) Also unmentioned are the ridiculous number of things that were tacked onto several spending bills that went thru congress, namely the big 'spend money to defend the country' bill that went thru after 9/11.  Numerous congressmen added things to it, including millions to help alaskan fishermen, and many other bogus things, onto something which as dubbed a 'U.S. Defense spending bill', so no congressmen in their right mind would show up on record voting against it.  I will admit that this was done by Republicans as well as Democrats, but point out that Bush had nothing to do with it either.  He couldn't very well veto the bill, given the high support it had in the legislature.

...

"Just like in the Bush Dynasty, you'll never have to work a day in your life!"
Not to mention the Kennedy Dynasty.  And marrying into the Heinz family was probably very taxing on Mr. Kerry.  All these Democratic speakers go on about the 'trials of the poor', while sitting pretty with their multi-million dollar inheritances.  Talk of tax cuts for the rich...  the taxes on the 'rich' account for some 90% of Income tax revenue.  Most of the 'poor' pay no taxes, and often get large sums BACK from the government after April 15.

...

Repealing the dividend tax gives 'filthy rich people like Bill Gates' massive millions, while the common guy gets very little..  Failing to mention how the filthy capitalist Bill Gates has set up the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has a $27 BILLION endowment, and has given billions of dollars to aid worldwide health and humanitarian aid organizations, and help fund libraries in both the US and abroad.

...

It's oh-so shocking to hear that those who pay the most in taxes gain the most from tax breaks.  Look at me, I'm truly shocked.  People who pay little to no taxes, gain little to nothing from a tax break!  Egad, the inhumanity!  Another cute little factoid...  according to IRS data(from 2000), The much vaunted 'top 20% income bracket' are those households who make more than ~$60,000 a year.  Hardly the mega-wealthy.  A couple, both of whom work in an automobile factory, probably fit into that bracket.  My mother is a public school teacher, and my father does phone support for an commercial kitchen equipment company, and they make more than that.

...

Gah, more nonsense regarding the cost of healthcare.  This has nothing to do with income levels, and everything to do with the fact that the health insurance system in the USA is broken.  Health insurance is expensive because it pays for EVERYTHING...  Whereas car insurance, which is fairly affordable, doesn't offer me massive discounts every time I go to change my oil, buy new tires, or see a mechanic about a funny noise my car is making.  My homeowners insurance doesn't pay for replacing my carpets when they wear out, or for a cleaning service when I've made a mess.

...

The problems with Social Security are not minor issues, nor can they be fixed with even a few trillian dollars.  There's the issue that when it was started, for every person living on social security, there were 300 workers paying into social security.  As of the mid-90's, I think, the ratio is more like 3 workers paying in for each person taking out.  Obviously, a change of two orders of magnitude in the ratio of income to payouts is going to affect the stability of any organization.

...

Heh, Dems. are still bitter and confused regarding the 2000 election.  Gore lost, get over it already.  

...

Eh, got up to Hillary Duff, and had had enough of toilet humor and overt sexual grossness to play anymore.

My question is, what does this have to do with John Kerry?  He's delliberately not officially accepting the Dem. party nomination so he can continue to avoid spending caps on his campaign, and continue to accept donations from people he would not be able to take money from were he an official candidate.  Like Bush, he's tied to a massive fortune, and an incredibly large company.  Which company also has many factories overseas, where they can exploit the lower wages and avoid US Government regulations on working conditions...  Tactics which Kerry has frequently derided.  He's taken both positions on nearly every issue, and sometimes more than two positions, when possible...  Lately, he's simply invisible.  He's not stated that he's for anything, he has no platform other than 'I'm an alternative to Bush'.

--
Alkiera

[Dark Vengeance]

The thing is, all of the political facts in that flash game seem to me to be well researched and correct.

This coming from a guy that believed 6 democrats were going to be on the presidential ballot in November.

