"Clinton's Presidential bid hinges on Failed Surge"

[Brassmask]

You said they favor my ideology.

OK, lean towards your ideology.  Better now?

Can you give us an instance of the media overwhelmingly leaning left in its presentation of a certain story?

[sirs]

You said they favor my ideology.

OK, lean towards your ideology.  Better now?

Can you give us an instance of the media overwhelmingly leaning left in its presentation of a certain story?

Where's the media outrage of the mere slap on the wrist probation sentensces for the teens convicted for hate crimes in brutally attacking 3 white women in Long Beach?   When's the last time you heard a story of a military success in Iraq?  When's the last time you read a headline story of some of the successes we've had in Iraq?  When's the last time you heard a story of how good the economy is running "period", no caveats about inflation concerns, homeless concerns, unemployment concerns? 

As I said, a huge throng of the bias is in what's NOT reported

[Brassmask]

Ok, fine, then we agree that the media is NOT covering everything.  That's more important to me.

I hadn't heard of any hate crime thing though.  No clue what you're talking about.

Have there been any military successes in Iraq?  Tell me about them.

I understand what you're saying about the "successes in Iraq".  I'm sure there have been some school openings and electricity has increased to an average 4.2 hours a day from 4 hours a day but, I can't say that those sorts of "successes" offset the horrors that are happening DAILY over there.  As I've said before, we are to blame for the mess that has been made over there.  It can easily be said that we should have left Saddam in power because NONE of this would be happening now.  If Saddam absolutely had to be taken out, I overwhelmingly would have supported them just snipering his ass and installing another more controllable strongman.  That's how strongly I feel about how bad things are over there.  Even if there were pockets of paradise over there that aren't being reported, overall, the place is a charnel house anyway.

Let me meet you halfway on the economy, ok?  Yes, things are going swimmingly and the market is going up every day and things are cheery.  That's halfway.  But the caveat I would add is that statement is only true if you own a corporation, run a corporation as a CEO or are an investor or stockholder.

For people making less than $60,000 a year, things are kind of sucking ass.  There is no trickle down.  Wages have stagnated.  Prices are rising on health care, insurance, food, rents, day care, education, gas, heating oil and on and on.   We're all working harder but getting less.  And FYI, the numbers came out yesterday or Friday and unemplyment ROSE a bit to something like 4.6.  I think some people decided it just wasn't worth the gas money to drive to work at McDonalds.

These are not caveats.  They are facts.  The rising tide is not lifting all boats here, sirs.

[sirs]

Ok, fine, then we agree that the media is NOT covering everything.  That's more important to me.  I hadn't heard of any hate crime thing though.  No clue what you're talking about.

Precisely my point.  If it were 3 black women attacked by a throng of white kids, it'd be wall to wall coverave, with how racist America still is.  JJ and Sharpton would be leading the marches of how outrageous the Judge was, in sentencing these youths to mere probation.  Or how about a Black woman accusing a bunch of supposed white boys of raping her.  Wall to wall national coverage.  But because this was black on white racism, not a peep.  That's called bias, or if you prefer a more technical term, blatant media double standard.

Have there been any military successes in Iraq?  Tell me about them.

Have been told, many a time, ususally thru Soldiers' letters, BLOGS, and WH press releases when it doesn't jeapordize ongoing intel and soldiers' lives.  Most recently was that attack on the Shiite/Suuni insurgents, which has been consistently been portrayed as some overt attack on innoncent heavily armed pilgrims.  Never hear about how many terrorists and insurgents we've taken out, have you

Let me meet you halfway on the economy, ok?  Yes, things are going swimmingly and the market is going up every day and things are cheery.  That's halfway.  But the caveat I would add is that statement is only true if you own a corporation, run a corporation as a CEO or are an investor or stockholder.

Or an employee, who now has a new job they've been hired for with the increased amount of job openings, while able to keep more of their money thru Bush's income tax cuts.  When's the last time you heard postive news about the egregiously low unemployment #'s.  Clinton in office, wall to wall glory of how great the economy is running, which INLCLUDES those SAME corporations, CEO's & stockholders.  Bush in office, not a peep, and when there is a peep, always the negative angle to apply, either regarding wealth differences, the "quality" of the new jobs, housing bottoming out, etc., etc., etc.

