|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bassist33
Joined: 07 Jul 2009
Location: Mok-dong, Seoul
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:55 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| nathanrutledge wrote: |
The thing to look at with government jobs is that they contribute nothing to themselves. They only survive on taxes, and in that regard, they contribute nothing to society. As one pointed out, they provide the NON tangible benefits (security, justice) that protect society.
The fact that Obama's people have no " real world" experience should bother people because they have experience with a business. Working within a budget, meeting expectations, getting concrete results are all things that one must do in the private sector or face consequences. Working for the government (the upper echelons of the federal government mainly), the budget is limitless, expectations are flexible, results aren't necessary.
Think about a private business. If a private business said "we're going to change how healthcare is done and we're going to do it now," then came back three or four times to change the date, change the numbers, change the expectations, that business would fail. Yes, that example focus' more on Congress, but as Gopher pointed out, many folks there haven't had an honest job in their lives either!
Under Bush, love him or hate him, you cannot say that he didn't get things done OR that he didn't have an agenda that he pushed to the best of his ability. HIS appointees were businesspeople and they understood what it took to do the job. Obama's people are pie in the sky optimists who think that the world is Gumdrop mountain where we all get handjobs and lollipops. They don't have the experience to push through a practical agenda in a reasonable amount of time. IF they had some experience in the private sector, I think they'd be able to read the field a lot better and actually get some work done. |
Dumb, just plain dumb. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| . It is true that Bush stacked his admin with oligarchs, which is no better. |
I'm glad at least one of the conservatives here understands this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bassist33 wrote: |
| nathanrutledge wrote: |
The thing to look at with government jobs is that they contribute nothing to themselves. They only survive on taxes, and in that regard, they contribute nothing to society. As one pointed out, they provide the NON tangible benefits (security, justice) that protect society.
The fact that Obama's people have no " real world" experience should bother people because they have experience with a business. Working within a budget, meeting expectations, getting concrete results are all things that one must do in the private sector or face consequences. Working for the government (the upper echelons of the federal government mainly), the budget is limitless, expectations are flexible, results aren't necessary.
Think about a private business. If a private business said "we're going to change how healthcare is done and we're going to do it now," then came back three or four times to change the date, change the numbers, change the expectations, that business would fail. Yes, that example focus' more on Congress, but as Gopher pointed out, many folks there haven't had an honest job in their lives either!
Under Bush, love him or hate him, you cannot say that he didn't get things done OR that he didn't have an agenda that he pushed to the best of his ability. HIS appointees were businesspeople and they understood what it took to do the job. Obama's people are pie in the sky optimists who think that the world is Gumdrop mountain where we all get handjobs and lollipops. They don't have the experience to push through a practical agenda in a reasonable amount of time. IF they had some experience in the private sector, I think they'd be able to read the field a lot better and actually get some work done. |
Dumb, just plain dumb. |
Care to elaborate? Calling someone else dumb doesn't make you smart. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| . It is true that Bush stacked his admin with oligarchs, which is no better. |
I'm glad at least one of the conservatives here understands this. |
Who are the conservatives on this board? I can't actually think of that many posters who would consider themselves to be such. Many of us criticized Bush as much as we criticize the new guy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| . It is true that Bush stacked his admin with oligarchs, which is no better. |
I'm glad at least one of the conservatives here understands this. |
Who are the conservatives on this board? I can't actually think of that many posters who would consider themselves to be such. Many of us criticized Bush as much as we criticize the new guy. |
Many conservatives don't support Bush, though. Let's be realistic, there are plenty of conservatives on this board (economic conservatives, at least; I think most of them are fairly liberal when it comes to social matters). I say that without condemning or attacking; it's just a useful political categorization that gives a general view of one's ideas.
It wouldn't be hard to write up a list of names, but it might come off as somewhat personal, and I don't think we need that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bassist33
Joined: 07 Jul 2009
Location: Mok-dong, Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| bassist33 wrote: |
| nathanrutledge wrote: |
The thing to look at with government jobs is that they contribute nothing to themselves. They only survive on taxes, and in that regard, they contribute nothing to society. As one pointed out, they provide the NON tangible benefits (security, justice) that protect society.
The fact that Obama's people have no " real world" experience should bother people because they have experience with a business. Working within a budget, meeting expectations, getting concrete results are all things that one must do in the private sector or face consequences. Working for the government (the upper echelons of the federal government mainly), the budget is limitless, expectations are flexible, results aren't necessary.
Think about a private business. If a private business said "we're going to change how healthcare is done and we're going to do it now," then came back three or four times to change the date, change the numbers, change the expectations, that business would fail. Yes, that example focus' more on Congress, but as Gopher pointed out, many folks there haven't had an honest job in their lives either!