Geldon, why do you keep saying that you'll stay out of political discussions due to your ignorance of the subject matter, and then jump in at every opportunity?

Saddest part is that your less-than-educated opinion is based on Michael Moore-quality opinion pieces that play fast and loose with the truth for entertainment value.....and that you're probably about as educated on politics as 40% of the eligible voters in this country.

But hey, don't let me get in the way of the Bush = EVIL bandwagon. I was just thinking I'd prefer a candidate that has a stronger plan than "just like Bush, only BETTER". If you think I'm dissing Kerry, go read his comments on foreign policy from his own website....there isn't much disparity at all from Bush's current plan.

His economic plan ignores some inherent realities of capitalism in favor of playing socio-economic classes against one another....the folks at the top of the food chain are the ones who provide capital for new business ventures, which in turn create jobs. Place a heavier tax burden on them personally, and you've diminished their ROI, and making any new venture subject to greater risk. Since those additional taxes fund liberal programs that primarily benefit the lowest socio-economic classes, you're effectively using the government to trim wealth from the richest to prop up the poorest. It's well-intentioned, trying to create a larger middle class...but if the wealthiest Americans don't have sufficient incentive to invest, new businesses and jobs are going to suffer....which may actually make MORE people dependent on the government for a "hand up". The only thing I like about his economic strategy is the plan to discourage overseas outsourcing. Not revolutionary, but a solid plan that I could get behind regardless of party affiliations.

Of course, that'd be educating yourself on politics....doing some research. Something which you refused to do back on WTO because it would take time away from your gaming, posting, and being unemployed.

Shit, somebody wake me up when this fucktard's opinion becomes relevant.

Bring the noise.
Cheers...............

[Dark Vengeance]

*snip* Alkiera

Great post. Many strong points, and well written. Good on you, Alkiera.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[Tebonas]

Well of course for a pure blood capitalist that sounds bad, Dark. But that social capitalism works in many countries, and the horror scenarios you try to develop here are not supported by facts.

If what you said was true, Europes economy was in shambles, which it aint. So you can say you don't like that approach, and that certainly is a valid option. But if a majority of the Americans want that approach, it will work as well. As it did in other countries - for centuries.

[Mesozoic]

I thought the Anti-Bush game was the one where you try to think beyond knee-jerk nationalism.

[Dark Vengeance]

Well of course for a pure blood capitalist that sounds bad, Dark. But that social capitalism works in many countries, and the horror scenarios you try to develop here are not supported by facts.

Those "pure blood capitalists" are primarily the ones doing the investing.

I seem to have left my crystal ball in my other jacket. I wasn't aware that "could" and "might" needed to be supported by facts as opposed to sound economic theory. It is speculation on my part, looking at something other than the sunny-side scenario.

You're also trying to imply that I'm saying that all investment would cease....it's not a binary thing. We're talking in degrees here. Effectively, if the personal tax is greater for investor_01, any investment he considers now has to make that much more to provide a sufficient ROI for him. The need for greater earnings to reach that point means that the investor has a greater risk exposure. Thus, there is less incentive to make the investment.

This doesn't mean that nobody will invest in anything....just means that the tolerance for risk will be less, and controls on costs will be higher. Which should mean less than optimal job growth. Especially if his intent is to create jobs and grow this recovering economy, I don't think this is the best way to accomplish that.

Kerry's economic plan primarily helps the "Mom and Pop" startup, which doesn't typically create a whole lot of jobs. Again, it attempts to pump up the middle class at the expense of the wealthy. This is certainly popular among the middle and lower economic classes, who'd just as soon stick it to the rich....it will win Kerry lots of votes, but that doesn't necessarily make it the best solution for our economy.

If what you said was true, Europes economy was in shambles, which it aint. So you can say you don't like that approach, and that certainly is a valid option. But if a majority of the Americans want that approach, it will work as well. As it did in other countries - for centuries.

