Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Anyone catch Schwarzenegger's speech at the RNC? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/67524-anyone-catch-schwarzeneggers-speech-rnc.html)

onetime2 09-01-2004 06:40 AM
Anyone catch Schwarzenegger's speech at the RNC?
 
He certainly lent a new perspective (Immigrant, as a boy living under Soviet occupation, coming from a socialist country, etc) to the convention. He was an excellent speaker and his accent and sometimes mispronounced words really lent him a more cordial tone. He seemed to really focus on the great things about America (opportunity, sacrifice, valor, etc) and was pretty damned motivational.

Of course, people will likely criticize him for not getting into specifics on why GWB is the best choice of leaders but overall I was impressed by his performance.

Quote:
Text of Schwarzenegger's Speech at RNC

Associated Press


The text of a speech by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, as prepared for delivery Tuesday at the Republican National Convention:

Thank you.

What a greeting!

This is like winning an Oscar! ...As if I would know! Speaking of acting, one of my movies was called "True Lies." It's what the Democrats should have called their convention.

My fellow Americans, this is an amazing moment for me. To think that a once scrawny boy from Austria could grow up to become Governor of California and stand in Madison Square Garden to speak on behalf of the President of the United States that is an immigrant's dream. It is the American dream.

I was born in Europe ...and I've traveled all over the world. I can tell you that there is no place, no country, more compassionate more generous more accepting and more welcoming than the United States of America.

As long as I live, I will never forget that day 21 years ago when I raised my hand and took the oath of citizenship.

Do you know how proud I was? I was so proud that I walked around with an American flag around my shoulders all day long.

Tonight, I want to talk about why I'm even more proud to be an American - why I'm proud to be a Republican and why I believe this country is in good hands.

When I was a boy, the Soviets occupied part of Austria. I saw their tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes. I remember the fear we had when we had to cross into the Soviet sector. Growing up, we were told, "Don't look the soldiers in the eye. Look straight ahead." It was a common belief that Soviet soldiers could take a man out of his own car and ship him off to the Soviet Union as slave labor.

My family didn't have a car - but one day we were in my uncle's car. It was near dark as we came to a Soviet checkpoint. I was a little boy, I wasn't an action hero back then, and I remember how scared I was that the soldiers would pull my father or my uncle out of the car and I'd never see him again. My family and so many others lived in fear of the Soviet boot. Today, the world no longer fears the Soviet Union and it is because of the United States of America!

As a kid I saw the socialist country that Austria became after the Soviets left. I love Austria and I love the Austrian people - but I always knew America was the place for me. In school, when the teacher would talk about America, I would daydream about coming here. I would sit for hours watching American movies transfixed by my heroes like John Wayne. Everything about America seemed so big to me so open, so possible.

I finally arrived here in 1968. I had empty pockets, but I was full of dreams. The presidential campaign was in full swing. I remember watching the Nixon and Humphrey presidential race on TV. A friend who spoke German and English, translated for me. I heard Humphrey saying things that sounded like socialism, which is what I had just left. But then I heard Nixon speak. He was talking about free enterprise, getting government off your back, lowering taxes and strengthening the military. Listening to Nixon speak sounded more like a breath of fresh air.

I said to my friend, "What party is he?" My friend said, "He's a Republican." I said, "Then I am a Republican!" And I've been a Republican ever since! And trust me, in my wife's family, that's no small achievement! I'm proud to belong to the party of Abraham Lincoln, the party of Teddy Roosevelt, the party of Ronald Reagan and the party of George W. Bush.

To my fellow immigrants listening tonight, I want you to know how welcome you are in this party. We Republicans admire your ambition. We encourage your dreams. We believe in your future. One thing I learned about America is that if you work hard and play by the rules, this country is truly open to you. You can achieve anything.

Everything I have my career my success my family I owe to America. In this country, it doesn't make any difference where you were born. It doesn't make any difference who your parents were. It doesn't make any difference if, like me, you couldn't even speak English until you were in your twenties.

America gave me opportunities and my immigrant dreams came true. I want other people to get the same chances I did, the same opportunities. And I believe they can. That's why I believe in this country, that's why I believe in this party and that's why I believe in this President.

Now, many of you out there tonight are "Republican" like me in your hearts and in your beliefs. Maybe you're from Guatemala. Maybe you're from the Philippines. Maybe Europe or the Ivory Coast. Maybe you live in Ohio, Pennsylvania or New Mexico. And maybe just maybe you don't agree with this party on every single issue. I say to you tonight I believe that's not only okay, that's what's great about this country. Here we can respectfully disagree and still be patriotic still be American and still be good Republicans.

My fellow immigrants, my fellow Americans, how do you know if you are a Republican? I'll tell you how.

If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government...then you are a Republican! If you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group... then you are a Republican! If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does... then you are a Republican! If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children ... then you are a Republican! If you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope of democracy in the world ... then you are a Republican! And, ladies and gentlemen ...if you believe we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism ... then you are a Republican!

There is another way you can tell you're a Republican. You have faith in free enterprise, faith in the resourcefulness of the American people ... and faith in the U.S. economy. To those critics who are so pessimistic about our economy, I say: "Don't be economic girlie men!"

The U.S. economy remains the envy of the world. We have the highest economic growth of any of the world's major industrialized nations. Don't you remember the pessimism of 20 years ago when the critics said Japan and Germany were overtaking the U.S.? Ridiculous!

Now they say India and China are overtaking us. Don't you believe it! We may hit a few bumps - but America always moves ahead! That's what Americans do!

We move prosperity ahead. We move freedom ahead. We move people ahead. Under President Bush and Vice President Cheney, America's economy is moving ahead in spite of a recession they inherited and in spite of the attack on our homeland.

Now, the other party says there are two Americas. Don't believe that either. I've visited our troops in Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnia, Germany and all over the world. I've visited our troops in California, where they train before they go overseas. And I've visited our military hospitals. And I can tell you this: Our young men and women in uniform do not believe there are two Americas!

They believe we are one America and they are fighting for it! We are one America - and President Bush is defending it with all his heart and soul!

That's what I admire most about the President. He's a man of perseverance.

He's a man of inner strength. He is a leader who doesn't flinch, doesn't waiver, does not back down. My fellow Americans, make no mistake about it terrorism is more insidious than communism, because it yearns to destroy not just the individual, but the entire international order. The President didn't go into Iraq because the polls told him it was popular. As a matter of fact, the polls said just the opposite. But leadership isn't about polls. It's about making decisions you think are right and then standing behind those decisions. That's why America is safer with George W. Bush as President.

He knows you don't reason with terrorists. You defeat them. He knows you can't reason with people blinded by hate. They hate the power of the individual. They hate the progress of women. They hate the religious freedom of others. They hate the liberating breeze of democracy. But ladies and gentlemen, their hate is no match for America's decency.

We're the America that sends out Peace Corps volunteers to teach village children. We're the America that sends out missionaries and doctors to raise up the poor and the sick. We're the America that gives more than any other country, to fight aids in Africa and the developing world. And we're the America that fights not for imperialism but for human rights and democracy.

You know, when the Germans brought down the Berlin Wall, America's determination helped wield the sledgehammers. When that lone, young Chinese man stood in front of those tanks in Tiananmen Square, America's hopes stood with him. And when Nelson Mandela smiled in election victory after all those years in prison, America celebrated, too.

We are still the lamp lighting the world especially for those who struggle. No matter in what labor camp, they slave no matter in what injustice they're trapped - they hear our call ... they see our light ... and they feel the pull of our freedom. They come here as I did because they believe. They believe in us.

They come because their hearts say to them, as mine did, "If only I can get to America." Someone once wrote - "There are those who say that freedom is nothing but a dream." They are right. It's the American dream.

No matter the nationality, no matter the religion, no matter the ethnic background, America brings out the best in people. And as Governor of the great state of California - I see the best in Americans every day ... our police, our firefighters our nurses, doctors and teachers, our parents.

And what about the extraordinary men and women who have volunteered to fight for the United States of America! I have such great respect for them and their heroic families.

Let me tell you about the sacrifice and commitment I've seen firsthand. In one of the military hospitals I visited, I met a young guy who was in bad shape. He'd lost a leg had a hole in his stomach ... his shoulder had been shot through.

