Go Back   Android Forums > Android Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

Get excited for the Samsung Galaxy S5! Find everything you need and discuss it in our Galaxy S5 Forum!

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old January 15th, 2012, 02:13 PM   #1 (permalink)
Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 158
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 43
Thanked 25 Times in 19 Posts
Default "Creating Jobs"

How does the President create jobs?

kryptonyt is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old January 15th, 2012, 02:49 PM   #2 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

He can request that the legislative branch create bills to fix our decaying infrastructure, but that involves spending money, which certain factions of the GOP have vowed to block. FDR called it "Priming the Pump" with his "New Deal", although some people would argue that the wars we engaged in helped the U.S. economy grow.

The problem with our economy is that the job creators wealthy, through all the various loopholes and regulations have found ways to manipulate the system to avoid as much cost to their bottom line as possible. Whether it's outsourcing jobs to countries that do not have a minimum wage, moving manufacturing sites to countries that don't regulate emissions, or moving company headquarters to some obscure country that doesn't charge a corporate tax, these actions are stripping jobs away from our economy.

Take Nike as an example, in 2010 the CEO took in $13.1 million. From some online sources I found that they pay on average their Chinese worker $1.75 per hour (which is probably average as far as sweat shops go). If the U.S. demanded that companies that sold goods in the U.S. had to abide by U.S. labor laws (paying ALL its employees U.S. minimum wage) then many of these companies would just as well bring the jobs back to the U.S. Now this might seem like a good idea, but a few negative scenarios could play out. The 1st scenario, U.S. companies would automatically be undercut by their competitors overseas that aren't subject to U.S. laws. The 2nd option could play out that foreign countries would raise tariffs on U.S. goods if U.S. companies start pulling manufacturing from their country. A 3rd scenario could play out in where the big companies in the U.S. just pack up and leave the country, which is what some companies are doing by having a fake headquarters in countries with no corporate tax.

I think the only real solution at this point would be for the people of other countries, that allow their citizens to be exploited by big companies, to stand up to their oppressive conditions and demand a better living condition. Unfortunately, when the oppressed have had enough and decide to stand up for better conditions, there's always going to be bloodshed.

The only real thing a President can do is to not sign any legislation that gives corporations incentive to offshore even more of their operations and manufacturing sites while also not enacting any policy that would seem like an aggressive act against the economy of certain large nations that hold a large amount of our debt.
 
Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2012, 03:04 PM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,304
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 236 Times in 186 Posts
Default

or more accurately:

a president cannot, never have, and never will create a permanent private sector job

they can however create govt jobs which in turn actually kills private sector employment

as far as the argument that 'greedy' companies take jobs overseas and the govt should remove their incentive for doing so.......... maybe you should wrap your head around a realistic perspective....... if the govt would butt out and stop driving companies overseas through outrageous regulation and taxation then there would be no desire for them to leave

which does ironically relate to the president creating jobs..... since the only jobs a president can 'create' are govt jobs. this means there is a need to raise taxes to pay for those jobs....... and the first to always bare the bulk of these taxes are 'greedy' corporations....... which means even more of the 'greedy' companies move overseas
copestag is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2012, 03:16 PM   #4 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
as far as the argument that 'greedy' companies take jobs overseas and the govt should remove their incentive for doing so.......... maybe you should wrap your head around a realistic perspective....... if the govt would butt out and stop driving companies overseas through outrageous regulation and taxation then there would be no desire for them to leave

So your "realistic perspective" is to allow companies to dump manufacturing toxins into the environment without government regulations, pay Chinese sweatshop type wages to employees here, and remove even MORE taxation from these companies (these companies are paying less taxes than when Regan was in office)? You don't by chance get most of your programming from Faux "News" do you, because this screams of their talking points. Google "Corporate Tax Rates" and your argument of a "realistic perspective" goes out the window.

Just the first article I found, but I'm sure there are many more articles that mirror these facts....

Quote:
GE paid no taxes; Goldman Sachs paid $14 million last year. The GAO reported in 2008 that “two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005.”

Companies have become all too astute at paying for loopholes which allow them to shift profits abroad, or move their gains (on paper) to foreign low-tax/no-tax nations.

Since tomorrow is April 15th, it is a good time to look at the overall tax payments corporations have made. As the graphic below shows, the change in corporate taxes — not merely rates, but what they actually paid — over the past half century is astounding.

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP
1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%

Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5%




And as far as less regulations, the U.S. EASED regulations on Oil and Natural Gas companies that allows how they can drill for oil. Here's a bi-product of LESS REGULATION....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYJj-1jNOxE
 
Last edited by TxGoat; January 15th, 2012 at 03:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2012, 03:24 PM   #5 (permalink)
Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 158
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 43
Thanked 25 Times in 19 Posts
Default About your answer

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
He can request that the legislative branch create bills to fix our decaying infrastructure, but that involves spending money, which certain factions of the GOP have vowed to block. FDR called it "Priming the Pump" with his "New Deal", although some people would argue that the wars we engaged in helped the U.S. economy grow.

The problem with our economy is that the job creators wealthy, through all the various loopholes and regulations have found ways to manipulate the system to avoid as much cost to their bottom line as possible. Whether it's outsourcing jobs to countries that do not have a minimum wage, moving manufacturing sites to countries that don't regulate emissions, or moving company headquarters to some obscure country that doesn't charge a corporate tax, these actions are stripping jobs away from our economy.

Take Nike as an example, in 2010 the CEO took in $13.1 million. From some online sources I found that they pay on average their Chinese worker $1.75 per hour (which is probably average as far as sweat shops go). If the U.S. demanded that companies that sold goods in the U.S. had to abide by U.S. labor laws (paying ALL its employees U.S. minimum wage) then many of these companies would just as well bring the jobs back to the U.S. Now this might seem like a good idea, but a few negative scenarios could play out. The 1st scenario, U.S. companies would automatically be undercut by their competitors overseas that aren't subject to U.S. laws. The 2nd option could play out that foreign countries would raise tariffs on U.S. goods if U.S. companies start pulling manufacturing from their country. A 3rd scenario could play out in where the big companies in the U.S. just pack up and leave the country, which is what some companies are doing by having a fake headquarters in countries with no corporate tax.

I think the only real solution at this point would be for the people of other countries, that allow their citizens to be exploited by big companies, to stand up to their oppressive conditions and demand a better living condition. Unfortunately, when the oppressed have had enough and decide to stand up for better conditions, there's always going to be bloodshed.

The only real thing a President can do is to not sign any legislation that gives corporations incentive to offshore even more of their operations and manufacturing sites while also not enacting any policy that would seem like an aggressive act against the economy of certain large nations that hold a large amount of our debt.
"The New Deal" was indeed something that the president did to "create jobs" during bad economical times in another day and age. Do you think any president ( Rep/Dem/TP/Ind ) in this day and age could manage a similar accomplishment? Does the constitution give him powers to do such things?

I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question. I wonder why no one asks the same question of each other. I wonder why it never comes up as a question from and to the media, pundits, congress, candidates or even all of the public who say that "jobs" is their number one issue.

If someone said they would repeal NAFTA which was backed by all of the living presidents at the time that it passed; that would make sense to me. But unless the president was going to set up a lemon aid stand on every corner I don't think that a president can "create" jobs.

As far as finding money to rebuild the infrastructure; even that doesn't "create jobs". In a so-called "free market economy" only companies, corporations, and foreign entities can create jobs. Wars create jobs also; if not by and for the military then from Independent contractors that make war stuff or clean it up.

If I'm missing something I am all ears!

