World Forums

WalMart is not the problem when it comes to employment (unless you are a union supporter). Do you want to know what is one of the most aggravating thing for an American consumer? Calling customer service. It can be for an electronic item that is not working correctly, a product that you need to return and even worse, trying to straighten out an error on your mortgage payment. And why? Because you are dealing with someone halfway across the world that has no f^cking clue what your are talking about. How many tech jobs have been outsourced? We even have corporations moving their headquarters abroad. If we do not recognize this as a problem, then we have no excuse.

Huckabee made an astute comment tonight. He was the only candidate that was critical of the tax rebate plan that is coming out. He said it really will not help our economy much. We will need to borrow money from the Chinese and in turn, the money will be used to purchase Chinese products. So whose economy will get a boost? He also said that we should put that money into our infrastructure, fixing bridges, roads, etc. I agree. Capital infusion that will create jobs.

BTW, you can thank me for helping out the Swedish economy. I shop at IKEA.

The Republican debate was boring tonight. The candidates did not debate each other. Instead, they debated against the Democrats, especially Hillary.

i already made my 200 with the Giants.

Tricke trickle trickle.

Falc - I too share the same feelings you have about outsourcing. Me and many of my colleagues lost jobs because of it. I will also have many colleagues losing jobs because of office relocations.

But what can be done about it? Things have changed and unfortunately they are not like they were 20 or 30 years ago. We were told to go to college, get a degree and work in an office with a nice cushy job with plenty of benefits that is secure and guaranteed for life.

Not anymore. It's all about the stock price.

Falc...unemployment rates in themselves are really not the problem, not in USA. However a lot of the new jobs (mainly in the so called service sector) carry low wages and little of other beneficials which doesn't really satisfy desires of a population able to lift the economy by consuming.
(And no, I don't care for an iPod albeit I've been looking at that new toothbrush with a wireless informationdisplay).

But if McCains staff have decided to try and copy some succesful European campaigns that have focused on getting people in jobs I tend to agree with Mitt Romney on that one may question if McCain even understands economics.

US unemployment stats in graphics since 1948...see unemployment rates are under 5 % which is well in accordance the so called tranistory marigin.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyO ... nnual+Data

But I suppose that McCains people would think Brigitte Mohnhaupt was "hot" in her heydays too. Maybe he suffers from the Stockholm syndrome after being held in a Viet Cong prison camp if he is overly to rely on rethorics traditionally appealing to the workers. Not necessarily anything wrong with that in it self but a good idea is to check out if the prerequisites really are there. Similarly with demagogery about shareholders and the "evil of international capital", a considerably large part of the investments moving around the world consists of what is intended for workers pensions. If workers are to be toroughly educated about it I don't expect many of them would place their future pensions on a worse expectation of growth just for the sake of being patriotic (why of course there's surely a couple who would but I doubt most would).

Here is William Greider in The Nation, the venerable left-liberal magazine. The Clintons are "high minded" on the surface but "smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard at the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four years."

That's deep. I am sure that the opinion of one writer will shape the rest of my life.

Do you know that the word duplicitous means? And no, it's not a copying machine.

It's a dishwashing machine in your case, inferior. Beat it.

How duplicitous of you.

Isn't it past your bedtime, old simpleton ?

Race in Politics

81% of black voters in South Carolina went for Obama. The white vote was split somewhat evenly. So why are whites accused of being racists?

BTW, the big fuss made about the last poll was conducted of only 400 potential voters. FOUR HUNDRED (400)! That was the poll where it was predicted that only 10% of the white voters would vote for Obama. And it projected 60% blacks would vote for him. And the political pundits wonder why the polls are so wrong?

Pramzan and Falc

I was told by my Board of Directors to develop and off-shoring strategy whether I liked it or not. Why? Because of 2 reasons:

One: There is a lack of top qualified people here in the US.

Two: Price. I can hire 3 engineers in China or India with advanced degrees for 1 engineer with an undergraduate here.