I could tell there was no way he could ever return to combat. But when I asked him, "When do you think you'll get out of the hospital?" He said, "Sir, in three weeks." And do you know what he said to me then? He said he was going to get a new leg ... and get some therapy ... and then he was going back to Iraq to serve alongside his buddies! He grinned at me and said, "Arnold ... I'll be back!"

Ladies and gentlemen, America is back! Back from the attack on our homeland - back from the attack on our economy, back from the attack on our way of life. We're back because of the perseverance, character and leadership of the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush.

My fellow Americans ...I want you to know that I believe with all my heart that America remains "the great idea" that inspires the world. It's a privilege to be born here. It's an honor to become a citizen here. It's a gift to raise your family here to vote here and to live here.

Our president, George W. Bush, has worked hard to protect and preserve the American dream for all of us. That's why I say ... send him back to Washington for four more years!

Thank you, America - and God bless you all!

lurkette 09-01-2004 06:59 AM
I thought William Saletan offered a dead-on critique of the speech:

http://www.slate.com/id/2106025/

Quote:
Judgment Day
Yes on Schwarzenegger. No on Bush.
By William Saletan
Posted Wednesday, Sept. 1, 2004, at 12:12 AM PT


Arnold Schwarzenegger gives one hell of a speech tonight. It's the best speech I've seen at either of this year's conventions. I bet he persuaded a lot of people who share some Republican attitudes but feel uncomfortable with the party's hard core—people like me—to think seriously about voting for President Bush. If you're one of those folks, I'd like to talk to you about why a Schwarzenegger Republican shouldn't support Bush.

Schwarzenegger begins by recalling his childhood in Austria, then under partial Soviet occupation. He recounts his family's terror of the communist police state. He describes the joy and pride of finding freedom in America. Like so many passages in this beautiful speech, the story brims with Reaganesque reverence.

I'm a sucker for this stuff. I often think about the Soviet era and the people crushed under it. My liberal friends never talk about it and never seem to look back. I don't remember my college classmates taking communism seriously as anything but an alternative ideal. This is one of the things that alienates me from the left. The world is full of people who seek power and menace others. The United States is the most important bulwark against these people. We must not be afraid to act. And imperfect as our freedoms are, we must never forget how precious they are.

"Today the world no longer fears the Soviet Union, and it is because of the United States of America," Schwarzenegger thunders. The delegates applaud and begin chanting, "USA! USA!" I'm tempted to join in. Schwarzenegger describes coming to America in 1968 and watching a debate between Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon. Humphrey's positions "sounded like socialism," Schwarzenegger recalls. Nixon, on the other hand, talked about "free enterprise, getting government off your back, lowering taxes, and strengthening the military." From this, Schwarzenegger explains, he decided to become a Republican. He then delivers the most important pitch of the convention:

"If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government, then you are a Republican. If you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group, then you are a Republican. If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does, then you are a Republican. If you believe that our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children, then you are a Republican. If you believe that this country, not the United Nations, is [the] best hope of democracy, then you are a Republican. And, ladies and gentlemen, if you believe we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism, then you are a Republican."

I agree with every one of these things. I can see myself as a Schwarzenegger Republican. But I can't vote for Bush.

Why not? Let's start with that Humphrey-Nixon story. It conveys that Schwarzenegger's understanding of the two parties is frozen in 1968. That's a long time ago. Both parties have changed a lot. The Democrats under Bill Clinton rediscovered a centrist philosophy they had abandoned. They became more attentive to public safety and more friendly to free enterprise. The Republican Party also shifted—not to the center, but to the right. If you liked where Nixon stood in the late 1960s and early 1970s, you're more likely to find similar policies 30 years later not in the administration of George W. Bush, but in the administration of Bill Clinton and possibly the administration of John Kerry.

It's telling that Schwarzenegger says he's "proud to belong to the party of Abraham Lincoln, the party of Teddy Roosevelt, the party of Ronald Reagan, and the party of George W. Bush." The GOP under Bush is nothing like what it was under Lincoln or even Roosevelt. The notion of wartime deficit tax cuts would have made Lincoln ill.

There's a curious gap in Schwarzenegger's speech as he segues from his litany of Republican principles to the case for Bush. Essentially, the principles vanish. He stops talking about accountability and starts talking about faith. He asks for "faith in the resourcefulness of the American people, and faith in the U.S. economy. To those critics who are so pessimistic about our economy, I say: Don't be economic girlie men!" The audience roars—it's the loudest moment of the convention—but the descent from logic into grade-school humiliation is unpersuasive and revealing. The American economy is performing far below par. Bush got the tax cuts he wanted when he came into office. He said they would fix the economy. They didn't. He will be the first president in Schwarzenegger's lifetime to preside over a net loss of jobs. Accountability means that a president who gets his economic program and delivers results this bad gets fired.

Instead, Schwarzenegger resorts to the very un-conservative tactic of inventing excuses. "America's economy is moving ahead in spite of the recession [Bush] inherited and in spite of the attack on our homeland," he says. Actually, the pace of growth has slowed again in recent months. And if every president can blame a bad economy on his predecessor, even three years after he has reversed the predecessor's policies, then no president is accountable. Schwarzenegger implies that giving up on Bush would be un-American. "We may hit a few bumps, but America always moves ahead. That's what Americans do," he says. But remember that Republican principle about the government being accountable to the people. The suggestion that giving up on Bush means giving up on ourselves—which is essentially the argument of the Bush campaign—directly subverts this principle. Bush is your employee. You don't have to vote for him just because he's in charge and represents the spirit of the nation. That's communist talk.

Same goes for Bush's Iraq policy. It's a betrayal of everything Republicans claim to stand for—fiscal prudence, the reservation of U.S. military resources for the protection of the national interest, and skepticism of government's ability to shape society. The weapons of mass destruction that Bush touted as the reason for spending our blood and treasure in Iraq are simply not there. We were not greeted with sweets and flowers as the administration suggested. We have lost nearly 1,000 soldiers. We have sunk about $200 billion into this mistake, and there is no end in sight. It's a complete failure.

Unable to defend the policy, Schwarzenegger defends Bush as "a man of inner strength. He is a leader who doesn't flinch, who doesn't waver, who does not back down." But "inner strength" is exactly the kind of New Age pap no hard-headed Republican should fall for. Accountability means judging a president by visible results. Schwarzenegger says leadership is "about making decisions you think are right and then standing behind those decisions." Fine. But standing behind your decisions means taking responsibility at election time. This is election time, and Bush's decisions have turned out to be disastrously wrong.

Schwarzenegger applauds Bush for taking a hard line on terrorism. So do I. Bush's clarity on this subject is his finest quality. But it doesn't make his foreign policy wise, any more than liberal piety about compassion makes liberal social programs effective. In Iraq, Bush has confused a mortal enemy with a less urgent one, and he has botched the worthy idea of American military leadership by biting off more than we can chew. The hatred manifested by terrorists "is no match for America's decency," Schwarzenegger opines. Decency? Do you think we're going to defeat Osama Bin Laden with decency? That's liberal talk. What we need is smart allocation of our resources. At this, Bush has utterly failed.

I'm no huge fan of John Kerry. He sees two sides of every one-sided issue, and four sides of every two-sided issue. But the alternative is a president who sees one side of every issue, no matter how many sides it has. Given the how many sides there usually are, and given how little effort Bush makes to learn about each issue, the odds are that, on average, he'll pick the wrong side. The record of the last four years shows that he has done precisely that. But because Bush refuses to "waver," as Schwarzenegger charitably puts it, we keep going in the wrong direction. The only way to stop such a president is to vote him out of office. Fortunately, an election is coming.
By Schwarzenegger's own logic, Bush is a bad choice.

onetime2 09-01-2004 07:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurkette
I thought William Saletan offered a dead-on critique of the speech:

http://www.slate.com/id/2106025/



By Schwarzenegger's own logic, Bush is a bad choice.
Not in the least. Mr. Saletan is completely wrong about the economy, the direction of the war on terror, and any belief that the Democratic party is centrist today.

