The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 29 of 30 FirstFirst ... 1927282930 LastLast
Results 561 to 580 of 587
  1. #561
    Join Date
    Jan. 1, 2008
    Posts
    4,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minnie View Post
    Boeing is a hugely successful company supplying huge numbers of good paying jobs, supporting the families, the communities and the local governments wherever they're located. Yes, they have supplied military jets, but that's less than half their business. They build commercial jets that they sell all over the world.

    And yet with this economy, they're having to lay off workers, close some plants and consolidate others.

    Are you truly that dense?
    I've been trying to stay out of this fray, but your statement can't go unchallenged. Just where did you come up with THAT information?

    I have a friend that works for Boeing in the Pacific Northwest. Boeing can't hire and train fast enough. The plant recently opened, I think it's in North Carolina, is also hiring and ramping up production. You also might want to do a little research into just who saved those tens of thousands of jobs when the whole 787 Dreamliner/Airbus government contract was being fought over.
    Fan of the Swedish Chef


    5 members found this post helpful.

  2. #562
    Join Date
    May. 6, 2003
    Posts
    1,888

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Go Fish View Post
    I've been trying to stay out of this fray, but your statement can't go unchallenged. Just where did you come up with THAT information?

    I have a friend that works for Boeing in the Pacific Northwest. Boeing can't hire and train fast enough. The plant recently opened, I think it's in North Carolina, is also hiring and ramping up production. You also might want to do a little research into just who saved those tens of thousands of jobs when the whole 787 Dreamliner/Airbus government contract was being fought over.
    The Obama Administration has also been working pretty closely with Boeing to help it win contracts to build planes for foreign carriers.
    According to the Mayan calendar, the world will not end this week. Please plan your life accordingly.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  3. #563
    Join Date
    Oct. 12, 2005
    Location
    Va
    Posts
    3,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Go Fish View Post
    I've been trying to stay out of this fray, but your statement can't go unchallenged. Just where did you come up with THAT information?

    I have a friend that works for Boeing in the Pacific Northwest. Boeing can't hire and train fast enough. The plant recently opened, I think it's in North Carolina, is also hiring and ramping up production. You also might want to do a little research into just who saved those tens of thousands of jobs when the whole 787 Dreamliner/Airbus government contract was being fought over.
    Boeing shakes up defense business, cuts management jobs
    BY Reuters
    — 5:51 PM ET 11/07/2012
    * Boeing (BA) aims to cut costs by $1.6 billion through 2015
    * Says changes will make it healthier, more competitive
    * Share price pares earlier losses (Adds final share price, names of new female division heads)
    By Andrea Shalal-Esa
    WASHINGTON, Nov 7 (Reuters) - Boeing Co (BA

    Loading...
    ) said on Wednesday it will restructure its defense, space and security business and cut 30 percent of management jobs from 2010 levels as part of a broad cost-cutting drive.
    Boeing (BA

    Loading...
    ), the Pentagon's second-largest supplier, said it also will close some facilities in California and consolidate several business units in an effort to trim $1.6 billion in costs by the end of 2015, on top of $2.2 billion in reductions achieved since 2010.
    "We are raising the bar higher because our market challenges and opportunities require it, and our customers' needs demand it," Dennis Muilenburg, chief executive of Boeing Defense, Space & Security, told employees in a memo obtained by Reuters and confirmed by Boeing (BA

    Loading...
    ).
    He said the total savings of $4 billion would make the company healthier and better able to deal with an increasingly complex and challenging marketplace.
    "Even with the uncertainty ahead of us, we are charting a positive course, and we are committed to excellence, execution and investment," Muilenburg said. "I like Boeing's (BA

    Loading...
    ) competitive position and our approach - facing into it aggressively and with a sense of productive urgency - and not 'hunkering down.'"
    The sweeping measures come as all U.S. weapons makers are under pressure to cut costs and preserve profit margins amid dwindling defense spending in the U.S.
    Boeing (BA

    Loading...
    ) shares pared early losses after news of the restructuring. Early in the day, the stock was down as much as $2.27, or 3.2 percent, at $69.31, partly on concern about dwindling defense spending following President Barack Obama's re-election. The stock closed at $70.11, down $1.47.
    Boeing (BA