And yes, it is about money. Although right now the results are poor from off-shoring, the fact is that many places around the world are starting to offer pools of cheap talent. It would be suicide for American companies not to ride this wave of global development in order to stay competitive...not least to sell our goods and services to economies with greater and greater purchasing power.

Nevertheless, I think certain core industries should receive protectionist measures: agriculture, core technology, and banking. In an uncertain world, you just cannot sell to the highest bidder, lest an enemy turn your assets against you.

As to off-shoring per-se, I don't have any idea on how to mitigate this. All I can advise is that everyone manages their own financial destiny. Invest in stocks, bonds, real estate, and live within your means. Keep educating yourself and work hard. Stay current and relevant.

Banal? No. It is amazing how so many people don't do these things. Hell, I even don't take medicare and SS for granted. I assume they won't be there. I even have a health plan where my company gives $200 and I give $100 a month into a tax free investment fund I manage. The requirement is that it can only be used for health care, covering whatever my PPO insurance won't. In 30 years, when I retire, this should provide a significant safety net if Uncle Sam can't.

Above all, have family to back one another up. Some safety nets are eternal.

Falc:

Don't forget that this is the South and it was a Democratic primary. Come the general election, if half the white Democrats vote against Obama ( In case he wins the nomination, which he wont ) all the Republican whites will make up about 75 % of the vote. No Democrat has won South Carolina and Obama certainly wont.

WalMart is not the problem when it comes to employment (unless you are a union supporter).

No, and nor did I suggest it was. What I said was that the old mantra of having people in jobs is somewhat inadequate

Do you want to know what is one of the most aggravating thing for an American consumer? Calling customer service

Allow me an ironic humorous quip (with a serious backside): Perhaps the problem is in basic education? it would be interesting to see numbers from multinational companies to see if americans call customer service more often per sold item in comparision with other countries.

Yeah, USA produces a lot of Nobelprize winners but that is a rather small fraction... one of the main problems with the american auto industry was that an american worker was simply considerable more costly per hour related to produced item (and with no significant difference in quality).

agente..looks like you were wrong about obama winning the nomination (which you said he wouldn't). Southern "hicks" are not stupid, the can spot that Mrs clinton is positioned left of the average swedish social democrat and they know that high cost for medicare is part due to people like Edwards. South Carolina is also one of the states where the density between pharmacy stores is thin due to extremely burrdensome insurance costs due to all lawsuits. I may agree that he will (or whoever becomes the democratic party's candidate) have a tough time winning there.

Banal? No. It is amazing how so many people don't do these things. Hell, I even don't take medicare and SS for granted. I assume they won't be there.

I think about the similar.

Remember that the Democratic primary in South Carolina was among Democrats, which in South Carolina is well populated by black voters. Obama won SC because the blacks voted for him. Most of the hicks are on the Republican side. And it will be very different in the general election, which usually goes Republican in SC. The media made it a race race and one race clearly went one side.

Maybe I am not politically astute but does the endorsement from the Kennedy clan represent change?

It should be no surprise that the Clintons are playing the race card

http://www.slate.com/id/2182938/

Funny that a Jew talks about the race card. Youy've been playing that card for 5,00 or is it 3,00 years? You played the race/religion card to come to our country. ( strolls happily away)


Lillie.

Faust already answered your question. This was the primary. No Democrat has carried South Carolina as long as I can remember. Not even Clinton. Even Dole won in SC in 1996. Now, that's something.

In our country you're but a trained piss-bucket carrier/stroller. In your country too:)

Try harder, wetneck.

I don't have to. Your intellect is that of an insect.

You have to, otherwise you'd starve. Hit the bucket, mex intellectual@ROFL:)

Highlights from SC exit poll
by The Associated Press
Saturday January 26, 2008, 9:55 PM

Some highlights of data from exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and television networks in the South Carolina Democratic primary Saturday. All numbers are final.

More than half of the voters polled said the economy was the most important issue facing the country and that they were looking for a candidate who could bring about needed change.

A majority of Clinton supporters felt she criticized Obama unfairly.