ARTelevision 09-01-2004 07:30 AM
Arnold's speech was a high-quality "political" address. He aimed high and he hit the mark. The fact that there are disagreements on implicit and explicit positions is a fact of political partisanship. The fact that the speech was powerful, direct, and conveyed strong and compelling personal and human experience and communicated effectively is not addressed by partisan critique, which is couched in the guise of logical argument or disputational rhetoric.

mirevolver 09-01-2004 08:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onetime2
Not in the least. Mr. Saletan is completely wrong ... and any belief that the Democratic party is centrist today.
You hit the nail on the head. If the democratic party was a centrist party, why did they nominate John Kerry who has been rated as the most liberal senator.


Schwarzenegger's speech was an excellent convention speech. Serious at some times, humorus at other times and always full of energy. And it was a speech that I personally could identify with since my uncle is an Austrian immigrant who was a little boy under Nazi occupation and then grew up under Soviet occupation. And after coming to the US and getting his citizenship, he too joined the Republicians.

irateplatypus 09-01-2004 08:49 AM
saletan may disagree with bush's policy orientation, but i find it hard to believe that many republicans like him consider kerry anything close to a viable alternative.

roachboy 09-01-2004 09:27 AM
that last post seems like border control.
i think bush has alienated most moderates--including fiscal conservatives. those whom i know and have talked to across the board are not voting bush this time. and they are not persuaded by the illusion that kerry is other than a centrist.

[a side note, of a much smaller cadre: he has alienated most muslim-americans, those who were inclined to vote bush on social conservative grounds as well.]

bush has alienated lots of people.
just face it.
one of the main tasks of this convention/tv event is to coax these folk back into the fold.
it is self-evident.

i do not understand how the fantasy that kerry is other than a centrist has taken hold anywhere--i figure it suits the purposes of the republicans to portray him as some leftist in part because it normalizes the extreme rightward drift the party has undergone, which is on the surface now in bushworld. it plays on the old canard dear to the right these days that they are a persecuted populist minority beset on all sides by stalinists---which is little more than a version of the evangelical persecution complex (one's faith is reflected in the level of antagonistic rejection one encounters from unbelievers) . the function of the narrative is obvious enough--it draws boundaries that people can live within---but the mystery is that anyone finds it compelling. you have to have a really narrow political spectrum in mind for the argument to hold--like you are de facto aligning with some militia outfit (a "patriot organization"), and are taking a little breather from playing paintball in camo and distributing pamphlets about how no-one should participate in jury duty to look around. the paranoid vision is an index of ideological purity, presumably. that you might encounter this line from talking heads on fox news (or someplace equivalent or even worse) who wear bidness suits and talk over those who disagree changes nothing.


i thought saletan pretty much on in most of what he says.
i have not seen anything like a substantive critique of his article here--saying he wrong about everything is not substantive---but i would be interested in seeing one.

Warf Rat 09-01-2004 09:30 AM
I was there last night and his speech was powerful and will be hard to follow.
Everone I spoke with thinks that speech will have a serious impact on undecided voters. Arnold stole the show and that's all there is too it.

onetime2 09-01-2004 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
i thought saletan pretty much on in most of what he says.
i have not seen anything like a substantive critique of his article here--saying he wrong about everything is not substantive---but i would be interested in seeing one.
Since there are no facts in his critique it's tough to take them on point by point. The war on terror, the true state of the economy, and John Kerry's voting record have been covered in too many threads throughout the politics board. A search will easily bring them up. Repeating them here offers little incremental value, IMO.

roachboy 09-01-2004 09:45 AM
if you are going to critique the article, it is usually good form to take on what it actually is about.

it is primarily a discourse analysis of schwartzenegger's speech.
the facts he musters are the shifts in language within the speech.
the general framework for interpretation are broader policy issues, but they are not central to the analysis.
and the logic of the article does not work the other way around.

the evaluation of the argument would come in whether you agree with how saletan characterizes the speech, not in whether you disagree with the frameworks that he brings to bear on those features.

what saletan does in the article i find interesting. his point seems to be that arnolds own political position does not permit him to actually endorse bush, and that the endorsement sections of the speech are fraught with ambivalence if you read it carefully--the speech therefore perform what i assume he takes to be the problem facing moderates at this convention.

that is the argument.

do you find that a problem?
if so why?

onetime2 09-01-2004 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
if you are going to critique the article, it is usually good form to take on what it actually is about.
do you find that a problem?
if so why?
Yes I find that a problem. You critiqued my post for not offering specifics in opposition to him but have no problem with his vagaries being used to counter Arnold's speech.

powerclown 09-01-2004 09:53 AM
Loved it...'Economic girly-men' was the funniest thing in politics in years. Giuliani was very good too, and Ahhnold was over the top. Minus the Bush chippys, this convention is hands down more entertaining than the DNC.

roachboy 09-01-2004 09:54 AM
it is a specific analysis, onetime.
you say its wrong, but then wont address the actual content of the article.
if you are going to play that way, why bother in the first place?

onetime2 09-01-2004 09:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
Loved it...'Economic girly-men' was the funniest thing in politics in years. Giuliani was very good too, and Ahhnold was over the top. Minus the Bush chippys, this convention is hands down more entertaining than the DNC.
I missed Giuliani and the Bush twins but definitely agree with you about his economic girly men comment.

His use of the term despite attacks within his state the last time he used it really helps him exert dominance over his critics.

The challenge I think he will have is transitioning from an in your face kind of political style to one of more intellectual substance. That will make him a real political powerhouse. He's already got the reputation of strength (7 Mr Universe titles or whatever cemented that a long time ago) now he needs to reinforce his other traits so that powerful speeches are not his only calling card and can be used only when necessary to drive points home.

onetime2 09-01-2004 10:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
it is a specific analysis, onetime.
you say its wrong, but then wont address the actual content of the article.
if you are going to play that way, why bother in the first place?
IMO, there was little content in the article and that's all the response it deserved.

Who knows Arnold's logic better, Arnold or Mr. Saletan? Saletan makes spurious claims as to Arnold's true beliefs and makes further assertions which haven't a shred of truth.

Examples:
To say that the Iraq campaign is "a complete failure" is only one obvious example of his intellectual dishonesty.

Another, "The American economy is performing far below par." Please tell me where the truth is here? He obviously has no clue what par is historically for the economy or where the economy stands today.

He offered no specifics whatsoever and you tout his analysis, yet you expect substantive specifics in return. If you require substantive proof of one you should require substantive proof of the other.

irateplatypus 09-01-2004 10:28 AM
border control? oh my...

the president is running neck and neck with kerry, and that is before any boost from the convention. it's hard to accept your analysis that they are trying to coax moderates back into the fold, as if they had left in significant numbers, when the moderate position must be strong enough to garner half the electorate already.

reaching out for more moderates? probably. a good strategy if you ask me. but i think you're kidding yourself if you think kerry is a significantly stronger candidate among moderates than the president.

student 09-01-2004 10:37 AM
If you missed Guliani's speech, I believe I can offer a synopsis. "September 11th, 9/11, nine eleven, on September the 11th, Bush is great, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, before September the 11th, Bush is a strong unwaivering leader, after September the 11th, Bush defends Americans from terrorists, September the 11th will not be forgotten."

Stompy 09-01-2004 10:42 AM
It was a great speech. After all, he is an actor, so I'd be highly surprised if he actually every gave a bad speech! It'd be even better if half of what he said was actually the way it really is.

Don't get me wrong, Arnold is a good Governor and all (from what I've read), but is he even talking about the same US I'm living in? I'd really like to live in the US he speaks of!!

I kinda lose all hope in things and realize it's all for show when he actually believes that Bush could make it so..

Superbelt 09-01-2004 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirevolver
You hit the nail on the head. If the democratic party was a centrist party, why did they nominate John Kerry who has been rated as the most liberal senator.
Sigh.

Most liberal senator ACCORDING TO WHO?

Which organization(s) Please answer this! :thumbsup:

powerclown 09-01-2004 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by student
If you missed Guliani's speech, I believe I can offer a synopsis. "September 11th, 9/11, nine eleven, on September the 11th, Bush is great, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, before September the 11th, Bush is a strong unwaivering leader, after September the 11th, Bush defends Americans from terrorists, September the 11th will not be forgotten."
One shouldn't underestimate how big an issue 9/11 will be in this election.

onetime2 09-01-2004 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbelt
Sigh.