    Loading...
    ) said the changes were not a direct response to the threat of additional, across-the-board budget cuts due to take effect on Jan. 2, or the outcome of U.S. elections, but marked another step in its long-term effort to be more competitive.
    Muilenburg said the company's strategy had already helped it take market share from competitors, pioneer new innovations and win orders around the world.
    Muilenburg said Boeing (BA

    Loading...
    ) would trim executive jobs in its defense business by an additional 10 percent by the end of 2012, eliminating many vice president and director-level jobs and resulting in a 30-percent overall cut in executive jobs over the past two years.
    In addition to this "tough, but necessary work," Muilenburg said Boeing (BA

    Loading...
    ) also planned to increase the ratio of non-managers to managers to a more affordable 12.5 to 1 from 9.7 to 1 now.
    Together, the measures would result in a 10-percent cut in the cost of management, he said in the message to employees.
    Boeing (BA

    Loading...
    ) said it could not project exactly how many workers would lose their jobs because it would try to place people in its growing commercial business or other areas.
    A company spokesman declined to say how many jobs had already been cut from the 2010 level.
    Boeing (BA

    Loading...
    ) and other top weapons makers such as Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT

    Loading...
    ), Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC

    Loading...
    ) and Raytheon Co (RTN

    Loading...
    ) have focused heavily on cutting costs and drumming up foreign sales to maintain profits as they prepare for a sustained period of weaker defense budgets.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  4. #564
    Join Date
    May. 4, 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,299

    Default

    Boeing is downsizing.

    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/b...buildings.html

    This is just one of the available articles that were published today regarding their downsizing in their defense arm and management ranks. My grandfather, step-aunt, uncle and one of my brothers all work for Boeing. Brother is safe as he is on the dreamliner, but Uncle and step-aunt are management. I hope they survive the cuts.
    Sorry to see xtranormal is gone
    For funnies, search youtube for horseyninjawarrior!

    Www.caringbridge.org/visit/mysecretgarden


    3 members found this post helpful.

  5. #565
    Join Date
    Oct. 12, 2005
    Location
    Va
    Posts
    3,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alittlegray View Post
    I am just ashamed to have a president who spends so much time going on fluffy talk shows that he doesn't have time for meeting with the Prime Minister of our only ally in the middle east and he doesn't have time for daily security briefings. Sorry, dude, that is your JOB. Ditch the nasty hags on "the view" and get your backside busy figuring out what to do about things like the Iranian fighter jets that tried to shoot down one of our drones the other day. Over international waters. That is an act of war...what are you going to do about it? I mean, thank goodness it was a drone because if someone actually died you'd have to think up a cover story about a video or something. Maybe you could blame it on Top Gun?

    In an era of massive unemployment and poverty, your state dinners are so lavish that congress is starting to ask questions. Aren't you the guy that is so "in touch" with the poor? And how DOES Michelle explain her former job to people? "Well, I'm not working now, just taking incredibly expensive vacations at taxpayer expense. But back in Chicago, I worked at a hospital. No, I didn't help anyone but the hospital's bottom line - my job (for over 300k per year) was to make sure the people with no insurance or too little insurance got a ride to another hospital so they wouldn't slum up the place with their low-class presence. But I called the program something nice and packaged it so it sounded like a public service! A couple of those people I shuffled off to other hospitals were probably suffering from hypothermia - see, my husband Barry was the lawyer for this guy Arthur Brazier who pushed some families out of their slum housing in the middle of the Chicago winter 1994 when the daytime temps were below zero. Of course, by that time they hadn't had heat or running water in close to a month, so they were better off moving on. Hey we made a lot of money, so what's the big deal about pushing poor folks out of their homes in the dead of winter, and out of this nice hospital? Surely they will be more comfortable at another facility down the road with their own kind, right?

    I'm also deeply ashamed that the sitting president of the US contributed to the sub prime mortgage mess then has the nerve to blame the economy and recession on everyone but himself. Hell, it's been FOUR YEARS and he's still stuck in "blame Bush" mode even though the economy didn't start to tank until the DEMS took control of congress the last two years of Bush's tenure in office. Barry is quick to forget he was party to forcing banks to give sub prime home loans to unqualified parties back in the day. Not surprisingly, those loans largely ended in bankruptcy or foreclosure. Turns out that if you can't pay your mortgage, you can't pay. It doesn't matter where you live or what your skin color is if you simply can't make the payments, and forcing banks into making those loans didn't change the fortunes of the individuals who received the loans in question. Instead, all the fanny/freddie loans to people who lacked the qualifications to repay them took down the entire housing industry and plunged the US into an economic mess. Now granted, Barry was only responsible for a couple hundred of those loans himself, but you sure don't hear him taking ANY of the blame, do you?