Thanks for your reply!
kryptonyt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2012, 03:35 PM   #6 (permalink)
Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 158
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 43
Thanked 25 Times in 19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
or more accurately:

a president cannot, never have, and never will create a permanent private sector job

they can however create govt jobs which in turn actually kills private sector employment

as far as the argument that 'greedy' companies take jobs overseas and the govt should remove their incentive for doing so.......... maybe you should wrap your head around a realistic perspective....... if the govt would butt out and stop driving companies overseas through outrageous regulation and taxation then there would be no desire for them to leave

which does ironically relate to the president creating jobs..... since the only jobs a president can 'create' are govt jobs. this means there is a need to raise taxes to pay for those jobs....... and the first to always bare the bulk of these taxes are 'greedy' corporations....... which means even more of the 'greedy' companies move overseas
Still not sure how solid the connection is between the president and "creating jobs" My issue is mostly around the language which IMHO perpetuates the illusion that the so called leader of the "free world" ( what part is "free"? ) Has the powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.

If I could figure out why anyone would want to be President of the USA maybe I could wrap my mind around the notion that any man or woman who gets elected has the power to keep any of their promises.

Everyone has been drinking the Kool Aid if you ask me.
kryptonyt is offline  
Last edited by kryptonyt; January 15th, 2012 at 03:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2012, 03:39 PM   #7 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptonyt View Post
"The New Deal" was indeed something that the president did to "create jobs" during bad economical times in another day and age. Do you think any president ( Rep/Dem/TP/Ind ) in this day and age could manage a similar accomplishment? Does the constitution give him powers to do such things?

I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question. I wonder why no one asks the same question of each other. I wonder why it never comes up as a question from and to the media, pundits, congress, candidates or even all of the public who say that "jobs" is their number one issue.

If someone said they would repeal NAFTA which was backed by all of the living presidents at the time that it passed; that would make sense to me. But unless the president was going to set up a lemon aid stand on every corner I don't think that a president can "create" jobs.

As far as finding money to rebuild the infrastructure; even that doesn't "create jobs". In a so-called "free market economy" only companies, corporations, and foreign entities can create jobs. Wars create jobs also; if not by and for the military then from Independent contractors that make war stuff or clean it up.

If I'm missing something I am all ears!

Thanks for your reply!

There are no easy answers that's for sure. Most candidates will claim they can create jobs to appeal to the masses, especially in a down economy. Repairing infrastructure is definitely a short term fix but I think it's a good investment for our country, as is investing in lowering the cost of education. It would be nice if there was a silver bullet that could turn our economy around, but I don't think lowering taxes and regulations is the answer.


Where the U.S. has been prosperous is when we innovate. You look at the industries that took off in our history, the Internet, the Computer, the Automobile, we either invented or innovated and other countries were forced to follow. We seemed to have lost that pioneering spirit.
 
Last edited by TxGoat; January 15th, 2012 at 03:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2012, 03:42 PM   #8 (permalink)
Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 158
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 43
Thanked 25 Times in 19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
There are no easy answers that's for sure. Most candidates will claim they can create jobs to appeal to the masses, especially in a down economy. Repairing infrastructure is definitely a short term fix but I think it's a good investment for our country, as is investing in lowering the cost of education. It would be nice if there was a silver bullet that could turn our economy around, but I don't think lowering taxes and regulations is the answer.
Made me laugh when you wrote "silver bullet" since they are 2nd amendment protected to kill vampires. Poetic isn't it?
kryptonyt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2012, 04:41 PM   #9 (permalink)
Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 158
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 43
Thanked 25 Times in 19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
Where the U.S. has been prosperous is when we innovate. You look at the industries that took off in our history, the Internet, the Computer, the Automobile, we either invented or innovated and other countries were forced to follow. We seemed to have lost that pioneering spirit.
There was indeed a time when everything or nearly everything we as a country created, invented, and or improved upon something that someone else created or invented. What happened? I'm serious. What happened?

For one thing we traded our pride in for dollars. Take the internet boom period and look at the stock market and all the sell outs and buy outs. AltaVista paid $3 million dollar for their domain name. Not sure what that has to do with anything except the insanity of value and worth. America lost the ability to understand, appreciate and respect the quality of things except things with monetary value. "Trickle down" is not a term normally associated with losing that ability to live the values of the founders of the country and values of our families. So somewhere in building wealth we all became mini Gordon Gekko's and called it GOOD!

And this reflects back to the President how?

I do think that there are some connections but not in the way that most people believe. JMHO
kryptonyt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2012, 06:21 PM   #10 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptonyt View Post
There was indeed a time when everything or nearly everything we as a country created, invented, and or improved upon something that someone else created or invented. What happened? I'm serious. What happened?

For one thing we traded our pride in for dollars. Take the internet boom period and look at the stock market and all the sell outs and buy outs. AltaVista paid $3 million dollar for their domain name. Not sure what that has to do with anything except the insanity of value and worth. America lost the ability to understand, appreciate and respect the quality of things except things with monetary value. "Trickle down" is not a term normally associated with losing that ability to live the values of the founders of the country and values of our families. So somewhere in building wealth we all became mini Gordon Gekko's and called it GOOD!

And this reflects back to the President how?

I do think that there are some connections but not in the way that most people believe. JMHO
At the risk of sounding like some old coot and his "Back in the good ole days", I like to look at the music recording industry as an example of where the creativity went. You go back a few decades where artists actually played small venues and were discovered by producers. Producers took risks and sometimes the risks paid off, but a lot of times it didn't. Instead of investing in what would likely fail, producers decided to start manufacturing hits. You look at artists like Britney Spears who aren't really true to the original art form but provide the showmanship (blonde with a hot body) and it starts to sell. Then the producer tries to emulate that success and eventually the actual talent is no longer necessary to ensure profits. The music industry suddenly becomes less about the music, and more about maximizing profit.

Another example is Hollywood. Why spend millions on a new cutting edge movie when you can just remake an old hit and bring in a decent return?
 
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old January 15th, 2012, 11:13 PM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CO
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,371
 
Device(s): GS3, Note 10.1
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 4
Thanked 129 Times in 97 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
And as far as less regulations, the U.S. EASED regulations on Oil and Natural Gas companies that allows how they can drill for oil. Here's a bi-product of LESS REGULATION....

Tap Water on Fire !! - YouTube

I would suggest you educate yourself on methanogen before posting that video. Believing everything you see is a horrible way to go thru life. And before you come back with anything, remember I am a Petroleum Engineer.
TJGoSurf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2012, 05:19 AM   #12 (permalink)
Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 158
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 43
Thanked 25 Times in 19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJGoSurf View Post
I would suggest you educate yourself on methanogen before posting that video. Believing everything you see is a horrible way to go thru life. And before you come back with anything, remember I am a Petroleum Engineer.
What can we all learn about X? ( whatever it is that we see, hear or are told? In a way that is why I started this thread: wondering what it is that makes us believe that the president has the ability to "create jobs" ) What part(s) are inaccurate here?
kryptonyt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2012, 08:39 AM   #13 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJGoSurf View Post
I would suggest you educate yourself on methanogen before posting that video. Believing everything you see is a horrible way to go thru life. And before you come back with anything, remember I am a Petroleum Engineer.

Before I come back with anything like say, "I wouldn't expect someone that's getting paid by this industry to have anything negative to say about that particular industry"?

Ok, lets say for instance that there is NO correlation in these people reporting their water tasting funny or being able to light their water on fire. What do you make of the earthquakes that "coincidentally" started happening once fracking began in the area where my parents live? In an area where maybe ONE earthquake has been reported in the past 100 years, there have been 5-6 reported in the couple of years since fracking has started. And yes, I have SEEN and FELT these earthquakes, how "horrible" for me to go through life believing what I've seen and felt My apologies since you didn't mention anything about being a Seismologist, and here I am dumping earthquake data on you, but LESS REGULATION is still not the answer.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptonyt View Post
What can we all learn about X? ( whatever it is that we see, hear or are told? In a way that is why I started this thread: wondering what it is that makes us believe that the president has the ability to "create jobs" ) What part(s) are inaccurate here?
I did a google search as he suggested and it's an organism that I'm guessing he is blaming for these peoples' flammable tap water. I guess I'm going to believe him over the EPA since the EPA is government run....

Quote:
Thursday's proposals from the Environmental Protection Agency to cut air pollution from the oil and natural gas industries are clearly newsworthy for the impact they could have on these stalwarts of the Texas economy.