Most liberal senator ACCORDING TO WHO?

Which organization(s) Please answer this! :thumbsup:
Personally, I look at his voting record...

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rati...an_id=S0421103

ARTelevision 09-01-2004 11:32 AM
Who? - Americans for Democratic Action, a leading liberal organization for more than half a century. The ADA keeps tabs on Congressional voting and ranks Senators on their votes for liberal causes, so as to inform ADA's members as to who are their strongest supporters.

Senator Kerry came in number one on liberal voting in the Senate, ranking above Ted Kennedy.

http://www.adaction.org/KerryEdwardsVR.htm

Zeld2.0 09-01-2004 12:41 PM
Considering the undecided is somewhere between 1-2% of the nation, a convention isn't going to sway a large fraction of the votes (it can certainly decide things, but don't kid yourself - most people are set on who they are going to vote if they even vote, not to mention not everyone watches the conventions)

And FWIW, whenver a candidate goes through primaries, they are generally more to the extremes of the political spectrum. Why? Because often times the people who actually bother to go out to vote are those who are more extreme on the spectrum themselves.

smooth 09-01-2004 12:51 PM
Stompy, I don't agree that arnold has been a very effective governor for our state for a variety of reasons, but I should save that for another thread.

But his speech last night was clearly powerful, despite the pitfalls touched upon by the article lurkette posted (thank you, btw). I was wondering, too, just what the impetus is from the right to reinterpret that 1960's era so romantically--it used to be the 50's. Has the focus of reinterpretation moved forward a decade in synch with real time? I would hope they've got a tough time ahead in regards to that project, but people are actually eating up the valorious and noble vietnam war along with the standard bearer of republican truth--Richard Nixon, WTH?

All that aside, Shwarzenegger gave the best speech I have ever seen him give (and, no, he didn't give great ones before, acting career aside). One of my deepest felt fears is his powerful persona and how much effect he may have on the political landscape of California. I would prefer substance over this melding of pop-culture and politics ('girlie men', no please, spoofing SNL is not my idea of greatness), but the people seem willing to eat it up--so who am I to object to what befalls them as a result?

Oh yeah, and I'm not a kerry supporter, either, but wanted to respond to this:
Quote:
I'm no huge fan of John Kerry. He sees two sides of every one-sided issue, and four sides of every two-sided issue. But the alternative is a president who sees one side of every issue, no matter how many sides it has.
I actually see that as a strenght, and I suspect that kerry does, too, along with many of his supporters.

mirevolver 09-01-2004 01:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbelt
Sigh.

Most liberal senator ACCORDING TO WHO?

Which organization(s) Please answer this! :thumbsup:

Though onetime and ARTelevision have already answered for me, if you're still not convinced, here's the list of the National Journal's ratings for senators. You'll find John Kerry at the top of the list.

http://nationaljournal.com/members/n...posite_lib.htm

Sparhawk 09-01-2004 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirevolver
Though onetime and ARTelevision have already answered for me, if you're still not convinced, here's the list of the National Journal's ratings for senators. You'll find John Kerry at the top of the list.

http://nationaljournal.com/members/n...posite_lib.htm
Sigh. The data you are referencing comes from 2003, the year before a national election. And what do politicians do the year before an election? That's right, they tend to their base. If you look back at the available data for the last 20 years, then you can label him a liberal Senator, but certainly not "the most liberal member" - unless of course you follow it up with "in just one year, out of the 20 in which he served". I mean, this is a man who voted FOR NAFTA, FOR balancing the budget, etc. It's even more disengenuous in Edwards' case - his 6 year record shows him to be much lower on the liberal totem pole even than Kerry.

mirevolver 09-01-2004 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparhawk
Sigh. The data you are referencing comes from 2003, the year before a national election. And what do politicians do the year before an election? That's right, they tend to their base. If you look back at the available data for the last 20 years, then you can label him a liberal Senator, but certainly not "the most liberal member" - unless of course you follow it up with "in just one year, out of the 20 in which he served". I mean, this is a man who voted FOR NAFTA, FOR balancing the budget, etc. It's even more disengenuous in Edwards' case - his 6 year record shows him to be much lower on the liberal totem pole even than Kerry.
I would certianly like to show data from 2004, but the National Journal does their ranking by examining votes for the entire year and since 2004 hasn't ended yet the most recent data is 2003.

It should also be noted that Kerry has also earned the honor of "Most liberal senator" by the National Journal three prior times. According to the Drudge Report

Hwed 09-01-2004 02:30 PM
I got up and cheered. Arnold hit the nail on the head with the optimism and spirit that define the Republican Party for me. Home run.

ubertuber 09-01-2004 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stompy
It'd be even better if half of what he said was actually the way it really is.

Don't get me wrong, Arnold is a good Governor and all (from what I've read), but is he even talking about the same US I'm living in? I'd really like to live in the US he speaks of!!
Stompy, I actually very much believe that I live in the America that Arnold spoke of. I suppose this is as much a personality trait as a political belief, but I would say that we are surrounded by opportunities - not just opportunities to play by the rules and succeed, but also opportunities to challenge and improve the status quo. In fact, I believe this so strongly that I am having a hard time envisioning an America where this is not the case. I do respect your opinion, so I'm not saying this to claim that you are wrong, but merely to speak up and show that there is another point of view.

Cynthetiq 09-01-2004 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ubertuber
Stompy, I actually very much believe that I live in the America that Arnold spoke of. I suppose this is as much a personality trait as a political belief, but I would say that we are surrounded by opportunities - not just opportunities to play by the rules and succeed, but also opportunities to challenge and improve the status quo. In fact, I believe this so strongly that I am having a hard time envisioning an America where this is not the case. I do respect your opinion, so I'm not saying this to claim that you are wrong, but merely to speak up and show that there is another point of view.
I too believe that I live in this world he speaks of.... People like him, Alex Yemenidjian (CEO MGM, CSUN Alum), and Mel Karmazin (CEO Viacom, Pace Univ Alum) but came from nothing and didn't go to Ivy League schools. Through opportunity and perserverence, they became the movers and shakers they are today.

filtherton 09-01-2004 04:25 PM
I long for the days of yore, like last year, when conservatives still thought actors should stay out of politics. I'm surprised he didn't find a way to throw in the phrase, "I'll be back".

OpieCunningham 09-01-2004 04:40 PM
As for Arnold's speech - it was grand and all, but the only way you can apply the glowing idealism of its contents specifically to the affects of Republican policies is if you are both 1, a Republican and 2, Oblivious.

Not that it would be any more accurate to apply his speech to the Democrats - ultimately, it was nothing more than "America is great!" ... with an occasional "Democrats are not" thrown in so that we can all see Arnold's beautiful, glorious vision of the Republican party.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mirevolver
Though onetime and ARTelevision have already answered for me, if you're still not convinced, here's the list of the National Journal's ratings for senators. You'll find John Kerry at the top of the list.

http://nationaljournal.com/members/n...posite_lib.htm
You must have missed the episode of The Daily Show which debunked this.

mirevolver 09-01-2004 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
You must have missed the episode of The Daily Show which debunked this.
I watch The Daily Show purely for it's comedic value and don't put any merit into what is actually said since Jon Stewart frequently refers to the show as "Fake News"

OpieCunningham 09-01-2004 05:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirevolver
I watch The Daily Show purely for it's comedic value and don't put any merit into what is actually said since Jon Stewart frequently refers to the show as "Fake News"
I've generally considered The Daily Show to be as much "fake news" as Fox News is "fair and balanced". In the end, however much cynical comedy gold The Daily Show produces, it is no more fake than any other cable news resource - it offers, like every other news program, a unique perspective on an issue.