    I would just like ONE politician with the balls to stand there and say "hey, I made a mistake. I am human, and it looks like we went the wrong direction here. Now we are going to figure out a new direction to try and fix things, but it is going to mean more work and less handouts."

    It won't be Obama. He's incapable of accepting responsibility for anything. Heck, he can't keep his own promise that if it isn't fixed in three years, he would be a one-term president. Oh, did I say THAT?

    Yep, I am unhappy that it is going to be another four years before we have the opportunity to elect someone who is truly a leader and not an apologetic sheep. Unfortunately, I doubt our country has any chance at this point of ever being the nation envisioned by the men who bled and died to secure its freedom.
    Great Post. I hope your relatives survive the cuts at Boeing. I truly feel for so many. There's a LOT of companies that are going through the same thing.


    6 members found this post helpful.

  6. #566
    Join Date
    May. 2, 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,017

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alittlegray View Post
    I am just ashamed to have a president who spends so much time going on fluffy talk shows that he doesn't have time for meeting with the Prime Minister of our only ally in the middle east and he doesn't have time for daily security briefings. Sorry, dude, that is your JOB. Ditch the nasty hags on "the view" and get your backside busy figuring out what to do about things like the Iranian fighter jets that tried to shoot down one of our drones the other day. Over international waters. That is an act of war...what are you going to do about it? I mean, thank goodness it was a drone because if someone actually died you'd have to think up a cover story about a video or something. Maybe you could blame it on Top Gun?

    In an era of massive unemployment and poverty, your state dinners are so lavish that congress is starting to ask questions. Aren't you the guy that is so "in touch" with the poor? And how DOES Michelle explain her former job to people? "Well, I'm not working now, just taking incredibly expensive vacations at taxpayer expense. But back in Chicago, I worked at a hospital. No, I didn't help anyone but the hospital's bottom line - my job (for over 300k per year) was to make sure the people with no insurance or too little insurance got a ride to another hospital so they wouldn't slum up the place with their low-class presence. But I called the program something nice and packaged it so it sounded like a public service! A couple of those people I shuffled off to other hospitals were probably suffering from hypothermia - see, my husband Barry was the lawyer for this guy Arthur Brazier who pushed some families out of their slum housing in the middle of the Chicago winter 1994 when the daytime temps were below zero. Of course, by that time they hadn't had heat or running water in close to a month, so they were better off moving on. Hey we made a lot of money, so what's the big deal about pushing poor folks out of their homes in the dead of winter, and out of this nice hospital? Surely they will be more comfortable at another facility down the road with their own kind, right?

    I'm also deeply ashamed that the sitting president of the US contributed to the sub prime mortgage mess then has the nerve to blame the economy and recession on everyone but himself. Hell, it's been FOUR YEARS and he's still stuck in "blame Bush" mode even though the economy didn't start to tank until the DEMS took control of congress the last two years of Bush's tenure in office. Barry is quick to forget he was party to forcing banks to give sub prime home loans to unqualified parties back in the day. Not surprisingly, those loans largely ended in bankruptcy or foreclosure. Turns out that if you can't pay your mortgage, you can't pay. It doesn't matter where you live or what your skin color is if you simply can't make the payments, and forcing banks into making those loans didn't change the fortunes of the individuals who received the loans in question. Instead, all the fanny/freddie loans to people who lacked the qualifications to repay them took down the entire housing industry and plunged the US into an economic mess. Now granted, Barry was only responsible for a couple hundred of those loans himself, but you sure don't hear him taking ANY of the blame, do you?

    I would just like ONE politician with the balls to stand there and say "hey, I made a mistake. I am human, and it looks like we went the wrong direction here. Now we are going to figure out a new direction to try and fix things, but it is going to mean more work and less handouts."

    It won't be Obama. He's incapable of accepting responsibility for anything. Heck, he can't keep his own promise that if it isn't fixed in three years, he would be a one-term president. Oh, did I say THAT?

