McCain's Speech *Merge*

[zrinkill]

The man is not a great speaker.

But his speech had more actual meat in it than any of the other 3 big speeches from the other candidates.

He showed his heart, his humility, and his desire to better this great Country.

He has a plan ..... a real one.

He is a fighter ..... a real one.

He is a Leader ..... a real one.

This speech was not as breathtaking as Obama's or Palin's ....... but it had more substance than both.

Good Job McCain.

[irvin88]

GRANDSLAM:bow:

[adamc91115]

Like you said, it wasn't breathtaking.

But I think it served its purpose. It was a solid speech and the main thing was that it was more about what he wants to do, not so much attacking Obama.

[SuspectCorner]

I think he did a pretty good job in conveying that his policies will be his own and as politely as possible (tiptoeing around Bush Admin feelings) letting Americans know they shouldn't assume that the current administration will have any bearing on his.

I'm glad this country has no shortoge of honorable men and I count McCain among them but still wonder just how far he can distance himself from those policies when he is accepting so much money from the oil industry - a chief culprit in the previous administration.

JMO

[bbgun]

It was okay. His flinty, raspy voice didn't help his cause. He has a tendency to step on his applause lines, and the speech's climax was drowned out by the cheering crowd. He handled the Dem protester pretty deftly, though. Odd that he didn't savage Obama more than he did. Guess that was Palin's job.

[burmafrd]

Suspect- who is in the process of getting the top Oil Contract with Iraq right now?- China. Not us; not a US company. You still think its all about oil.
Well guess what its not.

[trickblue]

He really did a pretty good job tonight...

[SuspectCorner]

It was okay. His flinty, raspy voice didn't help his cause. He has a tendency to step on his applause lines, and the speech's climax was drowned out by the cheering crowd. He handled the Dem protester pretty deftly, though. Odd that he didn't savage Obama more than he did. Guess that was Palin's job.

Heheh. His off the cuff response seemed so natural I almost wondered that it might have been staged. Those Code Pink ladies often crack me up.

But McCain IS 72 and those years in captivity may have exponentially accelerated his physical age. But I thought he seemed plenty sharp, and irrascible - he did just fine.

[bbgun]

Heheh. His off the cuff response seemed so natural I almost wondered that it might have been staged. Those Code Pink ladies often crack me up.

But McCain IS 72 and those years in captivity may have exponentially accelerated his physical age. But I thought he seemed plenty sharp, and irrascible - he did just fine.

The war hero thing only gets you so far--just ask Dole and Kerry. The debates will be crucial.

[burmafrd]

McCain I think will probably be a one term guy. The demands of the office are so huge that anyone who is as involved as he gets wears out faster. Reagan delegated and just made the big decisions and he really liked Being President. Bush was more involved but also more executive then ministerial; same for Clinton and Bush. Jimmy Carter was one of those who got into it hugely and look how fast he aged. Same with Johnson.

[Big Dakota]

Leon Lett> john mccain

[SuspectCorner]

I do wanna say that right before McCain made the grand entrance and the lights dimmed to black - in the back of my mind I was thinking about flashpots going off and - voila - there's McCain dressed up in spiked black leather and flicking his tongue like Gene Simmons.

Can anybody recommend a good shrink?

[ABQCOWBOY]

I thought it was a good speech. McCain/Palin will be a strong ticket IMO.

[theogt]

They needed better security. It got pretty annoying.

[burmafrd]

Yeah they are never as brutal at Repub conventions on security as they are at Dems.

[ConcordCowboy]

Not impressed....boring.


Lets just say it a good thing his base is excited over Palin.

[bootsy]

Not impressed....boring.


Lets just say it a good thing his base is excited over Palin.

+1 Very boring and stale.

[Cajuncowboy]

I liked what he said for the most part. It's what I've come to expect from him. He isn't going to excite allot of people with his speaking skills, that's for sure. He would have to set roman candles off and hold them in his butt cheeks just to get someones attention in a crowd. But he had a tough act to follow though.