That it effectively debunked the National Journal talking point should not detract from the comedy of watching Jon Stewart walk all over the Republican talking head he had on his show at the time.

matteo101 09-01-2004 05:27 PM
He couldn't beat Barack Obama, but I guess that is pretty hard to do.

tspikes51 09-01-2004 06:23 PM
Did anybody else notice that the whole focus of last night seemed to be "we like America better than the Democrats"? Maybe it just appeared that way to me. Anyways, Schwarzenegger's speech was one of the best examples of motivational oration this world has seen in the past 20 years. The reason that it lacked specifics on why we should vote for Bush was because the purpose of his speech was not to include specifics in order to persuade us to vote for anybody, it was rather just a speech to set the tone for the convention. In my opinion he did a damn fine job of it, pointing out the things that the Bush campaign seems to be banking on: the aspects of this nation that makes it great in order to set the tone. He used a great, heartwarming story of achieving the "American Dream" to effectively pull at the heartstrings of the audience.

tspikes51 09-01-2004 06:27 PM
btw, I'm a Republican, but I don't think I'll be voting for Bush.

And America doesn't suck as much as you think it does. It whips the hell out of living in a country where we would be shot for talking about our country in such a way, and it sure beats a country where your government makes you work hard without getting shit in return. Plus, most of the people that say stuff like "the government blows," "rich people suck," or "Republicans/Democrats are assholes" don't vote anyway.

So stop your bitching.

Stompy 09-01-2004 07:57 PM
America does "suck" as much as I think it does. What's important to me might not be important to you, vice versa. In fact, I vote.. and my first time voting was in 2000 for Bush. Hey, at the time, he sold himself very well with a lot of promises. It's just unfortunate that, IMO, he didn't turn out to be someone I felt comfortable having as a leader. Not now that a lot of the world views us differently (and negatively).

The govt hasn't done anything to upset *my* general flow of life, and I consider myself lucky for that. I of all people know what opportunities are presented because I started my career at 16 and have lived a comfortable life ever since, however... I don't just live in my own little world. There are more things that make up a country as a whole than personal opportunity like Arnold explained.

You might not outright get SHOT for talking bad about your country, but goddamn is it ever headed in that direction! For example, after 9/11, if you talked bad about this country and pointed out that our foreign policy is not as good as it can be, people acted like you were a traitor or a terrorist. The country has a different... air about it lately, and to me, it's not a comforting one.

When the leaders themselves belt out lines like "you're either with us or against us" and sway the general population into thinking the same, problems tend to arise.

There's definitely a lot more reasons why I don't picture the same America that Arnold speaks of. Land of opportunity? Indeed, but... there's really more to it than that.

f00sion 09-02-2004 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
Loved it...'Economic girly-men' was the funniest thing in politics in years. Giuliani was very good too, and Ahhnold was over the top. Minus the Bush chippys, this convention is hands down more entertaining than the DNC.
to the 1.3 million more people who have slipped into poverty this year:
"suck it up, faggots"

powerclown 09-02-2004 11:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by f00sion
to the 1.3 million more people who have slipped into poverty this year:
"suck it up, faggots"
Bush's fault?

Reality Check

Quote:
Gephardt TV Ad Misleads on Job Loss
A Gephardt ad in Iowa says “George Bush has lost more jobs since any President since Herbert Hoover.” That’s not exactly true

December 4, 2003
Modified: January 18, 2004

Summary

In a TV ad that aired in Iowa, Gephardt says the President has “lost more jobs than the last 11 Presidents, ” which is incorrect. Ronald Reagan lost more jobs than Bush, then got them back. Bush could still do the same.

Analysis

In a TV ad that aired in Iowa , Gephardt said the President has “lost more jobs than any president since Herbert Hoover. He's lost more jobs than the last 11 Presidents.” In fact, the economy shed just over 2.7 million payroll jobs in the slump that was underway when the Gephardt ad began airing. That's 124,000 fewer jobs than were lost than between July, 1981 and December, 1982, when Ronald Reagan was President. And at that time the economy was much smaller.

The U.S. economy has lost just over 2% percent of the payroll jobs it was generating at the end of the longest boom in American history, which was already weakening in the final months of the Clinton administration. But it lost 3.1% of payroll jobs during the Reagan downturn, which is generally conceded to have been the worst since the Depression.

Most of the Bush job loss came in the months just after he took office, and especially in the wake of September 11, 2001 . The trend was almost flat starting in January, 2002, and turned upward in August.

It now seems likely that Bush will end his term with the economy employing fewer payroll workers than when he took office, according to most projections by private economists. If that happens, Bush's critics will be able to say correctly that he's the first since Hoover to have ended an entire term with a net job loss. But it's premature to say that now. Even Reagan’s bigger job loss was erased less than two years after growth resumed. And several private economists are projecting job gains in the next 12 months that would leave Bush with a net gain in jobs.
Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...lown/reeol.jpg

OpieCunningham 09-02-2004 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
Bush's fault?
The crux of your argument is that, as of Dec. 2003, some economists were claiming that the economy would surge before the end of Bush's first term and all of the job losses would be erased.

That didn't happen and it's not going to happen in the next 60 days.

Bush's fault? Well, yes.

smooth 09-02-2004 12:22 PM
OK, well here's a reality check for you:

That article was written in the first few days of December of last year.

It projected that more jobs would be gained in the coming year, and concluded from that such criticisms were premature.

However, we are only a few months away from the election and the end of this year. The situation has not picked up, as this article suggest it would. The conclusion is that their projection was wrong and Bush will, in fact, end his first term with an abysmal job record--the original critique was correct.

Edit: You'll also notice that unemployment essentially stays static for the months following the article. I don't have all the numbers, but I suspect that the differences are statistically insignificant, which means that unemployment hasn't decreased (although it hasn't increased, either).

onetime2 09-03-2004 04:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

Bush's fault? Well, yes.
Some questions then:

How much impact do you believe the President exerts on the economy?

Can you give some examples of the actions/policies which Bush initiated between his election in November 2000 and the end of 2001 that caused unemployment to increase?

Assuming you believe the President can substantially impact the economy through his policies, how long do you think it takes for such policies to change economic indicators?

Do you know what productivity has been doing over the last decade or so?

Any thoughts on the relationship between productivity levels and employment levels?

Pacifier 09-03-2004 07:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onetime2
He certainly lent a new perspective (Immigrant, as a boy living under Soviet occupation
Statements like that are a primpe exaple why Schwarzeneggers speech was BS, he makes vague remarks about soviet troops to support the impression that he was living under soviet occupation.
Fact is that the Steiermark, where arnold was born, was under british occupation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by onetime2
coming from a socialist country
When Schwarzenegger left in 1968 Ausria was ruled by the ÖVP (Austrian People's Party) a coservative party:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_People%27s_Party

filtherton 09-03-2004 08:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onetime2
Some questions then:

How much impact do you believe the President exerts on the economy?

Can you give some examples of the actions/policies which Bush initiated between his election in November 2000 and the end of 2001 that caused unemployment to increase?

Assuming you believe the President can substantially impact the economy through his policies, how long do you think it takes for such policies to change economic indicators?

Do you know what productivity has been doing over the last decade or so?

Any thoughts on the relationship between productivity levels and employment levels?

I can give examples of bush attempting to take credit for the economy's rebound(heh.). Obviously, the president thinks he has some input in the health of the economy. Do you think that he has zero influence on the economy? Shit, our economy is so open to influence that the stock market falls if alan greenspan doesn't eat enough fiber.

As for productivity, it is an indicator of something, but productivity is only a small piece of the economic pie. Whether it is an indicator of a healthy economy depends on whether you factor in the health and well being of the average employee into your calculations. Higher productivity in this context means the employee is being asked to do more for the same amount of pay. Productivity usually increases as more people are layed off because those who aren't layed off are forced to fill the empty chairs of their excoworkers.

If you listen to the politicians talk, all of the positive trends in our economy are the result of their guy's policies and all of the negative trends are the result of the other guy's policies.

onetime2 09-03-2004 09:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
I can give examples of bush attempting to take credit for the economy's rebound(heh.). Obviously, the president thinks he has some input in the health of the economy. Do you think that he has zero influence on the economy? Shit, our economy is so open to influence that the stock market falls if alan greenspan doesn't eat enough fiber.

As for productivity, it is an indicator of something, but productivity is only a small piece of the economic pie. Whether it is an indicator of a healthy economy depends on whether you factor in the health and well being of the average employee into your calculations. Higher productivity in this context means the employee is being asked to do more for the same amount of pay. Productivity usually increases as more people are layed off because those who aren't layed off are forced to fill the empty chairs of their excoworkers.