They also show a fascinating back story about how environmental activists have learned to push public policy.

And they show why we have an EPA in the first place.

With Thursday's announcement, the EPA enters a 60-day comment period on proposed revisions to standards in the Clean Air Act. The revisions apply to the oil and gas industries, but it's clear that they are aimed at booming natural gas drilling like that in the 23-county Barnett Shale in North Texas.

The revisions would apply to new facilities and those that undergo major alterations, including what EPA says has grown to be 25,000 wells undergoing hydraulic fracturing or refracturing every year. There are more than 15,000 wells in the Barnett Shale, with more than 1,000 drilling permits issued in the first half of this year alone.

So, these proposed new rules are a pretty big deal in North Texas.

For the EPA, they're about the air we breathe. The message from the EPA to the oil and gas industries: Stop your leaks, or at least 95 percent of them.

The primary target is what are called volatile organic compounds, or VOCs. When VOCs become airborne, particularly in the summer, they become a major component in ground-level ozone, or smog. That's a serious health hazard, especially for children with asthma or bronchitis or older people with heart conditions.

The changes started in January 2009, the same month President Barack Obama took office.

Two Western-states environment groups, WildEarth Guardians and the San Juan Alliance, filed a lawsuit against the EPA, saying the agency had failed its responsibility under the Clean Air Act to periodically review emission standards for the oil and gas industry. The reviews are required every eight years to keep up with advancements in pollution control technology.

The lawsuit tactic, used by other groups targeting other environmental protections, paid off. In February 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a consent decree requiring the EPA to conduct the reviews and setting Thursday as the deadline for the agency's proposals. New standards must be issued by Feb. 28.

Maybe the Obama EPA would have taken this action without a lawsuit, but WildEarth Guardians and the San Juan Alliance forced the issue.

A key part of the proposals is that natural gas companies use what's called "green completion" for new wells. The millions of gallons of water that is forced into wells to fracture deep rock formations and allow gas to escape doesn't just stay there. It comes back up, laden with gas bubbles.

The flowback process takes three to 10 days.

"Green completion" uses special equipment to separate gas from the water and capture it, rather than allowing it to escape or burning it off. The EPA says this and other steps in the proposed new standards would capture about $783 million worth of natural gas and condensate (gasoline) by 2015. That's $29 million more than the requirements would cost the gas companies.

Significant amounts of methane, the primary ingredient in natural gas, wouldn't escape into the air. The EPA says methane is a "potent" greenhouse gas, 20 times more effective than carbon dioxide at absorbing Earth's infrared radiation and contributing to global warming.

Some natural gas companies, including Devon Energy in the Barnett Shale, are already heavy "green completion" users.

Environmental benefits that return more money than they cost -- what's wrong with that?

For one thing, the oil and gas industries don't like the EPA telling them what to do. For another, hundreds of millions of dollars spent on environmental controls would earn far more money if it were invested in new wells instead.

That's why we have the EPA, to balance corporate earnings with the public benefit of cleaner air.

Mike Norman is editorial director of the Star-Telegram / Arlington and Northeast Tarrant County.

817-390-7830


But I digress, and will attempt to get the thread back on track (hopefully). All Presidential candidates have quite a distinguished track record of promising a lot during the campaign trail and not fulfilling all of those promises once in office. Thus, I say it's hard to know for certain if the President can in fact create jobs or if the promise of jobs is just another of many broken promises. At the risk of derailing this thread further, do you think that our legislators can create jobs (assuming that we get some in office that can compromise I mean)? I've heard many people argue that the President is mostly a figure head with some powers afforded him (like the power to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen...), but that ultimately it's our legislators that enact policy. It's certainly an interesting question and it would be interesting to see some actual conclusive data other than, "We lost XXXXX number of jobs under President YYYYYYY and gained XXXXX number of jobs under President ZZZZZZ".
 
Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2012, 11:40 AM   #14 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CO
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,371
 
Device(s): GS3, Note 10.1
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 4
Thanked 129 Times in 97 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
Before I come back with anything like say, "I wouldn't expect someone that's getting paid by this industry to have anything negative to say about that particular industry"?

Ok, lets say for instance that there is NO correlation in these people reporting their water tasting funny or being able to light their water on fire. What do you make of the earthquakes that "coincidentally" started happening once fracking began in the area where my parents live? In an area where maybe ONE earthquake has been reported in the past 100 years, there have been 5-6 reported in the couple of years since fracking has started. And yes, I have SEEN and FELT these earthquakes, how "horrible" for me to go through life believing what I've seen and felt My apologies since you didn't mention anything about being a Seismologist, and here I am dumping earthquake data on you, but LESS REGULATION is still not the answer.

I did a google search as he suggested and it's an organism that I'm guessing he is blaming for these peoples' flammable tap water. I guess I'm going to believe him over the EPA since the EPA is government run....

But I digress, and will attempt to get the thread back on track (hopefully).
Considering I work in the state with the most stringent regulations, its hard for me to have anything bad to say. How about asking the contractor who pissed on the ground. The site manager had him clean it up, fill out a spill report and was threatened with never being allowed back on our companies well sites ever.

People being able to light their tap water on fire has been around for centuries. I imagine you didn't see that in your research, but of course when it occurs naturally there is no one to blame. But when you have an oil company you can get sympathy and money.

Since your location is, "By the river". I can only guess you live in Texas. And unless your parents are about 120, then they haven't just started fracking in your area. Fracking has been around for about 110 years. It was developed by Halliburton. Now, if you're talking about fault lines, those have been around for a long time. Yet no one remembers those, but people see a booming industry and are ready to play victim to get money for it. I highly doubt you've had one earthquake in the last hundred years.

And the reason for not poisoning groundwater is simple. The hole that is drilled is cemented and cased in steel every 1000'. There are no aquifers that far below the surface. The next argument I hear 'well they probably leak!' Yeah that's not happening, oil is around $80-100 a barrel. Having a leaky well costs money.

Rock isn't forced open by water, we use water as a lubricant/delivery method. The rock is broken up by C4, we don't have to use much of it to make a big enough hole for oil and gas to travel through. The water/sand mixture is put in to keep the holes open, once the sand has wedged itself in, the water gets pushed back to the surface by oil and gas.

Txgoat, you brought this thread off topic. You just didn't expect someone with the knowledge to be here to counteract the propaganda.
TJGoSurf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2012, 12:42 PM   #15 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJGoSurf View Post
Considering I work in the state with the most stringent regulations, its hard for me to have anything bad to say. How about asking the contractor who pissed on the ground. The site manager had him clean it up, fill out a spill report and was threatened with never being allowed back on our companies well sites ever.

People being able to light their tap water on fire has been around for centuries. I imagine you didn't see that in your research, but of course when it occurs naturally there is no one to blame. But when you have an oil company you can get sympathy and money.

Since your location is, "By the river". I can only guess you live in Texas. And unless your parents are about 120, then they haven't just started fracking in your area. Fracking has been around for about 110 years. It was developed by Halliburton. Now, if you're talking about fault lines, those have been around for a long time. Yet no one remembers those, but people see a booming industry and are ready to play victim to get money for it. I highly doubt you've had one earthquake in the last hundred years.

And the reason for not poisoning groundwater is simple. The hole that is drilled is cemented and cased in steel every 1000'. There are no aquifers that far below the surface. The next argument I hear 'well they probably leak!' Yeah that's not happening, oil is around $80-100 a barrel. Having a leaky well costs money.

Rock isn't forced open by water, we use water as a lubricant/delivery method. The rock is broken up by C4, we don't have to use much of it to make a big enough hole for oil and gas to travel through. The water/sand mixture is put in to keep the holes open, once the sand has wedged itself in, the water gets pushed back to the surface by oil and gas.

Txgoat, you brought this thread off topic. You just didn't expect someone with the knowledge to be here to counteract the propaganda.