But I think overall he is a good man. He wasn't my first choice, but he has my vote.

[ConcordCowboy]

I liked what he said for the most part. It's what I've come to expect from him. He isn't going to excite allot of people with his speaking skills, that's for sure. He would have to set roman candles off and hold them in his butt cheeks just to get someones attention in a crowd. But he had a tough act to follow though.

But I think overall he is a good man. He wasn't my first choice, but he has my vote.

:laugh2:

[Viper]

The speach had alot of substance, more than any of the others. It wasn't filled with the excitement of the other speaches but it was informative. He introduced himself to me, let me know his plans, his goals. The biggest problem I had though, it drag on a bit too long.

[Sasquatch]

I thought it was a very good speech for McCain but one that underscores the challenges facing his campaign. The tepid applause after his attempt to distance himself from the Bush administration was very telling. In the end, it was more biography than policy, and being a decent man alone will not be enough to win this election. Ultimately, I think McCain's ambitions will be thwarted once again by GW Bush.

[Dallas]

I thought it was a very good speech for McCain but one that underscores the challenges facing his campaign. The tepid applause after his attempt to distance himself from the Bush administration was very telling. In the end, it was more biography than policy, and being a decent man alone will not be enough to win this election. Ultimately, I think McCain's ambitions will be thwarted once again by GW Bush.


You forgot that you HOPE'd his ambitions will be thwarted once again by GW Bush.

The Palin pick threw all KINDS of wrenches into the Obama walk to grace. Gallop comes out tomorrow. The CBS poll came out earlier today.

Both tickets were tied.

37.8 million viewers lastnight. Somebody is listening to this nowhere ticket huh?

[Cajuncowboy]

I thought it was a very good speech for McCain but one that underscores the challenges facing his campaign. The tepid applause after his attempt to distance himself from the Bush administration was very telling. In the end, it was more biography than policy, and being a decent man alone will not be enough to win this election. Ultimately, I think McCain's ambitions will be thwarted once again by GW Bush.

And if he wins, would it be viewed as a support for the Bush policies?

You can't have it both ways.

[Cajuncowboy]

You forgot that you HOPE'd his ambitions will be thwarted once again by GW Bush.

The Palin pick threw all KINDS of wrenches into the Obama walk to grace. Gallop comes out tomorrow. The CBS poll came out earlier today.

Both tickets were tied.

37.8 million viewers lastnight. Somebody is listening to this nowhere ticket huh?

I think the CBS poll was done through Wednesday and I'm not sure that was done before the Palin speech.

[Sasquatch]

And if he wins, would it be viewed as a support for the Bush policies?

You can't have it both ways.

McCain could win for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with support for Bush's policies.

[SuspectCorner]

And if he wins, would it be viewed as a support for the Bush policies?

You can't have it both ways.

It would be absolutely despite the Bush policies. And did you notice McCain made no real reference to the many unemployed Joe Boxendwrench's out there?

Bush diehards have so much credence when they continually fail to ignore that MOST in their own political party, including their candidate, are scrambling to distance themselves from the parriah that Bush has become.

But keep kidding yourself that Dubya is viewed as much more than a political liablity.

[Cajuncowboy]

McCain could win for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with support for Bush's policies.

But I thought McCain was going to be another Bush presidency? Isn't that what you guys were saying before???

[REDVOLUTION]

I thought it was a good speech. McCain/Palin will be a strong ticket IMO.


I think what the card is and should is - a great ticket. But the perception that is known as reality is STILL Obama.

McCain is gonna have problems in the debates with Obama.
Palin may have an edge ALREADY over Biden.



I think this country has SO MUCH hatred towards Bush that they would elect ANY democrat you put in front of them. So McCain/Palin have to fight that too. Couple that with the Dems plan to call McCain/Palin 4 more years of Bush.