------

DIVIDED BY RACE

Black voters dominated the South Carolina primary and voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama, with 78 percent supporting him. Nineteen percent of blacks voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton. While a quarter of whites voted for Obama, three-quarters of whites split their votes between the two white candidates, Clinton and John Edwards, voting 40 percent for Edwards and 36 percent for Clinton. Edwards' support came almost entirely from white voters.

------

WOMEN: RACE OVER GENDER

In the historic battle that pitted a black man against a white woman, the question on many minds was how black women would vote. They went overwhelmingly for the black man, in the same eight in 10 proportions as black men. Nearly all the rest voted for Clinton.

Clinton wasn't even able to win a majority of white women, a group she split with 42 percent of the vote. Edwards won 36 percent of white women, while Obama won 22 percent of them. Edwards easily won among white men, getting 45 percent of their vote compared to 28 percent for Clinton and 27 percent for Obama.

------

READY FOR A FIRST

Three in four voters said the country is ready to elect a black president, and about the same said the country is ready to elect a woman. Eighty-nine percent of Obama voters said the country is ready for a black president, but 61 percent of Clinton voters said the country is ready. Ninety-three percent of Clinton voters and 69 percent of Obama voters said the country is ready to elect a woman president.

------

LOOKING FOR A CHANGE

Just over half the voters said they were looking for candidate who could bring about needed change, a group Obama won handily. Fourteen percent of voters said they were mostly looking for a candidate with experience, the only candidate quality that Clinton dominated. Edwards and Obama split the votes of those who want a candidate who cares about people like them, and Clinton and Obama split the votes of those few voters who were looking for a candidate who can win in November. Two-thirds of blacks say Obama is most electable, while more whites think Clinton is most electable.

------

IT'S THE ECONOMY, AGAIN

Given three choices, 52 percent of voters said the economy was the most important issue facing the country, up from 38 percent in the New Hampshire primary in early January. Economy voters lined up behind the candidates in a similar fashion to the overall result, with Obama winning about half, Clinton coming in well behind and Edwards in third.

25 percent of voters said health care was the most important problem facing the country. Obama won their support by an even greater margin than he won economy voters, with Clinton getting just a quarter of their support. The war in Iraq was judged most important by only 19 percent of voters, and they also voted mostly for Obama.

------

POLICY OR PERSONALITY?

Given the choice, 6 in 10 voters said the issues were most important to their vote, and they voted for Obama. Clinton did a little better among those who said leadership and personal qualities were most important, but Obama still won that group as well.

------

LATE SHIFT TO EDWARDS?

A week of sniping between Clinton and Obama may have helped Edwards among whites. Half of those white voters who decided within the last week voted for Edwards, almost 20 points better than he did among those who decided earlier. But this late shift in support was not enough for Edwards to win convincingly among whites. Slightly fewer blacks said they made up their minds in the last three days, and eight in 10 late deciders who were black went to Obama.

------

ATTACK!!!!!

After the contentious Democratic debate Monday night, 72 percent of Obama voters said Clinton had attacked Obama unfairly, and even 63 percent of Clinton voters said she had made unfair attacks. Most Clinton voters also said Obama had made unfair attacks against her, but just 44 percent of Obama supporters felt that way. Edwards voters were more likely than either of the other candidates' supporters to say Clinton and Obama attacked each other unfairly.

------

BILL TO THE RESCUE?

It appears that Bill Clinton's campaigning for his spouse helped her in the state, but not enough to get her the win. Nearly six in 10 said former President Clinton's campaigning in the state was an important factor for them, including a quarter who called it very important. Blacks who said his campaigning was important were over 5 times more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton than those who said it wasn't important, although Obama still won most of those blacks who said it was an important factor. Clinton won among those whites who said Bill Clinton's campaigning was important, while Edwards won among those whites who said it wasn't important.

------

From a poll of 1,905 voters conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International as voters left 35 precincts in South Carolina's Democratic primary. Margin of sampling error plus or minus 3 percentage points.