Yes Oil and Gas companies NEVER have leaks....because that would cost them money....excellent logic...It's no wonder we don't have more disasters with such "experts" at the helm. I'm sure if your industry could get away with it, there would be "scientific evidence" that suggests drinking "oil enriched" water gives the body what it craves...electrolytes...






 
Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2012, 12:52 PM   #16 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CO
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,371
 
Device(s): GS3, Note 10.1
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 4
Thanked 129 Times in 97 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
Yes Oil and Gas companies NEVER have leaks....because that would cost them money....excellent logic...It's no wonder we don't have more disasters with such "experts" at the helm. I'm sure if your industry could get away with it, there would be "scientific evidence" that suggests drinking "oil enriched" water gives the body what it craves...electrolytes...






Wow, out of all the arguments to pick you decided on three pictures, two of which were the same incident. Well sparky, Exxon Valdez was a mistake by a sea captain. Not part of the oil industry, he was captain of a boat that made a mistake.

And Deepwater Horizon, BP is only the laughing stock of the oil industry. Used in everyone's safety program as an example of what not to do. Anyone who has actually researched this knows that Halliburton's contract with BP told them they needed to keep the well on a closed loop only. That's what they rated it for, yet BP opened it anyways to save time.

But clearly you hate oil and gas so much you don't use anything that requires oil. You couldn't even have a cell phone, because it requires oil to make plastic, probably don't even have a computer either.
TJGoSurf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2012, 01:38 PM   #17 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJGoSurf View Post
Wow, out of all the arguments to pick you decided on three pictures, two of which were the same incident. Well sparky, Exxon Valdez was a mistake by a sea captain. Not part of the oil industry, he was captain of a boat that made a mistake.

And Deepwater Horizon, BP is only the laughing stock of the oil industry. Used in everyone's safety program as an example of what not to do. Anyone who has actually researched this knows that Halliburton's contract with BP told them they needed to keep the well on a closed loop only. That's what they rated it for, yet BP opened it anyways to save time.

But clearly you hate oil and gas so much you don't use anything that requires oil. You couldn't even have a cell phone, because it requires oil to make plastic, probably don't even have a computer either.

I figured it was only a matter of time before you deflected and started asking what I drive, if I own a lawnmower, if I use cooking oil, if I have ever bought any oil of olay, or if I have ever stepped on any soil since it has the word "OIL" in it. Should I then ask you if you drink water, breathe air, eat food since that's the other side of the coin?

Feel free to take my argument to the extreme and try to insist that I'm saying we need to hunt down every person associated with big oil and string them up by their nose hairs, since people tend to turn an opposing viewpoint into hyperbole to make their argument seem rational. It's a tactic that's been used to death by people that don't believe in compromise, "Oh look he's a hippy, he wants us to abolish the entire oil industry so we can live like socialist liberal hippies that use pot as a fuel!"

Less regulation is NOT the answer, unless the question is "How can big business maximize their profits with the least amount of social responsibility?"

Oh and misspoke about the earthquakes in the area that my parents live. I said 100 years......

Temblors Rattle Texas Town - WSJ.com

Quote:
CLEBURNE, Texas -- This small city at the epicenter of the region's natural-gas boom has been shaken by another arrival from underground: earthquakes.

Five small temblors this month have some people pointing the finger at technology that drilling companies use to reach deep into the earth to shatter rock and release new stores of natural gas -- the same technology that has made many of the locals rich.

Thousands of wells have been drilled in the past five years. Now, a wave of small earthquakes is leading some residents in the north Texas town to link the two developments and some seismic experts to wonder about the cause.
The industry says there isn't any evidence linking the quakes to gas production. Even geophysicists, who take the residents' concerns seriously and are deploying seismic sensors in the area, say they can't prove a connection between the drilling and the quakes.

On Halloween, eight temblors struck the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Another cluster of quakes hit the area in mid-May. In all, more earthquakes have been detected in the area since October than in the previous 30 years combined, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, although survey geologist Russ Wheeler said there could have been small quakes that weren't detected. The USGS monitors seismic activity with sensors across the country, but the devices are most heavily concentrated in quake-prone areas.

The quakes, none of which have registered stronger than 3.3 on the seismic scale, haven't caused any damage, but they are potent enough to rattle nerves.

"We're not used to worrying about this kind of thing," said Cleburne resident Ben Oefinger, a retired school principal who felt the first quake June 2 while lying on his couch following an afternoon of yard work. "Nothing ever happens in Cleburne. That's why people live here."

Prior to that week, Cleburne, about 30 miles south of Fort Worth with a population of about 30,000, hadn't registered a single earthquake in its 142-year history.

After a fourth and fifth quake struck within 90 minutes Tuesday evening, registering 2.4 and 2.1, the city council held an emergency session and voted to a hire a geophysicist to investigate. City Manager Chester Nolan ordered his staff to start drawing up emergency plans in case a more serious quake strikes.

"After the fourth one, there wasn't any doubt we needed to do something," Mr. Nolan said.

Earthquake chatter has dominated conversation in recent days at the Chaf In, a local coffee shop where some patrons joked that the earthquakes are God's retribution for the town's recent reversal of its 106-year-old ban on liquor sales.

The drilling boom has minted dozens of new millionaires in the area. Cleburne has received more than $25 million for allowing drilling on municipal land. The money has helped pay for a new golf course and a revamped civic center.

"They've been such a boon to the community," Mr. Nolan said.

More than 200 wells have been drilled within Cleburne's 30-square-mile border in recent years, and hundreds more have been drilled in surrounding Johnson County. Virtually all the wells have undergone hydraulic fracturing -- or "fracking," for short -- that injects them with millions of gallons of a high-pressure water mix to crack open gas-bearing rock. Wells are generally drilled to depths of about 5,000-7,500 feet.

"If it's not that, it just seems like the biggest coincidence in history," Patty Hughes said over lunch with friends at the Chaf In.

Oil and gas production has been suspected of causing earthquakes in the past, including in Texas, particularly when it involves injecting fluids into the ground.

"As a scientist, I can't prove that they were related to the gas production … but I think most reasonable people would conclude they were related," said Cliff Frohlich, a University of Texas geophysicist and the co-author of a 2003 book on Texas earthquakes. In his book, Mr. Frohlich concluded that 22 of the 130 Texas earthquakes he studied were "probably" caused by oil and gas production or other human activity.

Others, such as Brian Stump, a geophysicist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, said he isn't ready to jump to that conclusion. "I don't think we have enough information," he said.

Jeff Eshelman, a spokesman for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, said he hasn't seen "any overwhelming, scientific evidence other than anecdotes to suggest a connection between energy exploration and major seismic events."

Texas isn't regarded as a high-risk earthquake area. The state's largest quake struck the town of Valentine in 1931, destroying a schoolhouse and rotating tombstones at the local cemetery. The 5.8 magnitude quake ranked as "severe" but not "violent," in the U.S.G.S.'s intensity rankings.

Still, the sudden spate of activity in Texas has made scientists take notice. Seismic sensors deployed in the area in November by Prof. Stump and his colleagues picked up several dozen low-level quakes within a few weeks. Now, they are deploying 10 more sensors to monitor the area the rest of the year.

The quake concerns come at a sensitive time for the industry, which is battling proposed legislation in Congress that would more heavily regulate hydraulic fracturing. Some environmental groups are concerned that the fluids used to fracture wells -- mostly water, but also chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and guar gum -- could contaminate drinking water. The industry says the process is safe.

It's 142 years. Let me guess, you're going to blame the town for lifting the Liquor ban, and say that it's God's will and then you're going to accuse me of not believing in God.....
 
Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2012, 01:43 PM   #18 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CO
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,371
 
Device(s): GS3, Note 10.1
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 4
Thanked 129 Times in 97 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
It's 142 years. Let me guess, you're going to blame the town for lifting the Liquor ban, and say that it's God's will and then you're going to accuse me of not believing in God.....
No, you're being unreasonable with every bit of your argument. I can't believe you honestly think that you can predict what a fault line does. Why are you when you could be helping local municipalities preventing damage.