All just simply reinforming the point of the bias.  The fact that it mimics your mindset and agreement in what they're reporting should be a clue

[Brassmask]

I think you'd be hardpressed to find an "employee" who has been hired into a corporation lately.  I'm sure it happens but I hear more about massive layoffs of late than massive hirings.

As I said, unemployment grew this last check.

It might be interesting to see if anybody can find some numbers on which companies have massively expanded.  Everything I hear says that "productivity" is up.  That means that less people are doing more work.  Leaner, meaner machines.

My opinion is that ManyHands make light work.  It makes more sense to me for a society to hire a lot and keep pay scales closer.  If there is a corporation where the lowliest worker makes minimum and a CEO is walking out with a $50 million bonus that year, that's obscene.  What's worse, that same CEO is defended as being a smart bargainer in the contract phase and the lowliest worker is threatened if he dares to organize with his fellow workers to use their combined power to bargain with the company for a higher wage.

So, by this example I would say that, yeah, the economy is great for some.

[Amianthus]

I think you'd be hardpressed to find an "employee" who has been hired into a corporation lately.

Define lately.

I was just hired this past August. Another guy was hired the same day as me. There have been several more hired since then.

[Amianthus]

As I said, unemployment grew this last check.

Actually, this is incorrect.

Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 111,000 in January, and the unemployment
rate was essentially unchanged at 4.6 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today.  Job growth continued in sev-
eral service-providing industries over the month, and construction employment
also rose.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

[Brassmask]

I think you'd be hardpressed to find an "employee" who has been hired into a corporation lately.

Define lately.

I was just hired this past August. Another guy was hired the same day as me. There have been several more hired since then.

That was a pretty broad statement.  I'll withdraw it.

I think I'm about to be hired permanently at the corporation that I'm contracting with now as a matter of fact.

[Plane]

"If there is a corporation where the lowliest worker makes minimum and a CEO is walking out with a $50 million bonus that year, that's obscene. "


This is not obscene!

Not in any way at all!

If a man is a very good CEO he is going to produce a lot of jobs , a lot of product and service amd prevent the demise of the company .

Guys capable of this are worthy of their hire , when the CEO job is held by an idiot or merly a less than maximally competant person ,the effect is a reduction in productivity , a reduction in jobs , a reduction in product and service to the consumor and potentially, the demise of the company.

Getting a company on top is like running a ball team , it might seem outragious to pay millions to a player or coach but if the diffrence is being in the playoffs or not it doesn't pay to scrimp. It pays to attract and keep the best talent .

[Brassmask]

This is not obscene!

Not in any way at all!

If a man is a very good CEO he is going to produce a lot of jobs , a lot of product and service amd prevent the demise of the company .

Guys capable of this are worthy of their hire , when the CEO job is held by an idiot or merly a less than maximally competant person ,the effect is a reduction in productivity , a reduction in jobs , a reduction in product and service to the consumor and potentially, the demise of the company.

Getting a company on top is like running a ball team , it might seem outragious to pay millions to a player or coach but if the diffrence is being in the playoffs or not it doesn't pay to scrimp. It pays to attract and keep the best talent .

I'm sorry, Plane but I must disagree.  I don't care how good the guy is, he's only one guy.  When I see that kind of thing, I can only think of how it will be wasted on $6000 shower curtains when four of those shower curtains could be plenty to put a minimum wager's kid through college and give him some kind of foundation for a better life than his minimum wager parent.

Creating more jobs is a good thing but walking out with that much profit that could make so many more lives a lot better is obscene.  Sure, there's no reason that the CEO shouldn't get a higher salary as an educated accomplished CEO than the minimum wager doing whatever job that anyone could do (in the current economic system) but, come on, in one year, why does anyone need a $50 million bonus?  It's not like they cured cancer or found a  way to make a city run on a handful of dirt.

[Plane]

This is not obscene!

Not in any way at all!

If a man is a very good CEO he is going to produce a lot of jobs , a lot of product and service amd prevent the demise of the company .

Guys capable of this are worthy of their hire , when the CEO job is held by an idiot or merly a less than maximally competant person ,the effect is a reduction in productivity , a reduction in jobs , a reduction in product and service to the consumor and potentially, the demise of the company.