I wonder if american people are really ready to vote for Barak Hussein Obama......son of a muslim.

"I wonder if american people are really ready to vote for Barak Hussein Obama......son of a muslim."

They're ready, if only because they will be faced with the choice of picking the lesser evil:

a. hated Hillary
b. Black nothing who's producing much hot air and no substance at all. Who additionally belongs to the racist black congregation.
c. much hated Republicans.

The irony is too rich to even contemplate, yet very much possible.

It is quite possible that hitherto proud nation of European immigrants would be saved from the self-inflicted destruction by the... Hispanics. Who are known for their hatred of Blacks (and vise versa of course).

No, really, as much as I detest Hillary, Obama as a President is a scary thought. Hillary doesn't believe in anything, which would be well within the political tradition. But that dolt, it appears, truly believes in his socialist garbage.

Time to talk about affirmative action blowback, dear liberal whities?:)

Don't you think Mc Cain as a chance against any democrats beside his age ?

Tronche

Sure, he's got a chance. But for better or worse, age does matter for many Americans. A lot. Not to mention that John McCain isn't much loved even within his own party.

I'd of course vote for him, but with a very uneasy heart.

Léo

As much I am against this war in Iraq & Bush, I believe if the next president is from the democratic party, then they will pull out from Iraq and the situation will be far worse now than ever....so if I was american I will vote for Mc Cain as well

Tronche

As I'm sure you realize, perceptions in politics are more important than deeds.

So even if Obama (less likely) or Hillary (more likely) stays in Iraq, you can be almost sure that the Armed Forces would have little trust in either. The current situation is very fluid as it is, to put it mildly, all the conservatives' surge triumphalism notwithstanding. It takes very little to snatch the defeat from the jaws of victory. As those remembering Vietnam could testify.

Falc, it can be so that those who voted for Obama did not do so because of his colour but because he seems calm and levelheaded and not showing the same ability to catch wind in the coat in a similar fashion that Mrs Clinton does and that he has no history of being an ambulance chaser like Edwards (sometimes experience can work against you).

The iraq matter is where I would have doubt about Obama, both him and clinton seems to verbally favour a quick withdrawal which seems unrealistic at this point (unless of course you actually want a civil war in the region which will be a hell of a lot worse than little Afghanistan) but Clinton does seem rather dishonest in how she argues about the whole of Iraq, which she did vote for to invade even if she afterwards have tried the approach of "the bad men in the Busha administration lured me to vote for their lies". Which basically pins it to that she admit to being stupid (or lazy) and not checking out and thouroughly evaluate alternative (which were available) reports about Hussein's alleged posession of WMDs and what threat he really posed.

As those remembering Vietnam could testify.

leo, and that is perhaps not terrific. These days you can see various TV shows with old hippies, politicians and various cultural personality venting sentimentalism about Vietnam and how they were part of that popular movement that ended the war (the other day I saw Martin Sheen on one of those sequences and thought they could just have cut and pasted him into his libertarian president on West Wing for the little speech he delivered).

The withdrawal from Vietnam was cheered (and remembered with sentimentality these days) and while many compare Iraq to Vietnam it is some differences. Vietnam didn't risk to become a wasp nest of terrorists herding up and Vietnam didn't entail within it's geographical borders the same valuable natural resources that Iraq does (charachteristics interdependent of course).

Lillie, no offense but I am here, you are there. And I have a sister who lives in South Carolina. The South Carolina Democratic primary was all about race and to the credit of the Obama camp, they put the blame on Bill Clinton. Meanwhile, Jim Clyburn, the influential black Congressman from South Carolina was pulling all of the strings. You cannot ignore the numbers. When you have 78% of a certain electorate vote for a candidate of their color, it is about race. Especially considering that the white male in the race only received 1% of their vote. Conversely, three quarters of the white votes went to the two white candidates. But here is the hypocrisy, it is bad for whites to vote for a white but expected for blacks to vote for a black. You don't think that black Baptist churches in South Carolina did not push their congregates to go out and vote for Obama?