You're talking out of your ass...comparing the US as a country to Europe as a collective. Europe's economy has had individual countries as economic winners and losers for centuries. Those countries have not all shared a common economic strategy, nor even the same political idealogies with each other, let alone the US.

It's a flawed comparison.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Furiously]

You're talking out of your ass...comparing the US as a country to Europe as a collective. Europe's economy has had individual countries as economic winners and losers for centuries. Those countries have not all shared a common economic strategy, nor even the same political idealogies with each other, let alone the US.

Yea - ignore that Euro behind the curtain....

[Dark Vengeance]

Yea - ignore that Euro behind the curtain....

Cute.

He is pointing not only to present-day Europe, but to history as well. Even today, the countries of Europe have differing political and economic agendas and policies.

The circumstances between the US and EU are different enough to render the comparison invalid. Moreover, the EU has not been in its current state "for centuries" to make Teb's claims valid.

I'm not denying that social capitalism can work, I'm just of the opinion that it would not work in the US....especially not as we are today. Politically, economically, or culturally.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[Tebonas]

And they will be doing the investing in that model, because they invest to get more money that way. Money that is working beats money that is not working. The pure blood capitalists know that, and ignoring the grinding of teeth and the hollow threats towards easily intimitated politicians, they will invest in that model, because they only care for their bottom line. Just like Canadian investors still invest in Canada and European (insert single European country name if you are uncomfortable with calling Europe Europe) investors still invest in Europe.

Of course, speculations don't have to be supported by facts, but when the speculations go in a different direction than comparable cases that already have known effects, then one at least has to try to explain why those speculations go in a different direction.

All your points are right, but the net effects are usually benefitting to the economy of a country. Why? Because 10000 Moms and Pops pay more taxes and do more for the economy than one super rich person with 10000 times the money. 10000 middle class people with enough money on their hands waste more money than that one person. 10000 Moms and Pops channel more money back into the economy, thusly further stimulating said economy.

Mind me here, I'm not making a case for or against taking away money from the rich or giving to the poor. I'm just saying that it tends to be good for economy, completely ignoring the moral and ethical implications in my statement.

By the way, the comparasation is not with the European collective market, you can replace Europe with any one European country if you like. The comparasation is one of systems, not actual markets. Therefore not flawed.

Edit: Since you wrote your latest reply while I wrote mine. Actually I agree with you. I just wanted to show that it can work, and I don't know if it could work in present day USA. Its all guessing from there, you guess no, I guess yes. Not really something you can argue about.

[Nebu]

I think you guys are all missing the larger, overriding point...

As a voter, I'm pretty ashamed to see that Bush and Kerry are the best we have to offer for the highest position in the nation.  Has anyone stopped to wonder why it is that the people best qualified to do the job, don't want the job?  Look at the resumes of these two guys (CV's if you prefer), is this the best we can find to run the country? For those of you wondering, I'm not talking about Woodrow Wilson-like academic credentials... we know how little Wilson got accomplished.

The office of the president has become a fucking prom queen election with the majority of Americans so apathetic, they don't even bother to vote.  I haven't seen a candidate with a decent foreign policy stance in years and the whoring of religion to get votes is becoming a joke.  The last election was lose-lose and I see the same thing for the upcoming election.  It's all about which flavor of beurocratic shit you can swallow the best.

[HaemishM]

Very funny, but not work safe.

http://www.emogame.com/bushgame.html

Do not breed. That was fucking stupid.

[geldonyetich]

*snip* Alkiera

Hmm, how about the national debt and the massive hemmoraging of US jobs?

Overall, good information, much appreciated.  Far better than:

This coming from a guy that believed 6 democrats were going to be on the presidential ballot in November.

Geldon, why do you keep saying that you'll stay out of political discussions due to your ignorance of the subject matter, and then jump in at every opportunity?

Saddest part is that your less-than-educated opinion is based on Michael Moore-quality opinion pieces that play fast and loose with the truth for entertainment value.....and that you're probably about as educated on politics as 40% of the eligible voters in this country.

