posted 12-18- 11:40 PM            

"Since Sept. 11, they have raised the hourly wage from $8 to $10."

Woohoo!! Big Bucks. Well, at least the rent is dropping here in Austin now that the Republican Recession is in full swing.

Federalize airport security.

Stop giving billions of dollars to companies that lay-off tens of thousands of people, yet award security contracts to the lowest bidder.

posted 12-19- 11:11 PM               

Let's face it, the "underpaid" baggage checkers on 9/11 did everything required of them by the FAA. No guns, bombs or metal knives larger than a 3" blade were on those planes. These were the standards at the time, yet the hijackings still took place.

If $100,000/year special forces commandos were checking baggage and passengers on 9/11 with these standards, the hijackings would still have occured. This is why putting these people on the government payroll will not improve things if everything else remains the same. Conversely, if the training and performance standards improve, why couldn't non-government employees do the job?

Take food handling for example. For safety reasons the government has sanitation standards and inspectors to enforce them, but the food handling itself is not done by federal employees. Should we federalize all the restaurant workers in the country to insure that our food is safe? How about airline mechanics? Planes do go down due to mechanical failure. Would federalizing them make our planes safer?

Now, the hijackers themselves were ALL in the country illegally. Whose responsibility was it to make sure that didn't happen? The INS - a federal agency with federal employees.

If we have to blame the hijacking on someone for not doing their job, it was the INS government employees who allowed the hijackings to take place, not the baggage checkers. Federalizing the baggage checkers is a liberal knee-jerk reaction. That's always their answer - let the government do it.

posted 12-20- 01:23 AM               

Also, the rules you say were at fault...guess who wrote them...Government employees at the FAA.

posted 12-20- 12:30 PM               

And by the way Dan, this is not a Republican recession. Your pretty boy Bill is the one who set this one up...

posted 12-20- 01:15 PM               

Oh really? So, exactly what did Clinton do to cause this recession? If you are so certain that the weakening economy is Clinton's fault, then you should have no trouble listing what Clinton did to cause this downturn. Of course, you won't be able to come up with anything because what you are repeating is merely the newest Republican mantra as handed down by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Reagan, and the army of conservative pundits out there.

Furthermore, the Republican Congress during Clinton repeatedly took credit for the economy when the economy was good. I almost started to believe them. Of course, now that things are bad, they claim it was all Clinton's fault.

You can't have it both ways.

posted 12-20- 01:40 PM               

If you really want to put a name on it, its Greenspans recession. He's the one who hit the brakes too hard and fast (during the Clinton years)..

posted 12-20- 01:42 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry+:
Also, the rules you say were at fault...guess who wrote them...Government employees at the FAA.

---

And who controls the FAA? The airlines.

posted 12-20- 02:05 PM               

Blame VC's if you need a more personal blame... they were responsible for giving so much $$$ to tech companies... or even companies that should never have been tech companies, they made them into tech companies!

Once all these companies died and took out all the infrastructure that supported them, you get the layoffs, stocks falling, a negative feeling about the immediate future... then you get Sep 11th, blammo!

You guys are silly to think that anything a president does has such a direct impact. They can certainly help or hurt the situation, but that's all. In fact I think that the democrat's usual idea to stimulate the economy works just as well as the republicans. Both sides try to create positive momentum, one on the business side, and one on the consumer side.

I do think the democrats have dropped the ball on this latest economic stimulus thing... exactly how is extending healthcare benefits for people who voluntarily leave their jobs going to stimulate the economy????

Right now the only thing holding back the economy is consumer confidence... which is low because of so many lay offs. Funny thing is that the economy continues to do well despite the fact that it is doing so bad! This is an odd time... There is as much valid hope for a very quick recovery as there is valid concern of a fast and continuing down turn.

It does however, at this point, seem very tied to the war effort. I think what is up in the air here is our return to stability. Once stable again, I predict a fast growth... fueled yet again by tech stocks! But "this time," they will (and are now starting to) claim, "we got it right!"