[Cajuncowboy]

It would be absolutely despite the Bush policies. And did you notice McCain made no real reference to the many unemployed Joe Boxendwrench's out there?

Bush diehards have so much credence - that MOST in their own political party, including their candidate, are scrambling to distance themselves from the parriah that Bush has become.

Really? Did you hear the luke warm reception it got at the convention? Delusions aren't going to help you. Most of the Bush policies have been good. The economy was stimulated by the tax cuts (Nobama wants to raise taxes). The Surge is working in Iraq( Even Nobama admitted he was wrong). We have not been attacked since 9/11. And Bush hasn't been impeached. (Not something the Dems can say about their last offering as POTUS).

You can yammer away all you want but in the end, Bush will be viewed as one of the best presidents for doing the right thing in the middle east.

[REDVOLUTION]

The Surge is working in Iraq( Even Nobama admitted he was wrong).

We have not been attacked since 9/11.

You can yammer away all you want but in the end, Bush will be viewed as one of the best presidents for doing the right thing in the middle east.



True.

True and I believe it is because we are over there on the offensive. But many will take issue with me writing that. I think another 9/11 was intended for us(still is). Bush is the first president to stand up and fight terrorism instead of wishing it away.

Absolutely. I believe Terrorism is a phase in our history. It will not be forever.... not a maxium/high level like now. THEN somewhere down the road Bush will be the 1st president to address. He will have been the one who started the "Advancing process" in parts of the world that may have never gotten there.

[SuspectCorner]

Really? Did you hear the luke warm reception it got at the convention? Delusions aren't going to help you. Most of the Bush policies have been good. The economy was stimulated by the tax cuts (Nobama wants to raise taxes). The Surge is working in Iraq( Even Nobama admitted he was wrong). We have not been attacked since 9/11. And Bush hasn't been impeached. (Not something the Dems can say about their last offering as POTUS).

You can yammer away all you want but in the end, Bush will be viewed as one of the best presidents for doing the right thing in the middle east.

There's just no point in refuting THIS tripe with the facts. If you haven't gotten it by now - it's purely the result of a stubborn resistance to reality.

http://images.inmagine.com/img/photoalto/paa241/paa241000018.jpg

[ThaBigP]

There's just no point in refuting THIS tripe with the facts. If you haven't gotten it by now - it's purely the result of a stubborn resistance to reality.


http://images.inmagine.com/img/photoalto/paa241/paa241000018.jpg


Nice pic Suspect. Didn't know you were that young. BTW...

Bush's tax cuts *did* spur the economy - especially after 9/11 when the airline industry was in crisis. In fact, revenue to the treasury went up. Just like it did with the Reagan tax cuts. And Kennedy's. Oh, yeah...Kennedy was a BIG tax cutter. Apparently that doesn't run in the family.

Obama *does* want to raise taxes - he says so himself every chance he gets.

The current thorn in the side of the economy is the cost of energy. That is not the result of any Bush policy, unless you consider not reversing course on existing policy. We haven't built a new refinery in 30+ years. No new nuclear power plants in as long. No new oil exploration in about 20+ years (and yes, I know his daddy helped in that regard). And before you go all "hee-haw" over Bush not reversing course on that bad energy policy as being "his fault", you have to consider that Obama not only wants to continue it, but strangle the engergy sector even more. So he's not much of a solution there either.

So, who's plugging their ears to keep out unpleasant facts, eh?

[JBond]

Nice pic Suspect. Didn't know you were that young. BTW...

Bush's tax cuts *did* spur the economy - especially after 9/11 when the airline industry was in crisis. In fact, revenue to the treasury went up. Just like it did with the Reagan tax cuts. And Kennedy's. Oh, yeah...Kennedy was a BIG tax cutter. Apparently that doesn't run in the family.

Obama *does* want to raise taxes - he says so himself every chance he gets.