[a few valid political comments in the middle, followed by]

Of course, that'd be educating yourself on politics....doing some research. Something which you refused to do back on WTO because it would take time away from your gaming, posting, and being unemployed.

Shit, somebody wake me up when this fucktard's opinion becomes relevant.

To answer your question, because you bastards keep calling me out like this.  

Die in a ballot fire.

You define prejudice to see "Geldonyetich is talking politics" and immediately assume I'm trying to bandy about my uninformed opinion anymore.   Those days are behind me.  I'm not making uninformed opinions, I'm trying to better understand both sides our political climate.

That's why the stance I was taking here was just asking for some counterpoints to the flash game in order to get some equalibrium established.  I wasn't trying to (heaven forbid) make any political points of my own.  

the folks at the top of the food chain are the ones who provide capital for new business ventures, which in turn create jobs.

Enlighten me.   If this approach actually *worked*, why are we at the biggest job decline since the great depression since Bush Jr. went into office?

[Paelos]

Enlighten me.   If this approach actually *worked*, why are we at the biggest job decline since the great depression since Bush Jr. went into office?

Because we aren't. Check the Labor statistics and you'll see that currently jobs are getting added back into the market, and on top of that unemployment was at an 30-year low when Bush took the office in 2000. It was 4% then, and it was 6% in 2003. A jump of 2% over those years. Hell, from 81-82 unemployment jumped almost that much in a year reaching 9.7%. We are far from the dramatic statements of the worst job situation ever.

In reality, we had hit the lowest it could go, there was nowhere to go but up. Factor in the hit of 9/11 and you get the rest of the picture.

[geldonyetich]

Well, I wasn't saying job loss was *as bad* or *worse* as the great depression, just that it was the most significient drop since according to said biased flash game.  

If this isn't true, thanks for the heads up, that's why I asked.

Still, 2% of the entire American population is a pretty dramatic increase.   It may not seem like much, but do the math: 151 million * 0.02 = 3,020,000 with less jobs in Bush Jr's term than before.   Instead of every 1/25 people you know being unemployed, it's moved up to being every 1/~17 people you know.

This is assuming generous rounding isn't at work in the base percentages we're basing this off of.

Of course being an unemployed schmuck myself, I know where you can find the official sources of this information.  Wish I had excel so I could read the silly thing, but it looks like 5.6% is the actual nation-wide unemployment rate, and not a full 6%.

[Nosartur]

When I took Economics (Macro and Micro) it was stated that a Capatilist nation's unemployment could never get below te 6-8% level (IIRC).  That was the percentage of people that would always be changing jobs, not looking, or just chronically unemployed.  Well we have been below that for sometime.  Also with the problems of 9/11, the overall changes in the American Economy, and the dotcom bubble it seems pretty good that we haven't hit double digit unemloyment again.  Plus I know of places that are begging for workers unfortunately they require that you get your hands dirty which to many people look down on.

[heck]

But I can 100% say that Bush does not drive around in an ATST.

He would if he played SW:G.  He'd be the guy in Moenia, full stormtrooper armor, 3 ATSTs (can one person still have 3 out?), spamming REBS SUX/GUARD ME/REBS SUX/GUARD ME

Anyone defending Bush: wake up, even the neocons are distancing themselves.

[Righ]

Actually, I found the "I can say 100%" remark the most interesting comment in this web vomit. You don't even need to get into subjective perception to understand the problem with this quote. All I can agree with is that you can "say it" as well as "type it" no matter how true it is, or isn't.

Much like the rest of this bollocks thread.

As to the point regarding "it was stated that a Capatilist nation's unemployment could never get below te 6-8% level (IIRC)", it's worth noting that were you able to remember correctly, you'd also need to know the yardstick. Let's not kid ourselves that every successive regime, both Republican or Democratic, has revised the yardstick by which we measure unemployment. Let's also not delude ourselves into believing that they do so in order to hide the wonderful job that they are doing...