Those companies left in business today who survived Black April are strengthened... and almost all of them have one thing in common: they believe that the mistake of the companies who died was all about cost. While they could forecast large profits thanks to quick and vast growth, this only held if increased growth did not also incur higher costs... and each company that is now gone showed that they could not keep costs down. A $40 year sound allot worse when you are looking at the $40 cost for the year. (A B-side to this are the companies that could not scale up because the market was just not there... this was all part of the greedy scheme to sell a stupid hopeless "sexy tech" company to some other larger idiot who sold a crock when he promised an IPO within the year)

Not even kings can control an economy... and Greenspan might have his mitts on inflation and such, but he's not going to put the firecracker under the butt of productivity like the promise of quick riches to those who deliver... incentive is key, and right now no one can get a good sense of how hopeful to be about success. But I hear allot of new optimism from the big guys today... at least for "their" companies - because "they are getting it right" now!

posted 12-20- 02:37 PM               

Greenspan most certainly did torpedo the
economy. Even Bill O'Rielly agrees with me
on this one. I think he did it to try and
make Clinton and Gore look bad right before
the election. He is after all a republican.

posted 12-20- 03:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snickers:
Yes, by all means lets give the security contract back to ArgonBright(sp). So they can knowingly hire more felons and illegal aliens to perform security in our airports during a time of war. BTW - Dont knock the INS too hard. Have you seen their levels of staffing for the amount of border (and coast) they have to patrol??? They ask for funds and are repeatedly turned down.

[This message has been edited by Snickers (edited 12-20-2001).]

---

Snickers, I'm not proposing that we maintain the status quo. I'm just waiting for someone to explain how the government is going to do it better. If the government underfunds a service as important as the INS which results in active terrorist cells in the US, what makes you think the airport security agency will get sufficient funding (over the long term)?

I see this as just another power grab by the liberals to expand government and they are using a crisis to cover their actions. The entire liberal agenda is to make as many people as possible either work for the government or depend on the government. As you "nationalize" industries for the "common good" you get closer and closer to socialism.

posted 12-20- 03:11 PM               

Jerry - I am not talking about nationalizing it. I am talking about making it a separate branch of the armed forces.....

posted 12-20- 04:10 PM               

Of course your beloved party wouldn't pull
any under-handed stuff, would they? I mean,
like, stealing documents from democratic
hedquarters during an election year or using
weapon sales to a government who's loyalties
to the US are questionable and then taking
the money to fund an illegal war in South
America. Nah, they wouldn't do any dirty stuff.

posted 12-20- 04:58 PM               

All industries lobby, Snickers. Does this mean that all government agencies are controlled by the lobbyists? Where's the logic?

Jerry - I am not talking about nationalizing it. I am talking about making it a separate branch of the armed forces.....

What's the difference? Government employees paid by tax dollars. No incentive to be efficent. Miles of bureaucratic red tape to get anything done. Even in the armed forces, who designs and builds the weapons? Not the military. What makes our military so good? Better (civilian made) weapons and computers and the strongest industrial base (civilian) in the world.

No question airport security needs higher standards and better equipment and better trained employees and government inspection and enforcement....but why do all the airport personnel have to be government employees (assuming they won't be military) who can never be fired and have no incentive to do a better job and no way to be rewarded for doing a better job? What do you do when their Union (and being government employees you can bet they will be unionized) calls for a strike? (Of course, if we have a Ronald Reagan in office, they'll be replaced...like with the air taffic controllers.)

For example, safety in the workplace is the responsibility of the employer, not the government. With OSHA there are government regulations and inspectors and a place for employees to go to complain about hazards, but the companies hire their own safety managers and do their own safety training. Yes accidents still happen. But they happen in the military too and government operations too. You know what the #1 cause of accidents in the workplace is? Auto accidents! The #2 cause is personal violence. You remove these societal causes and American business has done a pretty good job, without the federalizing all safety employees.

Where do you draw the line Snickers? Should everyone responsible for our safety be Federalized? Like I mentioned above, airline mechanics? Food handlers? How about the pilots themselves? Or bus drivers?

posted 12-20- 07:26 PM               

All industries lobby, Snickers. Does this mean that all government agencies are controlled by the lobbyists? Where's the logic?

The logic is that there is NO counter lobbying force. Talk to people who do investigations for the FAA. They will fill your ears.

posted 12-20- 08:19 PM               

1. This will let airlines and the air travel industry be more profitable... and they need help. Imagine if the shipping industry had to police the roads? Shipping costs would be crazy

2. Domestic security is the resposibity of the government. I agree with Snick, make it a miliraty operation... they do that work best.

3. You will never get great secrity in a for-profit scheme because there is no profit incentive in it!!! It is always a cost of doing business, not a value add.

How will the goverment do it better? They can pay more because, once again, profit is not an issue. All the money into security would not cost the airlines. We would all be paying more for it via taxes, but this is tax money that even I am for!!!

I'm about as big a privitization guy there is, but I see this as a win-win situation for private industry and public interest.

posted 12-20- 10:45 PM               

1. Haven't the airlines already been hit with a security surcharge on each ticket? The cost of federalizing airport security, like every other government program, is going to grow by leaps and bounds, esecially once the unions move in. If the cost is passed on to the ticket buyers through a surcharge then airline business WILL be hurt more than if they were paying for a private program with an incentive to be efficient.