The current thorn in the side of the economy is the cost of energy. That is not the result of any Bush policy, unless you consider not reversing course on existing policy. We haven't built a new refinery in 30+ years. No new nuclear power plants in as long. No new oil exploration in about 20+ years (and yes, I know his daddy helped in that regard). And before you go all "hee-haw" over Bush not reversing course on that bad energy policy as being "his fault", you have to consider that Obama not only wants to continue it, but strangle the engergy sector even more. So he's not much of a solution there either.

So, who's plugging their ears to keep out unpleasant facts, eh?
:bow:

[SuspectCorner]

Nice pic Suspect. Didn't know you were that young. BTW...

Bush's tax cuts *did* spur the economy - especially after 9/11 when the airline industry was in crisis. In fact, revenue to the treasury went up. Just like it did with the Reagan tax cuts. And Kennedy's. Oh, yeah...Kennedy was a BIG tax cutter. Apparently that doesn't run in the family.

Obama *does* want to raise taxes - he says so himself every chance he gets.

The current thorn in the side of the economy is the cost of energy. That is not the result of any Bush policy, unless you consider not reversing course on existing policy. We haven't built a new refinery in 30+ years. No new nuclear power plants in as long. No new oil exploration in about 20+ years (and yes, I know his daddy helped in that regard). And before you go all "hee-haw" over Bush not reversing course on that bad energy policy as being "his fault", you have to consider that Obama not only wants to continue it, but strangle the engergy sector even more. So he's not much of a solution there either.

So, who's plugging their ears to keep out unpleasant facts, eh?



More Republican hot air...




PROFESSOR BUSH ECONOMIC NOSTRUM

by Jim Hightower, Monday, September 1, 2008

On this Labor day, when families all across America are struggling, it’s fitting for us to reflect on the profound insight of that prominent economic theorist, George W Bush. In 2000, explaining his economic policy approach, W declared: “We ought to make the pie higher.”

What the professor was trying to express is the old theory that by baking a larger pie, everyone can get a bigger slice. But that theory ignores a special trick of economic pie-making that Bush baked right into his policy: Greed. Yes, the pie is now larger, but Bush simply fattened the slice of the corporate powers and the rich, leaving the workaday majority of folks trying to get by on the same slim pickings they had before… or less.

Sure, CEO pay is surging and the incomes of the superwealthy are zooming, but the incomes of workers is not even keeping up with inflation – indeed the median income for American families is lower than when Bush took office. Meanwhile, the number of people without health coverage is up by six million, and the number of Americans living in poverty is up by nearly six million.

Maybe so, say the Bush-ites, but if you count the five million new jobs created in the past eight years, you’ll see that our policy of tinkle-down economics really does work. Uh – not exactly. It would have taken some 20 million new jobs in those eight years just to keep up with the number of new people entering the job market – so the Bush-ites are 15 million short of just staying even.

Besides, the issue isn’t jobs. Think about it: even slaves had jobs. The issue is wages, income, and rising opportunities. Ask a waitress if she’s aware that Bush has created new jobs and she’ll say: “Yeah, I know. I have one of them.”

Under professor Bush, America’s economy has been producing more low-wage, service sector jobs, while shipping out the manufacturing and high-tech jobs that offer our people middle-class wages and upward mobility. Instead of tinkle-down, America needs a grassroots policy of percolate-up economics.

http://www.jimhightower.com/node/6586

[SuspectCorner]

Workers Need Added Clout To Close The Pay Gap with CEOs

by Sam Pizzigati and Sarah Anderson, Published on Monday, September 1, 2008 by The Star Ledger (New Jersey)

Polls show that most Americans are outraged by sky- high CEO pay. And why shouldn't they be? A generation ago, top CEOs made 30 to 40 times the pay of average workers. Last year, CEO pay outpaced average worker pay by 344 times.

In effect, the gap between worker and executive pay has multiplied an amazing tenfold since the early 1980s.

How could that be? Are executives working 10 times harder than they did three decades ago? Are they 10 times smarter? Of course not. Not one iota of evidence supports that notion.