You can't have a debate, you have your view and you won't listen to anyone else, except those that agree with you. Well guess what sparky, were fracking, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. So get over it.
TJGoSurf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2012, 03:48 PM   #19 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJGoSurf View Post
No, you're being unreasonable with every bit of your argument. I can't believe you honestly think that you can predict what a fault line does. Why are you when you could be helping local municipalities preventing damage.

You can't have a debate, you have your view and you won't listen to anyone else, except those that agree with you. Well guess what sparky, were fracking, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. So get over it.

There you go again, taking my point of view and pushing it further out there in order to make your point of view seem rational by default. I never said I wanted to put a stop to fracking. In fact, I'm benefiting both directly and indirectly from the process. Does that mean that I think regulations need to be loosened? No. We've already had a couple of casualties from the process here locally. I guess you're comfortable telling the families of these casualties that big business is over burdened with safety regulations and the profit gained by scaling back regulation is worth their loved one's life.
 
Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2012, 04:01 PM   #20 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CO
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,371
 
Device(s): GS3, Note 10.1
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 4
Thanked 129 Times in 97 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
There you go again, taking my point of view and pushing it further out there in order to make your point of view seem rational by default. I never said I wanted to put a stop to fracking. In fact, I'm benefiting both directly and indirectly from the process. Does that mean that I think regulations need to be loosened? No. We've already had a couple of casualties from the process here locally. I guess you're comfortable telling the families of these casualties that big business is over burdened with safety regulations and the profit gained by scaling back regulation is worth their loved one's life.
This just shows your ignorance to the industry. Regulations are being tightened daily. My view is quite rational, you haven't shown any examples. Every family that I've had contact with has nothing but good things for how we've been able to restore their land and prevent any spills. But when we do things right that never makes the news. Or how about in site prep thick, super plastic is put down and covered with dirt to prevent any spills from going into the ground? But no that would never be covered.
TJGoSurf is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old January 16th, 2012, 04:14 PM   #21 (permalink)
Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 158
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 43
Thanked 25 Times in 19 Posts
Default

It surprises me how many people say that they want the president to create jobs.

I think it is wrongheaded to think that a president can "create jobs" and if he can what kind of jobs would they be and how long would it take for the person getting that job to get a pay check?

If the president owns a private residence I don't think that he personally can hire someone to cut his lawn because there are protocols that are in place between him and the private sector that would prevent him from doing that.

If I am right then why doesn't someone just say that for the record instead of leading people to believe something that is more hype than truth?
kryptonyt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2012, 05:24 PM   #22 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptonyt View Post
It surprises me how many people say that they want the president to create jobs.

I think it is wrongheaded to think that a president can "create jobs" and if he can what kind of jobs would they be and how long would it take for the person getting that job to get a pay check?

If the president owns a private residence I don't think that he personally can hire someone to cut his lawn because there are protocols that are in place between him and the private sector that would prevent him from doing that.

If I am right then why doesn't someone just say that for the record instead of leading people to believe something that is more hype than truth?


I think it depends on what you consider "job creation". That German nationalist idiot that started all the California wildfires, he created jobs by destroying lives. If a President cuts military spending and thousands of soldiers are displaced, would you say that's considered job elimination? The President typically has to go through our legislators to try to get them to draft a bill that either is or isn't good for the private sector to add jobs.
 
Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2012, 06:24 AM   #23 (permalink)
Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 158
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 43
Thanked 25 Times in 19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
I think it depends on what you consider "job creation". That German nationalist idiot that started all the California wildfires, he created jobs by destroying lives. If a President cuts military spending and thousands of soldiers are displaced, would you say that's considered job elimination? The President typically has to go through our legislators to try to get them to draft a bill that either is or isn't good for the private sector to add jobs.
No doubt that the prez has a say of some kind. That said, let's take one thing that the prez can do before getting approval from the other governing bodies: he can declare war. But even that can be pulled back, challenged, and vetoed to the best of my knowledge. But attempting to better explain my whole point of this post it all rests in the simple belief that a majority of Americans "assume" that he literally has the ability to do more than what he can do. To put a person in power based on an untruth is what "creates" all of the problems that show up days, weeks, months, years after he's been elected.

Your example of the fire starter is a good one. Along those same lines, think about all of the jobs that Osama Bin Laden "created" jobs all over the world vis--vis 911. Jobs started immediately. People died, lives changed etc etc. That is the truth as horrible and despicable as it was/is.
Saying all of that can easily trigger all kinda of immediate replies because a buzz word get's taken out of context.

One more digression: Did you ever notice how a "politician" answers a question? More often than not they say a lot of words that may or may not answer the question but i don't want to "figure out" what he said. Last night in the debates on Fox, Rick Perry asked Romney if he was going to release his tax returns. There were a lot of words but what's the answer? Did he say "yes" or "no"? I'm not sure if he even said "maybe".

Why is it so difficult to get a straight answer?
kryptonyt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2012, 02:04 PM   #24 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CO
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,371
 
Device(s): GS3, Note 10.1
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 4
Thanked 129 Times in 97 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptonyt View Post
No doubt that the prez has a say of some kind. That said, let's take one thing that the prez can do before getting approval from the other governing bodies: he can declare war. But even that can be pulled back, challenged, and vetoed to the best of my knowledge. But attempting to better explain my whole point of this post it all rests in the simple belief that a majority of Americans "assume" that he literally has the ability to do more than what he can do. To put a person in power based on an untruth is what "creates" all of the problems that show up days, weeks, months, years after he's been elected.

Your example of the fire starter is a good one. Along those same lines, think about all of the jobs that Osama Bin Laden "created" jobs all over the world vis--vis 911. Jobs started immediately. People died, lives changed etc etc. That is the truth as horrible and despicable as it was/is.
Saying all of that can easily trigger all kinda of immediate replies because a buzz word get's taken out of context.

One more digression: Did you ever notice how a "politician" answers a question? More often than not they say a lot of words that may or may not answer the question but i don't want to "figure out" what he said. Last night in the debates on Fox, Rick Perry asked Romney if he was going to release his tax returns. There were a lot of words but what's the answer? Did he say "yes" or "no"? I'm not sure if he even said "maybe".

Why is it so difficult to get a straight answer?

The president cannot declare war. You might be confusing it with he can send the military somewhere for 30 days without Congressional approval. Completely different, only Congress can declare war.
TJGoSurf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2012, 10:19 AM   #25 (permalink)
Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 158
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 43
Thanked 25 Times in 19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJGoSurf View Post
The president cannot declare war. You might be confusing it with he can send the military somewhere for 30 days without Congressional approval. Completely different, only Congress can declare war.
See how easy it is to get thing backwards!

So now I got the info straight. Thanks
kryptonyt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2012, 05:08 AM   #26 (permalink)
Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 158
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 43
Thanked 25 Times in 19 Posts
Default

Not that his words prove my point but yesterday Mit in a moment of defensive rhetoric said about Newt: "Congressman don't create jobs; the private sector creates jobs"

Now why doesn't anyone in the news media jump all over this?

I'm making another try at getting someone in the media to notice and comment on this point. If I get noticed I'll let you know.
kryptonyt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 02:19 AM   #27 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

I haven't had a chance to revisit this thread for awhile, but I will go on to say that Presidential candidates almost always tend to over-promise during the campaign trail and always seem to under deliver once in office.

Having said that, I try not to put much stock into what a candidate says on the trail but I look to see what their past reveals about them. Newt for instance, I don't see how he's managed to carry on so long in politics considering how loathsome and generally disgusting a human being he is. He fights for the sanctity of marriage yet has done more to tear down that institution than a transvestite bear trying to marry a Kardashian on a reality TV show.

One of the biggest turn offs for me regarding the GOP is their insistence that morality needs to be legislated. I guess the whole "less government" angle only works when it involves big profit and big business. The Democrats also don't offer much either and seem incompetent and try to pander to those looking for government handouts. I doubt the American public will ever get the representation it needs from its political leaders with all the corruption that's deep rooted into our political system.
 
Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 07:51 AM   #28 (permalink)
Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 158
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 43
Thanked 25 Times in 19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
I haven't had a chance to revisit this thread for awhile, but I will go on to say that Presidential candidates almost always tend to over-promise during the campaign trail and always seem to under deliver once in office.

Having said that, I try not to put much stock into what a candidate says on the trail but I look to see what their past reveals about them. Newt for instance, I don't see how he's managed to carry on so long in politics considering how loathsome and generally disgusting a human being he is. He fights for the sanctity of marriage yet has done more to tear down that institution than a transvestite bear trying to marry a Kardashian on a reality TV show.

One of the biggest turn offs for me regarding the GOP is their insistence that morality needs to be legislated. I guess the whole "less government" angle only works when it involves big profit and big business. The Democrats also don't offer much either and seem incompetent and try to pander to those looking for government handouts. I doubt the American public will ever get the representation it needs from its political leaders with all the corruption that's deep rooted into our political system.
This morning after watching Sports Center for 1.5 hours i changed stations to "BIO" ( William Shatner's show ) He was interviewing "The Mayflower Madam" a story i was unfamiliar with. As i was watching i realized something that applies to this discussion on a number of levels and in a few ways.

I started this post in an Android forum which is mostly about HB's ( Human Beings ) interest and love for their cell phones. Clearly most if not all of us here love their device. To open up the forum to other topics to talk about one of the creators of the forum created a place for HB's who love their androids to talk about "Politics and Current Affairs". I have been amused ( not sure that that is the extent of my interest in the notion that the president can create jobs so I asked here what people thought about the subject ) Well you see how that turned out.

What does this have to do with The Mayflower Madam? What we call things, how we identify things not always best defines what we are doing and or wanting to say. So in the case of "creating jobs" being related to what the prez of the us can do actually winds up being something that the masses of HB's who vote for these people, wind up voting for them not based on what they can do but on what they think they can do whether it is true or not true, real or not real. And when pressed to explain what they mean, to save face they get creative in their explanation but as soon as they start fumbling around you can tell that they are protecting something...not sure what it is and or why this happens but what popped into my mind was the word "euphemism".

When HB's start calling things by cute names that kinda sorta tell a story that is not 100% accurate we dilute the truth. Then we discuss and even argue about aspects of what is or what might be real.

Forget about the jobs thing. Think about how absurd it is to call one party "conservative" and one "liberal" vilifying one or the other with some sound bite that we heard someone else say makes an already crazy sense of politics and what is good or not good for the majority is as close to insane as we HB's can get as a group.

How can we ever agree on anything if we live in a world of euphemisms?

If we can agree that we do need a government how can we know how much is too much, not enough or just right?

I honestly think that the Dems think that left to their own devices people can't manage their lives. You don't have to look too far to see lots of examples that supports this notion. On the other side of the isle we have the Reps who keep calling for less government but where and how do "we" know what to cut or enact?

As simple as this may sound I would love to see a list of things that the government governed that we all could agree on was a good thing. I'd bet that we can not agree on one thing. Just guessing.

Care to try interpreting my rambling?
kryptonyt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 11:46 AM   #29 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptonyt View Post
This morning after watching Sports Center for 1.5 hours i changed stations to "BIO" ( William Shatner's show ) He was interviewing "The Mayflower Madam" a story i was unfamiliar with. As i was watching i realized something that applies to this discussion on a number of levels and in a few ways.

I started this post in an Android forum which is mostly about HB's ( Human Beings ) interest and love for their cell phones. Clearly most if not all of us here love their device. To open up the forum to other topics to talk about one of the creators of the forum created a place for HB's who love their androids to talk about "Politics and Current Affairs". I have been amused ( not sure that that is the extent of my interest in the notion that the president can create jobs so I asked here what people thought about the subject ) Well you see how that turned out.

What does this have to do with The Mayflower Madam? What we call things, how we identify things not always best defines what we are doing and or wanting to say. So in the case of "creating jobs" being related to what the prez of the us can do actually winds up being something that the masses of HB's who vote for these people, wind up voting for them not based on what they can do but on what they think they can do whether it is true or not true, real or not real. And when pressed to explain what they mean, to save face they get creative in their explanation but as soon as they start fumbling around you can tell that they are protecting something...not sure what it is and or why this happens but what popped into my mind was the word "euphemism".

When HB's start calling things by cute names that kinda sorta tell a story that is not 100% accurate we dilute the truth. Then we discuss and even argue about aspects of what is or what might be real.

Forget about the jobs thing. Think about how absurd it is to call one party "conservative" and one "liberal" vilifying one or the other with some sound bite that we heard someone else say makes an already crazy sense of politics and what is good or not good for the majority is as close to insane as we HB's can get as a group.

How can we ever agree on anything if we live in a world of euphemisms?

If we can agree that we do need a government how can we know how much is too much, not enough or just right?

I honestly think that the Dems think that left to their own devices people can't manage their lives. You don't have to look too far to see lots of examples that supports this notion. On the other side of the isle we have the Reps who keep calling for less government but where and how do "we" know what to cut or enact?

As simple as this may sound I would love to see a list of things that the government governed that we all could agree on was a good thing. I'd bet that we can not agree on one thing. Just guessing.

Care to try interpreting my rambling?

lol, sure I'll attempt to interpret since you put effort into interpreting my "babble"...

I'd say that you're correct in your assessment that people tend to muddy the water in order to hide a truth. Some people/parties, IMO do it more sinister than others.

Take things that I consider non-factors in my immediate life but that many people are very passionate about like gay marriage, gays serving in the military, abortion, and other causes that are highly championed by the religious right. My feeling on gay rights is similar to my feelings about human rights in general.

Sure I don't agree with their lifestyle as a heterosexual male, but because I don't walk in their shoes I can't believe that what works for me will work for them. Thus, I think it's a slippery slope to start enacting laws to dictate their lifestyle. What then would stop the government from enacting laws such as, "The iPhone has been deemed by the government to be the best device for our economy and the most "American" device, thus we are making it illegal to own any other device". Granted this is an extreme argument, but stop and look at someone like Newt Gingrich. He wants to "preserve" the sanctity of Marriage (or at least that's what he claims). But who is he to judge at what level that preservation takes place? Divorcing 2 women while they're in "sickness" hardly seems like he's practicing what he preaches. What if then, a candidate who had been married only once ran on the platform that the sanctity of marriage should involve being married only once to one woman, thus outlawing divorce? What authority does our government have then to set the bar?

What I find most fascinating about the way some people vote is that they can vote about these types of issues that don't even affect their personal lives and give these politicians a free pass when they vote on the things that directly affect the quality of their life. Again, it goes back to what you stated about muddying the water and not being exactly forthcoming with specific answers.

My solution (or at least my suggestion) to attempting to get at the truth of the matter would be relatively simple. Campaign reform and complete transparency. We know that politicians are getting obscene amounts of money from special interest groups. Most of those dealings are behind closed doors and mostly secret. If America wants to take back its place in the world then it needs to shine a light on all these secret dealings. When BP's oil spill took place, our media actually woke up for a moment and did their job. They reported that BP donated large amounts of money to both Obama and McCain during the Presidential election of 2008. Yes they donated more money to Obama, but Obama also had more popular vote. To me that speaks volumes about our political system. It seemed like BP wasn't so much concerned with one candidate's view over another, but wanted to have an influence in government regardless of who won. It sounded like the housing crisis all over again, companies placing bets on both sides.

Take the past few candidates and look at where their loyalties lie and then try to convince me that ANY candidate has America's best interest at heart. Clinton, he had the housing market in his corner, and the housing market took off under his administration only to collapse later. Bush II, he had big oil as his backer and look at how the oil and gas markets went nuts under his watch. I'm not 100% sure who has Obama in his pocket. Some people think it's construction unions and that may be the case when you consider how much he's pushing infrastructure investment. My point is that it's never about what's best for the most Americans, it's what's best for the financial backers of these candidates while attempting to appease the most Americans. One of the reasons I think Ron Paul would make an interesting candidate, even though I think he's a little on the nuts side is that he doesn't seem to have one big industry trying to back him. It seems like his lack of a really large outside influence (big oil, housing market etc) would mean that he'd try to implement (try since as your original question still stands, I don't think Presidents really make policy, but rather just influence it) policy that would do the most people the most good. Thus, special interest groups hate that and I think that's one of the reasons that Ron Paul doesn't really get the traction that he should.

