Displaying 3 Forum Posts 
  • Jun 16, 2015 11:24 AM
    Last: 5yr

    i'll have to read that atlantic article later, but what you say they are saying doesn't quite ring true. i suppose it is somewhat true, but i have serious doubts automation is the real reason why america is losing jobs. it sounds like ship jobs overseas for cheaper labor and then say it's the american workers fault for not being skilled enough?

    it certainly is true about there being skilled jobs and not the people trained to do them, but who is to blame for that? the american workers? no, american politicians cutting school findings and refusing to support programs that would eliminate it.

    are those jobs being shipped out of the country high skilled jobs mentioned in the headline of that article. if it says it and backs it up with facts? ok, i apologize, but without that real evidence? no... they are cheap labor jobs. jobs americans would have to be paid more for. big businesses are not going to those countries for their higher educated work forces and to blame american workers for it is wrong.

    what is the business answer? fix it so american workers are trained? fund educational programs to have a trained work force? have you seen any of that? perhaps doing like germany and with an apprentice type system? a system that trains their own labor force? no---it's ship the jobs overseas and increase profits to astounding levels...and who can dent big business is doing well? while average americans suffer?

    skimmed throught it and it is true that automation is more and more and americans need trained, but that is not the cause of america losing jobs. the cause was big businesses getting access to low wagecountries and bringing the goods back into this country. that's what cost america jobs, that and our trade policies with korea dumping steel (before it was japan dumping steel--remember) so what happened to the steel industry? they got sold out. our leaders allow korea and others to dump without penalty and what would the effect of that be...pretty simple---job loses.

    american steel jobs are lost. ask steel manufacturers if they can compete on a level playing ground and they will tell you they can can blow the socks off competition, but not with others dumping. who can compete with that? our trade negotiators with japan came up with a deal and then went to work for those japanes companies they were negotiated with...and everybody in just fine with that?

    sort of like if you have a small shop selling goods in a small town and walmart comes to town...with their predatory tactics. who can compete with walmart prices? not many.

    thanks for the article link. it was interesting, but not the cause of job loses. maybe future and current evolving, but not how we got like we are now? that is big businesses and politicians in their pocket selling us out.


    wikipedia on the atlantic had this assessment

    On September 10, 2012, Salon criticized the current iteration of The Atlantic beginning with, "The magazine's features are always engaging but often seem to lack critical historical perspective", and the provocative, "Is the Atlantic making us stupid?"

    not a very good reommendation. reading that article quick scan...it seems still true.

  • Jun 16, 2015 11:24 AM
    Last: 5yr

    that is pretty comprehensive. you've obvious done some research.

    clinton over bernie? removing the passion? think you are somewhat correct on that. hillary is calculating and bernie says what he believes. you will not get much of that from ms clinton. the proof of that is in how it takes days for her to respond with an answer. they study, calculate the best move and then use the words they feel people with identify with. she is totally calculating. you see that is how she addresses things like tpp and the oil pipeling. you cannot get a straight answer from her.

    veiled references to wall street greed, but she has made her trek to wall street already and i have no doubt she made her assurances to them. assurances she would not upset their little apple cart and not seek breaking up to big to fail banks. not prosecute them for their crimes (as did obama and got big money from them). anyone believing she is gonna fight for wall street reform are whistling in the dark.

    keystone she probably will support and the tpp also, yet you cannot get her to actually say it...fearing alienating the left and surely lose the election. she is a clever calculating person and i wouldn't trust her. bernie at least speaks what he believes and will do, unlike her.

    the difference between her and bernie? bernie says it and she obfuscates, speaks double-speak and walks around it.

    i'll take bernie any day!

  • Jun 16, 2015 08:53 AM
    Last: 5yr

    here is something i have never read, heard, or seen anything on by any media, any politician, any commentator, or any author, yet the truth of it is right before your eyes and it seems nobody even see's it or even recognizes it at all? why is that?

    stated as simply as possible----george bush 41 engineered the kuwaiti war and nobody knows about it! that would be a great book title? Kuwait: The Engineered War

    that it was engineered is so clear to see and it puzzles me no end that all those adept people with intimate knowledge of government seem to be completely ingnorant of it. authors writing book about bush and kuwait and they seem as ignorant as the rest of america.

    here are the reasons that tell me it was engineered.

    hussein was our proxy war guy against iran. we funded him and gave him weapons to use on the iranians and keep them from expanding in the region.

    we gave hussein chemical weapons to threaten and even use on the iranians and when he did...we had clean hands.

    hussein felt america owed him for keeping iran at bay

    hussein used the chemical weapons we gave him to take care of his kurds problem and humiliated bush before the whole world...for everybody knew we gave him those chemical weapons (he didn't make them himself!)

    that enraged bush to nuclear explosion levels. he got humiliated and america's public righteousness shown to be not very righteous at all!

    newspapers were full of articles about our war ships patrolling the gulf and bush calling on the arabs for a base. which they rejected out of hand. no bases on arab lands (saudi arabia didn't even count at all!?"

    cia guy bush came up with a plan. he didn't want to eliminate hussein. that would have done what his son president bush accomplished and sent the whole region into chaos. at least bush '41 was intelligent about that...unlike his son.

    remember...to hussein he thought deserved a reward and america assured him he would be rewarded...or he would not have been our proxy. whether it was spoken or intimated..who knows? maybe hussein figured we just owed him and we pay what we owe?

    so bush had our ambassador speak with hussein and he expressed actions he planned to do and our ambassador told him to "whatever you do? do it quickly". hussein always believed kuwait belonged to iraq and he wanted it back. he wanted control of all that oil.

    so what did hussein do quickly? history shows soon after the conversation with our ambassador....he invaded kuwait!

    so bush '41 tells the arabs we'll kick him out, but we need a base in the region? what could those arab despots do...they agreed!

    bush mounted a strong pr campaign...put a lying prince and princess to testify before congress and that poor princess telling congress about little kuwait babies laying on hospital floors to die...their baby incubators being stolen by those horrible iraqi soldiers.

    america gets enraged...little babies taken from their incubators and left to die on the hospital floor? now that will enrage americans!

    it was rally around the flag and punish hussein. call in stormin' norman and an overwhelming military force and poor hussein limped back home. bush still had him as a buffer against iran---what could he do? he had to!

    so bush got us the base. he punished hussein and made america feel good. for it

    joe on morning joe once asked "can someone please tell me what the kuwait war was about?" even joe saw something was hinky about it, but it seems little comprehension of it and apparently little desire to know that answer to it too. it seem none have?

    so there is most of the gist of what bush '41 did to engineer a war and get a base on arab lands

    of course...i'm delusional and know nothing of what happened? or am i?


    i'd like to hear the media would actually look at what was done...for with a serious examination...they also would see that he did. that is unlikely....maybe a hundred years from now---some historian will actually do a real investigation and confirm it, but that will be long after bush '41 is dead and released form answering for it. so nobody will be held accountable....as usual?

    isn't america wonderful?