The shipping industry (and all other drivers) pay for the roads through gasoline taxes. There is no free ride. I have no problem with user fees like this IF the money is spent efficiently which the Feds can't. And the policing of these roads is not done by the Feds. Each city and state have their own patrolmen, it not Federalized.

2. The vast majority of our domestic security is done at the local level. There is a reason for that. A national police force is dangerous because it is too political and too powerful. A local police force is more responsive to the community and is more cost effective. Besides, we aren't talking armed guards here like air marshalls...were talking about baggage handlers and screeners. Who needs the military for that? Military as "peacekeepers" often causes more problems than it solves. Let the police do the policing, and the military break and kill things.

3. The government can pay more? Why do we keep hearing about underpaid INS workers and underpaid military personnel and underpaid teachers? Private security, like any other business, will pay what they have to to get the caliber employee needed for the job. This is where government mandated performance standards play a roll. If the security firm knows it will lose the contract because their employees are too dumb to perform correctly, they will hire the people necessary to stay in business. If they don't, there will be lot's of other companies lined up for the business. Why do you think the average employee as Microsoft makes over $70,000/year. Supply and demand. Why wouldn't it work for baggage screeners?

Bush doesn't see it this way. His original proposal did not Federalize the baggage screeners. He caved to avoid a fight over such an important bill. He put the country's interest above partisan politics. (Something the demo's are not doing with the stimulus bill.)

posted 12-21- 02:35 PM               

1. I think the expense should be passed to all tax payers... to me the air infrastructure in Ameica is critical to all citizens.

2. True, but I think air security by its very nature needs to be oranzized at the national level. This is critical for success since by the very nature of air travel the security is very spread out... so there needs to be a good organized approach. Planes leave one airport and end up across the country...

3. This is not a show-stopper. There is nothing that says we have to pay too little... it is more a matter of priorities. Also I think that a good approach can save allot of money. In fact, the local control of schools is why they are such a mess... the school boards are about as far as professional leaders that you can find.

I good example is the military... not directly with fair pay for personell- but a good comparison anyway. The Military is set up so that the base soldier can be a moron, but the organization can do great and amazing things. It is all a metter of organization and cunning plans.

If one thinks that we are not smart enough to secure airports with a national effort, maybe the terrorists deserver to win

posted 12-21- 07:29 PM               

I don't blame Bush for the recession. I have never blamed Bush for the recession. But don't take my word for it, search these forums.

I think the recession is mostly the result of the "irrational exuberance" that Greenspan warned us about during the Clinton years.

Now, let's get back to you. I repeat the question... In your opinion, what did Clinton do that caused a recession?

posted 12-22- 08:24 AM               

Let me get this straight. Greenspan and the
republicans wouldn't torpedo the economy to,
lets say, enhance their position in an election
but Senate democrats would. You have a strange
world Jerry. There must be democratic boogy
men under every bed and behind every tree.

Another thing, I'm getting tired of Bush and
republicans using Sept. 11 as an excuse for
not getting anything done on the problems
facing our country. The song and dance is
getting a little old.

posted 12-22- 08:58 AM               

You can agree or disagree with Bush's plan, but keep in mind that about half (or more) of all the business experts and business people in the world think that lowering corporate tax is the most simple and effective way to stimulate growth.

Do you know what "stimulating" growth means? Obviously Daschel doesn't.

And if you think war does not effect the economy, then you are pretty fucked up anyway. In fact it is even given a name... a "war time economy."

Face it, Bush is doing TONS of shit right now, it just happens that everything he is doing is not what you want to see done. I am a very happy guy.

You don't seem to understand, Smokey, that a leader's biggest job is to lead - not just do crap. This was what I did not like about a Gore. He was always bragging about "doing" shit. If I want something done, I'll call a plumber. What I want is leadership.

Let me tell you, the president could work as hard as Clinton did in the whitehouse bedroom and still not get anything done. It takes the work of the whole government and all the people in the country to accomplish anything real. That is where leadership comes in.

Now I work for a very liberal corporation, but I gather from the CEO that there is allot of positive energy out there and allot of good feeling about what the administration is doing. The CEO and president are beaming... this is a great time to be a up and coming new player. The dust has cleared and its time for some growth again, and everyone seems to be planning on that starting at the begining of the new year.

But this energy does not come from nowhere... it is stimulated... by good news, or good leadership.

When businesses see the government working to lower the burden instead of increase it, they all see happy times ahead. And this measn that the wheels of the ecenomy start rolling again... then we are back in the beloved growth cycle.