(Hopefully my ramblings didn't get too strayed trying to come out, although I will admit that I've had the urge to go to the bathroom for the past 10 minutes....)
 
Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 11:56 AM   #30 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CO
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,371
 
Device(s): GS3, Note 10.1
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 4
Thanked 129 Times in 97 Posts
Default

Just my opinion, which means nothing, but it seems that people are trained in the wrong profession. For so long high schools have looked down upon trade schools. And guess who has jobs? People that went to trade school.

There are companies near me that are paying 20% above the national average just to get people. Welders, truck drivers, diesel mechanics are all jobs that people are begging for. When was the last time you heard an employer begging for anyone?

I work with a lot of republicans, I love the figures that came out. Since obama took office we have increased oil exports by 1.1 million bbls a day.

Btw, if anyone wants a job and wants to move to colorado let me know.


P.s. If you majored in business or anything involving liberal arts and cant find a job. Its your own fault
TJGoSurf is offline  
Last edited by TJGoSurf; January 21st, 2012 at 11:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old January 21st, 2012, 01:30 PM   #31 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJGoSurf View Post
P.s. If you majored in business or anything involving liberal arts and cant find a job. Its your own fault

I can't say I completely agree with this statement when I consider everything I learned in my Computer Sciences and Engineering courses don't necessarily translate to what work I've done in the past 15 years (5 years in the Semiconductor industry and 10 years in IT). I'll agree that hiring managers will judge an applicant based on the type of degree and since they don't really have much to go on. Thus I can see where some people would look down their nose at one degree over another. But for some positions people would probably have the same attitude towards a trade school degree.

The last position I worked in, the IT manager actually had an Electrical Engineering degree which really didn't translate to the IT field (unless you get down to the component level, which I can say with 99.9% certainty that I've never seen an IT professional troubleshoot a microprocessor). Prior to that I had a Process Engineering position in the semiconductor industry and one of my colleagues had the same title but had a Business degree under his belt. To this day I still didn't understand how his business degree translated to working knowledge of the Photolithography process in the Semiconductor industry but apparently he was trainable.

Some people have speculated that the education system is the next big bubble, but I actually think that the bubble has already burst. We're just not seeing it like the housing market or the dot com because there's a steady crop of new students with each passing year and we're taught early on that a College education is a must. When you look at how many college graduates are moving back in with their parents and defaulting on their loans, you can't help but wonder.
 
Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 01:45 PM   #32 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CO
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,371
 
Device(s): GS3, Note 10.1
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 4
Thanked 129 Times in 97 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
We're just not seeing it like the housing market or the dot com because there's a steady crop of new students with each passing year and we're taught early on that a College education is a must.
I think if you changed that to, 'we're taught that going to college for what you love.' Which is just wrong, college degrees are supply and demand. For example, I have a B.S. in Petroleum Engineering. It's one of the highest paid jobs around, why? Because the gas shortage in the 80's lost an entire generation of PE's.

Here is a short story of mine, 35 people graduating with the same major, we all had jobs before graduation. I had mine before Christmas break, as did several others, and they repaid my loans. Not a bad deal. I'm not trying to gloat but giving an example. There was a need for my major and so I went to school and filled it.

If you take Art Appreciation because you like paintings its not a wise career move.

We all can't be engineers, but that doesn't mean you can't make a great living for yourself going to trade school. I was a truck driver while in college and I was pulling in 80-100 a year.
TJGoSurf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 04:27 PM   #33 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJGoSurf View Post
I think if you changed that to, 'we're taught that going to college for what you love.' Which is just wrong, college degrees are supply and demand. For example, I have a B.S. in Petroleum Engineering. It's one of the highest paid jobs around, why? Because the gas shortage in the 80's lost an entire generation of PE's.

Here is a short story of mine, 35 people graduating with the same major, we all had jobs before graduation. I had mine before Christmas break, as did several others, and they repaid my loans. Not a bad deal. I'm not trying to gloat but giving an example. There was a need for my major and so I went to school and filled it.

If you take Art Appreciation because you like paintings its not a wise career move.

We all can't be engineers, but that doesn't mean you can't make a great living for yourself going to trade school. I was a truck driver while in college and I was pulling in 80-100 a year.


How did you get the job as a truck driver? A lot of people don't have a support system that allows them to make the best long term decision. I got a summer job at General Motors making $20 an hour while I went to school. My parents got me the job at General Motors, and for that I'm grateful. Some people had to get grants and had to get specific majors in order to qualify for those grants. That's another reason I hate some of these politicians that come from rich old money that have the audacity to claim that the poor are poor because of their own fault. Not everyone has the same access nor the same opportunity. When someone that had great opportunity doesn't appreciate nor recognize that opportunity as a gift that should be shared, then it's a poor reflection of their character.

Take George W. Bush as an example, do you think that he would have been President if his family wasn't as wealthy as they are? I bet that he wouldn't have even been accepted at Yale much less been elected as leader of the most powerful nations in the world. His family's wealth opened a lot of doors for him (some of those doors kicked open at that) despite his decisions in life. If anything, his decision to embrace alcohol should've seen him living out his life panhandling on a street corner with a sign saying, "Will waterboard you for food". Success, or lack of it doesn't necessarily coincide with how hard someone has worked nor how well they've made life decisions. There are people working much harder than me but earning significantly less than I earn in a year. For me to insist that they must be lazy or just didn't make the decisions in life that I did would be extremely foolish, naive, and just outright disrespectful.
 
Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 07:22 AM   #34 (permalink)
Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 158
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 43
Thanked 25 Times in 19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
lol, sure I'll attempt to interpret since you put effort into interpreting my "babble"...

I'd say that you're correct in your assessment that people tend to muddy the water in order to hide a truth. Some people/parties, IMO do it more sinister than others.........

------------------------
It's interesting isn't it how we break things down....i appreciate your POV

We're talking about a lot of things relative to jobs. It would be great if more people figured out where and how jobs get created rather than hitching their wagon to the President can create jobs notion.

At least 3 people are motivated enough to have a discussion about it even if there isn't 100% agreement at least it's not the blind leading the blind
kryptonyt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 07:26 AM   #35 (permalink)
Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 158
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 43
Thanked 25 Times in 19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJGoSurf View Post
Just my opinion, which means nothing, but it seems that people are trained in the wrong profession. For so long high schools have looked down upon trade schools. And guess who has jobs? People that went to trade school.

There are companies near me that are paying 20% above the national average just to get people. Welders, truck drivers, diesel mechanics are all jobs that people are begging for. When was the last time you heard an employer begging for anyone?

I work with a lot of republicans, I love the figures that came out. Since obama took office we have increased oil exports by 1.1 million bbls a day.

Btw, if anyone wants a job and wants to move to colorado let me know.


P.s. If you majored in business or anything involving liberal arts and cant find a job. Its your own fault
TJ What is the job that you are offering and what are the qualifications?

i'd be curious how many people contact you about your offer.

Thanks for your contribution here in my "political post"
kryptonyt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 08:57 AM   #36 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CO
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,371
 
Device(s): GS3, Note 10.1
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 4
Thanked 129 Times in 97 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
How did you get the job as a truck driver? A lot of people don't have a support system that allows them to make the best long term decision. I got a summer job at General Motors making $20 an hour while I went to school. My parents got me the job at General Motors, and for that I'm grateful. Some people had to get grants and had to get specific majors in order to qualify for those grants. That's another reason I hate some of these politicians that come from rich old money that have the audacity to claim that the poor are poor because of their own fault. Not everyone has the same access nor the same opportunity. When someone that had great opportunity doesn't appreciate nor recognize that opportunity as a gift that should be shared, then it's a poor reflection of their character.