So what's changed? Today's executives may not be smarter or harder-working. But they do wield more power. Plenty of it.

The reason: The mid-20th century checks and balances of our economic system -- the building blocks of post-World War II American middle-class prosperity -- have been swept away.

Government regulations, for instance, used to discourage shady corporate practices that pumped up profits at consumer expense. Corporate lobbyists have had these regulations erased, over the last 30 years, in industry after industry.

Something else has changed, too. We no longer have a vital trade union presence in the U.S. economy.

Back on the 1950s, more than one-third of American private-sector workers belonged to unions. Bargaining between these workers and their employers helped raise wages for all workers and, at the same time, kept executive rewards reasonable.

Today, only 7.4 percent of private-sector employees belong to unions. This absence of a union check on executive power leaves CEOs free to pocket rewards at levels that would have seemed recklessly greedy only a generation ago.

Recent academic research has demonstrated the difference that a union presence can make on executive pay. One survey, published in the Journal of Labor Research, found that CEOs at nonunion companies take home nearly 20 percent more than executives in unionized firms. Workers in union companies, meanwhile, make $200 more a week than their nonunion counterparts.

CEO-worker pay divides run particularly wide in the service industries, where only a tiny percentage of workers belong to unions. In food services, workers average only $18,877 a year. The CEOs of the top 10 firms in this industry -- we're talking outfits like McDonald's and YUM Brands, the owner of KFC and Pizza Hut -- took home 354 times that much in 2007.

By contrast, in many manufacturing industries, CEO-worker pay gaps run half that wide. Workers in these industries have, over the years, used union leverage to bargain for decent compensation. Unfortunately, "free trade" agreements and other factors are slashing employment in these traditional union strongholds.

If these trends continue, the enormous divide between worker and executive pay will only grow wider -- and make a mockery of the values of economic fair play we're supposed to celebrate every Labor Day. But these trends don't have to continue. We can stop our national slide to a totally top-heavy economy by restoring to workers what they had back in the middle of the 20th century: the right to organize a union.

One bill pending before Congress, the Employee Free Choice Act, could start this restoration process. If lawmakers enacted this legislation, workers would be much better able to exercise their lawful right to organize and bargain collectively.

This November's election will likely determine the Employee Free Choice Act's future.

CEOs, no doubt, will be watching closely on election night.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/01

[ScipioCowboy]

More Republican hot air...


Under professor Bush, America’s economy has been producing more low-wage, service sector jobs, while shipping out the manufacturing and high-tech jobs that offer our people middle-class wages and upward mobility. Instead of tinkle-down, America needs a grassroots policy of percolate-up economics.

http://www.jimhightower.com/node/6586


Did anyone expect a different result after Clinton signed and enacted NAFTA? These economic trends are the direct result of irresponsible trade policies supported by both of the major parties. NAFTA was destined to strip our job market, leaving behind only service jobs.

This isn't merely "Republican hot air." This is an area in which Republicans and Democrats have made terrible decisions. And until we acknowledge the culpability of both parties, we can never solve this problem because we're simply engaging in partisan bickering bereft of any real substance.

[ThaBigP]

More Republican hot air...




PROFESSOR BUSH ECONOMIC NOSTRUM

by Jim Hightower, Monday, September 1, 2008

On this Labor day, when families all across America are struggling, it’s fitting for us to reflect on the profound insight of that prominent economic theorist, George W Bush. In 2000, explaining his economic policy approach, W declared: “We ought to make the pie higher.”

What the professor was trying to express is the old theory that by baking a larger pie, everyone can get a bigger slice. But that theory ignores a special trick of economic pie-making that Bush baked right into his policy: Greed. Yes, the pie is now larger, but Bush simply fattened the slice of the corporate powers and the rich, leaving the workaday majority of folks trying to get by on the same slim pickings they had before… or less.