[Dark Vengeance]

Still, 2% of the entire American population is a pretty dramatic increase.   It may not seem like much, but do the math: 151 million * 0.02 = 3,020,000 with less jobs in Bush Jr's term than before.   Instead of every 1/25 people you know being unemployed, it's moved up to being every 1/~17 people you know.

Maybe you are aware of these things:
1) The dotcom bubble burst, which was basically a large market correction from the glib optimism of the 1990's.

2) Planes struck the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11, shutting down Wall Street for the remainder of the week.

3) Several companies were found to have used shady accounting practices to distort or flat-out falsify their numbers. Often the executives cashed their own stock out before this was made public and/or they spent company funds like no tomorrow.

Now we can go on and review recent history, or we can point out that with all 3 of these things, the stock market and many investors took substantial losses.

1) The largest growth sector of the last 10 years bottomed out. Not only was it flat, it was actually taking heavy losses. Even companies with a legitimate business plan were "devalued by association" as people dumped dotcoms and either cashed out or diversified their portfolio. This began under Clinton in 2000, and the circumstances that caused it date wel back into his administration....though I place the blame squarely on the market itself. Everyone wanted to be a dotcom millionaire that it blurred their view of reality, and they stopped looking at fundamentals. A big part of this was indicated by the issues in foreign markets as well....the US economy was propped up while the world economy was already beginning to take a dump.

2) The market shut down for the better part of a week. In the financial world, that was every bit as damaging as the attacks themselves. Economy is all about the exchange of wealth and assets, and for a few days, the biggest market in the world was closed. Stocks plummetted...many to all-time lows. Despite all the attempts to blame Bush for 9/11, the events of that day were not forseeable, and were inconceivable to just about everyone.....thats why it was such a shock to all of us.

3) Corporate scandals shook the confidence of the American investor. As a result, stock values didn't recover as they otherwise might have. Additionally, formerly strong investments like Enron and WorldCom came apart at the seams. The real meat of this issue is that after learning a lesson about trusting substance (i.e. a sound business plan and good fundamentals) over flash, the American investor watched in horror as they discovered that even the fundamentals couldn't necessarily be trusted. This corruption had been going on for a few years...dating back to the previous administration. Obviously the blame lies with the corrupt executives.

So the market takes a hit...what does this have to do with jobs, right? Well, when a company's stock price takes a big hit, there are 2 ways to get it back....increased productivity or decreased costs. Not only is it key to post profits, but to continue showing a growth in profits as well.

First thing to go in the corporate world is discretionary spending. This means that improving productivity isn't going to produce the desired results. B2B business slowed, while consumer business was reeling from some folks having lost practically their entire retirement in the span of about 2 years. In my hometown (Detroit), auto sales hit the shits, which snowballed throughout the entire industry. Improving productivity wasn't necessarily realistic, nor a sound strategy to achieve profitability.

So at that point, where can companies cut? Outsourcing, both foreign and domestic, became an increasingly viable alternative. Companies starting trimming "inessential infrastructure". Unfortunately, this means real jobs....career-level positions eliminated, including a lot of white collar jobs. Middle management took a shot in the nuts. The primary job offerings were not going to pay nearly as much, and typically involved semi-skilled or unskilled labor.

Where do the jobs come from? Overseas outsourcing has gotten out of hand, as capitalism tends to do, and bringing jobs back means substantially higher costs....which some companies cannot bear right now. Moreover, companies that are now doing well see bringing jobs back from overseas as compromising their profitability.

Now, we can talk about how the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq severely stifled consumer confidence....but then we also need to talk about Bush's tax cuts and rebates to spur consumer spending. Whether you agree with it or not, placing national security as a higher priority than the economy in the wake of 9/11 is tough to argue against...though many people have questioned the relevance of Afghanistand and Iraq to our national security....but that's another thread unto itself.