Getting a company on top is like running a ball team , it might seem outragious to pay millions to a player or coach but if the diffrence is being in the playoffs or not it doesn't pay to scrimp. It pays to attract and keep the best talent .

I'm sorry, Plane but I must disagree.  I don't care how good the guy is, he's only one guy.  When I see that kind of thing, I can only think of how it will be wasted on $6000 shower curtains when four of those shower curtains could be plenty to put a minimum wager's kid through college and give him some kind of foundation for a better life than his minimum wager parent.

Creating more jobs is a good thing but walking out with that much profit that could make so many more lives a lot better is obscene.  Sure, there's no reason that the CEO shouldn't get a higher salary as an educated accomplished CEO than the minimum wager doing whatever job that anyone could do (in the current economic system) but, come on, in one year, why does anyone need a $50 million bonus?  It's not like they cured cancer or found a  way to make a city run on a handful of dirt.

This is constantly beng tried out.

Your way does not work , my way does.

If you were to assemble a team of good players who would all work for a reasonable pay , you could not beat the Yankees where they pay well for talent.

The same principal works for Ben and Jrry as it does for Google peope have a right to be payed what they can earn , any attempt to prevent this is obscene.

The CEO who wastes his pay on shower curtains might get dumped by the shareholders if they think someone elese could do better , but while he is being so foolish i is at least good for shower curtain makers.


See below.....;

[sirs]

See below.....;

LOL....I'm sorry, I couldn't help but think of Tee, with that toon       

[sirs]

I think you'd be hardpressed to find an "employee" who has been hired into a corporation lately.  I'm sure it happens but I hear more about massive layoffs of late than massive hirings.

I'm not sure why you keep equating economy with corporations.  I'm actually referring to all of America, especially middle America.  I'm actually referring to medium businesses, small businesses, entrepreneurials, all of whom are finding more employment, and more money in their pockets.  I think I know why you're trying to focus soley on big corporations, because on occasion, some have bad quarters, if not bad years, and have to lay off alot of folks.  I'm actually looking at the forest, while you're focused on a few redwoods

As I said, unemployment grew this last check.

Even if it were true, which Ami has indicated it isn't, unemployment would have grown to what...?  4.8%?   You do realize how low that is, right?  What was the lowest rate under Clinton again?  How about Carter.  Precisely

makes more sense to me for a society to hire a lot and keep pay scales closer. 

And no one is stopping you from doing precisely that.  see how long you can keep your business prosperous and energized.

 

If there is a corporation where the lowliest worker makes minimum and a CEO is walking out with a $50 million bonus that year, that's obscene.

 

Perhaps.  No more than Alex Rodriquez' or Alfonso Soriano's contract.  No more than David Beckham's new contract.  No more than what folks like Tom Cruise & Julia Roberts make for 1 movie.  Where's the outrage there?  Where's the wall to wall condemnation for their making what they're given??

So, by this example I would say that, yeah, the economy is great for some.

For most, actually

[Brassmask]

And no one is stopping you from doing precisely that.  see how long you can keep your business prosperous and energized.
Are you saying that paying out $200 million bonuses is the best way to keep a company prosperous and energized?

Perhaps.  No more than Alex Rodriquez' or Alfonso Soriano's contract.  No more than David Beckham's new contract.  No more than what folks like Tom Cruise & Julia Roberts make for 1 movie.  Where's the outrage there?  Where's the wall to wall condemnation for their making what they're given??

Consider them condemned!  I fucking can't stand that a hack like Tom Cruise is paid what he's paid.  David Beckham is not worth $250 million!!!  I fucking hate that they are getting that money when they SUCK!  We were talking about the economy and jobs and CEO's.  I understand you trying to hit back with entertainment and sports figures getting exorbitant sums of money but I'm sorry, I find them repugnant as well.

For most, actually

Sorry, my understanding is that people are pissed at seeing companies make out like bandits and they aren't sharing that wealth.

[sirs]

We were talking about the economy and jobs and CEO's. 

No, I'm talking about the economy and jobs, and how good BOTH are.  You're the one adding the CEO red herring. 

For most, actually

Sorry, my understanding is that people are pissed at seeing companies make out like bandits and they aren't sharing that wealth.

Can't help what people "feel", and what they "perceive" as unfair.  My understanding is from an actual & practical sense, MOST folks are doing better economically now, than 10years ago