Sure, CEO pay is surging and the incomes of the superwealthy are zooming, but the incomes of workers is not even keeping up with inflation – indeed the median income for American families is lower than when Bush took office. Meanwhile, the number of people without health coverage is up by six million, and the number of Americans living in poverty is up by nearly six million.

Maybe so, say the Bush-ites, but if you count the five million new jobs created in the past eight years, you’ll see that our policy of tinkle-down economics really does work. Uh – not exactly. It would have taken some 20 million new jobs in those eight years just to keep up with the number of new people entering the job market – so the Bush-ites are 15 million short of just staying even.

Besides, the issue isn’t jobs. Think about it: even slaves had jobs. The issue is wages, income, and rising opportunities. Ask a waitress if she’s aware that Bush has created new jobs and she’ll say: “Yeah, I know. I have one of them.”

Under professor Bush, America’s economy has been producing more low-wage, service sector jobs, while shipping out the manufacturing and high-tech jobs that offer our people middle-class wages and upward mobility. Instead of tinkle-down, America needs a grassroots policy of percolate-up economics.

http://www.jimhightower.com/node/6586

Typical leftie...switch arguments in mid-stream. Bush's cuts did spur the economy, but you then decide to quote a Marxist tirade about the greedy rich. And crickets chirping about the Obama tax increases.

As for jobs going overseas, it's our corporate tax code, largely dictated by the left (believe it or not) over the years, that causes most of that. We in the US seem to think it's a good idea to tax all of a company's income, even that earned overseas, if they are based here in the US. Here's the kicker: if they make money in England, for example, they pay taxes on those earnings twice....here and in England. Most other nations, including Europe? They only tax earnings made in their country if you're based there. They let the other countries handle levying taxes on earnings made there. So....lots of companies are moving overseas to avoid being double-dipped. And that is precisely why libs are wrong on the economy. They cannot grasp the simple concept of the law of unintended consequences. Raising taxes on businesses causes the cost of those goods and services to go up - meaning you're just adding a "hidden" tax on anybody doing business with them. Food prices higher. Gas prices higher. Clothing prices higher. That is the pie I don't want going "higher". The gub'ment's pie.

[yeahyeah]

Did anyone expect a different result after Clinton signed and enacted NAFTA? These economic trends are the direct result of irresponsible trade policies supported by both of the major parties. NAFTA was destined to strip our job market, leaving behind only service jobs.

This isn't merely "Republican hot air." This is an area in which Republicans and Democrats have made terrible decisions. And until we acknowledge the culpability of both parties, we can never solve this problem because we're simply engaging in partisan bickering bereft of any real substance.

Yes and as governor of Texas, Bush was a big supporter of it. As president, Bush also signed CAFTA into law.

[SuspectCorner]

Did anyone expect a different result after Clinton signed and enacted NAFTA? These economic trends are the direct result of irresponsible trade policies supported by both of the major parties. NAFTA was destined to strip our job market, leaving behind only service jobs.

This isn't merely "Republican hot air." This is an area in which Republicans and Democrats have made terrible decisions. And until we acknowledge the culpability of both parties, we can never solve this problem because we're simply engaging in partisan bickering bereft of any real substance.

I remember Perot and his "the great sucking noise" speech of the early 90's. Was he ever dead on?

Obama generally disappoints me the further he moves towards center. But this is an area where I think he will trump McCain. His economic plan will even out an otherwise heavily-tilted playing field to bolster a waning working middleclass which has been the economic soul of our country. When they do well - the whole country does well.

Most working-class people just want to feed and educate their kids, provide for their families health, and have ONE home they can call their own when their working days are done... they work diligently and honestly... they defend our country with their lives in time of war... they shoulder the lion's share of our country's tax burden.

If the realization of their collective expectations come at the expense of a few fourth and fifth homes, or a private helicopter as opposed to a private jet AND a private helicopter, for that "greed is good" sector of the extremely wealthy? Hey wealthy, just consider the POW sacrifices of John McCain... and take one for your country. Because this is becoming a war - a domestic war. And I don't think our Republic will ultimately fare well if it continues.