Not that Bush is free of any blame, but IMO he has handled the economy about as well as could be expected, given the circumstances. The key area in which he has to make a move is on foreign outsourcing....the downside to doing so is that legislation that sufficiently penalizes foreign outsourcing would be the death knell of several companies, while sufficiently incenting companies to bring back jobs doesn't necessarily get it done....and it would be painted as Bush giving breaks to big business.

So for job creation, we basically have to count on new business. Starting a new business is tough in a poor economy (it's hard enough in a good one)....even moreso when venture capitalists are still stinging from the "big 3" mentioned above. The risk exposure is high.

But, yknow, it's probably ***ALL*** Bush's fault....couldn't possibly be realities of our current economy, or capitalism at work. Are you beginning to see why a pseudo-educated opinion, such as you espoused above isn't necessarily looking at the objective reality? Do you grasp why that's frustrating to those of us that have actually made the effort to understand the situation?

Bring the noise.
Cheers...............

[heck]

So for job creation, we basically have to count on new business.

Based in Bermuda?

[Dark Vengeance]

So for job creation, we basically have to count on new business.

Based in Bermuda?

But who is to blame for that? Bush....or the capitalist system and current economic conditions?

I'm going to lean toward the latter...because Bush isn't the one that came up with the notion of minimizing costs to maximize profitability. That's the motivation of companies and their shareholders.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[geldonyetich]

Maybe you are aware of these things:
...
Now we can go on and review recent history, or we can point out that with all 3 of these things, the stock market and many investors took substantial losses.

These are all good points that these are just three things that occured which challenged the Bush Jr. Administration.   Far-fetched conspiracy theories and overzealous media claims to preventive incompetance aside, lets say none of this was the government's fault.   So, it comes down to asking, could another administration have handled things better?

Not that Bush is free of any blame, but IMO he has handled the economy about as well as could be expected, given the circumstances.

Okay, so that's why you're telling me it's okay to vote Bush back into office.   Bad stuff happened but he wether or not he had anything to do with it, he did as well as humanly possible.   Hey, that's fine, presidents are human - just ask the last one who took a hummer in the oval office.

I need a little more to work with though.   Is his spending plan really working or just wasting our money?   We know overseas outsourcing has gotten out of hand, but why didn't he just nip it in the bud?    Considering the massive tax cuts to big companies, why is it suicidal for them to pay for workers on US Soil?

You don't need to be a head of a political party to know that something doesn't wash here, but it helps.

Are you beginning to see why a pseudo-educated opinion, such as you espoused above isn't necessarily looking at the objective reality?

Defencive, aren't we?  I have yet to "espouse" any opinions, and as proof of that I've asked for the other side's perspective in the face of what's obviously a very biased flash game.  

You've provided that, thanks.

Do you grasp why that's frustrating to those of us that have actually made the effort to understand the situation?

Considering I've not done this strange thing you accuse me of during this entire thread, the answer is no.    

However, in my previous thread that got me neatly one-day banned before, I did insinuate a few times that no one man could understand the entire political landscape.    I could see that as being frustrating for those who think they can, even if such an achievement seems impossible for those who are actually in politics professionally.

[Alkiera]

Geldon,

On the topic of unemployment.  I do have excel, and viewed the data from the site you offered.  One thing that shows up from even the quick data on their website, is that unemployment has gown DOWN a good bit over the last year, from 7.7% in April 03 to an estimated 6.3% in April 04.  The numbers on that site are primarily just for Washington state.

Also, those unemployment numbers are a bit iffy.  They claim to be produced by using population data to determine the approximate workforce size, data on the number of "Nonagricultural Wage and Salary Workers", and the number of people who file for unemployment benefits, and munging.