Under Bush, love him or hate him, you cannot say that he didn't get things done OR that he didn't have an agenda that he pushed to the best of his ability. HIS appointees were businesspeople and they understood what it took to do the job. Obama's people are pie in the sky optimists who think that the world is Gumdrop mountain where we all get handjobs and lollipops. They don't have the experience to push through a practical agenda in a reasonable amount of time. IF they had some experience in the private sector, I think they'd be able to read the field a lot better and actually get some work done. |
Dumb, just plain dumb. |
Care to elaborate? Calling someone else dumb doesn't make you smart. |
I didn't call him dumb, I called the statement dumb. Instead of being a kindergarten teacher, how about you look into some of his claims. I honestly didn't feel like responding to the breadth of ignorance that this statement represented. I just had to point it out. But, if you really need it laid out to you, it is my pleasure.
To me, it is completely ridiculous that someone could possibly state in any kind of public forum that Bush got stuff done while Obama hasn't. Obama took over the White House in arguably the worst state in modern history. He INHERITED a complete financial crisis, two completely failing wars, and a host of social issues. History can only be the judge and the only thing that can contradict the ignorance spewed in this thread, but I swear to you that the actions of Bush and his Presidency will go down as some of the largest bungles in the history of any modern state.
90% or more of economists would argue that most of the bailouts were necessary and one of the only true measures that prevented complete economic collapse. While the complete scope of his efforts can only be judged by history, I am quite sure that, without hindsight, the President did most all he could.
In regards to the health care debate, there are few things that the President could do to change the way things are. The insurance industry is literally pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into preventing any kind of true reform from taking place.
Jobs are contingent upon themselves. The economy has to improve first before companies begin to hire again. Even then, this recession has been a great way for companies to cut costs by trimming staff and requiring more of their already overworked employees.
Home foreclosures are, in my opinion, the most despicable of areas to blame Obama for. Despite literally saving banks from complete failure, these companies are still not working to help the average American. Instead of taking short term losses in order to preserve the symbiotic relationships of lenders and homeowners, these companies are choosing to maintain their pre-financial crisis initiatives and continue to destroy the middle and lower class.
Does that count as elaborating? I didn't make blank statements as the op of my criticism. I described my opinions and the facts behind it. Now tell me where Obama can be described as somehow more deficient than George W. Bush. Remember, history is the judge, not your short term ignorant ideologies.
And, let's remember that the original basis of this thread is a graph that was taken out of context and was false, even the Author admits this. Maybe you can't call believing everything you read as being "dumb" but I kind of think so..  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The insurance industry is literally pumping hundreds of millions of dollars |
Literally?
What kind of pump are they using that actually pumps money?
(Sorry. ET kicking in. Pumping money is a figurative expression. It's a figure of speech. Literally means they are actually doing it according to the strict or literal definition of the word.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bassist33 wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| bassist33 wrote: |
| nathanrutledge wrote: |
The thing to look at with government jobs is that they contribute nothing to themselves. They only survive on taxes, and in that regard, they contribute nothing to society. As one pointed out, they provide the NON tangible benefits (security, justice) that protect society.
The fact that Obama's people have no " real world" experience should bother people because they have experience with a business. Working within a budget, meeting expectations, getting concrete results are all things that one must do in the private sector or face consequences. Working for the government (the upper echelons of the federal government mainly), the budget is limitless, expectations are flexible, results aren't necessary.
Think about a private business. If a private business said "we're going to change how healthcare is done and we're going to do it now," then came back three or four times to change the date, change the numbers, change the expectations, that business would fail. Yes, that example focus' more on Congress, but as Gopher pointed out, many folks there haven't had an honest job in their lives either!
Under Bush, love him or hate him, you cannot say that he didn't get things done OR that he didn't have an agenda that he pushed to the best of his ability. HIS appointees were businesspeople and they understood what it took to do the job. Obama's people are pie in the sky optimists who think that the world is Gumdrop mountain where we all get handjobs and lollipops. They don't have the experience to push through a practical agenda in a reasonable amount of time. IF they had some experience in the private sector, I think they'd be able to read the field a lot better and actually get some work done. |
Dumb, just plain dumb. |
Care to elaborate? Calling someone else dumb doesn't make you smart. |
| Quote: |
To me, it is completely ridiculous that someone could possibly state in any kind of public forum that Bush got stuff done while Obama hasn't. Obama took over the White House in arguably the worst state in modern history. He INHERITED a complete financial crisis, two completely failing wars, and a host of social issues. History can only be the judge and the only thing that can contradict the ignorance spewed in this thread, but I swear to you that the actions of Bush and his Presidency will go down as some of the largest bungles in the history of any modern state |
.