If you listen to the politicians talk, all of the positive trends in our economy are the result of their guy's policies and all of the negative trends are the result of the other guy's policies.
This has been covered many times before. Every President is forced to take credit for the economy because those ignorant of these matters assign blame to him when it falters.

The stock market is not the economy. The economy is made up of millions of companies (from monsters like Wal Mart to the local newstand), thousands of industries, and billions of consumers. The economy is not easily influenced. The single person with any sort of control on the economy is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve (currently Alan Greenspan) and even his manipulation of interest rates (which immediately have a real effect on the economy) takes many months to significantly impact the flow of the economy.

Sustained productivity growth over the long term has a direct impact on employment. The more productive workers are the fewer workers required. If, as you state, productivity has increased primarily from the fact that people have been laid off and workers are being forced to do more how do you reconcile the fact that productivity has been increasing significantly for about a decade? This obviously would include the "low" unemployment period under Clinton's tenure.

Politicians can talk all they want but the reality is the President has almost no influence on the economy in 99% of cases.

Stompy 09-03-2004 09:18 AM
Yeah, I've never been a firm believer in the thought that any ONE person can dictate and control the entire economy.. as if he's sitting behind a desk putting one of two buttons that read "Create more jobs" "Take more jobs".

It's the product of what every politician does, what laws they make and break, general state of the world, etc...

A lot of people say "Bush destroyed jobs" while others say "Bush got stuck with the after effects of Clinton" etc etc... it's all BS, because I'm sure EVERY President in history would LOVE to magically be able to create jobs for people. It's not like he's sitting back sayin, "Hehe, I just took a million jobs away! My plan succeeded!"

The thing is, it's not easy and it's most certainly not the work of ONE person.

filtherton 09-03-2004 09:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onetime2
This has been covered many times before. Every President is forced to take credit for the economy because those ignorant of these matters assign blame to him when it falters.

The stock market is not the economy. The economy is made up of millions of companies (from monsters like Wal Mart to the local newstand), thousands of industries, and billions of consumers. The economy is not easily influenced. The single person with any sort of control on the economy is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve (currently Alan Greenspan) and even his manipulation of interest rates (which immediately have a real effect on the economy) takes many months to significantly impact the flow of the economy.

Sustained productivity growth over the long term has a direct impact on employment. The more productive workers are the fewer workers required. If, as you state, productivity has increased primarily from the fact that people have been laid off and workers are being forced to do more how do you reconcile the fact that productivity has been increasing significantly for about a decade? This obviously would include the "low" unemployment period under Clinton's tenure.

Politicians can talk all they want but the reality is the President has almost no influence on the economy in 99% of cases.

If president bush was actually the "no bullshit common man" that his supporters like to paint him to be than he wouldn't pretend to have a say in the economy.

I didn't say layoffs were the only reason that productivity has increased. Offshoring and technology no boubt help too. What i meant was that i think they are probably a factor in the productivity increases that you're seemingly try to pawn off as a sign of a rebounding economy. If they have indeed been increasing for the past decade than why are they even relevant in a discussion about any kind of current economic upswing?

onetime2 09-03-2004 10:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
I didn't say layoffs were the only reason that productivity has increased. Offshoring and technology no boubt help too. What i meant was that i think they are probably a factor in the productivity increases that you're seemingly try to pawn off as a sign of a rebounding economy. If they have indeed been increasing for the past decade than why are they even relevant in a discussion about any kind of current economic upswing?
And nowhere did I say that you did. You implied that it was a primary driver of it since you pointed to it alone.

Technology is absolutely the primary driver in the productivity gains. The "offshoring" has virtually no impact whatsoever (the primary reason being the phenomenon is ridiculously overstated) and secondary reasons include the fact that those jobs are no longer counted in the figures and when they're shipped overseas they typically see productivity decline. The productivity decline doesn't matter so much because the labor is relatively cheap and you can afford to pay more workers while still making it "profitable".

The reason that productivity is relevant (as outlined above) is the fact that higher productivity means fewer jobs. I am not pointing to high productivity as evidence of an economic upswing but of a primary driver of "high" unemployment rates. Pointing to slow job creation as evidence of economic distress is partisanship at its worst since no single indicator is sufficient to describe the health of the economy.

*"profitable" in quotes because corporations may be starting to learn the administration of overseas workers and lower quality work may mean the profits generated aren't worth it

"high" in quotes because current unemployment levels are within the realm of the traditional definition of full employment.

And as far as Bush claiming credit, again, he has little choice since the Kerry campaign (and every other Presidential campaign before it) wants to blame the current administration for economic suffering.

roachboy 09-03-2004 10:14 AM
taking in aggregate terms about the impact of rationalization (technology-driven standardization of tasks) make little sense. the implementation and impact of these processes vary wildly by sector. textiles differ from clothing differs from x differs from y differs from z.

outsourcing impact is problematic in terms of measurement at another level as well: because of how american production levels have been altered (at the level of definition)--this is written into tarrif definitions, which enables you to decode place of origin for transport, which is the basis for stats on the matter---so you cant know too much from the official numbers--saying that it has been overstated is arbitrary. if assembly operations are understood as elements of domestic production, and much assembly is offshore, then how would an aggregate number tell you anything about what is going on? the examples can be multiplied here....

your "learning curve" for corporations is meaningless in the abstract--same logic applies here. what sectors are you talking about? do you think there is some zietgeist that organizes corporate behaviours such that everyone recognizes the same thing at the same time? then you are dreaming....

unemployment figures are also suspect in that people unemployed more than 6 months are not counted--it is a reagan-style way of addressing structural unemployment--pretend it is not there---the claim that the american is a full-employment economy seems to fly in the face of reason--you have to be totally uncritical about the definition of the statistical category "unemployed" to believe anything like that.

this all seems like conservative pollyanna stuff to me--nothing is wrong, dont worry, every critique is generated by handwringing naysayers as a function of some emotional problem they share, not to take it seriously, see eveyrhtying can be explained away----if you assume an adequately credulous audience---which this line seems to be able to find.

smooth 09-03-2004 10:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stompy
Yeah, I've never been a firm believer in the thought that any ONE person can dictate and control the entire economy.. as if he's sitting behind a desk putting one of two buttons that read "Create more jobs" "Take more jobs".

It's the product of what every politician does, what laws they make and break, general state of the world, etc...

A lot of people say "Bush destroyed jobs" while others say "Bush got stuck with the after effects of Clinton" etc etc... it's all BS, because I'm sure EVERY President in history would LOVE to magically be able to create jobs for people. It's not like he's sitting back sayin, "Hehe, I just took a million jobs away! My plan succeeded!"

The thing is, it's not easy and it's most certainly not the work of ONE person.
I believe that the current president has control over public perception of the economy's well-being. His policies encourage or discourage people to have faith in the long-term health of an economy and encourage or discourage spending/consuming/production/etc.

That's at least one direct effect I would attribute to the sitting president.

filtherton 09-03-2004 10:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onetime2
And nowhere did I say that you did. You implied that it was a primary driver of it since you pointed to it alone.
yep.

Quote:
Originally Posted by onetime2
If, as you state, productivity has increased primarily from the fact that people have been laid off and workers are being forced to do more...



Quote:
Originally Posted by onetime2
Technology is absolutely the primary driver in the productivity gains. The "offshoring" has virtually no impact whatsoever (the primary reason being the phenomenon is ridiculously overstated) and secondary reasons include the fact that those jobs are no longer counted in the figures and when they're shipped overseas they typically see productivity decline. The productivity decline doesn't matter so much because the labor is relatively cheap and you can afford to pay more workers while still making it "profitable".

The reason that productivity is relevant (as outlined above) is the fact that higher productivity means fewer jobs. I am not pointing to high productivity as evidence of an economic upswing but of a primary driver of "high" unemployment rates. Pointing to slow job creation as evidence of economic distress is partisanship at its worst since no single indicator is sufficient to describe the health of the economy.

*"profitable" in quotes because corporations may be starting to learn the administration of overseas workers and lower quality work may mean the profits generated aren't worth it

"high" in quotes because current unemployment levels are within the realm of the traditional definition of full employment.

And as far as Bush claiming credit, again, he has little choice since the Kerry campaign (and every other Presidential campaign before it) wants to blame the current administration for economic suffering.
Higher productivity means fewer jobs. Ok, but which is the cause and which is the effect?