And what you communists reall don't get is that this benefits everyone. Comopanies can NOT hire when they are shrinking. So if you want good jobs for Americans, start hoping for growth... profits, clinking in the cans - FUCKING MONEY!

posted 12-22- 12:03 PM               

Well, let's not go nuts. I don't think Clinton was solely responsible for the boom economy of the 90s, but I do think he was partly responsible for it. Here is a good article about this... http://www.thenewrepublic.com/012201/chait012201.html

>The accusations that this is a Clinton recession almost always come after someone has blamed Bush for it, despite the fact that the slowdown began when Clinton was in office and the negative growth started in March only two months after Bush took office.

Yes... and I agree that it's not fair to accuse Bush for this weakening economy... yet. I do however think that his economic policies WILL lead to problems in the future. Bush is leading us down the same path to Nowheresville that Ronald Reagan took us down. Bush's economic policy relys on the same failed economic theories that Ronald Reagan used... trickle down.

>It started on Clinton's watch, that's all.

Well, the same could be said about the good times

posted 12-22- 04:52 PM               

I don't agree with Bush's plan. It's the same old republican plan
since before the great depression that don't work. Your a business
man Sv. What if you all of a sudden didn't have to pay any federal
tax on your business? Would you go out and hire someone or stick the
money in your pocket? Most businesses have the amount of employees
they need to handle production for the goods or services they supply.
That's why there is unemployment. Get it? There are too many people
seeking jobs for the amount of employment that's needed. The only
thing giving these corporations this money will do is let them enhance
their bottom line so the CEO can say "Look what I did." and get a raise
in his all ready obcene salary. Business tend to keep extra profit
and put off hiring until it's absoultly necessary. All these tax
breaks are is a givaway. What stimulates hiring is consumers spending
money to buy things. Then the businessman has to build more or deliver
more and he has to hire people.

More than half of business people want taxes lowered to stimulate growth.
Well I bet they do want taxes lowered but I think it's to stick the
money in their pocket.

Yes, war does affect the economy but it is not an excuse for not getting
anything done. Pretty soon Bush is going to stub his toe on the way
to the bathroom an night and blame the war for it.

I don't see Bush doing anything except going around smiling like the
cat that stole the canary and making speeches.

Sorry, same thing goes for leadership. Nothing getting done there either. Course Bush could always pick up a rifle and a pack and go
clean out a cave in afghanastan. Now that would impress me. Kinda make
up for his draft dodging during Viet Nam too.

What you need to do is stand in an unemployment line and see how much
positive energy there is. Not too much from the people who have really
been affected by Bush and his plans. Your not going to here much about
the real hardship talking to those CEOs. Copy this and paste it somewhere, you can post it back to me if I am wrong. Smokey - "We will
not see good economic times again until there is a democrat in the
white house." Republicans just don't know how to do it.

As far as the name calling, it's typical of you and Jerry when you can't
think of anything else to say.

Jerry,
Poor people don't give anyone a job. That's the whole point. Put some
money in that guys pocket he will spend it right away. That is what
will give someone a job.

"He's a self-centered, hateful, mean spirited, greedy asshole who won't let democracy work if he doesn't get his selfish liberal way, anything to make Republicans look bad even at the expense of the country."

Sounds like some people the democrats have been putting up with for years.
Army, DeLay, Lott, Ginghrich.

posted 01-03- 12:18 AM               

But he is still a "pin head"

posted 01-03- 06:44 AM               

-Do you agree Scully?
---------------------------------------------
The Truth is out There

posted 01-04- 01:43 PM               

I propose P-51's at high noon!

posted 01-05- 02:13 PM               

If I can affor to hire a new employee, I will certainly profit from it. This means I pay him $X and the company makes $X + $Y! Every businessman wants to grow his business... this is what expands an economy.

And allot of economic expansion comes from new business and new products, not just established business. Right now many, many people are thinking of starting a new business or marketing a new product. But isd now the right time? When the economy is bad it is easy to think, "well, I'll wait a year or so for the market to be more receptive."

But ther is a counter to this! When the economy is bad, costs are less! Goods are less, and labor is less and easier to find. This gives mne hope! Maybe I can lower my cost of goods and now is an OK time after all.

Now when the interest rates go down... and tazes go down SMOKEY, this added money goes DIRECTLY into the business plan! This makes the business able to become a realitiy even in this bad market!

But if you raise taxes and make it MORE expensive to hire the employees I need... then I figure, why bother?

I hate to tell you Smokey, but most business people have plenty of money to live on. It is not THEIR own personal money they are worried about... it is the success of their business! If the business fails, that is how you lose the MOST money. So you need to be very carefull before you comit.

You claim to be so fucking "nice." Fuck you. I 100% believe that lowering taxes and stimulating the economy will contribute to job growth and a better life for ALL.