The Republicans will hold the White House. The only chance the Democrats have is with Edwards and that is an uphill battle. Now that Obama has Kennedy in his camp, the Republicans are drooling. I don't think Kennedy gives any advantage when it comes to the average Democrat voter. He does open the door to the Democrat political machine where institutional support and more important money will come along. But ask a Democrat on the street about the Kennedy endorsement and you will see eyes roll. The Kennedy mystique is over, probably died with John Jr., who was the only hope of that political dynasty continuing. Anyway, the Republicans will have a heyday of the liberal Kennedyish Obama. And they have plenty of ammunition for Hillary. So regardless of their inept candidate for President (not that it is any better on the other side of the aisle), 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW will still be the resident of a Republican.

The battle for the mythical independents have been fought for so long that now neither Democrats nor Republicans like their candidates. No one seems to be either ideologically pure enough, experienced enough or simply good looking enough.

Then comes Barack Obama, smooth as a Bond Street pinstripe suit and polished as a Yalie, charming the crowds with his pathetic "change" speeches and never implying that he's here to deliver black brazzas. And all of a sudden Clintonistas smell defeat, so they're making subtle or not so subtle racist remarks about him, as if telling Whites all over the country "look, are you really going to vote for THAT Black fella, are you nuts?"

That line would have worked for someone other than Hill. The bitch has been triangulating for too long. D.ick Morris knows all about her, he's been there:)

Look, even with the strong economy, plenty of money, oceans of personal charm and running again Bob Dole - Dole, for Jack Kemp's sake! - Bill Clinton couldn't master 50% of the vote.

Hillary has got none of his charm, but all of his lies.

Finally, and this is for Falc, I don't see Republicans salivating. Would you salivate about 72 years old man? Or his rival, about whom we know as much as about Barack Obama.

No one to salivate and dream for, the era of heroes is over.

Leo - I am saying the Republican politicos, not the voters. Those running the RNC would love to see Hillary (first choice) or Obama as the Democratic candidate. And while up to yesterday there was concern about trying to tame down the Obama wave, now that he has Kennedy in his camp, works great for the Republican strategy. There are parts of McCain, parts of Huckabee and even some part of Romney that appeal to me. If there was a way to combine the best of the three, we have an ideal candidate. But that is not the case. I still have my hopes for Edwards but there is no way the media will allow it. History has to be made and the media wants to make sure it happens, instead of reporting that it happens. Look, Hillary became the frontrunner after the last election four years ago because the media pushed for a woman candidate to be taken serious in this election. And then pops up Obama. So now we have a woman candidate and a black candidate. No need for white men to apply. Nothing to do with the merits that any of the candidates offer. It is image over substance. So while we have had an empty void residing in the White House for the last 7 years, the Democratic party is doing nothing to fill that void. Not that the Republicans are doing any better but their opponents are letting them to keep the lease.

Here is how I rank the Republican candidates ...

McCain - Far from perfect. But what you see is what you get. He is himself and I like that about him and respect him. Has been a hawk on Capitol Hill but I don't think he will pull the trigger as quickly in the White House.

Huckabee - Very likeable and I would love to see the IRS doors shut down. His religious background does not scare me but I do think that he is trying to ensure the evangelical vote a bit too much. That part I do not like.

Romney - The biggest fake out there. Worse than Hillary. Will say what he thinks will help him at the moment. While I would vote for the other two above if the challenger was either Clinton or Obama, I do not have any clue whether I would vote at all if Romney was the choice.

Giuliani - You would think that naturally I would support the Italian boy. I don't think he has an Italian bone in his body. While I give him credit for handling 9-11, big mistake on thinking that wave was going to get him to shore. He had potential but blew it in so many ways, both in his personal life and politically.

Falc

I think whoever gets the nod, the nation is going to be disappointed, except of course dead Kennedys:)

Obama has accomplished uch despite the fact that I will not for him. To call him a nothing is nothing more than hidden racism. he is an accomplished lawyer and politician and a graduate of great academic institutions. Way more qualified than the current administrator, who only got their through his last name and the deeds of many, a story told elsewhere and beat to death.