You cannot claim that technology is absolutely the primary driver in productivity gains because there is no way to prove it. That's the itchy thing about economics, you(the general you, not onetime2) can make a whole bootyload of assertions based on ceteris paribus and the laws of supply and demand, but when it comes down to it you're nothing more than an educated guesser with an inherent tendency to back up your own preconcieved notions.

How is slow job creation not a sign of economic distress? I think if you didn't have a job you'd be pretty fucking distressed. I'm talking about economics here as they effect actual living americans who have to pay rent and buy groceries and feed children, not some abstract indicator that looks good on paper and means a lot to econ majors. We're talking about the economy in action as it effects real people. Claiming slow job creation isn't a sign of distress is a reflection of the sociopathic economics that care only for numbers on a page.

Bush deserves some of the blame for economic hardship because he has done nothing to allieve it. Cutting taxes disproportionately for the wealthy does nothing timely to help anyone who currently can't find a job. They can wait, probably for a very long time, for the money to trickle down but in the end it probably won't amount to much.

Unemployment is normal in any economy, especially when it is changing direction. The problem lies in how you deal with that unemployment. I've heard you often refer to the need for the retraining of the workforce to take advantage of changes in the economy's direction. What exactly has the president done to make that period of unemployment and retraining easier on the average american (the person the economy should be serving)?

onetime2 09-03-2004 04:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
yep.

Higher productivity means fewer jobs. Ok, but which is the cause and which is the effect?

You cannot claim that technology is absolutely the primary driver in productivity gains because there is no way to prove it. That's the itchy thing about economics, you(the general you, not onetime2) can make a whole bootyload of assertions based on ceteris paribus and the laws of supply and demand, but when it comes down to it you're nothing more than an educated guesser with an inherent tendency to back up your own preconcieved notions.

How is slow job creation not a sign of economic distress? I think if you didn't have a job you'd be pretty fucking distressed. I'm talking about economics here as they effect actual living americans who have to pay rent and buy groceries and feed children, not some abstract indicator that looks good on paper and means a lot to econ majors. We're talking about the economy in action as it effects real people. Claiming slow job creation isn't a sign of distress is a reflection of the sociopathic economics that care only for numbers on a page.

Bush deserves some of the blame for economic hardship because he has done nothing to allieve it. Cutting taxes disproportionately for the wealthy does nothing timely to help anyone who currently can't find a job. They can wait, probably for a very long time, for the money to trickle down but in the end it probably won't amount to much.

Unemployment is normal in any economy, especially when it is changing direction. The problem lies in how you deal with that unemployment. I've heard you often refer to the need for the retraining of the workforce to take advantage of changes in the economy's direction. What exactly has the president done to make that period of unemployment and retraining easier on the average american (the person the economy should be serving)?
You appear to be confused about the words "primarily" and "sole". The main reason you pointed to for rising productivity was fewer workers being forced to do more that would imply that is what you believe to be the primary driver. Sole driver would mean it and it alone. Reread what I posted and perhaps you will recognize I never intended (nor said) sole.

Feel free to explain how the rising productivity occured during times of historically low unemployment. Certainly unemployment could not cause increased productivity before there is unemployment.

Slow job growth when the economy is near full employment is a sign of distress now? The general concensus is that full employment is in the 5 to 6% range. Where are we now?

You claim that Bush bears some blame but you've never offered one example of what he's done to hamper the economy or an example of what he could have done to make it better. That was, after all, my initial challenge in the thread. If you have no belief or interest in economic theory and reality then why bother to post about economic indicators, the state of the economy, and the President's responsibility for current economic conditions?

I will take educated guesses backed up by years of economic analysis, in depth understanding of economic indicators, and historical truths over finger pointing with absolutely no presented facts any day.

I speak of his goal of financing retraining of workers in industries which are dying out or becoming less labor intensive as examples of good programs. I do not point to them as being the end all be all of economic fixes.

They have zero chance of stopping displaced employees. It is simply a resource to help ease the transition.

smooth 09-04-2004 09:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onetime2
You appear to be confused about the words "primarily" and "sole".
Ah, yes, filtherton, you're 'confused,' kindly go home and lick your nuts now :rolleyes:

onetime seems to be hiding up his sleeve whether those magical growth spurts in yonder years were actually less steep than the current, which would support your assertion over his.

Check out the numbers and see if it's not the case that productivity increases more rapidly during times of economic downturns than when it slowly churns like it should.

Strange Famous 09-05-2004 07:00 AM
Erm... maybe his family feared the Soviets because his father was a Nazi Stormtrooper?

ubertuber 09-05-2004 07:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth
I believe that the current president has control over public perception of the economy's well-being. His policies encourage or discourage people to have faith in the long-term health of an economy and encourage or discourage spending/consuming/production/etc.

That's at least one direct effect I would attribute to the sitting president.
Yes - this is a great distinction. I agree 100%. The question is which effect Bush has had - many clearly believe that we are in economic trouble, but others believe just as clearly that their experience contradicts the numbers (and some even have numbers on their side as well). It is hard to say what the "consensus" is. My experience has shown me that the country does not reflect TFP's or NYC's demographics, so I truly have no idea. The election will tell...

hunnychile 09-05-2004 09:40 PM
.....and yet none of the Republicans who spoke at the RNC have ever uttered a word about Aids.

Too busy making funny jokes, I guess.

filtherton 09-06-2004 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth
Ah, yes, filtherton, you're 'confused,' kindly go home and lick your nuts now :rolleyes:

onetime seems to be hiding up his sleeve whether those magical growth spurts in yonder years were actually less steep than the current, which would support your assertion over his.

Check out the numbers and see if it's not the case that productivity increases more rapidly during times of economic downturns than when it slowly churns like it should.
On productivity and confusion:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/4964147.html
Quote:
Joan Williams and Ariane Hegewisch: Confusing productivity with long workweek
Joan Williams and Ariane Hegewisch
September 6, 2004 WILLIAMS0906

Politicians and CEOs like to boast about the productivity of American workers. But here's the dirty little secret: U.S. productivity is No. 1 in the world when productivity is measured as gross domestic product per worker, but our lead vanishes when productivity is measured as GDP per hour worked, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, whose members are the world's 30 most developed nations.

Productivity per hour is higher in France, with the United States at about the same level as other advanced European economies. As it turns out, the U.S. "productivity advantage" is just another way of saying that we work more hours than workers in any other industrialized country except South Korea. Is that something to brag about?

Europeans take an average of six to seven weeks of paid annual leave, compared with just 12 days in the United States. Twice as many American as European workers put in more than 48 hours per week. Particularly sobering is the fact that in two out of three American families with small children in which both parents work, the couples work more than 80 total hours per week, also more than double the European rate.

Confusing productivity with long work hours precludes a much-needed public debate about the costs and benefits of workaholism.

Conventional economic theory argues that Americans prefer the higher income gained from working extra hours, while Europeans prefer more family time and leisure. This truth may hold supreme among economists (and business reporters), but study after sociological study contradicts it. Sociologists have long documented that many Americans (men especially) want more family or leisure time and would be willing to sacrifice up to a quarter of their salaries in return. But they are prevented from working the hours they prefer for two kinds of reasons.

Some Americans just need the money, given that the U.S. has the most unequal income distribution in the developed world. The average CEO of a major U.S. company, according to Business Week, is paid more than 400 times what the average worker is paid in the same company. In Britain -- the European economy with the most inequality -- that ratio is 45-1. Because the profits from Europe's productivity increases are shared more equitably through shorter working hours and investment in education and health care, European workers can work fewer hours without worrying about creating a domino effect in which they first lose their jobs and then their health care.

Other Americans who would gladly trade time for money cannot do so because the widespread demand for more family (and life-friendly) hours has not translated into good, reduced-hours jobs. In most workplaces, a shift to family friendly hours is the kiss of death professionally, and a refusal to work overtime is reason for dismissal.

This leaves too many Americans with only two choices: a good job with health insurance at 50-plus hours a week or a dead-end job at 20 to 25 hours a week with depressed wages and no health insurance. The American economy, compared with Europe's, has fewer jobs that are 30 to 35 hours a week.