I believe the Obama presidency will go down in history as a continuation of almost a century of complete failure by the ruling classes. Bush inherited a money crises from the Fed that had been brewing for much longer than his political career. Obama is continuing the exact same policies that Bush enacted and is even deepening many of them.
| Quote: |
90% or more of economists would argue that most of the bailouts were necessary and one of the only true measures that prevented complete economic collapse. While the complete scope of his efforts can only be judged by history, I am quite sure that, without hindsight, the President did most all he could. |
Haha, now this is dumb.
| Quote: |
| In regards to the health care debate, there are few things that the President could do to change the way things are. The insurance industry is literally pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into preventing any kind of true reform from taking place. |
| Quote: |
| Jobs are contingent upon themselves. The economy has to improve first before companies begin to hire again. Even then, this recession has been a great way for companies to cut costs by trimming staff and requiring more of their already overworked employees. |
What does that even mean? "Jobs are contingent upon themselves." Companies and jobs ARE the economy. Business has to produce something before than can even BE an economy. Govt adds exactly nothing to economic growth. They are a leach, they produce nothing of their own.
Of course businesses cut jobs in a recession. If no one is buying their product, how are they supposed to pay for those employees?
| Quote: |
| Home foreclosures are, in my opinion, the most despicable of areas to blame Obama for. Despite literally saving banks from complete failure, these companies are still not working to help the average American. Instead of taking short term losses in order to preserve the symbiotic relationships of lenders and homeowners, these companies are choosing to maintain their pre-financial crisis initiatives and continue to destroy the middle and lower class. |
Who allowed the banks to give loans to Wal-Mart employees in the first place? The banks knew they would be bailed out and the govt was making loud noises about 100% home ownership.
| Quote: |
| Does that count as elaborating? I didn't make blank statements as the op of my criticism. I described my opinions and the facts behind it. Now tell me where Obama can be described as somehow more deficient than George W. Bush. Remember, history is the judge, not your short term ignorant ideologies. |
History will show Obama to be just as bad as Bush.
| Quote: |
| And, let's remember that the original basis of this thread is a graph that was taken out of context and was false, even the Author admits this. |
Maybe you can't call believing everything you read as being "dumb" but I kind of think so.. |
I had no way of knowing the data behind the graph was faulty. Besides most the cabinet members who did in fact have private sector experience, only got that experience as lawyers. Lawyers are private sector bureaucrats. They don't add anything to the real economy, either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Besides most the cabinet members who did in fact have private sector experience, only got that experience as lawyers. Lawyers are private sector bureaucrats. They don't add anything to the real economy, either. |
On the one hand, this is right. Lawyers don't actually produce anything, and when they save money for their clients, its because they are tacking against regulations that would otherwise act as a kind of tax. Lawyers don't ever add any $$$ value, per se.
On the other hand, the statement is also incredibly wrong. Lawyers are all trained and licensed to protect the integrity of our legal system. The Anglo-American legal system is the foundation of economic prosperity. It goes beyond protection of contracts, because lawyers protect your right to the pursuit of happiness, which is fundamental to the success of a free market economy. They (should) do this whenever they are billing hours, because their license is contingent upon upholding fairly strict ethical requirements. You can't separate the integrity and influence of lawyers, as professional freedom advocates, from the health of a functioning free market. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Lawyers are all trained and licensed to protect the integrity of our legal system. The Anglo-American legal system is the foundation of economic prosperity. It goes beyond protection of contracts, because lawyers protect your right to the pursuit of happiness, which is fundamental to the success of a free market economy. They (should) do this whenever they are billing hours, because their license is contingent upon upholding fairly strict ethical requirements. You can't separate the integrity and influence of lawyers, as professional freedom advocates, from the health of a functioning free market. |
That is in a ideal scenario. Try telling it to Lynne Stewart.
edited to add link
Last edited by bacasper on Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:55 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
On the other hand, the statement is also incredibly wrong. Lawyers are all trained and licensed to protect the integrity of our legal system. The Anglo-American legal system is the foundation of economic prosperity. It goes beyond protection of contracts, because lawyers protect your right to the pursuit of happiness, which is fundamental to the success of a free market economy. They (should) do this whenever they are billing hours, because their license is contingent upon upholding fairly strict ethical requirements. You can't separate the integrity and influence of lawyers, as professional freedom advocates, from the health of a functioning free market. |
There are different kinds of lawyers. Some are essential to the market economy and transparent government. Others see the law as a tool to create social change. Others still see the law as a means for personal gain. Etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bassist33
Joined: 07 Jul 2009
Location: Mok-dong, Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| bassist33 wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| bassist33 wrote: |
| nathanrutledge wrote: |
The thing to look at with government jobs is that they contribute nothing to themselves. They only survive on taxes, and in that regard, they contribute nothing to society. As one pointed out, they provide the NON tangible benefits (security, justice) that protect society.