Same goes for Clinton, a great legal mind that lacks the charisma of Bill or JFK but for those who doubt that charisma is not important should look back to Reagan whose only claim to fame was that he found the perfect formula to run on nothing but a line, "The Evil Empire". Reagan did not have the intelligence or acdemic credential of any of the current candidates, Dems or Republicans.

Face it, Reagan was like Seinfeld, his one pony show was really about nothing. Just like his wife and her "Just Say No"drug treatment approach.

I still can't believe the Kennedy's have given their support to Obama.

As far as Hillary and Romney go, sure they are similar. So they are indifferent to some issues? That's a bad thing? I don't think so. Give the people what they want. Isn't that what Bill Clinton did with the welfare reform?

I can't believe what a clown Giuliani has become. What an idiot. Just get out. One of the stupidest, if not the stupidest, campaign strategy ever.

Edwards will announce that he will drop from the race today.

This is one pathetic looking buffet table, let me tell you.

I am not sold on Obama or Hillary. Sorry but that's alot of nothing. I am certainly not sold on Huckabee or Romney. That leaves McCain. He is very likeable but I do not like the fact that he's a hawk. I have no idea who to vote for quite frankly.

LMAO@Giuliani. When I heard his strategy that he would concentrate on FL, CA, NY, NJ, Mass and Conn I was actually happy since I knew he would be doomed to fail. He is such a phoney. As mayor he did improve NY and he stood strong during his final months in office after 9/11.

But all the unions (NYPD, FDNY, Sanitation) hate his guts. They got screwed with their contracts thanks to him. He cleaned up NYC by removing vagrants from the streets and spruced up neighborhoods frequented by tourists and he increased NYC revenue by getting cops to write people up for the silliest of traffic infractions (speed limits of all things along with parking infractions). But he also outlawed adult clubs within 500 feet of any school which basically translates to every titty bar being closed in NYC. Can you imagine: people come from all over the world to visit NYC and it's a challenge to find a joint to get a lap dance. Unbelievable if you think about it.

Within the city, he made more enemies than friends.

LOL about lap dance. I had my car towed near Times Square during Rudy's reign and it cost me $150 at the West Side Pier to get it back.

Hillary will get my vote in the primary and then McCain will get it for the general election. My sister in SC told me this morning that there was a discussion among her co-workers and if Obama got the Democratic nod, they would all vote Republican. This included a lesbian who was complaining that the Republican party thinks that she does not exist. It is interesting how the Obama camp is going out of there way to discount the Florida primary results. Yes, no delegates will come from Florida (why are Democrats so stupid to screw themselves in Florida, I do not know why) but the results were very telling where Clinton received half of the 1.5 million ballots. The Obama camp say that the results would have been different since their man did not get to work his magic in the state. Do they believe in the snake oil he is selling too?

We are suppose to be the greatest democracy in the world. What a joke. The media exalted Hillary Clinton to front runner status three years ago to make history in having a woman as a legitimate candidate for the office. Then comes Obama and he is thrusted into the position for the same reason. Just to make history. The media is suppose to report history, not make it. And in both cases, neither are legitimate to take the presidency. As Casati put it, a lot of nothing.

Casati - Good points about General Giuliani's reign while mayor of NYC.

But the truth is, he cleaned up NYC big time. I'm sure you remember 42nd street and the filth that it was: drug addicts, drug dealers, prostitutes, peep shows, triple X theaters all over the place. Maybe he could have cleaned up NYC with less stringent laws but he did clean it up. I mean, I still remember going into that neighborhood 25 years ago and being walking real fast thru it. Not after Giuliani cleaned it up.

I agree in that, come on it's NYC for crying out loud. One of the most liberal cities in the world. If a guy wants a b-l-o-w-j-o-b, he should be able to get one without searching out most of the city for it.

I just can't believe that a man who has been as succesful as he has been, be it as DA, be it as mayor of the greatest city in the world, be it in the private sector, that he could fail so miserably running for president.