    Yep, I am unhappy that it is going to be another four years before we have the opportunity to elect someone who is truly a leader and not an apologetic sheep. Unfortunately, I doubt our country has any chance at this point of ever being the nation envisioned by the men who bled and died to secure its freedom.
    Thank you
    "How does it feel to be one of the beautiful people?" Julian Lennon


    8 members found this post helpful.

  7. #567
    Join Date
    Jul. 9, 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    383

    Default

    Doing some reading on Obamacare and found some information on the taxes, interesting that these will all impact the middle class....no new taxes?????

    The first, and best known, of these seven taxes that will hit all Americans as a result of Obamacare is the Individual Mandate Tax (no longer concealed as a penalty). This provision will require a couple to pay the higher of a base tax of $1,360 per year, or 2.5% of adjusted growth income starting with lower base tax and rising to this level by 2016. Individuals will see a base tax of $695 and families a base tax of $2,085 per year by 2016.

    Next up is the Medicine Cabinet Tax that took effect in 2011. This tax prohibits reimbursement of expenses for over-the-counter medicine, with the lone exception of insulin, from an employee’s pre-tax dollar funded Health Saving Account (HSA), Flexible Spending Account (FSA) or Health Reimbursement Account (HRA). This provision hurts middle class earners particularly hard since they earn enough to actually pay federal taxes, but not enough to make this restriction negligible.

    The Flexible Spending Account (FSA) Cap, which will begin in 2013, is perhaps the most hurtful provision to the middle class. This part of the law imposes a cap of $2,500 per year (which is now unlimited) on the amount of pre-tax dollars that could be deposited into these accounts. Why is this particularly hurtful to the middle class? It is because funds in these accounts may be used to pay for special needs education for special needs children in the United States. Tuition rates for this type of special education can easily exceed $14,000 per year and the use of pre-tax dollars has helped many middle income families.

    Another direct hit to the middle class is the Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle which is currently 7.5% of adjusted gross income. This is the hurdle that must be met before medical expenses over that hurdle can be taken as a deduction on federal income taxes. Obamacare raises this hurdle to 10% of adjusted gross income beginning in 2013. Consider the middle class family with $80,000 of adjusted gross income and $8,000 of medical expenses. Currently, that family can get some relief from being able to take a $2,000 deduction (7.5% X $80,000 = $6,000; $8,000 –$6,000 = $2,000). An increase to 10% would eliminate the deduction in this example and if that family was paying a 25% federal tax rate, the real cost of that lost deduction would be $500.

    The fifth new tax on the middle class, and all Americans, is the Health Savings Account (HSA) Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10% currently to 20% beginning in 2013. This provision actually sets these accounts apart from Investment Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and other tax advantaged accounts, all of which remain with a 10% early withdrawal tax.

    Another regressive tax that is part of this law began in 2010 and that is the Indoor Tanning Services Tax, which places a 10% excise tax on people using tanning salons. While some may regard this as insignificant, the broader implication is that this act of taxation is a blatant move by the federal government to control the behavior of citizens. This provision, as does the Individual Mandate and as Justice Kennedy said during the oral arguments on the constitutionality of the law said, “….fundamentally changes the relationship between the federal government and the citizen.”

    The seventh new tax that directly impacts the middle class, along with all citizens, is the Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans or the “Cadillac” Health Insurance Plan Tax. These are plans that provide extensive coverage and that are generally fully paid for, or largely paid for, by employers. This provision imposes a 40% excise tax on the employer-paid premium on taxpayers who are covered by such plans, beginning in 2018. The reason it begins in 2018 is because most unionized workers are covered by plans that fall under this definition and a deferral was made to spare union members from this tax for at least a period of time.


    7 members found this post helpful.

  8. #568
    Join Date
    Jan. 1, 2008
    Posts
    4,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alittlegray View Post
    Boeing is downsizing.

    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/b...buildings.html

    This is just one of the available articles that were published today regarding their downsizing in their defense arm and management ranks. My grandfather, step-aunt, uncle and one of my brothers all work for Boeing. Brother is safe as he is on the dreamliner, but Uncle and step-aunt are management. I hope they survive the cuts.
    Boeing's plans to downsize their defense sector has been in the works for years. The model for modern defense systems are becoming more complex and increasingly do not require the type of planes that Boeing finds profitable. Boeing also sees the writing on the wall...the U.S. will, in the coming years, no longer be the world's police force and the need to spend the equivalent of some countries 'GNP will no longer be necessary.