[burmafrd]

I love how all the libs think NAFTA is to blame.

World trade was inevitable.

Third world countries have much lower labor costs. WIth transportation now relatively cheap (though oil prices have hurt that area) making something in India or elsewhere is no longer a bar.Anything labor intensive and not particulary hard to do (and that is most of what middle class labor was in this country for years - assembly lines, etc) will get done far cheaper elsewhere.

This was all inevitable. Now those countries that started this 20 years ago (Taiwan, Singapore, etc) are now moving up the ladder as regards labor costs and those jobs have left there to go elsewhere. If Africa ever gets its act together - or South America= the jobs will go there.


ANY job that does not require intensive training and the like will ALWAYS migrate to cheaper labor areas. ALWAYS.

The KEY is to base your economy as much as possible on higher education and specialization, information technology and the like.
Whinning that fast food and manual labor and unskilled labor does not pay well is to miss the main point that they are NOT SUPPOSED TO PAY WELL.
AND if you force high salaries on those areas you hurt the rest of your economy.

Due to the failure of our school systems, culture, leaders and government at all levels over the last 20 years or so the point that you MUST have a good education, or be highly skilled in areas like electricians, plumbing, etc; or you will NOT have a high paying job with good benefits. Trying to blame the rich or someone else is the typical liberal copout of refusing to accept personal responsibility.

[SuspectCorner]

I love how all the libs think NAFTA is to blame.

World trade was inevitable.

Third world countries have much lower labor costs. WIth transportation now relatively cheap (though oil prices have hurt that area) making something in India or elsewhere is no longer a bar.Anything labor intensive and not particulary hard to do (and that is most of what middle class labor was in this country for years - assembly lines, etc) will get done far cheaper elsewhere.

This was all inevitable. Now those countries that started this 20 years ago (Taiwan, Singapore, etc) are now moving up the ladder as regards labor costs and those jobs have left there to go elsewhere. If Africa ever gets its act together - or South America= the jobs will go there.


ANY job that does not require intensive training and the like will ALWAYS migrate to cheaper labor areas. ALWAYS.

The KEY is to base your economy as much as possible on higher education and specialization, information technology and the like.
Whinning that fast food and manual labor and unskilled labor does not pay well is to miss the main point that they are NOT SUPPOSED TO PAY WELL.
AND if you force high salaries on those areas you hurt the rest of your economy.

Due to the failure of our school systems, culture, leaders and government at all levels over the last 20 years or so the point that you MUST have a good education, or be highly skilled in areas like electricians, plumbing, etc; or you will NOT have a high paying job with good benefits. Trying to blame the rich or someone else is the typical liberal copout of refusing to accept personal responsibility.

We're the top consumer nation in the world but the playing field is outta whack.

If US-based corporations wanna outsource labor or operations (with very few exceptions) - invite them to physically follow said operations and don't look back. Just move right into your new adopted homeland and foresake the benefits of US citizenship.

If other countries won't play by the rules and ensure a decent living wage for THEIR countrymen - impose hellish tariffs that make it unprofitable to import goods to the US.

I don't know about you but after 20 years - I'm just sick of this ****.

And isn't it odd how Sarah Palin's husband is a union member - but she's now fronting for the political party seeking to choke those unions off? Hmmmm....

[bbgun]

One thing that bothered me last night was his failure to mention anything about the porous US southern border, and what he intends to do about it. You can't call yourself "national security candidate" and beg off that issue, which also has economic ramifications.

[Viper]

One thing that bothered me last night was his failure to mention anything about the porous US southern border, and what he intends to do about it. You can't call yourself "national security candidate" and beg off that issue, which also has economic ramifications.

He isn't going to do anything about the border. Bush is going to take Mexico before he leaves office.

It's the plan man', ain't ya been reedin'