There is a hole in this method, namely, small business.  If your business is small(basically just you, or you and spouse), you don't always get your salary/wage reported in that 'Nonagricultural Wage and Salary Workers' count.  Apparently other metrics(no internet source atm, sorry) indicate that a significant number of people who lost their normal wage slave jobs used the opportunity to start a small business, and therefore appear to be 'unemployed', tho they have an acceptable income.

...

The other part of the issue, namely outsourcing jobs overseas, is tricky.  In part, we can blame NAFTA, and other similar agreements.  These laws were sold to us as supposed to help out foreign countries's economies, by letting their businesses sell easily to the US, and doing the same for US businesses.  However, the same controls that made selling goods in the foreign markets easier, made expanding a business into the other countries easier... One of the stated objectives of NAFTA is to "promote conditions of fair competition in the free trade area", perhaps unintentionally including competition for jobs.  Wages are higher in the US, and manufacturing regulations are more difficult to deal with, so these foreign countries 'won the contract' so to speak, to provide labor for US corporations.

This sort of effect could be predicted by logical thought about the system.  As we know from MMOGs, tho, most people, including(and especially) developers of such systems, lack the ability to look at a system and logically work out the effects of its implementation.  As a side note, G. W. Bush likely had little to do with NAFTA, since it was put into effect some 6 years before he reached the office.

This link has a short discussion of the issues with NAFTA.  It seems to line up pretty closely with my MMOG system analogy, where the naysayers turn out to be right when the system is implemented and studied over time.

As far as Presidential debate goes, as I said before, Kerry has said bad things about companies, and the ethics of the leaders of those companies, who export labor outside of the US... but he's also married to the heir of Heinz, which incidentally has a majority of its production plants overseas.  Do those same epithets apply to his wife?

--
Alkiera

[geldonyetich]

On the topic of unemployment. I do have excel, and viewed the data from the site you offered. One thing that shows up from even the quick data on their website, is that unemployment has gown DOWN a good bit over the last year, from 7.7% in April 03 to an estimated 6.3% in April 04. The numbers on that site are primarily just for Washington state.

Good, while that's still way up from the 4.3 at the end of Clinton's term, things are going in the right direction.   Hopefully this is being done because Bush Jr's economic plan is actually a capable of improving this instead of some temporary phenominon (or worse, deliberate manipulation by those who own big companies pulling some temporary hires around election day).

Good point about how the unemployment stats are difficult to track as they only cover a noted portion of the stats.

As a side note, G. W. Bush likely had little to do with NAFTA, since it was put into effect some 6 years before he reached the office.

He's not entirely off the hook, as being in office is exactly when his administration has had the oppertunity to bring it up to revise it, and apparently chose not to.

Thanks for the heads up on Nafta.   It's interesting to note that a lot of this overseas job deportation was caused by a well meaning attempt to create fair trade.   I think I overheard something on TV in regards to that a few years back but, like most of the mass media I'm subjected to on a regular basis, quickly forgot it.

As we know from MMOGs, tho, most people, including(and especially) developers of such systems, lack the ability to look at a system and logically work out the effects of its implementation.

I often wonder how much Politicians would learn from the proceedings of a good MMOG and vice versa for the makers of MMOGs from Politicians.  I know that's not what you're saying here, but I just thought I'd bring that up :)

As far as Presidential debate goes, as I said before, Kerry has said bad things about companies, and the ethics of the leaders of those companies, who export labor outside of the US... but he's also married to the heir of Heinz, which incidentally has a majority of its production plants overseas. Do those same epithets apply to his wife?

According to www.truthorfiction.com this is ranked as "Fiction".

Reason being that:
1. His wife does not have a controlling share of the company and so had no decision-making capability in those regards.

2. Sixty percent of Heinz sales are to overseas customers, and having close proximity of the plants is to serve those customers better.   It's an entirely different situation from firing workers in local soil and sending them overseas to cut costs.

But hey, don't stop trying to find things wrong on Kerry.  We want a fair and balanced election, after all, and we need more obvious fault on Kerry for him to match his competitor. :)