    I seriously doubt that Boeing's "downsizing in their defense sector" is a result of the economy or the opinion of some that Obama's fiscal policies are destroying America. The key words here are "growing commercial business." Boeing is alive, prospering, and VERY healthy.
    Fan of the Swedish Chef


    4 members found this post helpful.

  9. #569
    Join Date
    Oct. 12, 2005
    Location
    Va
    Posts
    3,129

    Default

    There are more taxes than that aren't there? I know of the 3.8% tax on "hardware", i.e. knee, hip and other artificial stuff they repair us with. That will be passed on to the consumer.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  10. #570
    Join Date
    Dec. 31, 2000
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    12,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beentheredonethat View Post
    This is one of the MANY times I've explained this.
    Building military aircraft is a small part of the defense part of Boeing... The defense side also builds satellites, electronic communications equipment, surveillance equip, and a whole lot of other high tech stuff. Things we need to keep our country safe, keep tabs on other countries, etc.

    There are other parts to Boeing as well...A Global finance company to finance what they produce, and also a Civilian aircraft manufacturing company.

    They just released news today that they are firing 30% of their management staff on the defense side. That is taking an awful lot of money out of the local economy in the cities and towns where they worked...


    2 members found this post helpful.

  11. #571
    Join Date
    Dec. 31, 2000
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    12,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alittlegray View Post
    I am just ashamed to have a president who spends so much time going on fluffy talk shows that he doesn't have time for meeting with the Prime Minister of our only ally in the middle east and he doesn't have time for daily security briefings. Sorry, dude, that is your JOB. Ditch the nasty hags on "the view" and get your backside busy figuring out what to do about things like the Iranian fighter jets that tried to shoot down one of our drones the other day. Over international waters. That is an act of war...what are you going to do about it? I mean, thank goodness it was a drone because if someone actually died you'd have to think up a cover story about a video or something. Maybe you could blame it on Top Gun?

    In an era of massive unemployment and poverty, your state dinners are so lavish that congress is starting to ask questions. Aren't you the guy that is so "in touch" with the poor? And how DOES Michelle explain her former job to people? "Well, I'm not working now, just taking incredibly expensive vacations at taxpayer expense. But back in Chicago, I worked at a hospital. No, I didn't help anyone but the hospital's bottom line - my job (for over 300k per year) was to make sure the people with no insurance or too little insurance got a ride to another hospital so they wouldn't slum up the place with their low-class presence. But I called the program something nice and packaged it so it sounded like a public service! A couple of those people I shuffled off to other hospitals were probably suffering from hypothermia - see, my husband Barry was the lawyer for this guy Arthur Brazier who pushed some families out of their slum housing in the middle of the Chicago winter 1994 when the daytime temps were below zero. Of course, by that time they hadn't had heat or running water in close to a month, so they were better off moving on. Hey we made a lot of money, so what's the big deal about pushing poor folks out of their homes in the dead of winter, and out of this nice hospital? Surely they will be more comfortable at another facility down the road with their own kind, right?

    I'm also deeply ashamed that the sitting president of the US contributed to the sub prime mortgage mess then has the nerve to blame the economy and recession on everyone but himself. Hell, it's been FOUR YEARS and he's still stuck in "blame Bush" mode even though the economy didn't start to tank until the DEMS took control of congress the last two years of Bush's tenure in office. Barry is quick to forget he was party to forcing banks to give sub prime home loans to unqualified parties back in the day. Not surprisingly, those loans largely ended in bankruptcy or foreclosure. Turns out that if you can't pay your mortgage, you can't pay. It doesn't matter where you live or what your skin color is if you simply can't make the payments, and forcing banks into making those loans didn't change the fortunes of the individuals who received the loans in question. Instead, all the fanny/freddie loans to people who lacked the qualifications to repay them took down the entire housing industry and plunged the US into an economic mess. Now granted, Barry was only responsible for a couple hundred of those loans himself, but you sure don't hear him taking ANY of the blame, do you?

    I would just like ONE politician with the balls to stand there and say "hey, I made a mistake. I am human, and it looks like we went the wrong direction here. Now we are going to figure out a new direction to try and fix things, but it is going to mean more work and less handouts."

    It won't be Obama. He's incapable of accepting responsibility for anything. Heck, he can't keep his own promise that if it isn't fixed in three years, he would be a one-term president. Oh, did I say THAT?