As a result, many families who would prefer both parents to be employed end up with Dad working 50 to 60 hours a week because Mom cannot find a quality, reduced-hours job. So many mothers drop out. One in four mothers are out of the labor force during the key career-building years, including many with professional or on-the-job training. This is a squandering of human capital that is typically overlooked in discussions of productivity and GDP.

A new and more promising way to fuel economic growth would be to offer good jobs with working hours that enable fathers as well as mothers to maintain an active involvement with family life as well as an active career.

Joan Williams is a professor and director and Ariane Hegewisch is a faculty fellow at the Program on WorkLife Law at American University Washington College of Law. They wrote this article for the Los Angeles Times.
It seems that our productivity is more a function of the crass amount of overtime we put in, not a more effiecient work force. I like the phrase "Squandering of human capital". That's what getting paid 1/400 of what you ceo makes is all about, and how is that efficient?

smooth 09-07-2004 12:23 AM
*pindrop*

:thumbsup:

pedro padilla 09-07-2004 01:01 AM
the best part was the tanks. those ghost tanks in austria that only arnolds super terminator eyes saw. his handlers helped clarify things when they said he was "speaking not as a historian but a politician"
any truth to this republican proposal to change the constitution in order to allow foreign born citizens to serve as president? oh yeah, that would really be hella cool dood!! president ahnold will kick some ass. maybe he could run with bruce willis. or van damme. god help us all.

hunnychile 09-08-2004 05:00 PM
[QUOTE=pedro padilla]the best part was the tanks. those ghost tanks in austria that only arnolds super terminator eyes saw. his handlers helped clarify things when they said he was "speaking not as a historian but a politician"
QUOTE]

Excellant observation. My Austrian friends (Arnold's same age) said "Nope, they never ever saw tanks in their country during this time in history." Hmmmmmm?

onetime2 09-14-2004 04:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
On productivity and confusion:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/4964147.html


It seems that our productivity is more a function of the crass amount of overtime we put in, not a more effiecient work force. I like the phrase "Squandering of human capital". That's what getting paid 1/400 of what you ceo makes is all about, and how is that efficient?

Ummm, no. The article is discussing US productivity versus other countries not about the growing trend in productivity within the US.

Productivity has been growing by leaps and bounds for the last decade in the US.

filtherton 09-14-2004 08:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onetime2
Ummm, no. The article is discussing US productivity versus other countries not about the growing trend in productivity within the US.

Productivity has been growing by leaps and bounds for the last decade in the US.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...12-2002_pg5_18

I don't know anything about the pakistan daily times so i don't know how accurate their info is, but seeing as how i how you haven't provided any proof for your assertions it should probably be just fine, right.

Quote:
- Businesses boosted productivity at a blistering annualised pace of 5.1 percent in the third quarter, even faster than the first government estimate of 4.0 percent.
followed shortly by:

Quote:
The productivity figures showed firms were squeezing more out of their employees, Martin said.
“Companies are operating on very lean staff and they will continue to so until they see some demand down the pipeline in order to start to build up production,” she said.
No likey?

Maybe you like bloomberg better.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...iho&refer=home

Highlights:
Quote:
Aug. 10 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. worker productivity grew at a 2.9 percent annual rate from April through June, the smallest gain in almost two years, and labor costs accelerated, a government report showed.

Productivity, which gauges how efficiently the economy operates by measuring the amount of work done by an employee in an hour, slowed from a revised 3.7 percent annual rate in the previous three months, the Labor Department said in Washington. Labor costs rose at a 1.9 percent annual rate, the most since the second quarter of 2002, after growing 0.3 percent in the first quarter of this year.

Smaller productivity gains suggest companies have already obtained most of the efficiency increases they can get from their employees. The slowdown may lead to increasing labor costs and prices, a reason Federal Reserve policy makers are expected to raise the target for the benchmark interest rate this afternoon.

``We are likely to see labor costs increase close to 2 percent in the next year,'' Douglas Porter, a senior economist at BMO Nesbitt Burns in Toronto, said. ``The Fed has a game plan that they will stick to, a quarter percent increase at each meeting and maybe skip a meeting or two here and there.''

The second-quarter increase in productivity was the weakest since the fourth quarter of 2002. Even so, the number ``is still quite healthy,'' Porter said. Productivity rose 4.7 percent over 12 months, which ``is incredibly strong,'' he said.
Productivity increases are somewhat tapering off because employers are starting to reach the limits of their employee squeezing abilities.


Quote:
No Hiring Yet

Other companies have yet to use up all efficiency improvements and see little need to hire.

``We have great productivity increases running at 7 percent, 8 percent in the last two years,'' Dieter Zetsche, chief executive of DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler unit, said in an interview last week. ``Flat employment is what we expect to happen based on considerable growth for us and ongoing productivity gains.''
Technology probably was the primary driver before the recession, but i think that you'd be hard pressed to prove that it has been the primary driver during the late economic unpleasantness, especially without being industry specific. If you're going to try please provide something more than conjecture.

Some industries have no doubt benefitted from technology, but some more than others. I bet a great deal more have benefitted from layoffs and the squeezing of the worker.

onetime2 09-14-2004 09:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
Technology probably was the primary driver before the recession, but i think that you'd be hard pressed to prove that it has been the primary driver during the late economic unpleasantness, especially without being industry specific. If you're going to try please provide something more than conjecture.

Some industries have no doubt benefitted from technology, but some more than others. I bet a great deal more have benefitted from layoffs and the squeezing of the worker.
Productivity gains were at staggering levels BEFORE unemployment grew (that's why I pointed out that it's been going on for the better part of a decade).

By your logic productivity should have been very low when the economy was at it's absolute fullest employment yet that's not what we saw.

The incredible gains in productivity over the last decade equates to fewer people needed to produce the same level of goods, hence lower employment.

But I know there's no use in trying to convince you otherwise so I'll stop now. It's much easier to believe it's the big bad corporation "squeezing every last drop from employees".

filtherton 09-14-2004 02:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onetime2
Productivity gains were at staggering levels BEFORE unemployment grew (that's why I pointed out that it's been going on for the better part of a decade).

By your logic productivity should have been very low when the economy was at it's absolute fullest employment yet that's not what we saw.

The incredible gains in productivity over the last decade equates to fewer people needed to produce the same level of goods, hence lower employment.

But I know there's no use in trying to convince you otherwise so I'll stop now. It's much easier to believe it's the big bad corporation "squeezing every last drop from employees".

Whatever captain, you're not convincing me because your not making a very persuasive argument, big bad corporation or not(your phrase, not mine). Let me paraphrase you: Productivity is always primarily caused by technology. Laying people off never has anything to do with increased productivity. That's what you seem to be implying. You delude yourself by pretending that i am the only one here with a closed mind.

onetime2 09-14-2004 03:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
Whatever captain, you're not convincing me because your not making a very persuasive argument, big bad corporation or not(your phrase, not mine). Let me paraphrase you: Productivity is always primarily caused by technology. Laying people off never has anything to do with increased productivity. That's what you seem to be implying. You delude yourself by pretending that i am the only one here with a closed mind.

Umm yeah. You point to an article that discusses the perceived productivity edge of America versus the rest of the world and doesn't, in the least, discuss the growing trend in US productivity, disregard the fact that the productivity gains over the last decade occurred during a period of full employment, and then claim that the gains in the last year are all due to forcing more out of the few still employed and it's me that doesn't make a persuasive argument. Do you have any concept of the fact that current unemployment levels are nowhere near bad? That historically full employment has been defined as being in the 5% unemployment range? Nevermind, I already know the answers.

Respectfully,

Captain onetime

filtherton 09-14-2004 05:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onetime2
Umm yeah. You point to an article that discusses the perceived productivity edge of America versus the rest of the world and doesn't, in the least, discuss the growing trend in US productivity, disregard the fact that the productivity gains over the last decade occurred during a period of full employment, and then claim that the gains in the last year are all due to forcing more out of the few still employed and it's me that doesn't make a persuasive argument. Do you have any concept of the fact that current unemployment levels are nowhere near bad? That historically full employment has been defined as being in the 5% unemployment range? Nevermind, I already know the answers.

Respectfully,

Captain onetime
Not worth it.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360