Take George W. Bush as an example, do you think that he would have been President if his family wasn't as wealthy as they are? I bet that he wouldn't have even been accepted at Yale much less been elected as leader of the most powerful nations in the world. His family's wealth opened a lot of doors for him (some of those doors kicked open at that) despite his decisions in life. If anything, his decision to embrace alcohol should've seen him living out his life panhandling on a street corner with a sign saying, "Will waterboard you for food". Success, or lack of it doesn't necessarily coincide with how hard someone has worked nor how well they've made life decisions. There are people working much harder than me but earning significantly less than I earn in a year. For me to insist that they must be lazy or just didn't make the decisions in life that I did would be extremely foolish, naive, and just outright disrespectful.
I had actually forgotten about this, sorry for the delay. After I got out of the military, I took work in Columbia as a security consultant. After 18 months, and a wife that decided she no longer wanted to be with me I pretty much became a derelict. Took my skills into the hills of the Appalachian. After a few months of living off the land I had enough. Walked back to where I left my car, it was broken into, but I had nothing to steal. I began applying to jobs only to discover my skills of shooting and blowing things up had no merit in the civilian workforce.

My favorite interview I had applied to a manager's job in a warehouse. I went to the interview only to have the HR guy say, "Well I'm sorry but I don't see any supervisory experience." I was livid, being a combat vet I've led men into gunfire more times than I care to remember and it struck a nerve with me. But I was tactful, I said, "Do you not thinking convincing five men to follow you into gunfire is not a supervisory role?" At which point this guy said, "No, because only poor or stupid people join the military." I ran thru every insult I could throw at him. Later I found out that I had freaked him out so bad he went home, changed all his numbers, and took two weeks of vacation.

Right after that interview, I was standing outside and a truck driver had overheard me throwing insults that would make sailors blush. He asked what happened and I told him. He then gave me some info on becoming a truck driver, what school go to, how much to pay, where to work, etc.

After that I spent a year driving all across the country before I landed a local job going to grocery stores. It was 60 hours a week, and I was in school full time. Then I had to move to Colorado to finish up my schooling, two years of working in the oil fields while going to an engineering college. My first year getting loans to cover the out of state tuition, because my GI Bill couldn't cover it all.

So, yeah if you think I'm privileged go right ahead.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptonyt View Post
TJ What is the job that you are offering and what are the qualifications?

i'd be curious how many people contact you about your offer.

Thanks for your contribution here in my "political post"
Ha, no one. As I can only offer jobs that require 60-100 hours a week, mainly roustabout, unless they have a skill that is needed. They wouldn't work for me, we only take experienced hands.
TJGoSurf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 12:02 PM   #37 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJGoSurf View Post
I had actually forgotten about this, sorry for the delay. After I got out of the military, I took work in Columbia as a security consultant. After 18 months, and a wife that decided she no longer wanted to be with me I pretty much became a derelict. Took my skills into the hills of the Appalachian. After a few months of living off the land I had enough. Walked back to where I left my car, it was broken into, but I had nothing to steal. I began applying to jobs only to discover my skills of shooting and blowing things up had no merit in the civilian workforce.

My favorite interview I had applied to a manager's job in a warehouse. I went to the interview only to have the HR guy say, "Well I'm sorry but I don't see any supervisory experience." I was livid, being a combat vet I've led men into gunfire more times than I care to remember and it struck a nerve with me. But I was tactful, I said, "Do you not thinking convincing five men to follow you into gunfire is not a supervisory role?" At which point this guy said, "No, because only poor or stupid people join the military." I ran thru every insult I could throw at him. Later I found out that I had freaked him out so bad he went home, changed all his numbers, and took two weeks of vacation.

Right after that interview, I was standing outside and a truck driver had overheard me throwing insults that would make sailors blush. He asked what happened and I told him. He then gave me some info on becoming a truck driver, what school go to, how much to pay, where to work, etc.

After that I spent a year driving all across the country before I landed a local job going to grocery stores. It was 60 hours a week, and I was in school full time. Then I had to move to Colorado to finish up my schooling, two years of working in the oil fields while going to an engineering college. My first year getting loans to cover the out of state tuition, because my GI Bill couldn't cover it all.

So, yeah if you think I'm privileged go right ahead.




Ha, no one. As I can only offer jobs that require 60-100 hours a week, mainly roustabout, unless they have a skill that is needed. They wouldn't work for me, we only take experienced hands.


It sounds like the truck driver wanted to help out someone that fought for our country, and that's my point. Not everyone gets even that small a gesture to help them. Just think of all the other ex-military men and women out there that didn't receive any help at all. I personally can't judge the decisions that people have made nor am I naive enough to believe that all good decisions lead to the same successful path. If you look at some of the "Self-Made" men from the early part of the last century, some of them became successful because they were bootleggers. Not exactly a good choice if you ask me. I'd say someone selling alcohol during prohibition back in the early 20th century is similar to someone today selling marijuana, yet some people really became successful mostly because of bootlegging.

All I'll say is don't be so quick to rush to judgment . What if the truck driver had rushed to judgment on you cursing out your interviewer? "Oh that's just some over-wound ex-soldier that's not worth helping." Your life might not be where it is now if the truck driver didn't take the time to help you.
 
Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 12:21 PM   #38 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CO
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,371
 
Device(s): GS3, Note 10.1
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 4
Thanked 129 Times in 97 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
It sounds like the truck driver wanted to help out someone that fought for our country, and that's my point. Not everyone gets even that small a gesture to help them. Just think of all the other ex-military men and women out there that didn't receive any help at all. I personally can't judge the decisions that people have made nor am I naive enough to believe that all good decisions lead to the same successful path. If you look at some of the "Self-Made" men from the early part of the last century, some of them became successful because they were bootleggers. Not exactly a good choice if you ask me. I'd say someone selling alcohol during prohibition back in the early 20th century is similar to someone today selling marijuana, yet some people really became successful mostly because of bootlegging.

All I'll say is don't be so quick to rush to judgment . What if the truck driver had rushed to judgment on you cursing out your interviewer? "Oh that's just some over-wound ex-soldier that's not worth helping." Your life might not be where it is now if the truck driver didn't take the time to help you.

Actually he got a $500 bonus to everyone he recruited to that school. And I might not be in the exact same position but I do have the drive to succeed. I think claiming he completely changed my life is a little farfetched.

Hard work comes from within, not because a guy was trying to get a bonus. I've heard so many reasons as to why people are unemployed. My favorite being, "Its the town I grew up in so I'm not leaving". What kind of loser clings to ideas like that? Load your car up, drive down the road, and get to work in whatever horrible place offers a better job. Living in Greeley, CO is not my ideal place. My first week here someone tried to rob me in the parking lot of a movie theater, sure I had my pistol to his throat when it was all said and done but this place sucks. Yet, I have a great job that requires me to live here(hello corporate housing).

I'm not even claiming to be self-made, I gambled on myself and won. I shouldn't be an inspiration to anyone.
TJGoSurf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 09:33 PM   #39 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Just be careful that you don't sound like.....


Craig T. Nelson on Government Aid - YouTube
 
Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2012, 10:19 PM   #40 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

The more things change the more they remain the same.

American History: Election of 1932: A Long Conservative Period in U.S. Politics Ends (VOA Special English 2006-08-16)

Hoover would spend government money to help farmers buy seeds and fertilizers. But he refused to give wheat to unemployed workers who were hungry.

He created an emergency committee to study the unemployment problem. But he would not launch government programs to create jobs. Hoover called on Americans to help their friends in need. But he resisted calls to spend federal funds for major relief programs to help the millions of Americans facing disaster.

Leaders of the Democratic Party made the most of the situation. They accused the president of not caring about the common man. They said Hoover was willing to spend money to feed starving cattle for businessmen, but not to feed poor children.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Reply


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:35 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.