    Yep, I am unhappy that it is going to be another four years before we have the opportunity to elect someone who is truly a leader and not an apologetic sheep. Unfortunately, I doubt our country has any chance at this point of ever being the nation envisioned by the men who bled and died to secure its freedom.
    Applause!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    5 members found this post helpful.

  12. #572
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2010
    Posts
    5,874

    Default

    Yes, thank you. My point was we need to get out of building bombers (the planes for bombers is a metaphor for all war items) and going to war and put that money and resources to better use, and I was accused of being happy about taking away jobs, then told the government wasn't in the job of creating jobs, but it was the government's fault for taking away these jobs. Sigh.

    I'm sure firing those 30% was good business, and if they are good at their jobs, they can take all of those skills into the future and create new industries. That's what the people for smaller government want.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  13. #573
    Join Date
    Dec. 31, 2000
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    12,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beentheredonethat View Post
    I'm sure firing those 30% was good business, and if they are good at their jobs, they can take all of those skills into the future and create new industries. That's what the people for smaller government want.
    What does Boeing cutting jobs for management that presumably were high paying, (and the people are a little older), so those people are unemployed and now need to go look for job in a job market where companies are not hiring full time, older managers needing high pay have to do with smaller government? Boeing is a privately owned company, not a government agency...


    1 members found this post helpful.

  14. #574
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2010
    Posts
    5,874

    Default

    Yes, but I was being attacked because I was saying it would be GOOD if our government bought less things to fight wars with, and then told how horrible I was because that meant all of these people were getting fired.

    It's sort of like Haliburton cutting back on business being good, as much of their business is war that our tax dollars pay for.

    The same people are criticizing our government for wasting our tax dollars, then berating our government for putting people out of work by not buying enough supplies to go to war with. If you really want less government and it all to be about "good" business, this is what it is--cutting costs, making more money.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  15. #575
    Join Date
    Nov. 4, 2003
    Location
    Sanger, TX, USA
    Posts
    4,863

    Default

    I'm in the strong military camp, enough to handle the threats. In my youth, it was just Russia. Once in a while, the Mideast made rumbles but Isreal managed to kick butt. Now we have a whole host of countries who are not our buddies...
    Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan with nuclear capabilities. If you don't think Iran has the capability, I got some lovely oceanside property in AZ for you.
    Could it be made efficient, yes.

    And yeah, I'm sick of the quarter backing the last couple of Days. Romney ran a
    good campaign compared to McCain and he has the talents to do what it is needed. There are presently six women governors in the USA, four are republican. The only hispanic governors are republican. We got Condi Rice
    and her predecessor as SOS was black also. Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. Several black Congressman, one of whom comes from a primarily white
    district. Two republican governors are of Indian descent. Rubio--hispanic US
    Senator. Many were highlighted at the convention. And the party doesn't reach out?

    They can quarter back on they want but no one is touching the possibility of voter fraud. Even the UN observers were stunned with the lack of photo ID requirements which almost every country has. And the electronic voting machines open up endless possibilities, especially with a lot of votes being tabulated by a foreign company. Regardless of your party affiliation, it's something that needs to be addressed. I don't want my candidate winning that way..no one should want their candidate winning that way.
    Julie
    www.centaurfencing.com
    Safer, Stronger, Lasts Longer!
    Godspeed BARBARO--Run fast and free!


    4 members found this post helpful.

  16. #576
    Join Date
    Oct. 14, 2002
    Posts
    583

    Default

    I do find it kind of ironic that the people saying government doesn't create jobs are also up in arms about defense companies cutting jobs due to decreased defense spending. Face it, the defense budget, in addition to being about protecting our country, is also a huge, bipartisan, jobs program.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  17. #577
    Join Date
    Oct. 21, 1999
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    12,293

    Default

    This thread is a microcosm of what is wrong in this country today. With a few exceptions, neither side is listening to the other side, neither side is trying to understand what the other side's fears and concerns are and neither side is willing to sit down and talk. Everyone is too interested in proving that they're right and everyone else is not only wrong, but stupid for being wrong.

    If we fall into the morass that everyone is crying about it won't be because one side is right and the other side is wrong. Nope, it will be because we're all too blockheaded to figure out that we're all in this together, we'll sink or swim together and we had better get our asses in gear and figure out how create effective compromises that will slowly and surely pull us up again.