The fact that Obama's people have no " real world" experience should bother people because they have experience with a business. Working within a budget, meeting expectations, getting concrete results are all things that one must do in the private sector or face consequences. Working for the government (the upper echelons of the federal government mainly), the budget is limitless, expectations are flexible, results aren't necessary.
Think about a private business. If a private business said "we're going to change how healthcare is done and we're going to do it now," then came back three or four times to change the date, change the numbers, change the expectations, that business would fail. Yes, that example focus' more on Congress, but as Gopher pointed out, many folks there haven't had an honest job in their lives either!
Under Bush, love him or hate him, you cannot say that he didn't get things done OR that he didn't have an agenda that he pushed to the best of his ability. HIS appointees were businesspeople and they understood what it took to do the job. Obama's people are pie in the sky optimists who think that the world is Gumdrop mountain where we all get handjobs and lollipops. They don't have the experience to push through a practical agenda in a reasonable amount of time. IF they had some experience in the private sector, I think they'd be able to read the field a lot better and actually get some work done. |
Dumb, just plain dumb. |
Care to elaborate? Calling someone else dumb doesn't make you smart. |
| Quote: |
To me, it is completely ridiculous that someone could possibly state in any kind of public forum that Bush got stuff done while Obama hasn't. Obama took over the White House in arguably the worst state in modern history. He INHERITED a complete financial crisis, two completely failing wars, and a host of social issues. History can only be the judge and the only thing that can contradict the ignorance spewed in this thread, but I swear to you that the actions of Bush and his Presidency will go down as some of the largest bungles in the history of any modern state |
.
I believe the Obama presidency will go down in history as a continuation of almost a century of complete failure by the ruling classes. Bush inherited a money crises from the Fed that had been brewing for much longer than his political career. Obama is continuing the exact same policies that Bush enacted and is even deepening many of them.
| Quote: |
90% or more of economists would argue that most of the bailouts were necessary and one of the only true measures that prevented complete economic collapse. While the complete scope of his efforts can only be judged by history, I am quite sure that, without hindsight, the President did most all he could. |
Haha, now this is dumb.
| Quote: |
| In regards to the health care debate, there are few things that the President could do to change the way things are. The insurance industry is literally pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into preventing any kind of true reform from taking place. |
| Quote: |
| Jobs are contingent upon themselves. The economy has to improve first before companies begin to hire again. Even then, this recession has been a great way for companies to cut costs by trimming staff and requiring more of their already overworked employees. |
What does that even mean? "Jobs are contingent upon themselves." Companies and jobs ARE the economy. Business has to produce something before than can even BE an economy. Govt adds exactly nothing to economic growth. They are a leach, they produce nothing of their own.
Of course businesses cut jobs in a recession. If no one is buying their product, how are they supposed to pay for those employees?
| Quote: |
| Home foreclosures are, in my opinion, the most despicable of areas to blame Obama for. Despite literally saving banks from complete failure, these companies are still not working to help the average American. Instead of taking short term losses in order to preserve the symbiotic relationships of lenders and homeowners, these companies are choosing to maintain their pre-financial crisis initiatives and continue to destroy the middle and lower class. |
Who allowed the banks to give loans to Wal-Mart employees in the first place? The banks knew they would be bailed out and the govt was making loud noises about 100% home ownership.
| Quote: |
| Does that count as elaborating? I didn't make blank statements as the op of my criticism. I described my opinions and the facts behind it. Now tell me where Obama can be described as somehow more deficient than George W. Bush. Remember, history is the judge, not your short term ignorant ideologies. |
History will show Obama to be just as bad as Bush.
| Quote: |
| And, let's remember that the original basis of this thread is a graph that was taken out of context and was false, even the Author admits this. |
Maybe you can't call believing everything you read as being "dumb" but I kind of think so.. |
I had no way of knowing the data behind the graph was faulty. Besides most the cabinet members who did in fact have private sector experience, only got that experience as lawyers. Lawyers are private sector bureaucrats. They don't add anything to the real economy, either. |
If you would read the article, you will see that the law experience of other administrations was counted. The real problem with this graph was the fact that it left out the experience of other members of his cabinet in small business and in corporations. If that's not private sector work, I don't know what is. It's as simple as this, this guy published an article based on faulty research. Then, this post erupts with people that were just as crazy as the Bush conspiracy theorists.
I agree that capitalism fails us everyday. What I am saying is that comparing the Obama to Bush is way off base. History will be the only judge of that, but the most of the criticisms of Obama in this thread have been based on false information.
Someone described Obama as a pie in the sky liberal. If anything, he's too moderate. That's why he can't get anything done. America needs a lot of fundamental changes. Our economic system is reckless and poses a great threat to the entire world's well-being. Areas of social welfare, such as health care and education, need to be purely public institutions. When you make human life a commodity it can only result in disaster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