    There isn't an easy fix, folks. Things won't miraculously be all right tomorrow no matter who is in office or in political power. The economists, five years ago, were warning that we were headed towards trouble and that, once in trouble, we were going to have a long, hard climb out. Quit trying to assign blame. In my opinion, both sides have plenty of bad stuff to account for. Shake hands and get to work doing what this country has always done best -- facing adversity head on and figuring out how to make lemonade out of lemons.
    Originally Posted by Alagirl
    We just love to shame poor people...when in reality, we are all just peasants.


    12 members found this post helpful.

  18. #578
    Join Date
    Jan. 14, 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    5,766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kathy s. View Post
    Funny, nothing here. Do you live in one of the swing states?
    We also had an awful lot of infrastructure projects going on here. And I think I read that Mass spread the money out over a bit of time rather than spending it all at once so that there wouldn't be a quick but fleeting impact. We are most certainly not a swing state here.

    Quote Originally Posted by minnie View Post
    See, reading comprehension. Asking if you were that dense is NOT calling you a name.

    And I never ever said the government should be creating jobs. If you read for comprehension, the government PURCHASES military jets for the DEFENSE of the country. It doesn't create jobs. Get the difference?
    Aren't there jobs created to satisfy the demand for the purchase of the jets? and, can't it be argued that cutting defense spending hurts the economy because once the demand of the government goes away, the jobs get slashed? It seems to me the government is creating jobs. That is why areas that benefit so strongly fro defense spending (i.e Massachusetts) fights these budget cuts - because they will lose jobs.



  19. #579
    Join Date
    Mar. 30, 2007
    Location
    Hollowed out volcano in the South Pacific.
    Posts
    11,125

    Default

    A lot of "Defense" jobs are anything but. That whole industry is bloated and filled with redundant or unneeded administrative or managerial jobs that are just there to pad the billing for appropriations and to make it look like a sacred cow that does more economic good than it really does. You've got all these futuristic weapons and vehicles programs that make great Power Point presentations but never actually produce anything after millions upon millions of tax payer dollars are spent paying six-figure salaries to people who don't do much of anything all day long except kick around memorandums. Then you have "Contractorstipation" (Yeah that's Contractor Constipation) where they spend three times as much per body to pay someone from the private sector to do for the armed forces what someone in the armed forces already does and is trained to do in place of the uniformed soldier. It's just a mess.
    Thus do we growl that our big toes have,
    at this moment, been thrown up from below!


    6 members found this post helpful.

  20. #580
    Join Date
    Aug. 12, 2010
    Location
    Westford, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sketcher View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by minnie View Post
    See, reading comprehension. Asking if you were that dense is NOT calling you a name.

    And I never ever said the government should be creating jobs. If you read for comprehension, the government PURCHASES military jets for the DEFENSE of the country. It doesn't create jobs. Get the difference?
    Aren't there jobs created to satisfy the demand for the purchase of the jets? and, can't it be argued that cutting defense spending hurts the economy because once the demand of the government goes away, the jobs get slashed? It seems to me the government is creating jobs. That is why areas that benefit so strongly fro defense spending (i.e Massachusetts) fights these budget cuts - because they will lose jobs.
    Yes, the defense budget most certainly does create jobs. Within an easy commute of my house, that I can think of right off the top of my head are: Raytheon, Mitre, Lockheed Martin, BAE, MIT Lincoln Labs, iRobot...many more, and some small ones no one has heard of. All of these companies (and non-profits) have defense contracts. These locations are not manufacturing plants, they are filled with engineers and administrators. Many, many jobs, and well paying ones at that. And, since DH has long worked for defense contractors and subcontractors, and I hear about what goes on at work (that isn't classified!), I can tell you that not all of these jobs are strictly required for defense of the country .


    1 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 83
    Last Post: Nov. 7, 2012, 04:41 PM
  2. Poll; Does Obama deserve re-election?
    By riderboy in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 347
    Last Post: Nov. 27, 2011, 09:02 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Sep. 23, 2011, 03:36 PM
  4. Yet another election, this time for FEI president.
    By His Greyness in forum Off Course
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Nov. 5, 2010, 12:07 PM
  5. Thank goodness, Election Day is near!
    By Alagirl in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Oct. 31, 2010, 05:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •